Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Talk:Doctor Who universe: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Removed so-called "sources". and why
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
:So I think that what the article should do is indicate the breadth of opinion on the subject, saying something like "Fans disagree on what is included in the ''Doctor Who universe'', and some dispute the concept's meaning or utility alogether." —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:38, July 28, 2012 (UTC) | :So I think that what the article should do is indicate the breadth of opinion on the subject, saying something like "Fans disagree on what is included in the ''Doctor Who universe'', and some dispute the concept's meaning or utility alogether." —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:38, July 28, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::A lot of the argument against this article — and again, the question of its removal is ''completely'' off the table — is that the BBC have allegedly never defined the term. The BBC have also never defined what a companion is — but we still have an article at [[companion]]. | |||
::There are some terms which simply pervade discussions about ''Doctor Who'' to the extent that an article is warranted, regardless of how ill-defined the topic is. This is one of them. It's not terribly logical to pretend that there is no such thing as the "Doctor Who universe", when even the mainstream press uses the term. To those people who don't believe there is such a thing as the DWU, Google it. On a narrow search for ''exactly'' that term, I'm currently getting 346k hits. As a real world concept, it therefore absolutely exists, since Google is an accepted ''de facto'' test for existence. ''Defining' it is a different matter. But denying its existence, and, worse, miring it with the discussion about canon, is a waste of time. | |||
::After all, the term is used in: | |||
::*[http://digitaljournal.com/article/302442 headlines in the general entertainment press] | |||
::*the subtitle of ''[[AHistory]]'' | |||
::*[http://nzdwfc.tetrap.com/archive/tsv30/timetravel.html well-respected fan journals] | |||
::*[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/6/prweb9639325.htm press releases by merchandisers] | |||
::*[http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=comm_honors&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522doctor%2520who%2520universe%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D50%26ved%3D0CGIQFjAJOCg%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.trinity.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1006%2526context%253Dcomm_honors%26ei%3DwW8UUIybE5Tg8wTHqoCgBw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHJCf4TBYSS3ePJ1rmv2znb6B3WlQ#search=%22doctor%20who%20universe%22 academic papers] | |||
::That's ''more'' than enough varieties of use to indicate that we can have a real world page on the subject. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:16: Sat 28 Jul 2012 </span> | |||
== Deletion tag removed by admin == | == Deletion tag removed by admin == | ||
