Talk:TV21 — Almost Perfect! (short story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:: Perhaps it could instead merit the "(fan work)" dab term and treatment entailed therein, rather than invalid coverage? It would certainly seem more liable for that than for actual coverage as a story, it very much failing rule 2, seeing as TV21 never had the Doctor Who license in the first place and this is at any rate after they've lost the Dalek license. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | :: Perhaps it could instead merit the "(fan work)" dab term and treatment entailed therein, rather than invalid coverage? It would certainly seem more liable for that than for actual coverage as a story, it very much failing rule 2, seeing as TV21 never had the Doctor Who license in the first place and this is at any rate after they've lost the Dalek license. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
::: Calling an officially printed story that came from a series with historic connections to licensed media a "(fan work)" doesn't sit right with me. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:10, 6 September 2024
Invalidity
I understand this is only relevant for referencing the in-universe version of Doctor Who (something I'm unsure is really enough, since it's probably not licensed for that, but whatever), but shouldn't it be valid, if it's in continuity with the rest of the magazine? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 12:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's that subtle distinction between the Doctor Who universe as described at T:VS and the shared universe of TV21 of which The Daleks was once a part. This story, in my view, takes place in the latter but not the former. By the end of 1968, The Daleks comic strip had not appeared in almost two years and even the final Contact 21/Spectrum Shades Dalek story was in the past by this point.
- With appearances of Unity City in stories as late as 1969's Collision Course Threat! [+]Loading...["Collision Course Threat! (comic story)"], the argument that being in continuity with the rest of the magazine qualifies as an implicit pass of Rule 4 can hold up because Unity City is a fictional element that is being portrayed in the same way as it had been since its debut, following on from its first mention in a Daleks story. There's demonstrably continuity between Collision Course Threat! and Duel of the Daleks [+]Loading...["Duel of the Daleks (comic story)"].
- TV21 — Almost Perfect! has a page here because the mention of Doctor Who is of interest to a Doctor Who Wiki but that mention is independent of any prior link TV21 previously shared with the DWU. The magazine was so interconnected during 1965-7 that I'm confident any Stingray or Fireball XL5 story from the period passes Rule 4 on the basis of sharing an issue with The Daleks, even if we don't cover them due to Rule 2 because of lack of DWU elements. That implicit Rule 4 pass is instantly weaker after the strip ends in issue 104, and only becomes more so as time goes on and stories like Information Service [+]Loading...["Information Service (TV21 122 short story)"] come and go. Simply put, being in continuity with the rest of TV21 is not an automatic Rule 4 pass by the end of 1968. Doctor Who had been mentioned in the magazine on rare occasions before but the mention of a real world programme alone is not indicative of being set in the universe of that programme and TV21 — Almost Perfect! features no other Doctor Who elements, which is why I marked it invalid.
- I did consider your point regarding if this even deserved at all when making the page but the notability of its writer being a future Who contributor tipped the scales for me in favour. Plus, it's very short (a few sentences) with little impact on other articles and would be the only Who-related thing from TV21 we didn't cover if excluded. --Borisashton ☎ 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could instead merit the "(fan work)" dab term and treatment entailed therein, rather than invalid coverage? It would certainly seem more liable for that than for actual coverage as a story, it very much failing rule 2, seeing as TV21 never had the Doctor Who license in the first place and this is at any rate after they've lost the Dalek license. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Calling an officially printed story that came from a series with historic connections to licensed media a "(fan work)" doesn't sit right with me. 20:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
