Talk:Vincent van Gogh (short story)
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Doctor Who universe?[[edit source]]
Is this a DWU story, or just a purely historical account told as a narrative?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 01:43, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Good question, since The Brilliant Book 2011 is a reference book, not a source for in-universe pages. Shambala108 ☎ 01:53, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see what that has to do with anything. It indubitably contains pieces of fiction in various formats, like most annual-type publications, as well as reference material. (e.g. The Lost Diaries of Winston Spencer Churchill.) That being said, from my dim recollection, I do believe this article is one of the non-fiction ones. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:58, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- (Tbh, the characterisation of the Brilliant Books as reference books even though the older Annuals aren't called that has always seemed a bit odd to me. But for an even more clear-cut, and highly venerable, precedent of there being valid stories inside what is mostly a reference book, see The Scrolls of Rassilon inside John Peel's The Gallifrey Chronicles.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:02, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- I have a copy, so I'll check what it is exactly in the morning. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 02:04, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Having reread the thing: if it were fiction it'd definitely pass Rule 1, but… it's not. It's, as User:SOTO said, a "purely historical account told as a narrative," albeit one which obviously exists to give context to Vincent and the Doctor. No mention of the events of the episode, or otherwise of anything to do with the sci-fi bits of the DWU. So it basically fails Rule 4. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:12, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
