Talk:John Hurt (in-universe)

Potential deletion

This was discussed at Talk:John Hurt in 2013, and it was decided this would be dealt with with an "in the DWU" section on the main John Hurt's page. I can see how Tom Baker (TV Action!) makes sense with a very loose reading of T:DAB OTHER, but we don't generally split up one topic that's intended to be the same thing in the DWU as in the real world. Usually, we have a BTS on the in-universe page (with rare exceptions like Star Trek, where the real-world version is split off into a dabbed page), but a major real-world figure like John Hurt should not be dabbed.

The general idea is that Amy Pickwoad (The Bells of Saint John) the employee of Kizlet is not intended to be Amy Pickwoad the art director, on whom she's based -- but Tosh here is referencing the actor from the real world, the same person who would later be cast as the War Doctor in the real world. There's also the problem that John Hurt does not appear in Greeks Bearing Gifts, so this dab term does not apply. What's changed since 2013 to merit re-evaluating this?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:54, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, it was probably created by a user not familiar with the previous decision. I agree it should be deleted. Shambala108 ☎ 03:05, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

I think nowadays, with the prevalence of in-universe counterparts, keeping DWU versions of real world people on the real world page is becoming a problem, due to things like categorisation of pages, where both in-universe and out-of-universe categories are being used, the issues with navboxes not being able to placed particularly well on pages, and for certain pages like the in-universe Paul Magrs, whose page is longer than the out-of-universe one.

Epsilon 📯 📂

18:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with deletion based solely on the fact that Hurt does not appear in the episode. If he had, I agree that a new page should be created. But a reference is not the same as an appearance. (But dear lord, Talk:John Hurt really does show just how badly we need firm policy on this issue and how what we've been doing previously just isn't working, especially in the context of the last year it seems.) Najawin ☎ 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

...that's not really how this Wiki operates. We don't care if the character is briefly mentioned or has an appearance. We're not Wikipedia, or any other wiki - we don't decide not to create a page because they're not "notable" enough.

Epsilon 📯 📂

19:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I recognize that Epsilon, but there is still precedent for treating minor things like this in "In the DWU" sections on RW pages, and, indeed, it's current policy, see Timothy Dalton. Najawin ☎ 19:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but is that policy? Has that been written anywhere? Additionally, I want to speak up, as to abolish that practice, as there are numerous issues with it. Also, read T:EVIL TWIN, as it explains we create pages for any nouns mentioned, etc, etc.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that "current policy" means "the way we do things", even if that itself is a circular reading of T:BOUND and I've expressed my view that it should be rewritten. I also am aware of the policy in question, but it's just not relevant to the fact that we currently deal with references to DWU actors in universe in this way.

And arguably it is written down.

Therefore, to ensure that our use of dab terms remains consistent, fictional references of real people go on the {{real world}} page.

There was a ruling about this! (Yes, one that is premised on things that are no longer true and definitely needs to be revisited, but a ruling nevertheless.) Unless there was one since explicitly allowing pages like Paul Magrs (Bafflement and Devotion) to exist (hard to tell with dead forums), those pages are more likely to be in violation of policy than the idea of deleting this page is. And, again, I'm not suggesting we delete those pages, the canonical reading of T:BOUND suggests that they're allowed. But if you're complaining about policy not being written down, you should maybe consider that the policy in question was written down, and it's the things you want to change this to be more in accordance with that are the "unwritten policy". Najawin ☎ 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to see how miserably awful Paul Magrs would look if we had to lump so much information in a "In the DWU" section.

Also, that "ruling" is quite honestly outdated, and should be changed. I doubt there'd be any opposition to it being revised, as the current "policy" (if you can call it that, as I've seen admins regularly ignore it) is more detrimental as it currently "operates".

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)