User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-121.45.54.78-20130925110520/@comment-31010985-20191120090522

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-121.45.54.78-20130925110520/@comment-31010985-20191120090522 Chubby Potato wrote: And then there's the matter of implied appearances. This also heavily depends on the type of media (e.g. there are no parts played, visuals, or audio to reference in a prose story). An example I had trouble with is: in Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen, there is a scene in which Romana has a conversation with the British Prime Minister. It is heavily implied to be Margaret Thatcher, and this would fit with the time setting, but never explicitly said. Do we assume it is Thatcher, who it certainly is intended to be, or make a new page (I suppose Prime Minister (Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen)) because it isn’t said specifically? When is Krikkitmen set exactly? The problem I see with implied appearances is that two appearances that reveal the same amount of information could be treated differently. This is because it is my understanding that the appearance should be explicit but not necessarily from the story of the appearance.

Father's Day and Tooth and Claw place our in-universe knowledge of Thatcher's term from 1979 to 1987. So if Krikkitmen was set between those dates the appearance would be allowed as the British Prime Minister from 1980 (for example) is unambiguously Thatcher according to the DWU. However, if Krikkitmen is set in 1989 then the appearance wouldn't be technically be allowed according to our strict current policy as the PM from 1988 to 1995 is unknown in the DWU.