Talk:Warp Hustler (series)

Appearance?
I'm genuinely gobsmacked at this. Are we seriously considering illustrations as an appearance? Have I missed the thread that approved this? How utterly bizarre and detrimental to this Wiki. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Many illustrations constitute a work of fiction unto themselves — something I completely agree with — which was established at Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1. I suggest you read through that closing post. 17:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I cannot get behind this. Such lack of thought went into this decision. How does a small cameo appearance, in this case Paul Hanley's character Janice, on an Iris Wildthyme book cover suddenly validate an entire series that has nothing to do with Doctor Who? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The series has something to do with Doctor Who in that it's a Doctor Who spin off. The character Janice, who debuted on the cover of a Doctor Who anthology, is getting a spin off, therefore we cover it. Aquanafrahudy  📢  17:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Eh... There's no precedent for this, and hence no practice, and policy is also interpretable to a degree, so there's no absolutes here, as far as I can tell. But I agree that this series doesn't really deserve coverage for the character appearing on a cover alone. Saying that, I feel this discussion should be moved over to Talk:Warp Hustler (series). And I mean literally move-the-page, as this discussion will make as much, nay more, sense there. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  17:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, there's precedent of characters debuting in covered sources going on to have spinoffs and being covered, it just hasn't happened with an illustration before. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  17:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * To my mind, valid coverage would be perfectly fair to suggest if authorial intent were clear that this is "an Iris spin-off" (or better yet explicitly DWU), even if the original appearance of the spun-off character is minor. But the BTS quotes here just don't seem to support this. Hanley explicitly doesn't consider the cover to have been Janice's debut — just a time-displaced crossover. The relevant precedent here would thus seem to be the original decision on the Sleeze Brothers. (And granted that's since been partially overturned, but due to factors specific to that series; I think the basic proposition does make some sense.)


 * I think any discussion of this is premature, anyway. Even if the illustrations can be considered works of fiction in their own right, I would feel much better discussing this with the actual Warp Hustler #1 in hand. If Iris makes a cameo in turn, for example, or some other indicator of intended DWUness, that would change things. But the current state of the evidence is just too little for me. I propose that we move all the pages created thus far to a sandbox-namespace, sit on it, and then hold a proper inclusion/exclusion debate after the actual first issue of the comic comes out and some of us actually read it. Right now we're just reading tea leaves. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose they did say there'd be cameos iirc, not sure what cameos, though. Could feasibly be something to provide a stronger link. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  17:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In principle we ought to at least cover it, as it is technically a Doctor Who spin off. If we don't think that Hanley intends it to be a Doctor Who spin off, then it ought to at least be covered, if as invalid. It does, after all, pass the first three rules (albeit by a hair's breadth). Aquanafrahudy  📢  17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. (This isn't a euphemism for "I don't think so", I mean I'm genuinely unsure.) This is sort of the mirror situation to the "small DWU easter eggs in a story that doesn't pass Rule 4" question alluded to at Talk:Guinevere One. And again I think this sort of… "doesn't pass Rule 2 by authorial intent", if that's a coherent concept? Insofar as the purported debut is not held to have been a debut by its creator. But this is all very untested ground. As I said, I think it's best to hold everything for now, and have a proper thread hashing it out once we have more facts in hand. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought the question was "small DWU Easter eggs in a story that does pass rule 4"? Aquanafrahudy  📢  18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If this Janice character actually appeared in a story contained within Wildtymes on the 22 I would be in full support covering any subsequent spin-off she appeared in. However, she literally just had an unnamed cameo on the front cover of the book (was her name even created then or has Paul Hanley just reused a random character design?). DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Paul Hanley's quote on the matter suggests that she was very much intended to be Janice, but that this is just because Warp Hustler has been in development for a while, and so it was a sort of private-joke to himself to give her a cameo before anybody knew the significance of it. However, this is the same quote in which he reaffirms that Issue 1 will be the character's actual "first appearance" as far as he's concerned.

"Fun fact: though Warp #1's her first appearance, Janice's "Billy-Pilgriming through the Motherverse" means you can also find her hiding on the cover of an Iris Wildthyme book from 5 years ago ("Wild Thymes on the 22"), between Napoleon and Paul Magrs."


 * It's a fairly common practice. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hanley's comment suggests anything of the sort, but I guess it can be interpreted either way. It seems more likely that he decided to reuse the character design and, as it fit with the narrative of the comic, he said "that must have been one of her wibbly wobbly timey wimey appearances!", rather than he's been planning this for over five years. Perhaps it is even why he reused a character design so that he could make the time-hopping comparison? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find that unlikely in context: literally everybody else on that cover is a specific cameo/reference, as is typical of Hanley's work. And Janice isn't towards the back either, she's one of the most clearly-seen character. It'd be very strange for a single character on that entire cover to have not been intended as having special significance at the time, when everybody else is "someone". Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is possible he included a figure that he could return to and one day include elsewhere with that interesting extra bit of lore "she appeared on the cover of an anthology in 2018!". But I don't think he knew her name was Janice and I don't think he knew she would appear in this series. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by the whole illustrations being appearances thing, so did Janice debut in the book cover? Even though Hanley stated it was not an appearance and she has yet to make her first appearance (Warp Hustler #1). Did Martha Jones make her first ever appearance in the Made of Steel novel or the book cover. Honestly, it is laughable how poorly thought out this is. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  21:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I only made the cover of Wild Thymes on the 22 a source page because the cover illustration is a work of fiction unto itself, depicting events shown nowhere in the book itself. Made of Steel, on the other hand, doesn't have such a cover, so it would almost certainly never be a source in-and-of-itself. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How are the covers in any way different? How is Wild Thymes on the 22 a work of fiction but Made of Steel isn't? Was Made of Steel actually a photo portraying real-life events? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  21:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Corrie, would you like to make a thread reconsidering this? I've personally no objection. Can't speak for anyone else. Najawin ☎  21:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like the thread reopened, but I don't think I'm the best person to do so as I'm completely baffled that I don't even understand the ruling/former discussion. The closing post sounded like gibberish to me. It was change for the sake of change in my opinion. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  21:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It was not. There were a variety of works that blurred the lines between narrative and non-narrative fiction (See TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic, and very very arguably The Book of the War.) The thread tried to resolve the fact that it was becoming increasingly difficult to separate them in our wikifying. Najawin ☎  21:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The rules should have been left as they were and it continue to be a case by case process because look at the shambles we're in now. Illustrations with one quote from an unreleased work being considered separate stories/appearances? What the heck?! Doctor Who's official social media posts tons of captioned images a day! DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  21:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no grounds whatsoever to reopen a thread on non-narrative fiction per se. But a thread could certainly be started on whether covering original covers as sources, under the title of the book, is proper. I don't think such things pass the standard for default coverage set out by the closing post, which was that in general, only illustrations that are clearly delineated as works in their own right, usually by having their own title, get to have pages made about them by default. It could easily be argued that a book cover is, like, the very opposite of such a "standalone" graphic piece. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reopening discussion on illustrations as a whole might also be doable. But I'm very skeptical of a relitigation of the thread, even if I don't mind it happening. Najawin ☎  21:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but the closing post uses words that are barely even heard of in the English language ("abrogated"). It looks like it is trying hard to be sophisticated, but that isn't what this Wiki needs. It needs simple (dumbed down even) rules and rulings that everyone can follow. This isn't meant to come across as a personal attack, but I've seen you Scrooge being challenged with your academic wordings before. If you are on that wavelength, great, but not everyone else is. I couldn't make heads nor tales of that ruling. In my opinion it should actually be altered to actually consider the reader rather than the potential ego of the poster (again, trying not to offend!). DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  21:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Normally I'd agree that book covers aren't unique works of fiction unto themselves, but the Hanley IW are a different beast. All of them depict in-universe events, and are often used on many many pages given the amount of in-universe information that they contain (there are no floating heads in the sky here!) but are awkwardly cited to the anthology itself; giving these covers separate pages makes their coverage much easier and is also helpful when elements on the cover but not in any of the stories in the anthology itself. The cover of Iris Wildthyme of Mars is a veritable menagerie of cameos, basically featuring every single pop culture Martian out there, so having a page just to list every different Martian would be great for coverage. 21:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh this takes me back. I'm getting nostalgic for some old forum discussions, aren't you Scrooge? Anyhow - I think "abrogated" has a clear meaning from the context. What would you like clarification on in that post Corrie? Najawin ☎  21:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Najawin: Regarding the idea that "reopening discussion on illustrations as a whole might also be doable"… I mean, not without new evidence, or at the very least some specific novel argument. And at that point it becomes a vacuous statement insofar as anything can be discussed if such things are procured.


 * @DWCorrieFan: This seems like a complaint against the wording of the closing post, not against the actual policy in and of itself. And I think when dealing with finnicky policy such as this, actually "dumbing it down" would be a terrible idea. I generally strive to bold important bits, and offer summaries of what changes in practice; the more elaborate discussions are there for those who want them, but aren't supposed to be essential to implementing the policy. (Also, dictionaries/Google exist.)


 * @Epsilon: This is a fair point, yes — the sheer wealth of content in Hanley's covers that has no easy venue for coverage if we don't give these covers discrete pages. But still — there are strong arguments against, and it wasn't quite within the scope of the original ruling. So if we're going to get into this, I think a thread would be warranted. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue that we didn't really discuss them in particular could be sufficient with a real argument - not just "but this is madness"? But I'm just spitballing. Certainly I'm not convinced with what we have here. Najawin ☎  22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't it be both? I can barely read it let alone understand it, but the stuff I have seen stemming from it (that was being accepted until I called it out) has baffled me even more. Users shouldn't have to use dictionaries or Google to understand a policy, you should know your audience. I can guarantee most people have never heard the word "abrogated" and there was no reason you couldn't have used simpler words like "overturned"/"overruled".


 * I want clarification on this work of fiction lark. If these illustration pages, featuring single quotes from work that hasn't even been released yet, aren't valid why haven't they been pounced on and deleted like my page was the other day? As for Paul Hanley's covers, what makes them different from anyone else's? It is all very well and good for Epilson to call him a "different beast" but I fail to see anything innovative other than him shoving a bunch of characters together on a cover. There's no story, there's no narrative, there's nothing to create a story/appearance page for that couldn't be contained in the background information section of the published work. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I challenge either Scrooge or Epsilon to name one thing that can be mentioned on a separate page for the Wildthymes on the 22 cover that couldn't be mentioned in the background information of the anthology page. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * People. Save the cover discussion for the thread. This discussion already shifted focus once, let's not go further astray!


 * In any case it's not as though we don't still have a problem. Things that spin off from an invalid work are still theoretically within our purview, under normal procedure, so whether the Wild Thyme cover is valid is sort of orthogonal to whether we cover Warp Hustler or not. How do people feel about my proposal to temporarily move everything to a sandbox namespace, and then wait until somebody actually reads the comic or we otherwise know more, and then having a specific thread about it? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support getting everything moved. The only issue I have is what to do to Janice (Wild Thymes on the 22). DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  22:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no story, there's no narrative, there's nothing to create a story/appearance page for that couldn't be contained in the background information section of the published work.
 * I don't think this is asking for a clarification of the closing post, so much as trying to ask us for arguments for its conclusions. But the arguments are in the thread! What would you like me to clarify, not what would you like me to defend? Najawin ☎  22:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, saying "There's no story, there's no narrative, there's nothing to create a story/appearance page for that couldn't be contained in the background information section of the published work." displays a complete misunderstanding of Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1 as the whole point is that something that is not narrative can be valid. How did you miss that?! 23:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So both Scrooge and Epsilon were unable to answer my question, interesting. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  23:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are perfectly capable of answering the question; or at least I am. However, as I have said, this is off-topic for this page, and should only be discussed in a dedicated thread. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I also do not appreciate that accusatory inference. 23:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I welcome the accusatory inference, I get enough of it elsewhere on the site that I've just resigned myself to it. Go ahead. But I wish to stress that it's not really the place for that discussion, and I'd much prefer if you read the thread first so I didn't waste my time if the issue could be explained by the thread. Cheers. Najawin ☎  23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)