Forum:John and Gillian
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → John and Gillian
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. Bighttps://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:John_and_Gillian?action=edit#redrabbit 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 /> ☎ ✍ 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.
- Oh, OK, I was just checking as I thought the Amy/Tony thing was procedure, not John and Gillian. Bigredrabbit 12:15, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, just to be clear, your instincts are generally quite correct. Amy/Tony and John/Gillian are really unusual cases. I don't think you'll find this phenomenon outside certain 60s stories. And it's not even like all 60s characters are this way. The family featured in The Dalek Book, for instance, don't feel like either of these other two sibling pairs because they get split up and do different things. They're not omnipresent in every story spouting perfectly interchangeable dialogue. Man, these are just such thin, thin characters.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:23:49 Sun 10 Jul 2011
- Well, just to be clear, your instincts are generally quite correct. Amy/Tony and John/Gillian are really unusual cases. I don't think you'll find this phenomenon outside certain 60s stories. And it's not even like all 60s characters are this way. The family featured in The Dalek Book, for instance, don't feel like either of these other two sibling pairs because they get split up and do different things. They're not omnipresent in every story spouting perfectly interchangeable dialogue. Man, these are just such thin, thin characters.
