Forum:People from archive footage
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → People from archive footage
I think there should be a more fitting subcategory of Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves for people whose appearances were via archive footage rather than deliberate acting on the program. People such as John Lennon, the Beatles, and the Queen aren't really best described as "Doctor Who actors," in my opinion. What do the rest of you think? If you agree, what would be a good name for the new category? Rob T Firefly 17:02, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Created as Category:People who appeared in archive footage as themselves. Rob T Firefly 07:20, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- That seems okay. Good work. --Tangerineduel 13:09, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it's a necessary categorical distinction. But I've removed Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves and this new subcat from Category:People from the real world. That's mixing DWU and OOU categories. The pages within should certainly be tagged in both cats (they're those rare pages that reasonably get the crossover), but not the cats themselves. I don't like the nomenclature "People who appeared in archive footage as themselves", because that goes against the naming standards recently established. It should be, "Real world people who appeared in archive footage". The phrase, "as themselves", is redundant. Obviously if they're in archive footage, they are themselves. What else would they be? Aliens? Social democrats? Crossdressers?) Also, the whole point of the exercise was to say that they're not acting, so the cat shouldn't be within any sort of "acting" category at all. This thing should be, and now is, directly under Category:Real world people. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:03, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Good points all. I do think this cat needs some link with Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves because their characters are involved in the narrative, so there is the strong IU aspect. Checking the applicable articles, they are all IU. I'm not entirely sure whether it'd be best served as a subcat of said category or what, perhaps a "see also" on the cat pages in question would do it rather than nesting cats. I think the "as themselves" bit is important for the same reason; it's not just a matter of "some guy in the stock footage crowd" but the deliberate use of a real person's image in an episode. Rob T Firefly 22:15, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I understand some of what you're saying. I disagree with your conclusions, but I understand how you've gotten there. This whole business of the intersection of between the real world and the DWU is quite confusing. The only way to keep it straight is to be very strict about it. See, there's a difference between the page and the category. Yes, The Beatles page is a DWU article. But the "archive footage" category isn't. The very fact that it contains the words "archive footage" proves that. The category is attempting to organize people who appeared in DW by the way they appeared in DW, not by some in-universe aspect. Thus, while The Beatles itself can sit in both DWU and RW cats, the "archive footage" cat itself cannot be within the body of a DWU cat. If you don't keep the categories strictly divided, it all gets very mushy and confusing. Pages have a bit more leeway, because, well, Doctor Who lends itself to talking about a famous person one week, and then literally having them in the show the next. Kylie Minogue, for instance, is both a real world person who's been in DW and a part of the fictional universe of DW. So you allow her to be in both real world and DWU cats, but you can't allow the cats themselves to get crossed up. Category:Real world singers who've been in Doctor Who, to take a hypothetical example, shouldn't go into Category:Musical groups from the real world.
- I agree it's a necessary categorical distinction. But I've removed Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves and this new subcat from Category:People from the real world. That's mixing DWU and OOU categories. The pages within should certainly be tagged in both cats (they're those rare pages that reasonably get the crossover), but not the cats themselves. I don't like the nomenclature "People who appeared in archive footage as themselves", because that goes against the naming standards recently established. It should be, "Real world people who appeared in archive footage". The phrase, "as themselves", is redundant. Obviously if they're in archive footage, they are themselves. What else would they be? Aliens? Social democrats? Crossdressers?) Also, the whole point of the exercise was to say that they're not acting, so the cat shouldn't be within any sort of "acting" category at all. This thing should be, and now is, directly under Category:Real world people. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:03, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- That seems okay. Good work. --Tangerineduel 13:09, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- As for how to connect the "archive footage" cat with Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves, I think the best bet is a disambig note on the cat page pointing to Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves. That's totally fine. But as for nesting the "archive footage" cat within "actors who played themselves"? No way. Totally defeats the purpose of the exercise, as you've defined in it your original post.
- As for the "as themselves" bit, well, I don't buy your argument at all. The only reason to use archive footage is because that footage has recognizably captured a famous person. Of course they're going to be themselves, or it wouldn't be worth using the footage. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:04, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've transferred everything over to Category:Real world people who appeared in archive footage and put Category:People who appeared in archive footage as themselves up for deletion. Thanks for your input! :-) Rob T Firefly 03:05, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
