Forum:The Shared Universe Project - A new page proposal for the Timey-Wimey Detector
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Introduction[[edit source]]
So this is a little project I've been working on for the last two weeks, based on an idea that's been knocking about in my cranium for months, if not longer.
This proposal is for a new section of the timey-wimey detector in which we catalogue every series or franchise that would logically exist in a shared universe with Doctor Who.
You can head on over to my sandbox draft to get the full picture.
The rules I've set out are by no means final, as there are surely other things to consider. I'm still on the fence as to whether we should go ahead and allow unlicensed crossovers (as in, unlicensed DWU cameos in other works, and vice versa). I'm also considering if there is maybe a better way to cover lateral crossovers that are lateral crossovers of multiple other series on the list (the unofficial British soap and serial drama shared universe means that several series would have to be listed twice under EastEnders and Coronation Street respectively).
I look forward to hearing your thoughts! WaltK ☎ 22:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[[edit source]]
I really like that idea, and it would be lots of fun to do, albeit possibly mildly infeasible the further out you get. No thoughts on ways to implement multiple lateral crossovers, or times when a lateral crossover has Crossovers with other lateral crossovers and/or Doctor Who. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 22:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since this isn't really a timeline (correct me if I'm wrong), could I propose that this not be part of Theory:Timey-wimey detector, but instead constitute a third section on Theory:Index, after Theory:Time-wimey detector and Theory:Discontinuity Index? That way the topic would have a dedicated "Index" page, which can then branch out from there as required. Potentially providing a solution for Aquana's as well. Danochy ☎ 06:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not all pages in the TWD are literal timelines. My point of reference for how to format my draft list up there was Theory:Timeline - Omniverse. WaltK ☎ 13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unconvinced that if we'll do this thinking about "crossovers" is the most helpful way to do this. References to events in other works, an implication that that work takes place in the same universe, seems to me to be of the sort of thing this project would care about, but no elements would clearly cross over. (I also think that not enough care is given to how to handle public domain figures, and talk of "continuities" isn't clearly sufficient.) Najawin ☎ 17:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point about the public domain figures, which I hadn't previously considered. If you don't mind, would elaborate on how the "continuities" talk isn't sufficient? WaltK ☎ 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ostensibly one could reference or portray events that are exclusively in the original public domain works, suggesting that the original, public domain version of the work, is part of the DWU. If this is done, then talking about continuities seems to be a red herring, as any adaptation of the public domain works that preserves these original facts would seem to be part of the DWU as well. (I mean, the obvious example is Dracula, right?) Najawin ☎ 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not in terms of works that are explicitly supposed to be alternate continuities, or "alternate timelines", if you prefer. Like the Ninja Turtles; the different iterations of the Turtles over the years have been frequently shown to be parallel universe versions. WaltK ☎ 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ostensibly one could reference or portray events that are exclusively in the original public domain works, suggesting that the original, public domain version of the work, is part of the DWU. If this is done, then talking about continuities seems to be a red herring, as any adaptation of the public domain works that preserves these original facts would seem to be part of the DWU as well. (I mean, the obvious example is Dracula, right?) Najawin ☎ 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point about the public domain figures, which I hadn't previously considered. If you don't mind, would elaborate on how the "continuities" talk isn't sufficient? WaltK ☎ 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unconvinced that if we'll do this thinking about "crossovers" is the most helpful way to do this. References to events in other works, an implication that that work takes place in the same universe, seems to me to be of the sort of thing this project would care about, but no elements would clearly cross over. (I also think that not enough care is given to how to handle public domain figures, and talk of "continuities" isn't clearly sufficient.) Najawin ☎ 17:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not all pages in the TWD are literal timelines. My point of reference for how to format my draft list up there was Theory:Timeline - Omniverse. WaltK ☎ 13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I realize? I'm talking about how it's not sufficient to talk about various versions of public domain characters. Najawin ☎ 20:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I imagine one might just list the original public domain work, with the understanding that it carries with it the whole contradictory "open-source franchise" its public-domain-ness might have spawned. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay ahhh… If it's a public domain source, then only count it if it's supposed to be a specific iteration of the work derived from said source. So, Sherlock Holmes has appeared in some media, but he could be classed as a unique, DWU-specific iteration of the character, while the same could not be said for the TV character played by Benedict Cumberbatch.
- he could be classed as a unique, DWU-specific iteration of the character
- Ahem.
- As for Scrooge's idea, I'm just not sure it solves the problem, because surely some of these adaptations will have their own references. So we still have to have a way to handle them. Najawin ☎ 22:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- WaltK, I don't think that makes sense. All-Consuming Fire, for example, is very much dealing with "the continuity of the specific original A.C. Doyle stories" as much as any other "continuity-specific" crossover; the only puzzle is that you then have thousands of mutually contradictory stories that also purport to be in continuity with the original Doyle stories, including a multitude of lateral crossovers which it would be pointless to try to list. So I guess the only difference I'd suggest here vis a vis crossovers with copyrighted properties is that post-public-domain lateral-crossovers shouldn't be listed.
- As for Scrooge's idea, I'm just not sure it solves the problem, because surely some of these adaptations will have their own references. So we still have to have a way to handle them. Najawin ☎ 22:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- (In the event that some non-covered Doyle-compliant Holmes continuation has a DWU reference, or is referenced by the DWU, we could list it as its own sub-bullet-point with that specific source, without forcing ourselves to list every other Doyle continuation.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
What would prevent this from becoming a second iteration of the Tommy Westphall Universe hypothesis, just with a different focal point and not limited to television? Bwburke94 ☎ 04:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's that? WaltK ☎ 23:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a similar project related to the television series St. Elsewhere, which had a lot of similar crossovers. It also has its own (Fandom) wiki here (though notably it only focuses on television and film crossovers). Moosana ☎ 15:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
