Talk:Walking in Eternity

Executive Action
Would anyone be willing to open a forum debate regarding valid coverage for Executive Action? Marvel has since endorsed the elements introduced in this story. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this makes sense. It's never been proposed, let alone permitted, for fanfics to gain valid coverage simply because their events were later referenced/endorsed in a valid source; otherwise we'd be giving valid coverage to Time Rift and the like. The fact that Marvel referenced the story is noteworthy, but it doesn't give it a claim to validity. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the only reason for valid coverage was because it had been referenced later. Lance Parkin is a close friend of Alan Moore, it seems to me that it is a no-brainer that he sought out Alan's consent to use all of his characters (Wardog, Cobweb, Zeitgeist, and Fascination). Aside from those the only other elements are a single reference to Gallifreyans and Gallifrey which, if the recent ruling about small references not invalidating the whole work is to be believed, I don't see what is stopping this story from being valid? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hanging Chads is another story that could have a reasonable coverage case. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  06:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Re: Executive Action: interesting thought. I wouldn't call it a "no-brainer" — I tend to think that if Moore had authorised it there would have been a disclaimer to that effect. But it's worth a thread, I suppose.


 * What's Hanging Chads 's claim? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You have an active tendency to misquote people. I did not call Hanging Chads a no-brainer, as is suggested in your last comment. There's no interest in me replying to someone with an argument if said person doesn't respond after that (as you did after I posted my argument for Executive Action). The comment I've made is showing my support if anyone else ever wants to start a discussion, I'll add my arguments there. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, you were replying to Executive Action. I feel like your reply could have been above Hanging Chads. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  16:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Corrie, if nobody else thinks your argument is a slam dunk, or nobody else really cares, they're not necessarily gonna make the thread for you. Be the change you want to see on the wiki. Najawin ☎  16:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I am not present in every single discussion on this site and find it hard to bother myself to actively engage for the most part, so I do not think I am the best possible person to create the thread. If nobody else cares enough it will simply go unchanged. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Didn't we discuss earlier how egregiously wrong this characterization was? Talk:AAAGH! (DWA 248 comic story), I believe? Regardless, since you've read the story, and you care about the story, two overlapping criteria that I don't think many others share, you seem to be high up on the short list! Najawin ☎  17:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, you discussed how egregiously wrong it was. I have still held that belief which continues to be proven every passing thread where you find it necessarily to pop up and backseat moderate by patronisingly telling other users what to do. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe T:FAITH applies. And, of course, you're welcome to go through the various talk page discussions in recent changes and see what percentage I'm currently involved in. Najawin ☎  20:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)