Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (series)

Coverage?

The first Hitchhiker's book appears to qualify for coverage, as it contains references to Madranite one-five and Qualactin, which debuted in The Pirate Planet. Does anyone know why this isn't covered? Aquanafrahudy ☎ 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Because no one brought it up, I assume. But the fact of the matter is that, well, we also do not currently cover Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency which features a whole dang Time Lord as a major supporting character, and is set in a DWU location. It would be a bit silly to start covering another Adams book over a very tangential reference to a couple of substances, when we still don't acknowledge that one as the obvious spin-off that it is. So I think this sort of a T:BOUND thing even if Hitchhiker's was never actually ruled out in particular. I intend to argue quite strongly for Dirk Gently coverage once the Forums reopen; we'll see how it goes from there.

(Not that I think it's a shoe-in even after we hopefully fix up our Dirk Gently coverage; first, one should rigorously fact-check the timelines on those minerals and whether they were or weren't precent in the audio version. Second, the situation seems arguably analogous to other name-drops whose coverage would be, at the very least, controversial, e.g. The Rose & Crown in that one episode of Dracula. Maybe there's an argument to be mad that Rule 4 is stronger here than in those cases and so it wouldn't necessarily set that big of a precedent, but…) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

We should probably also debate that episode of Dracula, perhaps? Besides, isn't there precedent for minor references validating stuff? Aquanafrahudy ☎ 16:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes — but in that case (and the argument with Hitchhiker's would be that for the reasons documented on this page the same was true of Adams's works in the 1970s and 1980s) there's a very strong Rule 4 grounding. Essentially the current practice seems to be that a minor reference is certainly grounds for coverage if it is known beyond reasonable doubt that the story passes Rule 4 (or is otherwise intended to be perceived as a Who spin-off of some description), but may not justify coverage-by-default the way foregrounded usage of that DWU concept would, in the absence of such groundwork.

(If you want to debate the Dracula episode, well, I won't stop you. I think somebody else proposed it in the Temp Forums, it just didn't make its way up the chart.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Because these are invalidated by r4, shouldn't they be at least covered? I personally don't think the argument for validating the Dracula episode is particularly strong, I just think it ought to get a debate. But doesn't assuming invalidity explicitly go against T:VS, which states:

If a work of fiction was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.

This appears to say that we should have a community discussion before invalidating something on r4 grounds (unless it's really obvious), and I know that we haven't been able to do this what with the lack of forums and everything, but shouldn't we assume validity, or at least coverage, by default? Sorry if I'm being annoying. Aquanafrahudy ☎ 19:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, as we recently codified into the text of T:BOUND, sometimes there are subtleties to policy that have not yet been recorded in text but are attested by precedent. I believe one of these is "offhand references don't necessarily give rise to coverage-by-default, even if they're licensed, at least when there's doubt about whether the story is intended to be read as DWU or adjacent". (Think of the difference like this: if Chronotis in Dirk Gently were unlicensed the book would be fanfiction. If madranite in Hitchhiker's were unlicensed it'd just be a cultural reference.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That is, in fact, a very good point. However, I still think we should discuss these when we have the chance, and I personally would argue that most of the time the very act of bothering to include the off-hand reference counts as r4 evidence; however, that's another discussion for another time. Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion over this matter. Aquanafrahudy ☎ 19:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, as there appears to be no discussion forbidding it (that I can find) would there be anything wrong with me wikifying the Dirk Gently books as invalid until we can get a debate about it? Aquanafrahudy ☎ 19:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(As an aside, it would be wise to check the Hitchhiker's radio scripts before coming to any conclusions about what appeared where first. Until recently our page for Oolon Colluphid said he was first mentioned in The Pirate Planet, since that did in fact predate the first novel, but in reality his name had debuted in the radio plays months prior. The novels are really novelisations, after all.) – n8 (☎) 20:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree with this. But would it be OK to wikify the Dirk Gently books, which are very definitely a Doctor Who spin-off? Aquanafrahudy ☎ 13:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not under current policy — it was ruled out by a thread way back, even though I strongly believe this to have been in error. Bear with us a couple of weeks — as I said, I'll definitely be starting a thread to revise this. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought probably not, just I couldn't find the thread that forbad this. Aquanafrahudy ☎ 15:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)