Talk:Antonio Amaral

The IU/OOU Discourse

This page is supposed to be a real-life page for the individual Antonio Amaral - who was a God tier backer of Omega and had his likeness used in the first issue. Somewhere along the line this page has been confused and is now acting as both a real-life page for Amaral and an in-universe page for his unknown Minyan character. This needs to be split, but does each unnamed Minyan from that crowd scene really need their own page anyway? RadMatter ☎ 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Several things I'd like to address.

1. Well, the page was originally an out-of-universe page, but I disagree that's its supposed to be.
2. Secondly, I wasn't confused when I edited it. I was specifically turning it into an in-universe page, based upon a good amount of intent from Antonio Amaral himself, who said in this Tweet that his in-universe "counterpart" will be returning. So while the character in Omega wasn't named, think of this as future proofing.
3. And I disagree that's it's both an in-universe and out-of-universe page - it's an in-universe page, with a behind the scenes section which contains quotes from Amaral himself, with extra details not present in the page prior to my edits. Ergo, as I don't believe this is two pages in one, I also do not think that this page should be split.

Epsilon📯 📂

14:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This page is definitely supposed to be out-of-universe (hence the category of "People thanked by Cutaway Comics").

From your conversation with Antonio on Twitter it appears that you haven't actually read Omega, if this is the case you shouldn't have been the one editing in-universe pages about the story anyway. However, it is not my place to call you out on that. But what I will say is that Antonio has no authority when it comes to this story - his likeness was used, yes, but that doesn't suddenly mean that he can state that it was an in-universe version of himself (I have read the actual Kickstarter and the God tier section states nothing more than that individuals will have their likeness used). RadMatter ☎ 14:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For the category, well, a category doesn't shape the purpose of a page. These things are kinda fluid, especially on this Wiki.

To be fair, there is no rule about editing page about a story that you haven't read. Additionally, I did put in some research into the crowd scene, to make sure it's factually correct.

Also, seeing that it is Antonio's likeness being used, I think he has a certain amount of room to speak here - if he has an intent with his in-universe self, which he obviously has, then I think he can determine if this is meant to be his in-universe self.

And besides, the actual content of the page is completely compliant with T:VALID - I've only used info from the Omega story in the in-universe body of the article, and with a conjecturally placed name. All well within the bounds of Wiki policy.

Epsilon📯 📂

15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I created this page as out-of-universe, similar to Vitas Varnas and Cornelius Blanc (although the first has many more production credits). You should not have changed this into an in-universe page without discussion.

Antonio has absolutely zero say in this story. His likeness was used and that is where it ends. If Cornelius Blanc suddenly stated that his character in the crowd scene was in fact the Boehemoth from his short stories, does that suddenly mean that it is the case? Certainly not. RadMatter ☎ 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In such a case, it is not mandatory to discuss an edit of a page beforehand, especially one as trivial as this one. Only with major changes must the edit be discussed first, and I really do not think that this is a big edit.

Secondly, if I am to accept that Antonio has "no say", nevertheless, the structure of this page can still stand. This Wiki has pages for tiny, minor background characters from TV stories, based upon the fact that an actor was credited in the end credits. While the medium of a comic is different, obviously, I still believe this page has precedent to stand as is.

Epsilon📯 📂

15:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hardly "trivial".

This page is for the real world individual who received thanks by Cutaway Comics and had his likeness used in Omega.

If it is accepted that each Minyan is worthy of their own page, fine by me. But the information on this page about the in-universe Minyan character with Antonio's likeness should be moved to a separate page. And, unless stated in the story or by someone who worked on the story that they are supposed to be the same character, his character from Lytton should be found on yet another page. RadMatter ☎ 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Admin here.

I disagree that the Lytton version should be covered separately. When two characters have identical physical appearances and we know that they are intended to be the same character, it'd be more speculative than not to split them.

However, User:Epsilon the Eternal is completely incorrect about the alleged "fluidity" of categories. Category-wise, either something is a RW page, or it's an in-universe page: you can't mix and match. The correct situation here is to create separate pages for the real Amaral and for his in-universe counterpart. Page naming is an issue here — normally in-universe would take precedence, but it's a conjectural name in this case, so — I'd argue for Antoni Amaral (Omega) for the character, and the undabbed form for the real person. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these two characters are supposed to be the same person. The only person that has said that is Antonio, and he has no authority over the story. One of these characters is supposed to be a Minyan civilian while the other is going to feature in the Earth-based Lytton. Unless stated within the story, or by those producing, how are we going to clarify that these are the same individuals rather than completely separate individuals both sharing Antonio's likeness? RadMatter ☎ 15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean that categories are fluid - I meant that the content of a page is fluid, and with new information, pages often change in structure. Obviously categories are not fluid.

Also, I'd like to point out that I had forgotten to remove Category:People who were thanked by Cutaway Comics, and when the matter was brought up today, I attempted to remove the erroneous category, but RadMatter reverted my edit.

Epsilon📯 📂

15:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I had already raised a discussion as to whether this page was in-universe or not before you went and removed an out-of-universe category in what I originally assumed was an attempt to strengthen your own argument.

This page was created by me as out-of-universe, with categories and information to match others of its like. It should not have been changed to in-universe. RadMatter ☎ 16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@RadMatter, Antonio has made it clear that the "reward" he received was "we'll put you in the comic", as opposed to "we'll make a character look like you". Clearly what he's been sold is the right to become a DWU character in earnest. Accordingly this should be treated as a page for an in-universe counterpart to a real person, not about a character designed after a real person.

Hence, the relevant precedent here is something like Penelope Creighton-Ward's cameo in The Dying Days. There is a real-world thing (in Penelope's case a preexisting non-DW fictional character, as opposed to a real person, but it's the same principle) which we are told is being depicted. It's being depicted in incompatible ways in different valid accounts (in Penelope's case, her Dying Days appearance does not make sense timeline-wise, at all), but it's always the same thing being depicted.

However and once again, please stop belaboring the point: you are correct that this page should be the real-world one, and a new one created for the in-universe version. —Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We can see what Antonio bought, it is still publicly viewable to the public. RadMatter ☎ 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@RadMatter, I don't think you have the authority to dictate what can and cannot be edited on a page you created. Yes, you created it, but I improved it with more information, creating a satisfactory page that was well received on Twiiter. Of course an edit on a page should not be done solely to appease the chaos that is Twitter, but nevertheless, I feel like this edit was for the best.

Epsilon📯 📂

16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well it wasn't improved when it became both an in-universe and out-of-universe page. You repeatedly said that it was former, but I created it as the latter. RadMatter ☎ 16:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But it was not both an in-universe and out-of-universe page! It was an in-universe page, with an out-of-universe category that I had forgotten to remove.

And again, even if you created the page as out-of-universe, I adaptated into an in-universe page. There was no out-of-universe information inserted next to in-universe info; the info is in a behind the scenes section. This is completely within policy.

Epsilon📯 📂

16:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So, shockingly, there are a few things I have to say that I feel are relevant. First and foremost, in respect to

if this is the case you shouldn't have been the one editing in-universe pages about the story anyway

See Talk:Lolita, this is explicitly not policy. While it's obviously impolitic to argue about the subject of the works with those who have consumed them on factual grounds, that's not what's happening here, nor is that technically policy either.

As a technical matter I disagree with Epsilon that edits to a page can't be dictated by the original content or intent (though interestingly I don't think the author of the page is the sole arbiter of those things, it's a little weird), and I also think as a procedural matter it was poorly done of him to change an OOU page to an IU page without discussion, as this almost certainly violates T:BOUND.

But as a practical matter, I'm not sure that our current understanding of T:DAB would entail that the IU character is the one that is DABed. (Is there an actual ruling on conjectural names having less priority? That's not on the policy page.) So if we are to take take that approach it's easier just to create a DABed OOU version. Najawin ☎ 18:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a weird situation and not one I'm sure has ever happened; I'm open to arguments that I'm wrong about the T:DAB thing. But my concern is about letting an actual name (the OOU one) get overshadowed by a {{conjecture}} name (the in-universe one).

Another issue is how we dab the OOU page. "(thankee)"? "(online backer")? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is partially why I think this page is better off covering both the in-universe and out-of-universe Antonio Amaral.

Epsilon📯 📂

18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously a BTS section is nice, but it's hard to argue that we should have one page combine the IU and OOU aspects as opposed to an IU page with a BTS section and an OOU page that references this one. Najawin ☎ 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, given the increased prominence of Kickstarter and things like this, our decision of how to DAB here will likely impact quite a few pages in the future. /Grumbles about the forums really needing to come back or at least a stopgap measure/ Najawin ☎ 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On the question of whether the IU or OOU topic should recieve the dabbed page, Template:Conjecture states it is to be used when "we've had to make up a name". In this case, while the name we've invented for the in-universe subject is perfectly logical, I don't think it should take precedence over the only subject that actually has it. Therefore, I agree with Scrooge in that the in-universe person should be at Antonio Amaral (Omega). Borisashton ☎ 21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that there should be a page for Antonio Amaral - the real life person - then a page for Minyan (Antonio Amaral) and Man (Antonio Amaral) (the latter depending on his Lytton appearance). There is no evidence that these characters are intended to be the same individual, nor an in-universe counterpart of the real-life individual, so I think that these characters should be split. One is clearly intended to be a Minyan, while the other will likely (trying to avoid speculation) be a human on Earth in the Lytton series. There's nothing in the God tier section that specifically states that it is an in-universe version of the Backer. RadMatter ☎ 02:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, probably not either of those suggestions, since we use stories and universes as dab terms, not actors.

Isn't this whole debate about something that hasn't happened yet? Even setting T:SPOIL aside, shouldn't we just ... wait until Omega (or Lytton, or whatever) comes out so we can have an informed discussion? – n8 (☎) 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rad, the names you propose are in egregious breach of T:DAB, though. "Minyan (Antonio Amaral)" is simply not how we disambiguate pages, or else we'd have The Doctor (Jo Martin) and so on.

And again, Mr Amaral himself has told us the Minyan is intended to be his in-universe counterpart, not just someone with his face. Barring Cutaway denying it, that is good enough. If there were no other page-worthy, unnamed Minyans in Omega, perhaps we would go with Minyan (Omega) even so, rather than use a {{conjecture}}. But that is plainly not the case. Again, the title of "Antonio Amaral" for the in-universe page will be marked out as a conjecture. We won't be stating "that is definitely this guy's name in-universe, 100%". But from our best efforts it seems he is probably intended to be called that, so it's the best name we can use.

Unless you have more evidence to discuss, I'd like the above to stand as a ruling, please. We can keep discussing which of the two Antonios gets a dab, and what that dab is. But we do separate them, and we call both of the "Antonio" until and unless something better comes up.

@Nate, Omega #1 is in fact out and is the crux of the debate. I'm unsure whether the Lytton installment with Antonio in it has come out, now you mention it, though it will be soon either way — but either way, "is the Lytton Antonio the same as the Omega Antonio" is an altogether minor aside to this conversation. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have said before, Antonio is simply a consumer - he has no authority over the story or character, his likeness was used and that is the end of his involvement with the project. He can claim that the character with his likeness is whoever he wants, as can the rest, but we cannot simply take his word for it (as I gave as an example earlier, if Cornelius Blanc suddenly said his character was the Boehemoth from his short stories would we have to go with that because it is good enough that Cutaway hasn't denied it?). The God tier section of the Kickstarter is still available for all to read for both Lytton and Omega, and there is no mention of this being an in-universe counterpart. How I interpreted it was that each God tier backer would simply have their likeness used as these individual characters.

Having a page about a character with Antonio's likeness - or whoever - that traveled from Earth to Minyos and whatever next is not a reflection of what is truly happening in these stories. RadMatter ☎ 04:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As a complete side-note, I do not appreciate being shamed on Twitter for raising this discussion. RadMatter ☎ 04:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I better see where you're coming from here. But my assumption is that in the process of implementing the God-tier reward there would have been private, back-and-forth emails between Cutaway and Mr Amaral; submitting his picture, reviewing the resulting sketch, confirming he was giving them the right to print his likeness, etc.

As such, while he wouldn't have the authority to affect the story much, he would have had closer access to the mindset of the people implementing the God-Tier reward than is publicly available; and therefore, if he says this is intended to be an in-universe Antonio rather than a coincidental Minyan lookalike thereof, (as opposed to saying his headcanon is that this is the case,) we should believe him.

Likewise, if Blanc said "I hereby declare the guy with my face is the Boehemoth", that wouldn't fly, but if he said "During my back-and-forth with Cutaway on the subject I mentioned that in my head this was the Boehemoth, and they agreed," we would deem it good enough for a {{conjecture}}.

(If you are referring to this Twitter thread; there was no intent on my part to "shame you" whatsoever in my reply to it. I merely related the objective fight that you are arguing against this page while I have been defending its existence — and the only reason I got involved in that thread was that my own actions, or, rather, "the admins'", were being misrepresented by Mr Amaral. If you would like me to add a further comment clarifying that while I disagree with you, I consider this discussion to be civilly-handled and worth having, I will do so. Again though, I feel "public shaming" is a strong word to use when my reply pointedly did not mention your name at all.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 04:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You claimed "some *users* are trying to take down your page". Not a single user, and definitely not me who created this discussion, has attempted to argue that this page should be taken down. RadMatter ☎ 04:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Back to an earlier matter and away from drama. You're right Rad, what each tier involved is still clearly available for all to see. So what does it say?

Your chance to appear in Omega #1! We'll need your image by early December, but assuming we do, you'll achieve Minyan IMMORTALITY at the pen of John Ridgway!

Like? Maybe we can interpret this in different ways, sure, but the "what it says we can all see and it doesn't say it's him" argument just doesn't hold water to me - there's a very clear reading of this in which they're actively creating DWU counterparts of you. As for identifying two characters using the likeness of the same kickstarter backer, dear lord, oh why, Bart Simpson is probably the relevant precedent? The issue is that page is a massive can of worms for a variety of reasons. But there is precedent, even if I don't like it and we probably shouldn't do it. Najawin ☎ 04:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rad, I've replied to you on your talk page at greater length concerning the Twitter thing. I never meant to "shame" you in any way and have added further messages directed at Mr Amaral to clarify your position, and that it is a worthy position, albeit one that I happen to disagree with.

@Najawin, good sleuth-work! I don't think we even need to go into "identifying by appearance" here, so long as we have the production intent. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 04:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(The problem is, that page is probably a blatant violation of T:NO RW as it's currently written, though, I admit as someone who hasn't read the stories it's possible "Bart Simpson" is mentioned. To then identify the two characters is a stretch. I just really dislike that page in many ways.) Najawin ☎ 04:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Oh, so do I. I think it actually sets a good precedent as far as what you were using it for goes, but I agree that even as it sets it, it misuses it badly.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 04:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I question absolutely as to why this is still being discussed?

This page cannot exist as both an in-universe and out-of-universe page... naturally. Even if we were to have pages for the individual Minyans these Kickstarter backers portray it would be something like Paul Magrs (Bafflement and Devotion) rather than hijacking Paul Magrs' actual page.

This page was always meant to be for the real world individual, such as the ones for Cornelius Blanc, Jules Samuels, etc, who had their likeness used in the page.

It currently exists as a huge mess! RadMatter ☎ 07:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not a mess. There is one category on an otherwise in-universe page. I'd like to see what you actually think if a messy page. The thing is, the topic needs to be discussed, as I don't recall the issues about the dab terms being resolved, for instance. And as for your example with P Magrs... the more fitting analogy would be Paul Magrs (Bafflement and Devotion) containing Paul Magrs, not the other way around.

Epsilon📯 📂

07:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thought that I was going doolally, Scrooge already ruled that these pages were to be separated!

To my knowledge a single page cannot be both in-universe and out-of-universe? RadMatter ☎ 07:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember the ruling. Please quote it?

As for pages being in- and out-of-universe? Well, technically no page should be both, however, many currently are, with a mix of categories, all until the information is removed and placed onto it's own page. So removing content from a page if the second, split page hasn't been/isn't in the process of being made, then that is wrong, I believe.

Epsilon📯 📂

07:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"We can keep discussing which of the two Antonios gets a dab, and what that dab is. But we do separate them, and we call both of the "Antonio" until and unless something better comes up."

If many pages are currently incorrectly labeled as both in and out-of-universe, which you have yet yo include an example of, then we should be working to correct these instead of causing further problems by using them as precedent. RadMatter ☎ 07:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, first off - if that is the ruling, then it leads me to believe that no information should be removed until a dab is agreed upon and implemented, not before? Seems like you're jumping the gun here, if I'm correct.

Secondly - the example with the other conflicting pages was an example on how we currently treat this kind of discordant Wiki pages, and it is a valid precedent, up until somebody does the right thing and takes the time to split the pages. See Kylie Minogue (That Time I Nearly Destroyed the World Whilst Looking for a Dress) for a good example of a split page.

Epsilon📯 📂

07:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want the information saved so badly (which is not actually a great deal of information) I suggest creating Antonio Amaral (Omega)...? Scrooge stated that the pages should be split.

And, unless I am mistake, that Kylie Minogue page isn't split at all??? RadMatter ☎ 08:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstood me - that Kylie Minogue page is an example of an in-universe page that has been split off from its out-of-universe counterpart.

Epsilon📯 📂

08:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So why is that page relevant? You are arguing that there are pages that are both in and out-of-universe, I ask you to provide an example and then you provided that one which isn't? RadMatter ☎ 08:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

...I don't recall you asking? The example I provided was off my own back, but if you want an example of a "two-in-one" page, feast your eyes upon something like Brian Blessed.

Epsilon📯 📂

08:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your example literally has a massive clean-up tag stating that the page is an issue. RadMatter ☎ 11:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Which I added.

Epsilon📯 📂

11:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You added it correctly, because that page is an issue like this one was. RadMatter ☎ 11:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly a 1:1 example though. What I was trying to do by linking Brian Blessed is highlight how despite the conflicting page topics, information relavent to either one has not been removed.

Epsilon📯 📂

11:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it should be. Just because someone hasn't got around to it doesn't mean that it sets the precedent. RadMatter ☎ 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Looking at the torturous edit history, I want to clarify the meaning of my earlier ruling, which I had thought obvious at the time, but clearly it wasn't. When I said…

We can keep discussing which of the two Antonios gets a dab, and what that dab is. But we do separate them, and we call both of the "Antonio" until and unless something better comes up.My earlier ruling

…I absolutely, wholly meant that they should be separated now; with the discussion about what to retain as the name of each of the two pages coming later. This was the meaning of the present tense. "We can keep discussing [the specifics] beyond that, but we do separate them". Now.

I truly am sorry (and that's not posing, I really am) that I didn't realise earlier that this hadn't come across, or a lot of edit-warry behaviour might have been avoided. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I found it absolutely clear. I shall make the reverts now (as this has been clarified I believe this does not exceed my revision limit). RadMatter ☎ 22:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hence for now Antonio Amaral (Omega), or Antonio Amaral (N-Space), or something, should be created to split off the IU citizen. The exact name does not matter because neither it nor the name the IRL person's page retains will be permanent. They are simply temporary names to permit the split to go forward even as we keep discussing the fine-tuning of the dabbing. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)