Talk:Ceol

Ceol = Kelsey

I feel like this goes way beyond "heavy suggestion". Apart from her original name being Kelsey, and clearly being modelled on Kelsey's childhood likeness, and having a childhood friend called Maria who moved to America, one of her previous names is literally Sojourner Hooper-Agogô. How much more explicit could this possibly need to be? WaltK ☎ 19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The pages were initially one and the same until a few months ago when then-new admin Scrooge MacDuck split them without barely any discussion from any user other than DiSoRiEnTeD1. If he had given the topic an actual discussion, as this is not an uncontroversial case, I could've expressed how very opposed I am to the pages being separate.

As it stands, these pages should be immediately merged again, as then it should be discussed to split them, not vice versa.

Epsilon 📯 📂

19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake, Epsilon, you were there for the discussion. The discussion, which was extremely long and tiresome, was the "Separating FP concepts" thread, at the end of which User:SOTO reasserted what our policy in these matters is: we merge concepts with their "off-brand" counterparts when, and only when, a source licensed to use both has equated them.

@WaltK is obviously correct in saying that had these stories been licensed to use the original Kelsey, we would merge them in a heartbeat. But because of the licensing issue, we do not. It's the same reason Auteur and Astrolabus remain different pages. And in the meantime we can only acknowledge the clues of identity as "implication" rather than "overt statement", because if we make the claim that the character is in fact Kelsey/Astrolabus, then we would kinda be making the claim that the story fails Rule Two of T:VS.

So User:Epsilon the Eternal is quite wrong in claiming that a new discussion should be had about merging Ceol and Kelsey, let alone that the two pages should be remerged in the meantime. This isn't a matter of this page individually, but rather of a wide-ranging policy about how to handle "cases like this". A discussion about this entire policy would need to be had to change it, and it'd be a very thorny one indeed. With all the drama in the "Separating FP elements" thread, I'm not sure I want to condone such a thread being opened unless the OP had a specific and workable proposal to put forward.

But if you want to do anything, that's what would need doing. In the meantime, T:BOUND applies. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

...that's not what I recall. I remember the closing post basically saying that there would be a further discussion about these pages if DiSoRiEnTeD1 was willing to open it, which never happened.

Epsilon 📯 📂

19:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Apart from that though, fair 'nuff Scrooge.

Epsilon 📯 📂

19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

SOTO also restated the "Homeworld treatment" applies to these pages and brought up Ceol/Auteur in particular. Neither of which qualify for the "Homeworld treatment". Scrooge is quite right. We'd need a new discussion as to whether the "Homeworld treatment" needs to be changed into something more lenient. Najawin ☎ 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, when do we know when something is licensed? Does it have to be mentioned in the indicia? WaltK ☎ 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That's more a question for an admin, but my understanding is that for an established publishing house we tend to assume good faith unless proven otherwise, since if the thing in question lacks a license there will likely be litigation. If instead it's a small, new press or self published work we tend to have the burden of proof on them. (Obviously there are exceptions to stuff like this, see Talk:Legacies (short story), but as a rule of thumb.) Najawin ☎ 21:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any proof that Obverse Books, or anyone involved in the project, ever had licensing to use characters from The Sarah Jane Adventures? If not I cannot understand all of these individual discussions and merger tags. RadMatter ☎ 21:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is not. Hence no qualification for the Homeworld treatment. Hence separate pages. Najawin ☎ 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To the extent of our knowledge.

Epsilon 📯 📂

21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what the whole Homeworld treatment is. But Epsilon, that "to the extend of our knowledge" answer is a bit coy. There is either proof or there isn't, and if there isn't I don't understand why you are still adding merger tags? RadMatter ☎ 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Homeworld treatment = "If there is an unbroken chain of fully licensed changing terminology to the same underlying thing in the DWU, not merely allusion that the same objects are the same, we treat them as the same on this wiki." The example given is in reference to Gallifrey being called the Homeworld in Lungbarrow, and then Lungbarrow's Homeworld concept then being licensed for Faction Paradox. So even though the terminology changes and the person who has added that relevant terminology has changed, we can trace a connection through the actual licensed text as opposed to just inferring that this is what's meant based on allusions. Najawin ☎ 21:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I have some extra questions - I'll ask you about them on your talkpage (so not to take this one off-topic) but don't feel obliged to answer. RadMatter ☎ 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bear in mind @RadMatter, the BBC have used Faction Paradox, Alastair Lethbridge-Stewart, and Great Intelligence without the proper licensing, and the info from the unlicensed uses are on the respective licensed pages, so it would not be too extreme to have Ceol merged with Kesley Hooper.

Epsilon 📯 📂

21:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Technically, Wintertime Paradox merely heavily alludes to FP and we should probably clean up our pages to reflect this. And the whole Candyjar/BBC issue is not one I'm fully briefed on re: our policies, so I'll leave it to an admin to comment. Najawin ☎ 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Candy-Jar business has never been examined in a thread; I don't think it's terribly likely we'd rule The Snowmen fanfic in a thread based on evidence that it used the Great Intelligence illegally — but the case has never been tested. Methinks such a thread could be just the case to alter how we deal with Rule-2-breakers that are licensed for primary copyright holders but happen to fail for a secondary character — and that, if it went through, could plausibly apply to the FP stories with Ceol, licensed to use Faction Paradox but not the comparatively minor one-off character of Kelsey Hooper. That's purely a hypothetical, though.

As for The Wintertime Paradox, I would argue that it actually qualifies for the "Homeworld treatment"; it only refers to "that cult of paradox-worshippers with skull masks that the Doctor had dealings with some time before the end of the Time War". So long as the BBC keep control of the plot of The Ancestor Cell and whatnot, they are allowed to mention this and let the logical connection to the Faction stand. No alternative name is posited as such, but functionally we have "that voodoo cult of paradox-worshippers with masks" being equated with "Faction Paradox" based on the Homeworld principle — which is ultimately no different from us equating "the members of the Great Houses" with "the Time Lords"; the former's not a name either, just a periphrasis. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a rule regarding retroactive licensing should totally exist. While the Snowmen did not have a license to use the Great Intelligence this was settled with the rights-holders, and therefore should be seen as retroactively licensed. Another example is Archibald Hamish Lethbridge-Stewart - who was not originally a character licensed by all parties, but has since been embraced by the rights-holders. RadMatter ☎ 22:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

At the very least a discussion about TWP and Canaries is probably a good idea at sometime or another. Not that I care to have one today. Najawin ☎ 22:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rad: Mmh. I don't know. If nothing else, this wouldn't account for what I seem to recall about Alpha Centauri in TV: Empress of Mars, for which I do not believe there ever was a settlement. But that's sort of the besides the point. The thing is that we do want it to have been correct to create the page for The Snowmen on the day after it was released; we do want to be able to write about any televised Doctor Who episode licensed to use the Doctor, even if they should irreparably fail to have the appropriate license for, say, the Krotons; even if there should be no settlement.

@Najawin: Well, I've given a working rationale for how we're currently doing things, so I wouldn't say it's an emergency. But yeah, I have no objection to a thread or otherwise wider discussion to iron things out publicly, later. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)