Trusted
25,401
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 172: | Line 172: | ||
I'm rather convinced that validity ''was'' being discussed. People have then put it to the side and said we should focus on coverage specifically. But validity was ''certainly'' brought up in the first place, hence the mentions of R4. But precedent is against in two distinct ways here. The first is that ''under current precedent related to R4'' you need to argue in the affirmative that this is DWU, rather than people arguing in the negative that it's not. The second is that ''under current precedent related to crossovers'' it's less than clear that anything past the 2nd episode in the series would even be covered on this wiki. We ''could''. I just, generically, think this is a bad idea. For the sorts of reasons we're discussing at [[Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives]]. It doesn't seem like it's in line with current precedent, and it's using an overly broad notion of "DWU concept" that seems to entail some very odd things. But there's not a ton of discussion taking place on that topic, it's way down the thread, and people do seem to disagree with me, so we very well could decide against my view here. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | I'm rather convinced that validity ''was'' being discussed. People have then put it to the side and said we should focus on coverage specifically. But validity was ''certainly'' brought up in the first place, hence the mentions of R4. But precedent is against in two distinct ways here. The first is that ''under current precedent related to R4'' you need to argue in the affirmative that this is DWU, rather than people arguing in the negative that it's not. The second is that ''under current precedent related to crossovers'' it's less than clear that anything past the 2nd episode in the series would even be covered on this wiki. We ''could''. I just, generically, think this is a bad idea. For the sorts of reasons we're discussing at [[Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives]]. It doesn't seem like it's in line with current precedent, and it's using an overly broad notion of "DWU concept" that seems to entail some very odd things. But there's not a ton of discussion taking place on that topic, it's way down the thread, and people do seem to disagree with me, so we very well could decide against my view here. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
Re:Aqua, I'm aware that you conceded the point on ''precedence'', but I still think the ''overall'' point on how we "daisy-chain" DWU concepts is pertinent idea here. Apologies if I didn't make that clear. Regardless of whether we have precedence for how this should be done, actual discussion is more important than someone deciding to cover something and no one challenging it (yet). Hence, I think what we really, desperately need to discuss is how we treat this daisy-chaining. I haven't been participating in the R4BP thread, not read much about it for quite some time - I have neither the time nor the will at this point - but I would presume the idea of daisy-chaining is relevant yet distinct from that thread? So I think a separate discussion would be warranted. Whether we discuss it here or in a dedicated thread, is not my decision. | |||
While we're here, I'll point out the important difference between Roland Rat and Class that illustrates why that thread is needed. As you say, Class has explicit DWU connections, but the important thing is that, from the offset, it's very foundation is on these DWU concepts. It exists as a single contiguous entity with Doctor Who. Roland Rat, on the other hand, is a distinct entity. The franchise(?) was founded in 1983 with no Doctor Who connection even conceived (I think is fair to say). Subsequently , Episode 2 of the series in 1986 debuts Roland Rat-associated concepts. The episode just happens to feature the Doctor, but the concepts are specific to the Roland Rat franchise. | |||
This is why further media featuring concepts debuting in spinoff stories should not be covered automatically. Now, if the same episode had featured a concept more closely associated with the Doctor, for example a rat companion, that ''might'' be a different story. But as it is, the concepts introduced are, outside of the one episode, irrelevant to Doctor Who. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
{{Notelist}} | {{Notelist}} | ||
