User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20170618182814/@comment-4028641-20170618234333

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20170618182814/@comment-4028641-20170618234333 NateBumber wrote: Amorkuz wrote:

In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated: ... That is exactly what I was trying to explain. Am I misunderstanding the quote? "Give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species."

- CzechOut

A proper name in the STU ... and a "behind the scenes" note saying it wasn't named by the story. So if this reasoning were applied to Martin Luther King, the references in Remembrance of the Daleks and The Lie of the Land would be included in the main body of the article, with a note in the Behind the Scenes saying

"Martin Luther King was not explicitly identified in Remembrance of the Daleks or The Lie of the Land. However, it is unmistakably his voice and image."

What am I missing here?

Precisely. The main suggestion and descision of that thread was that it was fine to use Star Trek terms, even if they weren't mentioned in the comic. I believe there's a sequence where we see a dozen-or-so species converted into Cybermen, and I'm not sure it's ever said "Oh, look, it's the GLGLGL from Season 4 episode 3." But we still use the correct species titles.

The idea is that even if a Phaser was never called a Phaser, we could still make a page called Phaser and call it a Phaser because it's a Phaser.