Forum:Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks

Index → Inclusion debates → Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

This write up on the back of the playset's packaging clearly shows that it is trying to tell a specific story.

I've got something a little unusual that I think might be eligible for coverage by this wiki. A playset produced by Bluebird Toys in 1997 called In the Domain of the Daleks. The playset appears to be trying to tell a specific story, so I think it should be a source on this wiki. The problem is, I'm not exactly sure if it qualifies as a work of fiction. This might be a case of something passing the old version of Rule 1, but not the current version of it. If this is the case, I think coverage as invalid might be an option, as this wiki covers several things that aren't quite works of fiction as invalid. Cgl1999 ☎ 20:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Yeah, I think this'd definitely qualify for valid coverage. I'm not quite sure how it where you'd cover it, though. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure it's a work of fiction. Why wouldn't it be? It's… rather more difficult to figure out what the medium is, which would be rather necessary whether it's valid or invalid. "(game)"? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Merchandise) would be a closer fit, I think, and it's a sensible dab term to have (as an extension of this I would suggest either MERCHANDISE or MERCH for a new prefix). (Game) is also fairly close, but it's hard to pin down quite what it is. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)