Trusted
6,377
edits
Forum:Roland Rat: The Series: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
# "''Considering this series' lack of documentation, I think it does [serve a useful purpose]".'' There is nothing stopping people from documenting this series in a place one would actually expect to find the information. Make a Roland Rat wiki and then you can cover all of his appearances all the way back to 1983, which Tardis wouldn't be able to cover. It doesn't need recognition of some tenuous DW connection for the series to finally become public record. | # "''Considering this series' lack of documentation, I think it does [serve a useful purpose]".'' There is nothing stopping people from documenting this series in a place one would actually expect to find the information. Make a Roland Rat wiki and then you can cover all of his appearances all the way back to 1983, which Tardis wouldn't be able to cover. It doesn't need recognition of some tenuous DW connection for the series to finally become public record. | ||
Those are my arguments against covering the full series. Episode 2, of course, should be covered in its entirety, but I don't think anyone is disputing that at this point. A good overview on [[Roland Rat: The Series (series)]] would also do no one any harm. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | Those are my arguments against covering the full series. Episode 2, of course, should be covered in its entirety, but I don't think anyone is disputing that at this point. A good overview on [[Roland Rat: The Series (series)]] would also do no one any harm. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
:Well, neither have the arguments against it, imo. | |||
:# I think validity and coverage are two different kettles of fish, and we can sort out validity when we've finished discussing coverage. That wasn't an argument for coverage, as such, but an acknowledgement that if we cover it, it will probably be valid, as there's no evidence to the contrary, and it seems slightly silly to cover ten half-hour episodes of a television series as invalid. | |||
:# As I have already conceded, the precedent argument is null and void (although there may be other precedent, I haven't read through an awful lot of the old forum threads). | |||
:## Oh hang on, I've just remembered we do do this to some extent (such as with [[Newbury & Hobbes (series)|Newbury & Hobbes]] and, for that matter, a lot of [[Paul Magrs]] stuff), although only where the author has explicitly stated that everything they've written takes place in the same "shared universe", so there's some precedent for you, although this is maybe a little bit different. | |||
:# I cited {{Cs|Time and the Rani (TV story)}} here, but maybe that's the wrong example. A better example would perhaps be ''[[Class (TV series)|Class]]'', where the Doctor pops up once and is then forgotten about. Alright, it deliberately ties itself back into ''Doctor Who'', but since when has that been a concern? Okay, arguably ''[[The Sleeze Brothers (series)|The Sleeze Brothers]]'' precedent, but that would mean coverage-as-invalid, not no-coverage-at-all. Actually, I think Sleeze Brothers is a good example here. Elements debuted in a DWU story that later cropped up in other stories. It's as simple as that. But like I said, validity is a different kettle of fish, and maybe this ''should'' be invalid. It just seems sort of silly. | |||
:# Just because the creation of a ''Roland Rat'' wiki is possible, it doesn't mean that, while one continues to not exist, the usefulness of our coverage of it is not nullified. And besides, I don't think this is by any means the most compelling argument, it's just another reason why our coverage of it would be a good thing, if a tertiary one. | |||
: Think of it like this: what our validity rules do, as I see it, is take every work of fiction that has been released since the 23rd November 1963 and ask "does this have a legal connection to ''An Unearthly Child''?". And if it does, we cover it.{{Note|This is, of course, a greatly simplified version of our byzantine validity rules, but it serves for this purpose.}} I think that the majority of RRtS ''does'' pass this, and that is why we should cover it. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">📢</span>]] 09:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
==Notes== | |||
{{Notelist}} | |||
