Talk:The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series)

Spin-off inclusion

Why have the spin-offs being given pages when there aren’t pages for the actual stories? PoolsideJazz ☎ 23:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As only the series itself was ruled out of this Wiki, and many are spin-offs of both Magrs' Doctor Who and Iris Wildthyme series, as well as Brenda and Effie, and they do also contain pre-existing DWU elements, making them worthy of coverage.

Epsilon 📯 📂

23:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And fyi, the original Brenda and Effie inclusion debate was severely botched, missing out lots of authorial intent and dozens of legal connections to the DWU. So, when we get some sort of forums back, you can bet that there will be a new inclusion debate, which will be done properly.

Epsilon 📯 📂

23:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Come again? Could you clarify what you mean when you say

the series itself was ruled out of this Wiki

Do you mean it was ruled as covered but invalid, or not to be covered, or something else entirely? I'm not quite sure what you mean to say here. Najawin ☎ 23:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to be covered, as at the time, it was decided it was too tenuously connected to the DWU, if you can believe that.

Epsilon 📯 📂

23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The ruling against this series being valid naturally extends to its spin-offs... I don’t understand why they have suddenly been made? PoolsideJazz ☎ 23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

When was the ruling made? The Fellowship of Ink has existed on this site for going on four years. RadMatter ☎ 23:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin here. Please let me get a word in edgewise without being stuck in edit conflicts, you guys are as fast as Weeping Angels!

User:PoolsideJazz, we cover the short stories under discussion for the same reason we cover Kaldor City as a valid source, but not Blake's 7: it's simultaneously a Blake's 7 spin-off and a spin-off of The Robots of Death, and the latter is what we care about. Also, these things aren't labeled as Brenda & Effie Mysteries spin-offs in a merchandising way; the term is here used in the sense of "concepts which debuted in B&E appear in these stories". Neatly-defined family trees of spin-offs isn't really how Magrs works.

Also, as Epsilon highlights (albeit perhaps a tad crudely), it is weird and idiosyncratic that the Wiki does not cover the original Brenda & Effie books in some capacity. The original inclusion debate they got was fairly short, rather unenthusiastic from all parties involved, and failed to mention a fact now present on the Wiki page: every book contained a myriad of licensed DWU concepts, rather than Panda merely appearing in one later book. It reached the conclusion, which sort of made sense at the time based on the scarce available evidence, but clearly misguided in hindsight, that this series was not to be covered, any more than Sherlock Holmes.

But that is, again, very weird for a series with such a plethora of licensed DWU concept; by all rights we should, at the very least, cover it as invalid. So even though the current setup does make sense by policy, you can, either way expect this anomaly to dissolve in the near future, in all likelihood. Really, the procedural issue that we need a new inclusion debate, and the lack of a Forum to have it in, are the only reasons we haven't already redeemed the Brenda & Effie books; as soon as we have a venue in which to officially take that decision, I expect they'll be a no-brainer for coverage, and most probably covered as valid, at that. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there is some confusion on this point, I will spell the current situation more clearly: the existing policy is that The Brenda and Effie Mysteries, specifically, is not to be covered on this Wiki to any extent greater than the overview page. The ruling does not apply to "the characters of Brenda and Effie", but to the series. This is similar to the situation with Señor 105 or Vienna Salvatori: their solo series have been deemed out of bounds, but new stories which feature Vienna or the Señor alongside other licensed DWU concepts are valid until proven otherwise. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the connections, I clearly agree they should be covered as valid, but I would like my objection to be noted as a procedural issue to the current contents of the page until that new inclusion debate is issued, preferring it to be closer to the (lol) Vienna page. I fully expect this to be ignored, but I just want my procedural qualms noted. Najawin ☎ 00:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

From your comment I couldn't really grasp what issue you have with the page, is it the infoboxes? RadMatter ☎ 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. It's a little too verbose and gets too close to "actual coverage masquerading as non coverage". Obviously it should be covered, but I don't like the procedure. #KantLife. Najawin ☎ 00:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Still failing to grasp the issue (sorry!). I think that the templates perfectly show which licensed DWU characters appear while also being clear that the story is not valid. RadMatter ☎ 00:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither page for 666 Charing Cross Road nor Mrs Danby and Company show any link to the wider DWU apart from a minor reference to a Magrs character that first appeared in To the Devil - a Diva!. If, as you say, a full-blown appearance by Panda as a main character was too tedious a connection, surely this is too tedious also? PoolsideJazz ☎ 00:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does the Vienna page have such treatment?

Re: the Panda situation, I don't think Scrooge was endorsing the original debate, merely explaining how people at the time felt. That doesn't mean he agrees with it. Najawin ☎ 00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s the ruling though... it doesn’t really matter if someone agrees or not. The far greater links in the Brenda and Effie series (even when the only knowledge was a Panda appearance), Vienna, Baker’s End, and the like, were deemed too insignificant - yet these new pages only boast a minor reference as their main hook to the DWU. PoolsideJazz ☎ 00:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As for Vienna, I think that series overview page should be made more like this page, not vice versa. The level of detail here is phenomenal, and honestly, just highlights how bad it is for this series not to be covered on the Wiki.

Epsilon 📯 📂

00:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, as for Baker's End, that series too needs a new inclusion debate, as lots of info was missed out.

Epsilon 📯 📂

00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Epsilon, a poor page elsewhere should not condemn a more thorough page. RadMatter ☎ 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, only the Panda connection was deemed insignificant, hence why a new discussion can be started when forums return, as there's new evidence. You don't blanketly invalidate/refuse to cover a series, you do so based on the evidence presented, and I note that focusing instead on these other works of Magrs is very likely a T:POINT issue. Epsilon, I'm pro coverage of both series. I have procedural issues, nothing more. When this inclusion debate emerges I will support coverage, and whenever the inevitable second Vienna debate emerges, I will support coverage. But I don't think that we should be attempting to "pseudo cover" the series on this wiki when we've been told we're not to cover it. It's a matter of principle, not one of whether or not I think we as a wiki benefit from this series. I realize it makes no difference, I just want my hesitance noted. Najawin ☎ 00:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no pseudo-coverage. The information included is no different to that which should be found on each and every one of the licensed character's behind the scenes sections, but collected neatly within a template. RadMatter ☎ 00:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The latter does not imply the former. Najawin ☎ 00:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with RadMatter, it's not pseudo-coverage, it's just detailed; Me, and other users clearly, are genuinely passionate for the works of Magrs, and we put effort into what we do. As it happens, there is a sh*t of perfectly acceptable info to be documented about B&E, and currently, pretty much the only way for us to do that is with this page. As for The Fellowship of Ink, 666 Charing Cross Road, and Mrs Danby and Company, they do have pre-existing DWU elements, ergo, they're worthy of coverage. And do remember that we do not have working forums right now, so it's not like we can have an inclusion debate for these spin-offs, which let me remind y'all, are equally spin-offs of Magrs' DWU which are covered by this Wiki as much as they are B&E spin-offs.

Epsilon 📯 📂

00:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Epsilon. I realize you're passionate about this subject matter. I appreciate your passion and your effort, and have spoken highly of it in the past. I have even recommended you to a certain YouTuber we both like on the subject, though I think he found you independently. That does not negate my qualms about procedure that I fully expected to be ignored and merely wanted to put on the record. As for the objection that this is just detailed and thus not "pseudo-coverage", you've listed every part of the franchise, with names, authors and covers, that's coverage enough for me - and it's hard to argue that you're merely trying to list the DWU connective tissue when you're covering things like the audios and not discussing what DWU elements are in them. I'm not saying they lack DWU connective tissue, mind you, but that their place on this page can't be to show connections between the franchise and the DWU. It must instead be merely to comment on what precisely is contained within this particular franchise, which is coverage. Najawin ☎ 01:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The connective tissue for the audios is mentioned? RadMatter ☎ 01:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Three of the four. Why are we discussing the fourth? (But fair point, I got turned around and meant the Anthology). Najawin ☎ 01:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The anthology very likely contains connective tissue too, but information about said stories is scarce (as was originally the case for the series as a whole) and that section is open for others to freely develop themselves. RadMatter ☎ 01:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be silly not to include everything, as it's probable most of it contains something we've missed, as sometimes, things aren't all that overt. And by the way, Najawin, your words are appreciated.

Epsilon 📯 📂

01:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Me again.

As I have said before, the decision that we do not cover Brenda and Effie as a whole was made irrespective of the presence of DWU characters in it; and indeed the thread acknowledged that The Bride That Time Forgot may be deserving of an individual inclusion debate as a crossover, which simply never materialised, even if the rest of the series was to be deemed out-of-bounds. In no way does it constitute precedent that appearances by other DWU characters in non-B&E-branded stories can be "too tenuous". @PoolsideJazz, much as Najawin said might be the case, I'd caution you to lay off that line of argument lest you fall afoul of the spirit of T:POINT.

However… @User:Najawin, I'm actually not against shortening this page for the moment if anybody else agrees. It's not as though the work will be lost; when (and it's more of a when than an if) we officially decide to give Brenda and Effie more coverage, we can just go back to the old revision. I would support removing the overly detailed information not mentioning DWU connections for the time being, in the spirit of proper procedure. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)