Talk:Origins (comic story)

"Woman"

Who is the woman in the fourth part of the story? Tecteun? Scott Eccles ☎ 11:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that is what we are supposed to believe, but it isn't stated and so we can't include it on the page beyond the BTS section. I thought it an interesting inclusion that the Fugitive calls the person "Sir". DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 15:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Given the usage of a male honorfic, I reckon it may be best to hold off assuming the gender of this character. I would personally recommend the page for the character be something like Time Lord (Origins), which describes the character in a gender neutral manner, until we get more details on this character.

Epsilon📯 📂

15:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest Division Leader as it wasn't specifically stated that they were a Time Lord and we know non-Time Lords can be part of Division, such as Karvanista and the Weeping Angels. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 16:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Jody Houser confirmed to me on Instagram that it is Tecteun.Scott Eccles ☎ 07:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So in the future please include some sort of license with photos you upload. Admins here will delete them otherwise and then other users won't get to see what you're talking about. I've gone ahead and done it for you, though I'm not sure I chose the correct one - screenshots from social media uploaded on here is an area I don't know if we have a specific license for. As for the issue of the character in question, Houser's authorial intent isn't relevant here. If it isn't stated in the story (or, I guess, if the character isn't similar in appearance to the same character elsewhere, there's some weird precedent on this, see Talk:Antonio Amaral), it doesn't matter, the wiki cannot conflate them. The authorial intent is noted in the BTS section. I don't like this, but that's how the wiki does things. Najawin ☎ 07:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. Scott Eccles ☎ 07:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That policy doesn't seem very helpful. This comic had a license to use Tecteun and it has been clarified by the writer that the character is in fact Tecteun. We're helping no-one by not saying that on-wiki. It only serves to fulfill some, in this case, pointless and draconian policy. Our priority should be to be useful to our readers, not fulfilling annoying policies and precedents like this. Bongo50 ☎ 15:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Look at it this way, if we were writing a physical encyclopedia, what would we do? Acknowledge this character in the relevant page for Tecteun, or hide it away under the page "Division Leader"? Of course it'd be under Tecteun.

Now, I think generally the character should be treated as vaguely as the source material does, so apart from the page name, lead, and on the main Tecteun article, we should just refer to this character as the "Division Leader" and/or "Time Lord", but we should still acknowledge this character as Tecteun.

That being said, there is a case for keeping them separate, on the basis of how we treated the Curator when The Day of the Doctor was first broadcast, or, more recently, how we are treating the "agent" in Is anyone receiving these transmissions? who was intended to be Zoria, but not explicitly stated.

My heart leans to acknowledging this character as Tecteun, but under current policy and precedent, I'm not sure that's possible.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you can always add it to the list, I think it might be possible to carve out an exception for clear authorial intent when there's a license and the author has themselves noted said intent, but, uh, I doubt it's gonna work. Man with the rosette is sort of the archetypal example here. (More likely to be successful is that Houser uses the same appearance for Tecteun later on and calls her such, then we can identify her as such.) Najawin ☎ 22:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've had a skim of Talk:Antonio Amaral and I'm not convinced that its precedent should apply here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that the issue there was whether or not Antonio should have creative control over the characters using his license. If the writer(s), someone who definitely had creative control over the stories and the characters within, had directly claimed that the characters were the same, it seems to me that the wiki would be more inclined to consider them the same. I also don't feel that the Man with the rosette should apply here as, to my knowledge, no story has had the license to him and the Master. In this case, however, I think that it is highly likely that Origins could have legally featured Tecteun and, in fact, it does, just in a way that expects the reader to draw the final connection, a connection that we have had direct confirmation of from the writer. Therefore, I think that an exception could be made exactly for this case. Bongo50 ☎ 06:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

With the writer having confirmed who the character was supposed to be I don't see any logical reason why we wouldn't include that information on the pages. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 06:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That was not the issue, no Bongo. The issue I was referencing was whether we could identify two characters based on visual identification alone. Talk:Antonio Amaral touches on this issue, the precedent is messy here, there's a few pages that do it (like, maybe a handful), such as Bart Simpson, but it's not clear that anyone ever really agreed to this, even tacitly, so much as nobody ever really noticed this until I brought it up in the Amaral discussion. And, well, forums ded. There's a case to be made that it's an obvious extension of policy we already have - we don't care if we explicitly identify characters in televisual media to then group them on the same page. But it's never really been discussed.
Man with the rosette is actually the obvious precedent though. The EDAs did have the license to the Master, after all, they were published by the BBC. They just didn't choose to use it. Exact same situation as the one we have here, in many regards, just different in that there's more textual evidence suggesting MwtR = Master than for Woman = Tecteun, and Lance Parkin said what Miles intended rather than Houser explicitly giving her intent. Very similar scenarios.
User:DrWHOCorrieFan, it's literally the wiki policy that we can't. I don't like it, but that's how it is. Take it from users who've been through this before (Epsilon and I). Ain't happening. Najawin ☎ 06:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add something to the list later then. I've been meaning to make some edits and updates to it for a while. Bongo50 ☎ 07:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll just warn you in advance that I don't expect any such thread to be successful. I'd support it. But I doubt it'd work. Najawin ☎ 07:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There's literally Catkind in the background of this comic, nobody acknowledges them as Catkind or even interacts with them but we've been able to successfully identify them as Catkind. It doesn't make sense that we can't ackowledge Tecteun as the Divison Leader even after the writer confirms that it is the case. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 10:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you keep insisting over and over that this doesn't make sense when I've said I disagree with the policy but simply stated that it's the way things are. Would you like me to ask an admin to confirm that my statement is correct? I've pointed to clear precedent, and there absolutely is more. (cf, the headache we had about the Monk/War Chief/Master before we got that whole thing sorted out, though that's a substantially more complicated issue) Najawin ☎ 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer you to leave this to an admin rather than repeatedly pointing to precedents that do not resemble this case in the slightest, yes. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, the most applicable precedent lies with Agent (Is anyone receiving these transmissions?)/Zoria; both are licensed to use Zoria, but the "agent" is too ambigous for the connection to be drawn without conjecture.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

23:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Epsilon's precedent is quite close as well. I don't cede that Man with the rosette doesn't resemble the case though. Indeed, arguably the case for conflating it with the Master is stronger based on textual evidence. Regardless, I've asked Shambala to weigh in. Najawin ☎ 23:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Even a quick read of that talkpage shows that the reason Zoria/the Agent cannot be combined into a single page is that there's no evidence given in a valid source that they are the same character.

not only is there not evidence in the valid sources to prove they're the same character, but I think it's on the level where the idea that they might be the same likely wouldn't occur, even as an uncertain hypothesis, to someone just reading the short story and watching the webcast in a vacuum

Meanwhile, in this instance there is a lot of evidence given to suggest that the character is Tecteun - and it would be what most readers familiar with the show would initially assume - and the writer's confirmation just further cements that. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm? There's no evidence in this talk page present in a valid source to suggest the character is Tecteun aside from "uh, most characters familiar with the show would just assume that". But that's exactly the same situation as Man with the rosette. Najawin ☎ 23:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify, that's not the same situation, there's more evidence that Man with the rosette is the master. And we still don't conflate them. Najawin ☎ 23:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Lawrence Miles had a license to use the Master and name him as the Man with the Rosette, if none can be provided perhaps we shut that tangent down rather than spamming it as "precedent" every couple of posts? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC owns the rights to the Master. The Adventuress of Henrietta Street is a BBC book. This is not a Kelsey/Ceol situation here. Let's just nix the idea that "Lawrence Miles" is the person who matters here, rather than the publisher, who owned the right to the character. Indeed, in none of the discussions of MwtR did the questions of rights ever come up because the very idea that they would be an issue is ludicrous. It makes absolutely no sense. Najawin ☎ 00:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Newsflash, Lawrence Miles doesn't just get to run wild with ALL characters from the BBC simply because he wrote a book for them. From what I can see he was allowed to have a character in his story be hinted at being the Master but never received a license to use the Master/explicitly outright state that the character was the Master, completely different situation once again. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not really how it works: if a series has a license, it has a license, regardless of who wrote the damn thing. Authors wouldn't need to get an individual license if they were to write a story for an ongoing range with that license.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

00:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What you are suggesting would be like if Gary Russell, who was not given a license to use River Song in Big Bang Generation, all of a sudden said; "Kik the Assassin was actually River all along and I hinted at in throughout the book!". You'd say we have to include that on this Wiki even though he has no right to use that character? That is what is ludicrous. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Epsilon isn't suggesting that, because MwtR isn't stated to be the Master on the wiki. Najawin ☎ 00:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Good, and what I am stating (for the thousandth time) is that these two are clearly not the same situations as it is blatantly obvious that Jody had a license to use Tecteun and the other Fugitive/Division concepts. Whereas there's no evidence that Miles had the right to use the Master. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Individual authors do not have rights to licenses. Publishers do. In each case the publisher was the BBC. The BBC has both the right to the Master and to Tecteun. Completely analogous. You seem to be arguing that the series editor okayed the usage of the concepts in one scenario but not in the other. First and foremost, this is not something the wiki cares about. Internal disputes about creative freedom and the direction a series should take have never been something the wiki has had a stance on. Secondly, there's simply no evidence for this, in neither case has there been explicit usage of the concepts. Najawin ☎ 00:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The pair of you seem to have a very naïve view of licensing.

Each individual story is viewed individually. Not every writer/book is allowed to use every character, River Song being denied for Big Bang Generation is a great example. There is no evidence that Lawrence Miles was approved to use the Master in his story, there's only him subtly hinting that another character is the Master. Jody specifically stating that the character was Tecteun and also heavily implying it in the text is why I believe this should be covered and is in no way comparable to the Man with the Rosette. If someone needs to ask Jody if she had a license to use Tecteun, go right ahead? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

But we're not saying that Miles was approved to use The Master in Adventuress. (iirc this was the range editor after the one who did Ancestor Cell, so it wouldn't surprise me if he said yes, but that's gossip rather than hard facts.) We're saying that licensing and the range editor giving you permission to use a character are different things. The wiki only cares about the former. The latter is completely irrelevant. The former has been established. Also - "heavily implying" - the levels of textual evidence are substantially different, but in Man with the rosette's favor. It's truly bizarre to see the people calling for more nuance in a discussion being called naive, but, I mean, whatever floats your boat. Najawin ☎ 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, first off, admin-hat-on, I confirm the fact that "what the range editor okayed" and "what was licensed in terms of copyright" are different situations, and T:VS concerns the latter.

I'm unsure how this affects the Rosette case in theory. In practice, it affects it not at all in the immediate present: as I recall, us deciding to not cover the Man With The Rosette as the Master was the product of a very very old thread — so old it may have been in the DPL Forums rather than the now-lost Special:Forum. So a talk page (let alone a talk page about something else) will not overturn this point. Which is just as well, as it would be murder to try to cover the Man With The Rosette as the Master before we sort out individual incarnation pages for the Masters… but I digress.

Concerning Tecteun — I think there are sound non-authorial-statement-based reasons to cover this Division Leader as an incarnation of Tecteun. On that final page of Origins, we see Gat talk to her in the following terms:

That doesn't sound like your little pet.Origins (comic story)

Now, Gat is also part of Division, so "your little pet" can only be a personal statement about the Division Leader's relationship to the Doctor; not about Division's in general. To me, that very directly says "Tecteun", no external statements needed. And that's before we consider that in point of fact, this person is a Division higher-up and we know Tecteun was the Leader of Division!

Compare the following hypothetical: a comic about a young Kate Stewart at UNIT. On the final page, a UNIT colonel addresses a figure at a desk, kept in shadow but identified as a retired UNIT leader. "That little clone of yours might make something of herself yet…", says the colonel… Does authorial intent even enter in whether we acknowledge this character to be Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart? C'mon.

This is Tecteun. It just is.

More interesting perhaps is the question of whether this is some new never-before-seen regeneration, or a younger version of the Barbara Flynn incarnation seen in Flux. The artwork seems to have been based on a younger Barbara Flynn. But she doesn't look quite so similar to her older self as seen in Flux that one could necessarily notice this without recourse to real-world knowledge of how Flynn looked through the years; so T:NO RW may step in. Particularly given the peculiarity of Gat addressing the seemingly-female-presenting Origins Tecteun as "Sir" whereas Flynn's Tecteun quite clearly identified herself as a woman in Survivors of the Flux ("I'm the woman you used to call 'Mother'…"). Thoughts? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Forum:The Man with the Rosette is the relevant thread. I don't think it actually closes down debate if that's the only thread that exists, there would have to be one in the archived forums to do that. But Talk:Man with the rosette#Master? is the precedent I was pointing to, which came later. Najawin ☎ 17:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)