User talk:Bongolium500

Re: The Daft Dimension
A pleasure to see a new user going into such details and minutiae of dabbing policy! It's worth noting that the Daft Dimension naming scheme is identical to the one used for the Quinn & Howett Doctor Who? stories, which is massive enough that even if it isn't currently recorded in policy, the way of translating "Doctor Who? (DWM 103 comic story)" into a "(Doctor Who? 103)" dab term can, by now, be considered "current policy" in th T:BOUND sense of the term.

Beyond that, I'm sure people like User:Borisashton will have an opinion on this issue, so you'd best copy over the text of your message to Talk:The Daft Dimension so that more people can participate. I think the current way is fine, personally — IIRC Doctor Who? strips aren't numbered, although I'm not sure if Daft Dimension ones are, so it's easier for readers wanting to track down the story to have the number of the issue, rather than the number of the story itself within the series, since that number is not present anywhere in the actual stories. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the speedy response. As I mentioned, I am new here and so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to reply here or on your talk page. I hadn't even thought to put this on Talk: The Daft Dimension so I will do that right away. them you. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  20:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hm, yeah, usually one should reply on the talk page of the other fellow. Quite alright not to have figured this out on the first try, though, don't worry!Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

T:VS elucidation
Hi! Just spotted User:Bongolium500/Sandbox 3. There are a few points on which you say you are unsure, so let me clarify: Also, although that would in theory be a valid grounding on which to rule it out IMO, Can I Help You? is not currently deemed to be invalid on Rule 1 grounds; after all, we do dab it as a "(short story)" still. Rather, it is provisionally invalid for reasons similar to the Dalek Wars short stories — it's suspected that being too tied in with a "merchandise tie-in" makes it fail Rule 4 for similar reasons to commercials. It was due for a proper inclusion debate when the UCP mishap happened. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A work which passes Rules 2 and 3 (commercially licensed by a DWU copyright-holder, and officially released), but fails Rule 1 (being a story) and Rule 4 (being meant to be set in the DWU), would be covered-as-invalid. A non-narrative parody gamebook, for example. The Universe Marathon may count: it's licensed and released, but it's a parody and has a branching narrative, so it's invalid.
 * A work with passes Rules 2 (licensed) and 4 (meant to be set in the DWU), but fails Rule 1 (being a story) and Rule 3 (having been officially released)… Or a work which passes Rule 2 (licensed) but fails the other three little rules… That depends on what you mean by "failing Rule 3". Obviously T:SPOIL applies to these things, as it does to everything. But if we had information about a cancelled licensed, non-narrative Doctor Who work, then I think we would have an unprod page on that work. I don't know that the case has ever come up, but in theory we could.

Daft Dimension numbering
Please do not change the citations in the (COMIC: The Daft Dimension 477) format. This is used on hundreds of pages, potentially thousands, across the Wiki to efficiently cite individual installments of Doctor Who? and The Daft Dimension, and even if I agreed that these citations aren't really proper, T:BOUND would apply for such a wide-ranging change. Really, this goes hand in hand with the dabbing issue we discussed two months ago (see above). Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)