Talk:The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series)

Spin-off inclusion
Why have the spin-offs being given pages when there aren’t pages for the actual stories? PoolsideJazz ☎  23:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As only the series itself was ruled out of this Wiki, and many are spin-offs of both Magrs' Doctor Who and Iris Wildthyme series, as well as Brenda and Effie, and they do also contain pre-existing DWU elements, making them worthy of coverage. Epsilon  📯 📂 23:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And fyi, the original Brenda and Effie inclusion debate was severely botched, missing out lots of authorial intent and dozens of legal connections to the DWU. So, when we get some sort of forums back, you can bet that there will be a new inclusion debate, which will be done properly. Epsilon  📯 📂 23:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Come again? Could you clarify what you mean when you say
 * the series itself was ruled out of this Wiki
 * Do you mean it was ruled as covered but invalid, or not to be covered, or something else entirely? I'm not quite sure what you mean to say here. Najawin ☎  23:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to be covered, as at the time, it was decided it was too tenuously connected to the DWU, if you can believe that. Epsilon  📯 📂 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The ruling against this series being valid naturally extends to its spin-offs... I don’t understand why they have suddenly been made? PoolsideJazz ☎  23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When was the ruling made? The Fellowship of Ink has existed on this site for going on four years. RadMatter ☎  23:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin here. Please let me get a word in edgewise without being stuck in edit conflicts, you guys are as fast as Weeping Angels!
 * User:PoolsideJazz, we cover the short stories under discussion for the same reason we cover Kaldor City as a valid source, but not Blake's 7: it's simultaneously a Blake's 7 spin-off and a spin-off of The Robots of Death, and the latter is what we care about. Also, these things aren't labeled as Brenda & Effie Mysteries spin-offs in a merchandising way; the term is here used in the sense of "concepts which debuted in B&E appear in these stories". Neatly-defined family trees of spin-offs isn't really how Magrs works.
 * Also, as Epsilon highlights (albeit perhaps a tad crudely), it is weird and idiosyncratic that the Wiki does not cover the original Brenda & Effie books in some capacity. The original inclusion debate they got was fairly short, rather unenthusiastic from all parties involved, and failed to mention a fact now present on the Wiki page: every book contained a myriad of licensed DWU concepts, rather than Panda merely appearing in one later book. It reached the conclusion, which sort of made sense at the time based on the scarce available evidence, but clearly misguided in hindsight, that this series was not to be covered, any more than Sherlock Holmes.
 * But that is, again, very weird for a series with such a plethora of licensed DWU concept; by all rights we should, at the very least, cover it as invalid. So even though the current setup does make sense by policy, you can, either way expect this anomaly to dissolve in the near future, in all likelihood. Really, the procedural issue that we need a new inclusion debate, and the lack of a Forum to have it in, are the only reasons we haven't already redeemed the Brenda & Effie books; as soon as we have a venue in which to officially take that decision, I expect they'll be a no-brainer for coverage, and most probably covered as valid, at that. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there is some confusion on this point, I will spell the current situation more clearly: the existing policy is that The Brenda and Effie Mysteries, specifically, is not to be covered on this Wiki to any extent greater than the overview page. The ruling does not apply to "the characters of Brenda and Effie", but to the series. This is similar to the situation with Señor 105 or Vienna Salvatori: their solo series have been deemed out of bounds, but new stories which feature Vienna or the Señor alongside other licensed DWU concepts are valid until proven otherwise. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the connections, I clearly agree they should be covered as valid, but I would like my objection to be noted as a procedural issue to the current contents of the page until that new inclusion debate is issued, preferring it to be closer to the (lol) Vienna page. I fully expect this to be ignored, but I just want my procedural qualms noted. Najawin ☎  00:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From your comment I couldn't really grasp what issue you have with the page, is it the infoboxes? RadMatter ☎  00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. It's a little too verbose and gets too close to "actual coverage masquerading as non coverage". Obviously it should be covered, but I don't like the procedure. #KantLife. Najawin ☎  00:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still failing to grasp the issue (sorry!). I think that the templates perfectly show which licensed DWU characters appear while also being clear that the story is not valid. RadMatter ☎  00:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither page for 666 Charing Cross Road nor Mrs Danby and Company show any link to the wider DWU apart from a minor reference to a Magrs character that first appeared in To the Devil - a Diva!. If, as you say, a full-blown appearance by Panda as a main character was too tedious a connection, surely this is too tedious also? PoolsideJazz ☎  00:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the Vienna page have such treatment?
 * Re: the Panda situation, I don't think Scrooge was endorsing the original debate, merely explaining how people at the time felt. That doesn't mean he agrees with it. Najawin ☎  00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s the ruling though... it doesn’t really matter if someone agrees or not. The far greater links in the Brenda and Effie series (even when the only knowledge was a Panda appearance), Vienna, Baker’s End, and the like, were deemed too insignificant - yet these new pages only boast a minor reference as their main hook to the DWU. PoolsideJazz ☎  00:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for Vienna, I think that series overview page should be made more like this page, not vice versa. The level of detail here is phenomenal, and honestly, just highlights how bad it is for this series not to be covered on the Wiki. Epsilon  📯 📂 00:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as for Baker's End, that series too needs a new inclusion debate, as lots of info was missed out. Epsilon  📯 📂 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Epsilon, a poor page elsewhere should not condemn a more thorough page. RadMatter ☎  00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, only the Panda connection was deemed insignificant, hence why a new discussion can be started when forums return, as there's new evidence. You don't blanketly invalidate/refuse to cover a series, you do so based on the evidence presented, and I note that focusing instead on these other works of Magrs is very likely a T:POINT issue. Epsilon, I'm pro coverage of both series. I have procedural issues, nothing more. When this inclusion debate emerges I will support coverage, and whenever the inevitable second Vienna debate emerges, I will support coverage. But I don't think that we should be attempting to "pseudo cover" the series on this wiki when we've been told we're not to cover it. It's a matter of principle, not one of whether or not I think we as a wiki benefit from this series. I realize it makes no difference, I just want my hesitance noted. Najawin ☎  00:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no pseudo-coverage. The information included is no different to that which should be found on each and every one of the licensed character's behind the scenes sections, but collected neatly within a template. RadMatter ☎  00:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter does not imply the former. Najawin ☎  00:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with RadMatter, it's not pseudo-coverage, it's just detailed; Me, and other users clearly, are genuinely passionate for the works of Magrs, and we put effort into what we do. As it happens, there is a sh*t of perfectly acceptable info to be documented about B&E, and currently, pretty much the only way for us to do that is with this page. As for The Fellowship of Ink, 666 Charing Cross Road, and Mrs Danby and Company, they do have pre-existing DWU elements, ergo, they're worthy of coverage. And do remember that we do not have working forums right now, so it's not like we can have an inclusion debate for these spin-offs, which let me remind y'all, are equally spin-offs of Magrs' DWU which are covered by this Wiki as much as they are B&E spin-offs. Epsilon  📯 📂 00:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Epsilon. I realize you're passionate about this subject matter. I appreciate your passion and your effort, and have spoken highly of it in the past. I have even recommended you to a certain YouTuber we both like on the subject, though I think he found you independently. That does not negate my qualms about procedure that I fully expected to be ignored and merely wanted to put on the record. As for the objection that this is just detailed and thus not "pseudo-coverage", you've listed every part of the franchise, with names, authors and covers, that's coverage enough for me - and it's hard to argue that you're merely trying to list the DWU connective tissue when you're covering things like the audios and not discussing what DWU elements are in them. I'm not saying they lack DWU connective tissue, mind you, but that their place on this page can't be to show connections between the franchise and the DWU. It must instead be merely to comment on what precisely is contained within this particular franchise, which is coverage. Najawin ☎  01:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The connective tissue for the audios is mentioned? RadMatter ☎  01:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Three of the four. Why are we discussing the fourth? (But fair point, I got turned around and meant the Anthology). Najawin ☎  01:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The anthology very likely contains connective tissue too, but information about said stories is scarce (as was originally the case for the series as a whole) and that section is open for others to freely develop themselves. RadMatter ☎  01:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be silly not to include everything, as it's probable most of it contains something we've missed, as sometimes, things aren't all that overt. And by the way, Najawin, your words are appreciated. Epsilon  📯 📂 01:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Me again.
 * As I have said before, the decision that we do not cover Brenda and Effie as a whole was made irrespective of the presence of DWU characters in it; and indeed the thread acknowledged that The Bride That Time Forgot may be deserving of an individual inclusion debate as a crossover, which simply never materialised, even if the rest of the series was to be deemed out-of-bounds. In no way does it constitute precedent that appearances by other DWU characters in non-B&E-branded stories can be "too tenuous". @PoolsideJazz, much as Najawin said might be the case, I'd caution you to lay off that line of argument lest you fall afoul of the spirit of T:POINT.
 * However… @User:Najawin, I'm actually not against shortening this page for the moment if anybody else agrees. It's not as though the work will be lost; when (and it's more of a when than an if) we officially decide to give Brenda and Effie more coverage, we can just go back to the old revision. I would support removing the overly detailed information not mentioning DWU connections for the time being, in the spirit of proper procedure.
 * Also, a point of terminology: basically, "covered" in Wiki-policy-talk means we have in-universe page about something's fictional contents. Obviously, in plain English, to even have the page The Brenda and Effie Mysteries (series), or, for that matter, Star Trek, is to give those series some "coverage", but that's not how we use the term. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would want the style of coverage to be kept here. It's already incredibly comprehensive, showing that nearly every story has some license connecting it to the DWU. I think it greatly enhances the page. Please do not remove anything, is the short of it! Epsilon  📯 📂 01:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The thread has admittedly moved on a bit since I started writing this, but it's my stance that Najawin's comment was completely reasonable position and it makes zero sense to antagonize them. It's a simple and indisputable fact that on our comparable pages for invalid series, including but not limited to Vienna, we've never taken the step of listing the invalid stories and their connections to valid stories. Personally I think this page is great and we should be more proactive about collecting "Behind the scenes", as I've advocated on Talk:Charity publication, but the fact remains that there hasn't been precedent for such a thing until now. That said, if we can look at a slightly different scenario of "invalid anthologies which nonetheless contain valid short stories," such as Decalog 5: Wonders and Señor 105 & the Elements of Danger, we do have ample precedent for listing the titles and authors of invalid stories, regardless of whether or not they have clear connections to the DWU. Considering that none of the Brenda and Effie stories are valid (yet), this isn't a direct application of precedent, but it at least demonstrates that merely listing a story's title and author on a series overview page is incomparable to the amount of coverage we afford invalid stories like, say, Death Comes to Time or Doctor Who: Battles in Time, which in contrast receive pages for individual stories and even individual characters like Minister of Chance. – n8 (☎) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you accusing people of attempting to antagonize User:Najawin? That certainly hasn't been a goal for me - and makes me uncomfortable continuing a discussion if things are going to be misinterpreted so severely! RadMatter ☎  01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer, as a matter of procedure, the page to be shortened, either to just keep something in the vein of:
 * Entry in the Series : What elements it uses
 * Or
 * [List of all things the entire series uses here]
 * But I don't think such a thing is imperative, given the context. This entire discussion was more me defending my desire to go on the record than actually insisting that such a thing happen, I consider this a molehill, not a mountain. Najawin ☎  01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, @NateBumber, if you'll review Tardis:Valid sources, you'll find that you're using the terminology slightly wrong; The Brenda and Effie Mysteries or Vienna are not in fact "invalid sources", but rather "not covered" — i.e., not sources of any kind, whether it be for pages or not.
 * But yeah, I think Najawin and youhave the right of it in terms of what the precedent/current practice is. And we're not about to list every Star Trek story, complete with authorship, at Star Trek, so in the spirit of T:NPOV, we shouldn't give better treatment to Brenda & Effie in this regard.
 * Although also, yes, as User:Shambala108 said before the Forums blew up, it's discourteous and largely counterproductive to assume (hostile) intent on the part of people who haven't stated any such, outside of a formal T:NPA complaint. Please refrain from that, Nate. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: why can't develop procedure? Why can't it evolve to allow series overview pages to contain more info? It's clearly more beneficial, this style of coverage. And as for Star Trek, that series is almost wholly unrelated to the DWU. As evidenced by this page, B&E is not. Epsilon</tt>  📯 📂 01:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your Star Trek comparison has helped me to understand your point better, Scrooge.
 * I think that the anthology section that I added - which does not have any DWU-related information as of right now - could be undone. However, I think that the rest of the page should remain intact for the time being. There were many people in support of the table idea at Talk:Charity publication, and as there are no forums and this has already been implemented I think that it would be wrong to remove it on precedent (especially as so many were in favour). RadMatter ☎  01:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Politely, do you think the wiki is best served by developing procedure for non-covered series based on a series that is likely to become covered as soon as the forums are open again and our desire to apply it to a series that almost everyone here thinks should be covered on this wiki? Or should we just take the bitter pill that this particular page is less complete until the inclusion debate clearly renders it valid and we then come back to this issue? Najawin ☎  01:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Well, Najawin said the same thing as I did, but I'd already typed this out, and I thought of a neat metaphor, so.)
 * @Epsilon: well, there's the thing: Brenda and Effie is entirely the wrong case on the basis of which to rework the default format of Category:Real world series with DWU connections, since, precisely due to the extremely plentiful relations it has to already-valid DWU works, we here are all counting on it being validated in the near future. Star Trek is a much more accurate example of the kind of pages we should expect to exist in this category of pages.
 * Proposing we change the default procedure for pages like this because of Brenda & Effie's idiosyncrasies is not unlike proposing that actual ducks all change their beauty standards to accommodate the Ugly Duckling. The solution here is to recognise that the Ugly Duckling ain't a duck, but rather a swan, even if we might temporarily be forced to keep it in the same pond as the ducks for lack of a better solution. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Brenda and Effie wasn't the case which first brought up the reworking of that format. The discussion at Talk:Charity publication was the first to raise this idea (to my knowledge) but the discussion has not progressed in three months, after yourself @Scrooge stated that you would have a think as to whether or not to proceed. RadMatter ☎  01:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodness; I had not realised so much time had passed. I am sorry and will get back to you lot soon over there.
 * But I must emphasise that in my mind, whatever is decided at Talk:Charity publication will be specific to the unique page Charity publication; it will not necessarily have any ramifications for pages about "lawful commercial series with DWU connections", although I could, I suppose, see it bouncing into a rework of Audio Visuals, at a stretch. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Might I ask though, what would actually be removed from this page? It seems that pretty much everything on the page is relevant. Epsilon</tt>  📯 📂 02:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just did an edit that removed all content not found to have connective tissue to the DWU. Feel free to add stuff back as it's found to exist, but I think that's what's required by current procedure. Najawin ☎  02:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That information should be readded regardless, you shouldn't be removing information before a discussion is reached as of what needs removing. RadMatter ☎  02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, @Rad, I'm the admin here, and while he was maybe a bit bold in doing so without saying that he was going to, Najawin's edit looks quite correct to me. Now that it's done, please don't undo it. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  02:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if that's what we're going to remove... how pointless. If we have a table for the anthology, it seems pedantic to remove some stories but keep others. Also, I'd like to keep the stories on the page that are included in anthologies covered by the wiki, like Twelve Stories and Team Up, as they're notable in their own respect. Epsilon</tt>  📯 📂 02:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did put as my edit summary "Showing Epsilon a prospective edit", so I'm perfectly willing to have it reverted while we discuss. I never meant it to be definitive. Najawin ☎  02:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The information removed was not correct. As Epsilon states, two of the stories removed were published in anthologies covered by this site (which also contain other DWU stories) and therefore are notable. And another of the short stories removed likewise was the stories from which the sole anthology story was adapted from, again... notable. RadMatter ☎  02:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't looked over the specifics of Najawin's edit yet. I was referring to the fact that it was correct to start the reducing process; not that all of the things he'd removed as part of that process were necessarily right. And as Najawin said, he fully expected somethings to be reinstated as more facts came to light, anyway. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  02:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These facts were already present on the page. RadMatter ☎  02:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So were, for instance, a lot of dead rows in a table with no clear connection or a fourth audio that had no clear connection. I did an incredibly quick trim, feel free to add stuff back. But there was obviously stuff that needed to go. Najawin ☎  02:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, isn't that a bit pedantic, to have some of the stories from an anthology to be included on a table, but not others, even if their connection to the DWU isn't apparent? If we're going to have the table, why not include all the stories on it? Epsilon</tt>  📯 📂 02:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

New evidence?
I have read this entire thread and haven't once seen mention of Effie's inclusion in To the Devil — a Diva!. This release from 2004 predates anything from the Brenda and Effie spin-off which began in 2007. Effie being a DWU character prior to the start of the spin-off should validate the entire series, should it not? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  21:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)