User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200511054726/@comment-6032121-20200512211517

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200511054726/@comment-6032121-20200512211517 Chubby Potato wrote: This one is inconsistent. Examples: The "northern bloke with big ears" in The Kingmaker links to the obvious Ninth Doctor, but The Mistress (The Choice) has her own page despite fitting Romana II's description and being played by Lalla Ward. So we should decide on things like that. The difference, I think, is that the Mistress has a significant part in her stories, whereas the Northern Bloke is just a brief nod. We know by the Margaret Thatcher principle that it should logically be the Ninth Doctor, and it wouldn't mean The Kingmaker would be in breach of copyright in a legally-enforceable level if it were because tiny one-line references aren't prosecutable.

So we get to say "a bloke with big ears was glimpsed (AUDIO: The Kingmaker)", though not mentioning the Ninth Doctor by name in that particular sentence.

Similarly, I haven't actually listened to them myself, but if at any point in the Adventures in a Pocket Universe, K9 was to reference his old time-traveling master in a single line, we'd be able to link to the Doctor "underneath," because other sources tell us that in the events to which K9 is referring in a non-prosecutable way, it was the Doctor who filled the part he is describing. But if a character who'd warrant paragraphs of ==Biography to himself appeared in the series as "the Time-Travel Master", then that wouldn't work anymore.

A lot has been said on this topic over the years (on this thread, for example) and I think it's a pretty well-honed system. It would only harm the Wiki, IMO, to start over and try and make a one-rule-fits-all on this matter.

…With all that said, this doesn't especially seem to fall within the purview of this thread IMO?