Talk:Winning Designs (feature)

I thought we didn't cover non-fiction?... Aquanafrahudy  📢   🖊️  09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't non-fiction! (The Master and the Doctor don't actually exist, y'know.) Rather, it's a typical example of a source that's because of the current Rule 1: it conveys a lot of fictional information, but it's mixed in with a real-world perspective. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Your position here to me seems fundamentally contradictory. You say that it is a work of fiction, but you admit that it is written from a real world perspective. This is not fiction. Never in a million years is this fictional. It's written from a real-world perspective, and talks entirely about real-life events that happened in real life. "The competition winner said that in the fictional universe which she devised the Doctor did so and so" as opposed to "The Doctor did so and so". Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  10:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It conveys fictional information, presented at fictional. That the text, as it were, breaks the fourth wall a lot, does not make the fictional nuggets contained within not-fictional, and they're clearly the main attraction here (unlike a single off-hand bit of fiction in the middle of an interview that's mostly about production circumstances, say — though that could still be cited on an page!), which is why I don't think the  tag is the right move. It's mostly fiction, there's just too much non-fiction mixed in for it to pass Rule 1. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okaaay, my entire understanding of rule 1 has been fundamentally turned turtle. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  10:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)