Talk:John Hurt (in-universe)

Delete

Bearing in mind that this is an encyclopaedia containing everything and everyone involved in the DWU, I can understand the need to cover this version of John Hurt. This reference enough is evidence that there's a John Hurt in the DWU, therefore we should cover it. If we delete this, then we can surely have a clear out of a few Tom Bakers that we have lying around.

To be clear, that was sarcasm. This page has every right to be here. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 21:23, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Valid reason. --DCLM ☎ 21:41, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the deletion request you placed should be removed. We don't want admins cleaning it up. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 00:07, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

But hold on. The "Tom Bakers" we have pages for (as far as I'm aware of) actually appeared on a story. From the content of this page, John Hurt was only referenced on Greek Bearing Gifts. I don't see the point of making pages for real-world DW-related actors if they are only mentioned. I do think this could (and should) be only a BtS note on John Hurt (as it was before). OncomingStorm12th ☎ 00:19, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

By that reasoning, why does Akhaten have the category "Planets visited by the First Doctor". That was only a line in an episode, whereas we actually witness the Eleventh Doctor's visit so he earns his category... the Doctor could simply have been lying... TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 00:47, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Because there is no such thing as a "real world" Akhaten sentient planet-like object. If there was, this would be a different matter. As for the Doctor "could simply have been lying". Yes, he totally could. But that would be speculation, which is not up to us. Anyway, probably an admin could settle this matter down better than us. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 00:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

And to those people who don't completely know how this Wiki works? In the "notes" on Greek Bearing Gifts, we link "John Hurt" (from the DWU) to "John Hurt" (from our universe)? Seems a bit silly. I can see where you're coming from regarding "it's just a reference" but this Wiki is built upon "he said, she said". You do realise that the Brothers Grimm has been "referenced" numerous times in Doctor Who throughout its mediums... but they themselves, to my knowledge, have never made an appearance. So why do they have their own page? If you delete this page, it's hypocritical not to delete "Brothers Grimm" and others like it, built on pure mentions and speculations by characters. Don't misinterpret me, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm stating that this is an encyclopaedia. References either get their own pages or they don't. There's no "well this can go in, but this can't". TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 01:08, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

For a little historical context, this was initially covered at John Hurt, before he became involved with the DWU. At that point, it no longer made sense to cover real-world John Hurt (who's now played an incarnation of the Doctor) in a BTS section. So we flipped it around, as we sometimes do. I would recommend that everyone here read Talk:John Hurt. Reasoning is given there for why we originally made that decision. Since then, it should be noted, I think we've made more pages on the DWU versions of people with real world pages.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 01:15, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

My final opinion on this is that it's evident that John Hurt exists as two people. We should celebrate our unique coverage of content on this Wiki. When someone gets an in-universe mention, I'd rather be linked up to the DWU version of that person, with a "do you mean" at the top, leading me to the real person and alternate versions. I think it provides true coverage. Furthermore, the categories tell me that the person also exists in real-life. As you said, it's been done before. What makes this difference? Maybe since John Hurt has appeared in Doctor Who, doesn't that compromise the lack of a DWU page? Anyway, I'm all for this page. Feel free to reach whichever decision you feel is best. TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 01:19, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Let's reach a decision on this, please.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 20:29, March 4, 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't understand. It seems that the talk at John Hurt says this page should be deleted. To quote from CzechOut: "Therefore, to ensure that our use of dab terms remains consistent, fictional references of real people go on the "real world" page. And, as a bonus, this allows us to discuss the fictional appearance using "normal" English, rather than the sorta "fictional, this-all-happened-in-the-past-and-we-know-about-it-because-we-live-at-the-end-of-the-universe English" our in-universe perspective requires us to use." Am I misreading anything? I agree that the situation with actors appearing in DWU is more subtle. After all, the main problem is that DWU can, in principle, give a real person an alternative history. But this reference line does not state anything that would be false of the real Hurt. Amorkuz ☎ 22:01, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

With a recent revision to Tardis:Disambiguation#Primary topics, this is no longer an issue - in-universe versions of real world actors who have appeared in Doctor Who receive the dab, as a matter of sheer logic, somebody searching for Tom Baker would most likely want the actor, not the character.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential deletion

This was discussed at Talk:John Hurt in 2013, and it was decided this would be dealt with with an "in the DWU" section on the main John Hurt's page. I can see how Tom Baker (TV Action!) makes sense with a very loose reading of T:DAB OTHER, but we don't generally split up one topic that's intended to be the same thing in the DWU as in the real world. Usually, we have a BTS on the in-universe page (with rare exceptions like Star Trek, where the real-world version is split off into a dabbed page), but a major real-world figure like John Hurt should not be dabbed.

The general idea is that Amy Pickwoad (The Bells of Saint John) the employee of Kizlet is not intended to be Amy Pickwoad the art director, on whom she's based -- but Tosh here is referencing the actor from the real world, the same person who would later be cast as the War Doctor in the real world. There's also the problem that John Hurt does not appear in Greeks Bearing Gifts, so this dab term does not apply. What's changed since 2013 to merit re-evaluating this?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:54, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, it was probably created by a user not familiar with the previous decision. I agree it should be deleted. Shambala108 ☎ 03:05, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

I think nowadays, with the prevalence of in-universe counterparts, keeping DWU versions of real world people on the real world page is becoming a problem, due to things like categorisation of pages, where both in-universe and out-of-universe categories are being used, the issues with navboxes not being able to placed particularly well on pages, and for certain pages like the in-universe Paul Magrs, whose page is longer than the out-of-universe one.

Epsilon 📯 📂

18:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with deletion based solely on the fact that Hurt does not appear in the episode. If he had, I agree that a new page should be created. But a reference is not the same as an appearance. (But dear lord, Talk:John Hurt really does show just how badly we need firm policy on this issue and how what we've been doing previously just isn't working, especially in the context of the last year it seems.) Najawin ☎ 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

...that's not really how this Wiki operates. We don't care if the character is briefly mentioned or has an appearance. We're not Wikipedia, or any other wiki - we don't decide not to create a page because they're not "notable" enough.

Epsilon 📯 📂

19:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I recognize that Epsilon, but there is still precedent for treating minor things like this in "In the DWU" sections on RW pages, and, indeed, it's current policy, see Timothy Dalton. Najawin ☎ 19:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but is that policy? Has that been written anywhere? Additionally, I want to speak up, as to abolish that practice, as there are numerous issues with it. Also, read T:EVIL TWIN, as it explains we create pages for any nouns mentioned, etc, etc.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that "current policy" means "the way we do things", even if that itself is a circular reading of T:BOUND and I've expressed my view that it should be rewritten. I also am aware of the policy in question, but it's just not relevant to the fact that we currently deal with references to DWU actors in universe in this way.

And arguably it is written down.

Therefore, to ensure that our use of dab terms remains consistent, fictional references of real people go on the {{real world}} page.

There was a ruling about this! (Yes, one that is premised on things that are no longer true and definitely needs to be revisited, but a ruling nevertheless.) Unless there was one since explicitly allowing pages like Paul Magrs (Bafflement and Devotion) to exist (hard to tell with dead forums), those pages are more likely to be in violation of policy than the idea of deleting this page is. And, again, I'm not suggesting we delete those pages, the canonical reading of T:BOUND suggests that they're allowed. But if you're complaining about policy not being written down, you should maybe consider that the policy in question was written down, and it's the things you want to change this to be more in accordance with that are the "unwritten policy". Najawin ☎ 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to see how miserably awful Paul Magrs would look if we had to lump so much information in a "In the DWU" section.

Also, that "ruling" is quite honestly outdated, and should be changed. I doubt there'd be any opposition to it being revised, as the current "policy" (if you can call it that, as I've seen admins regularly ignore it) is more detrimental as it currently "operates".

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree. We really do need to work on this issue. I again reiterate my view that something like 25-50% of our current issues on the wiki are the messy issues of real world references/jokes related to the series and related issues itself and wiki not having a clear, consistent way to handle them. But current policy is that this should not exist. Both in the sense of written down policy and unwritten policy.

Also, thank you for the merge Scrooge. Makes things much nicer. Najawin ☎ 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, all!

User:Najawin would have been correct as of just a few weeks ago that the policy-as-written conflicted with the practice across the Wiki of creating pages for in-universe counterparts of various individuals — not that it started with User:Epsilon the Eternal's more recent efforts; we've had Tom Baker (TV Action!) for a very long time.

However, User:Shambala108's helpful comments at Talk:Hugh Grant spelled out the "common practice" (in the sense of "unwritten policy") around the naming of in-universe counterparts to BTS personalities. This carried an implicit endorsement of the existence of such, and this is doubly the case since Shambala's words on that talk page have been incorporated in the "Primary topics" section of the actual T:DAB policy page. Which only makes sense — conflating the mentioned "from the real-world" DWU individuals with their real-world counterparts chafed with T:NO RW quite a bit.

This page — and its ilk — can stay, although until very recently they technically shouldn't have, maybe, sort of, depending on how you read precedent.

And thanks for the kind words, Najawin! Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: User:SOTO's earlier complaint, from last June, about Hurt only being mentioned in Greeks Bearing Gifts does however hold up; we're not really supposed to dab by mention. Any thoughts on an alternative dab term? "(actor)" might be confusing; how do we feel about "(N-Space)"? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear Urizen, not "(N-Space)"... I have a whole argument against how shite that dab is, so if you'll give me a minute, let me write it out.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No matter how “shite” you may find it, it does have official, admin-stamped precedent behind it. Even if we decide to ditch it in the long run, that's no reason not to use it evenly across the Wiki for now, T:BOUND and all. If we ever decide to rename N-Space and/or use something else for the dab term of Doctor Who (N-Space), we'll apply the same change to this page and any other using "(N-Space)" at the time, but for now, we must work within established current policy, and with what we've got. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But if I recall correctly, "(N-Space)" was supposed to be an exception, not something to be regularly used.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Give-a-Show Projector (N-Space) is the relevant thread here. Najawin ☎ 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a hoot. I was the one who opened that talk page discussion, and I was told that N-Space was the exception. It was determined there, that the out-of-universe page would need a dab or that the in-universe page should be dabbed by the story of its appearance.

Epsilon 📯 📂

21:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, that thread actually backs me up to a good extent. Might I also mention, that there are lots of pages that dab by mention, when the the thing hasn't appeared in a source. Take Timmy (The Scarlet Empress), Gary (The Scarlet Empress), Jimmy (The Panda Invasion) and Jenny (The Panda Invasion) for some examples.

Epsilon 📯 📂

21:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Appearance

I believe that as per Tardis_talk:Temporary_forums/Archive/Lists_of_Appearances, invalid appearances are allowed to be mentioned in infoboxes. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 16:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! My mistake.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)