Talk:Blitzen fish

Stub?

Can we remove the two 'Stubs' now? I filled in everything from Relative Dimensions regarding this species, so unless they appear elsewhere, it's probably time to remove them. Is anyone against me taking them off? Feel free to just do it haha. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 21:53, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

In response to:

"Normally, I'd say you should remove stubs if you think the page is no longer a stub, but this page doesn't include much from the story where Susan bought the fish" -User:TheChampionOfTime

Well, I haven't heard AUDIO: Quinnis, so I can't make a statement on that. If she does literally what she says she does in Relative Dimensions, then what's so wrong in cheating this one time and simply changing "(AUDIO: Relative Dimensions) to (AUDIO: Quinnis, Relative Dimensions)? I wouldn't normally be naughty like this but if that's what she did then that's what she did haha. I'd really like someone who's heard it to validate that series of events because the article Quinnis (audio story) is revealing not much on the matter. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 22:13, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Quinnis is basically described in Relative Dimensions and I guess the article wouldn't be a stub if you "cheated". I'm just thinking that the article would be better with a few more details of the fish's life on Quinnis and the descriptions of it given in that story. CoT ? 22:27, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, in which case, fair is fair and we'll leave it as is. On retrospect, I'd rather hear Quinnis first. I'm a stickler for getting every bit of info, so it'd be hypocritical of me to bend/break my own rules here. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 22:33, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

To the best of my memory, all we get from Quinnis on the fish is that was bought on Quinnis. I really don't believe there was any information about it in that story. But I should say that I've listened to it about a year ago. However, it may be, you can definitely stick the buying of the fish to the audio Quinnis. Amorkuz ☎ 23:08, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Well from what the article Quinnis actually states, the mention of the Blitzen fish being bought at the market was supposed to be a quick reference to set up the events of Relative Dimensions. It was never meant to be a whole thing. The writer basically wanted listeners to not be baffled when they heard "Blitzen fish" randomly thrown into the mix. It could be that it wasn't mentioned in that great a detail on Quinnis because that's all it was meant to be. The Doctor and Susan buy a Blitzen fish at a market. End. :P Is that the case, Amorkus? TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 23:49, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

I'd hate to give you an idea of an independent verification. I do strongly believe that it was me who put that phrase into the lead in the first place. What happened at the time, to the best of my reconstruction, was a consolidated effort by BF to tell connected stories in their three different ranges. An Earthly Child (December 2009) in Special Releases, Quinnis (December 2010) in CC and Relative Dimensions (December 2010) in EDA were all written by Marc Platt. So first he told a story how the Doctor returned for his granddaughter. Then he simultaneously set up their next meeting (Christmas spirit and all) and provided a back story for the main antagonist. The main point was that this fish was stored in the TARDIS holding ring since the times Susan and the Doctor travelled together. Near the fish, for instance, there was Antodus' cape from The Daleks, which plays no other role but the continuity nod. On the other hand, the Doctor and Susan were not supposed to know what the fish was and what it could do. In Relative Dimensions, at some point, they just open an encyclopaedia and start figuring this out. So, yeah, pretty much in Quinnis it is also a continuity nod, no more. Given that the stories were in two different ranges BF could not really make one depend on the other too much. Thus, relevant info from Quinnis is more or less repeated in Relative Dimensions, whereas from the point of view of Quinnis, this fish is just an arbitrary prop. Amorkuz ☎ 00:19, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

Thus if we were to "cheat" and simply edit the reference to "(AUDIO: Quinnis, Relative Dimensions), then remove the Stub, it wouldn't actually be breaking any rules. You're right with the aspect of a loose story arc. Big Finish would have to specifically tell you to buy Quinnis if it were so important haha. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 00:29, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

Would be fine. But I would reference only Quinnis for the things that happened on Quinnis, even though RD repeated the explanation. Amorkuz ☎ 00:32, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

So the proposed redo of that paragraph would read:

"Whilst on the planet Quinnis, the First Doctor bought his granddaughter Susan Campbell a shrivelled up baby Blitzen fish. They both assumed it was dead but, due to its beautiful colours, Susan wanted it. (AUDIO: Quinnis) Long after her departure, it was amongst her possessions kept untouched in her room by the Doctor. (AUDIO: Relative Dimensions)"

I just want to give others the chance to say if they don't agree. If nobody disagrees within the next 30 minutes, I'll go ahead and change it. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 00:39, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I don't have any problem with what the two of you have proposed, as long as it follows Tardis:Citation. However, I do have a problem with the "if nobody disagrees within the next 30 minutes" comment. I'm trying to wipe out that kind of thinking here. This is a talk page, not a forum page, and therefore not as well-patrolled. The chances of the small number of people familiar with this topic happening by within 30 minutes is pretty small. Just put in the information, and if someone disagrees later they will either change it or come here. No need for an arbitrary time limit. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 01:09, March 21, 2017 (UTC)