Theory talk:Timeline - Auteur

Identities
A good chunk of this page isn't even about Auteur - rather being about Robin Hood and Santa Claus. I think that it should be mentioned that Auteur took on these identities with a link to their own timelines. There is nothing to suggest that the Auteur version of Robin Hood is the same one that both encountered Iris Wildthyme and later the Twelfth Doctor, or that he was the dream version of Santa that appeared in Last Christmas. Also, there is no link next to the claim that Auteur identified as Robin / Santa to which story these claims came from. RadMatter ☎  23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't have the timeline replicated here? Similar to how, in the main namespace, we have the events of the War Chief's life both on The Master and on his own page. Although note that the page does not currently allege that the fake Robin met by Iris was Auteur; read it again more carefully.


 * As for Last Christmas, remember the final shot. The real Santa was very much involved, although it's left somewhat ambiguous whether the scene at the end of Death in Heaven was him or already his artificial dream doppelgänger. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that it is ridiculous.


 * To my knowledge we are never told that Auteur actually is Robin Hood, Santa Claus, Zorro, etc, but these are names which have been given to him by others. So even the claim that "[Said character] was an identity taken on by Astrolabus in one of his incarnations" is incorrect, let alone creating a whole false timeline of "Astrolabus regenerates into his "Tom Riley" incarnation". RadMatter ☎  23:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * True, Astrolabus's claims are never independently verified, but there is a reason this is in the "Theory" namespace. It is all very theoretical and speculative (and by convention, all italicised text is specifically marked out as speculative connective tissue). It made for a more interesting result to take a maximalist approach to which of Auteur's claims of past identities we believe, so that is what I did.


 * Note that so long as we agree to go with Auteur=Astrolabus for the theory-timeline, it is kind of Auteur's gimmick that he observes his own crazed beliefs into existence, so regardless of whether it was "always" true, any given delusion of Astrolabus about his past is arguably valid history for Auteur. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Again... Astrolabus makes no claims. He simply states that people gave him these names. If someone called the Doctor Father Christmas would we also have to insert all of the Santa appearances into his timeline?...


 * I am all for leeway when it comes to speculation on these timelines - and have no problem with Astrolabus / Auteur being identified as one and the same but this is pushing it. Simply state that some referred to the Auteur as these mythical characters and link to those separate pages. RadMatter ☎  23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Been a while since the last reply - seen as there is no evidence that Astrolabus himself claimed to be these mythological characters, instead being given the name by others, should I go ahead and remove their appearances?


 * Even if he was these characters I have no idea why we would keep them all on the same timeline, that is why we have separate timelines for each version of the Doctor and such. RadMatter ☎  22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer to the first question: I do not see what the difference is between Astrolabus saying "I used to be Santa Claus" and "Santa Claus is one of the names that people once gave me". I suppose the latter could technically mean "people mistook me for Santa Claus, who actually existed separately from me," but this makes very little sense in context, I think. But if other people than yourself feel that Astrolabus's claims are too far-fetched, fine, remove them.


 * To answer to the second question: a timeline of Robin Hood, treating him as if he were human, would not draw the same conclusions as one that treats him as a persona taken on by a Time Lord (for example, as far as placement of The Thief of Sherwood goes). Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I see a major difference...


 * Once again Astrolabus makes no claims to the contrary. He simply states that people called him mythological figures - I'm sure the Doctor, and other characters, have also stated that they have been referred to as mythological figures during their time... that doesn't suddenly make these the same characters.


 * It is a major leap to go from "I was called Robin Hood once" (which is the only claim Astrolabus makes) to "Astrolabus regenerates into his "Tom Riley" incarnation and, presumably with the help of a perception filter or memory alteration, resumes his activities as Robin Hood". RadMatter ☎  22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Found a good example; in The Doctor Dances the Ninth Doctor hints that he is Santa Claus and delivered a red bicycle to Rose Tyler when she was twelve years old. From your point of view I am now allowed to insert all of the appearances of Santa into the Ninth Doctor's timeline? That is incredibly bizarre. RadMatter ☎  22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a leap. Again, this page has "Theory" in the name. A vanilla example of it they may be, but the Timelines are functionally an asterisk to T:NO FANFIC — you're not allowed to make up stories out of thin air "just because," but it's inherently a creative, speculative endeavour. (And while I don't personally put much stock in that quote, I would not object to somebody finding a place for Santa at Theory:Timeline - The Doctor, although I do not think the reference in Doctor Dances is meant to imply the Ninth Doctor specifically was Santa.)


 * …But also, actually, I've dug up my copy of Voyager again and what have you been talking about? There's no business of "people having called him" Santa Claus or Robin Hood". In both cases he says "I am". "I am the Fool! I am… El Diablo! Zorro! Robin Hood!" first, and a few lines later "I am Santa Claus. I have charted the secret places of the Earth..." Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been a long time since I have read any of the DWM stories, and I was basing my memory on the Astrolabus section of Santa Claus. I too shall have to dig out my copy, but even if he does claim to be these characters - most people coming to this page will be looking for information specifically about the fresh, up-and-coming character of the Auteur (and his relations to Astrolabus). Yet instead they are greeted with far-fetched fantasies about how all the different versions of these characters fit into the Auteur's timeline.


 * Also, should you even be updating any pages relating to the Auteur seen as [DELETED PER T:SPOIL]? RadMatter ☎  23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bah, fair enough. Delete away.


 * However, remember that T:SPOIL prohibits you from mentioning unreleased material here! At any rate, the rules are about authors not editing pages relating directly to their own stories, not to characters in general. So User:NateBumber shouldn't edit Cobweb and Ivory, but he can, thank heavens, edit pages like War in Heaven, though not any paragraph of it relating specifically to his own story.


 * It's also debatable whether that rule should apply in the Timeline namespace; the main reasoning behind this rule's existence is to avoid authors unknowingly letting "authorial intent" creep into the Wiki coverage of a story, thereby unwittingly introducing speculation. The Timeline namespace, as I have said, is built on personal speculation; authorial intent's as fair as anything.


 * At any rate, none of this should be confused with my personal pledge, made in my administrator nomination, not to make use of any administrative authority on series with which I someday became involved. This is 1) a personal oath I chose to take, not a policy applying to every admin; and 2) about admin decisions, not editing. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to say amend rather than delete. The rest of the page is absolutely brilliant, but was overshadowed by the diversions to other characters. RadMatter ☎  23:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)