Trusted
8,474
edits
Talk:The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series) (edit)
Revision as of 20:29, 23 June 2023
, 23 June 2023→Validity?
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
::: Also, a point of terminology: basically, '''"covered" in Wiki-policy-talk means we have in-universe page about something's fictional contents'''. Obviously, in plain English, to even ''have'' the page [[The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series)]], or, for that matter, [[Star Trek]], is to give those series some "coverage", but that's not how we use the term. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ::: Also, a point of terminology: basically, '''"covered" in Wiki-policy-talk means we have in-universe page about something's fictional contents'''. Obviously, in plain English, to even ''have'' the page [[The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series)]], or, for that matter, [[Star Trek]], is to give those series some "coverage", but that's not how we use the term. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
::::Personally, I would want the style of coverage to be kept here. It's already incredibly comprehensive, showing that nearly every story has some license connecting it to the DWU. I think it greatly enhances the page. Please do not remove anything, is the short of it! <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><tt>Epsilon</tt></span>]]''' '''[[doctor who:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 01:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ::::Personally, I would want the style of coverage to be kept here. It's already incredibly comprehensive, showing that nearly every story has some license connecting it to the DWU. I think it greatly enhances the page. Please do not remove anything, is the short of it! <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><tt>Epsilon</tt></span>]]''' '''[[doctor who:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 01:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
The thread has admittedly moved on a bit since I started writing this, but it's my stance that [[User:Najawin|Najawin]]'s comment was completely reasonable position and it makes zero sense to antagonize them. It's a simple and indisputable fact that on our comparable pages for invalid series, including but not limited to ''[[Vienna (series)|Vienna]]'', we've never taken the step of listing the invalid stories and their connections to valid stories. Personally I think this page is great and we should be more proactive about collecting "Behind the scenes", as I've advocated on [[Talk:Charity publication]], but the fact remains that there hasn't been precedent for such a thing until now. | The thread has admittedly moved on a bit since I started writing this, but it's my stance that [[User:Najawin|Najawin]]'s comment was completely reasonable position and it makes zero sense to antagonize them. It's a simple and indisputable fact that on our comparable pages for invalid series, including but not limited to ''[[Vienna (series)|Vienna]]'', we've never taken the step of listing the invalid stories and their connections to valid stories. Personally I think this page is great and we should be more proactive about collecting "Behind the scenes", as I've advocated on [[Talk:Charity publication]], but the fact remains that there hasn't been precedent for such a thing until now. | ||
That said, if we can look at a ''slightly'' different scenario of "invalid anthologies which nonetheless contain valid short stories," such as ''[[Decalog 5: Wonders]]'' and ''[[Señor 105 & the Elements of Danger (anthology)|Señor 105 & the Elements of Danger]]'', we ''do'' have ample precedent for listing the titles and authors of invalid stories, regardless of whether or not they have clear connections to the DWU. Considering that none of the ''Brenda and Effie'' stories are valid (yet), this isn't a direct application of precedent, but it at least demonstrates that merely listing a story's title and author on a series overview page is incomparable to the amount of coverage we afford invalid stories like, say, ''[[Death Comes to Time (webcast)|Death Comes to Time]]'' or ''[[Doctor Who: Battles in Time]]'', which in contrast receive pages for individual stories and even individual characters like [[Minister of Chance]]. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | That said, if we can look at a ''slightly'' different scenario of "invalid anthologies which nonetheless contain valid short stories," such as ''[[Decalog 5: Wonders]]'' and ''[[Señor 105 & the Elements of Danger (anthology)|Señor 105 & the Elements of Danger]]'', we ''do'' have ample precedent for listing the titles and authors of invalid stories, regardless of whether or not they have clear connections to the DWU. Considering that none of the ''Brenda and Effie'' stories are valid (yet), this isn't a direct application of precedent, but it at least demonstrates that merely listing a story's title and author on a series overview page is incomparable to the amount of coverage we afford invalid stories like, say, ''[[Death Comes to Time (webcast)|Death Comes to Time]]'' or ''[[Doctor Who: Battles in Time]]'', which in contrast receive pages for individual stories and even individual characters like [[Minister of Chance]]. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Why are you accusing people of attempting to antagonize [[User:Najawin]]? That certainly hasn't been a goal for me - and makes me uncomfortable continuing a discussion if things are going to be misinterpreted so severely! [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | : Why are you accusing people of attempting to antagonize [[User:Najawin]]? That certainly hasn't been a goal for me - and makes me uncomfortable continuing a discussion if things are going to be misinterpreted so severely! [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
::I would prefer, as a matter of procedure, the page to be shortened, either to just keep something in the vein of: | ::I would prefer, as a matter of procedure, the page to be shortened, either to just keep something in the vein of: | ||
::: Entry in the Series : What elements it uses | ::: Entry in the Series : What elements it uses | ||
::Or | ::Or | ||
::: [List of all things the entire series uses here] | ::: [List of all things the entire series uses here] | ||
::But I don't think such a thing is imperative, given the context. This entire discussion was more me defending my | ::But I don't think such a thing is imperative, given the context. This entire discussion was more me defending my desire to go on the record than actually insisting that such a thing happen, I consider this a molehill, not a mountain. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
::: In point of fact, @NateBumber, if you'll review [[Tardis:Valid sources]], you'll find that you're using the terminology slightly wrong; ''The Brenda and Effie Mysteries'' or ''Vienna'' are not in fact "invalid sources", but rather "not covered" — i.e., not sources of ''any'' kind, whether it be for {{tlx|invalid}} pages or not. | |||
::: But yeah, I think Najawin and youhave the right of it in terms of what the precedent/current practice is. And we're not about to list every ''Star Trek'' story, complete with authorship, at ''[[Star Trek]]'', so in the spirit of [[T:NPOV]], we shouldn't give better treatment to ''Brenda & Effie'' in this regard. | |||
::: Although also, yes, as [[User:Shambala108]] said before the Forums blew up, it's discourteous and largely counterproductive to assume (hostile) intent on the part of people who haven't stated any such, outside of a formal [[T:NPA]] complaint. Please refrain from that, Nate. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::Question: why can't ''develop'' procedure? Why can't it evolve to allow series overview pages to contain more info? It's clearly more beneficial, this style of coverage. And as for ''Star Trek'', that series is almost wholly unrelated to the DWU. As evidenced by this page, ''B&E'' is not. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><tt>Epsilon</tt></span>]]''' '''[[doctor who:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 01:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::: Your ''[[Star Trek]]'' comparison has helped me to understand your point better, Scrooge. | |||
::::: I think that the anthology section that I added - which does not have any DWU-related information as of right now - could be undone. However, I think that the rest of the page should remain intact for the time being. There were many people in support of the table idea at [[Talk:Charity publication]], and as there are no forums and this has already been implemented I think that it would be wrong to remove it on precedent (especially as so many were in favour). [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Politely, do you think the wiki is best served by developing procedure for non-covered series based on ''a series that is likely to become covered as soon as the forums are open again'' and our desire to apply it to ''a series that almost everyone here thinks should be covered on this wiki''? Or should we just take the bitter pill that this particular page is less complete until the inclusion debate clearly renders it valid and we then come back to this issue? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::(Well, Najawin said the same thing as I did, but I'd already typed this out, and I thought of a neat metaphor, so.) | |||
:: @Epsilon: well, there's the thing: ''Brenda and Effie'' is entirely the wrong case on the basis of which to rework the default format of [[:Category:Real world series with DWU connections|Category:Real world series with DWU connections]], since, precisely due to the ''extremely plentiful'' relations it has to already-valid DWU works, we here are all counting on it being validated in the near future. ''Star Trek'' is a much more accurate example of the kind of pages we should ''expect'' to exist in this category of pages. | |||
:: Proposing we change the default procedure for pages like this because of ''Brenda & Effie''{{'}}s idiosyncrasies is not unlike proposing that actual ducks all change their beauty standards to accommodate the Ugly Duckling. The solution here is to recognise that the Ugly Duckling ain't a duck, but rather a swan, even if we might temporarily be forced to keep it in the same pond as the ducks for lack of a better solution. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::: Brenda and Effie wasn't the case which first brought up the reworking of that format. The discussion at [[Talk:Charity publication]] was the first to raise this idea (to my knowledge) but the discussion has not progressed in three months, after yourself @Scrooge stated that you would have a think as to whether or not to proceed. [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
: Goodness; I had not realised so much time had passed. I ''am'' sorry and will get back to you lot soon over there. | |||
: But I must emphasise that in my mind, whatever is decided at [[Talk:Charity publication]] will be ''specific'' to the unique page [[Charity publication]]; it will not necessarily have any ramifications for pages about "lawful commercial series with DWU connections", although I could, I suppose, see it bouncing into a rework of [[Audio Visuals]], at a stretch. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Might I ask though, what would actually be removed from this page? It seems that pretty much everything on the page is relevant. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><tt>Epsilon</tt></span>]]''' '''[[doctor who:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 02:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::I just did an edit that removed all content not found to have connective tissue to the DWU. Feel free to add stuff back as it's found to exist, but I think that's what's required by current procedure. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::: That information should be readded regardless, you shouldn't be removing information before a discussion is reached as of what needs removing. [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::: With respect, @Rad, I'm the admin here, and while he was maybe a bit bold in doing so without saying that he was going to, Najawin's edit looks quite correct to me. Now that it's done, please don't undo it. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Additionally, if that's what we're going to remove... how pointless. If we have a table for the anthology, it seems pedantic to remove some stories but keep others. Also, I'd like to keep the stories on the page that are included in anthologies covered by the wiki, like ''[[Twelve Stories (anthology)|Twelve Stories]]'' and ''[[Team Up (anthology)|Team Up]]'', as they're notable in their own respect. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><tt>Epsilon</tt></span>]]''' '''[[doctor who:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 02:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
:I ''did'' put as my edit summary "Showing Epsilon a prospective edit", so I'm perfectly willing to have it reverted while we discuss. I never meant it to be definitive. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
The information removed was not correct. As Epsilon states, two of the stories removed were published in anthologies covered by this site (which also contain other DWU stories) and therefore are notable. And another of the short stories removed likewise was the stories from which the sole anthology story was adapted from, again... notable. [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
:: I actually haven't looked over the specifics of Najawin's edit yet. I was referring to the fact that it was correct to start the reducing process; not that all of the things he'd removed as part of that process were necessarily right. And as Najawin said, he fully expected somethings to be reinstated as more facts came to light, anyway. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::: These facts were already present on the page. [[User:RadMatter|RadMatter]] [[User talk:RadMatter|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::So were, for instance, a lot of dead rows in a table with no clear connection or a fourth audio that had no clear connection. I did an incredibly quick trim, feel free to add stuff back. But there was obviously stuff that needed to go. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::Again, isn't that a bit pedantic, to have some of the stories from an anthology to be included on a table, but not others, even if their connection to the DWU isn't apparent? If we're going to have the table, why not include all the stories on it? <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><tt>Epsilon</tt></span>]]''' '''[[doctor who:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 02:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Did our policy on this change? Some stuff has been added that doesn't have clear ties to the DWU listed (past, well, the fact that the series probably should be validated anyhow). [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Which stuff are you meaning? [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Stuff in the audio section, at least one of the anthology stories, (When the original decision was made it didn't seem like authors would count as "connective tissue", so perhaps more than just one) some stories from ''generic'' anthologies are now listed as opposed to just ones the wiki covers. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
== New evidence? == | |||
I have read this entire thread and haven't once seen mention of Effie's inclusion in ''[[To the Devil — a Diva! (novel)|To the Devil — a Diva!]]''. This release from [[2004 (releases)|2004]] predates anything from the Brenda and Effie spin-off which began in [[2007 (releases)|2007]]. Effie being a DWU character prior to the start of the spin-off should validate the entire series, should it not? [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Epsilon would be more qualified to comment, but without forums it still doesn't matter. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:: | :: If it doesn't matter to you there was little point on commenting, but it matters to some others like myself so we could perhaps prepare our case/even start sandbox pages for when (if!) forums do return. [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::Er, it doesn't matter in the sense that we still can't revalidate it. Not in the sense that I don't care. I'm not the Magrs guy on the wiki, that's Epsilon, but my understanding of the situation is that it probably should be valid. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::: Issue is, is that the core concepts for ''The Brenda and Effie Mysteries'' debuted in the [https://magrsverse.miraheze.org/wiki/Never_the_Bride_(audio_story) ''Never the Bride'' audio story] from 1998, making a lot of concepts debut outside the DWU, ''a la'' the ''Phoenix Court'' series. But I recommend going to the [https://magrsverse.miraheze.org/wiki/ Magrsverse Wiki] if you want to edit ''TBaEM'' stories; we're in dire need of more editors. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><code>Epsilon</code></span>]][[doctorwho:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 22:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Validity? == | |||
Umm... Why were these books invalidated? [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 14:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Long story short, a long time ago a bunch of editors who never read the books decided they didn't have any licensed elements in them bar an appearance of [[Panda]] in a later book so it couldn't be covered, which they would've realised was completely incorrect if they had just, funnily enough, read the books. | |||
: So now ''we're'' lumbered with doing a new inclusion debate to fix the previous one. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 14:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Ha! Shall I start a debate in [[Forum:Inclusion debates|Inclusion debates]]? [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 14:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I'd hold off on that. A: You have to have read a book to start an inclusion debate. B: Last time we discussed it Epsilon compared it to ''[[Phoenix Court (series)|Phoenix Court]]'' iirc, which means there are some... nuances. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: Aye, we have to contend with the 1999 audio drama version of ''[https://magrsverse.miraheze.org/wiki/Never_the_Bride_%28audio_story%29 Never the Bride]'' which gets into the whole ''Phoenix Court'' pickle. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 17:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Ah yes, good point. I'll get round to reading them when I've got the time (which probably means in a couple of months, I'm insanely busy at the moment). But we surely wouldn't be covering them due to featuring Brenda and Effie themselves, but due to featuring the elements introduced in Mad Dogs and Englishmen? [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
No, the issue is more complicated than that. There's explicit precedent that ''Phoenix Court'' doesn't count as a DWU series even with DWU elements in it. Since this series ''began'' before Magrs started working in the DWU by current rules it is, well, "grandfathered out", in a sense, and they're to be treated as different literary universes that cross over. See [[Thread:208795]] at [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1]]. Is this good precedent? Eh. But it's something we have to discuss before we can validate this series. We could maybe argue for R4bp, but this doesn't seem like quite what R4bp was intended for, and that would also touch on the ''Phoenix Court'' issue. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: | :: I don't fully follow. Certainly we would cover a new ''Phoenix Court'' novel that included non-Iris DWU elements without controversy, I should think. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: | :::I certainly think we ''should''. (And tbh, given Magrs I think it likely that people would just ignore the prior thread given clear R4 intent.) That thread was decided before B4 of Phoenix Court came out, did that include elements other than Iris? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
