Talk:El Jefe

Merge

I don't think it should be relocated at First Doctor because this term isn't always used to refer to that particular incarnation, I think it's more of a general term for the Doctor, and should be located there. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 11:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

But this character isn't a licensed appearance of the Doctor though, is he?

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

12:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, but homeworld precedent. He has the same adventures as the Doctor is said to have had in The Scarlet Empress, according to whoever added that merge tag. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've read (and I'm by no means well-read on the subject) I gathered that El Jefe was more than just a pseudo-Doctor, more a pastiche or parody of the character who, in typical Magrsverse style, overlaps with the Doctor while still remaining distinct. I think it would be a great disservice to El Jefe to merge him into obscurity in this way.

Furthermore, this whole merge proposal seems to be founded on a misunderstanding of T:HOMEWORLD. A legal connection of some sort is required, as detailed in the quote below.

The presence of this link is essential. One novel, licensed to use both "facets", can establish that both angles are on the same fictional concept. Without this, we must separate our pages. The Book of the War does everything in its power to convince you that the War King used to be the Master, but there's never been a story licensed to use both "the War King" and "the Master" which explicitly drew this connection in a narrative context. Therefore, in the absence of our coveted bridge term, the War King he is, and the War King he shall stay. This is why he has his own page from the Master, where only "behind the scenes", we can reveal this connection.T:HOMEWORLD

So to even consider this we'd need a story with licensed use of the Doctor referring to him as "El Jefe". But, as I said, even if such a connection exists, I'd still be hesitant. Danochy ☎ 05:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this isn't a particular situation I know much about, but referring to individuals as being the same based on specific adventures that they've taken being the same is kosher, from earlier up in the policy.

But there are subtler cases. For example, if a story is licensed to use Bernice Summerfield but not the BBC-owned character of "the Doctor", and has Benny mention some detail regarding "a time traveller" with whom she once visited Project Eden in 2157, then, through the in-universe connection made in PROSE: Lucifer Rising, we can state that those details belong on our page about the Seventh Doctor.

So we know that "the time traveler who went on adventures XYZ" is The Doctor, from Scarlett Empress, and then we are later able to say, fully licensed in another book, that "the time traveler who went on adventures XYZ" is El Jefe. Hence they are one and the same.

If everything here lines up properly. I dunno if it does. But our merging principles allow for this case. Najawin ☎ 05:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting. I was under the impression that the section further up only refers to references, with merging two independent legal concepts being a step further. It does rather confusingly illustrate the example with Rose accompanied by a caption mentioning a hypothetical story featuring "Bad Wolf girl", but the body only uses an example of Benny mentioning the Doctor. Then the section with the War Chief quote above opens by explicitly distinguishing itself from that section:

"With this in mind: sometimes, non-BBC-licensed spin-offs can go one step further, and make active use of a concept recognisable as a BBC-owned element from mainline Doctor Who... under a different name."

Which says to me that some sort of policy clarification is needed here (or maybe the Rose illustration was added as a result of a misunderstanding?) Danochy ☎ 05:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)