User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200727170605/@comment-6032121-20200727190525

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200727170605/@comment-6032121-20200727190525 Again, DiSoRiEnTeD, I think the root of the issue is that you are confusing copyright and concept. It is possible for two different copyrights to correspond to a single in-universe thing, because the BBC doesn't own the copyright to the platonic essence of the Time Lords, it owns the copyright to a set of words and iconography. It would make us a ridiculously useless Wiki in many respects if we started going a route of "legal entity"="page". No one person owns everything on The Master, or even The Doctor — individual events, and individual likenesses, are owned by various writers and actors, even though the overall character is owned by the Beeb.

I believe what goes on a singular page should reflect "what sources prove corresponds to a single in-universe entity". We have valid sources showing that the names "Gallifrey" and "the Homeworld" are talking about a single planet. Therefore, we should only have the one page.

But look, I don't have to justify all this to you. The treatment of FP concepts, and of "the Homeworld" specifically, was front and center in the original inclusion debate and its "what-do-we-do-now" aftermath. Unless you have new evidence why we should revise our coverage of the Homeworld and of other major concepts, Tardis:You are bound by current policy.

There is room for discussion about Auteur and Kelsey Hooper. But please, read through the FP inclusion debate and the "Talking about the FP debate" thread, then come back with facts about the Homeworld case not mentioned there. Only then, if I've got my Wiki policies right, are you allowed to call for us to change our coverage of it. And frankly I don't see how it would improve the Wiki to do so.