User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1827503-20151112135636/@comment-4028641-20151120191616

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1827503-20151112135636/@comment-4028641-20151120191616 I argue that these sections are consistently against our policy. If Nicholas Briggs was an in-universe article, would this be accepted?


 * Briggs has a cameo appearance as himself in the audio story Legend of the Cybermen, a story set in the Land of Fiction.

What about Tom Baker? What would the support be for Tom Baker (TV Action!) to be written as


 * In the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip TV Action!, a villain named Beep the Meep takes the Eighth Doctor and his companion, Izzy Sinclair on a chase into an alternate universe where they end up at the BBC Television Centre where Tom Baker is taping an episode of Doctor Who. Beep mistakes Baker for the "real" Fourth Doctor and is distracted, first by terror and then by anguish from Baker's babble (all lines from real interviews with Tom Baker). Thanks to this, Beep's plans are foiled.

No, no it wouldn't. Thus it is not an in-universe and out-of-universe article.

Plus there are differences in the different universes that are notable. The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who features a Doctor Who TV show with an episode that doesn't exist in the real world and various other aspects that don't match with the real world. And it's absolutely bonkers to link to out-of-universe articles that will most likely never be expanded to include the in-universe info and certainly will never be done so correctly. Create new pages for the in-universe ideas. Either the articles need to have the in-universe ideas at the top (already a mess as Tom Baker (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) still needs to be created) and the behind the scenes info at the bottom (would ya really want to see the info on in-universe Peter Davison, Colin Baker, and Tom Baker before the real-world stuff?) or we need to make separate pages for the in-universe concepts to avoid confusion. Simple-as-that.