Talk:Ceol

Ceol = Kelsey
I feel like this goes way beyond "heavy suggestion". Apart from her original name being Kelsey, and clearly being modelled on Kelsey's childhood likeness, and having a childhood friend called Maria who moved to America, one of her previous names is literally Sojourner Hooper-Agogô. How much more explicit could this possibly need to be? WaltK ☎  19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The pages were initially one and the same until a few months ago when then-new admin Scrooge MacDuck split them without barely any discussion from any user other than DiSoRiEnTeD1. If he had given the topic an actual discussion, as this is not an uncontroversial case, I could've expressed how very opposed I am to the pages being separate.


 * As it stands, these pages should be immediately merged again, as then it should be discussed to split them, not vice versa. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh for pity's sake, Epsilon, you were there for the discussion. The discussion, which was extremely long and tiresome, was the "Separating FP concepts" thread, at the end of which User:SOTO reasserted what our policy in these matters is: we merge concepts with their "off-brand" counterparts when, and only when, a source licensed to use both has equated them.


 * @WaltK is obviously correct in saying that had these stories been licensed to use the original Kelsey, we would merge them in a heartbeat. But because of the licensing issue, we do not. It's the same reason Auteur and Astrolabus remain different pages. And in the meantime we can only acknowledge the clues of identity as "implication" rather than "overt statement", because if we make the claim that the character is in fact Kelsey/Astrolabus, then we would kinda be making the claim that the story fails Rule Two of T:VS.


 * So User:Epsilon the Eternal is quite wrong in claiming that a new discussion should be had about merging Ceol and Kelsey, let alone that the two pages should be remerged in the meantime. This isn't a matter of this page individually, but rather of a wide-ranging policy about how to handle "cases like this". A discussion about this entire policy would need to be had to change it, and it'd be a very thorny one indeed. With all the drama in the "Separating FP elements" thread, I'm not sure I want to condone such a thread being opened unless the OP had a specific and workable proposal to put forward.


 * But if you want to do anything, that's what would need doing. In the meantime, T:BOUND applies. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ...that's not what I recall. I remember the closing post basically saying that there would be a further discussion about these pages if DiSoRiEnTeD1 was willing to open it, which never happened. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Apart from that though, fair 'nuff Scrooge. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

SOTO also restated the "Homeworld treatment" applies to these pages and brought up Ceol/Auteur in particular. Neither of which qualify for the "Homeworld treatment". Scrooge is quite right. We'd need a new discussion as to whether the "Homeworld treatment" needs to be changed into something more lenient. Najawin ☎  19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, when do we know when something is licensed? Does it have to be mentioned in the indicia? WaltK ☎  20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)