Forum:John and Gillian: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:This has already been discussed as [[Talk:John (comic strips)]] and [[Forum:Split John and Gillian]]. It was decided to keep them together. [[User:Doug86|Doug86]] 08:21, July 2, 2011 (UTC) | :This has already been discussed as [[Talk:John (comic strips)]] and [[Forum:Split John and Gillian]]. It was decided to keep them together. [[User:Doug86|Doug86]] 08:21, July 2, 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Yeah, and in fairness, John's "solo appearance" is hardly "an appearance". It's a one-page letter that's ''maybe'' from him, but since DWM didn't actually have the rights, at that time, to write new material involving John and Gillian, who knows. We're only ''speculating'' that this letter comes from John, because it's the only place in all fiction where the character is given a surname, "Who". The uncertainty and indeed extreme brevity of it hardly justifies a completely separate article for him. We don't have separate articles for [[Pip Baker]] and [[Jane Baker]]; we just have [[Pip and Jane Baker]]. Sure, they're individuals, but as far as the DWU is concerned, they're indivisible — which isn't the case with other writing teams, like [[Dave Martin]] and [[Bob Baker]], who do have different output. As for your Amy/Tony Barker example, actually, those articles should be merged. John and Gillian are a precedent for the Barkers, not the other way around. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''00:20:50 Sun '''10 Jul 2011 </span> | |||
Revision as of 00:20, 10 July 2011
Index → Panopticon → John and Gillian
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
I think we should separate John and Gillian into John and Gillian. They are separate characters and John has one appearance that Gillian does not feature in. Amy Barker and Tony Barker are under separate pages, so I think we should do the same for John and Gillian. Bigredrabbit 07:32, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed as Talk:John (comic strips) and Forum:Split John and Gillian. It was decided to keep them together. Doug86 08:21, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, and in fairness, John's "solo appearance" is hardly "an appearance". It's a one-page letter that's maybe from him, but since DWM didn't actually have the rights, at that time, to write new material involving John and Gillian, who knows. We're only speculating that this letter comes from John, because it's the only place in all fiction where the character is given a surname, "Who". The uncertainty and indeed extreme brevity of it hardly justifies a completely separate article for him. We don't have separate articles for Pip Baker and Jane Baker; we just have Pip and Jane Baker. Sure, they're individuals, but as far as the DWU is concerned, they're indivisible — which isn't the case with other writing teams, like Dave Martin and Bob Baker, who do have different output. As for your Amy/Tony Barker example, actually, those articles should be merged. John and Gillian are a precedent for the Barkers, not the other way around.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">00:20:50 Sun 10 Jul 2011
- Yeah, and in fairness, John's "solo appearance" is hardly "an appearance". It's a one-page letter that's maybe from him, but since DWM didn't actually have the rights, at that time, to write new material involving John and Gillian, who knows. We're only speculating that this letter comes from John, because it's the only place in all fiction where the character is given a surname, "Who". The uncertainty and indeed extreme brevity of it hardly justifies a completely separate article for him. We don't have separate articles for Pip Baker and Jane Baker; we just have Pip and Jane Baker. Sure, they're individuals, but as far as the DWU is concerned, they're indivisible — which isn't the case with other writing teams, like Dave Martin and Bob Baker, who do have different output. As for your Amy/Tony Barker example, actually, those articles should be merged. John and Gillian are a precedent for the Barkers, not the other way around.
