Talk:Antonio Amaral

The IU/OOU Discourse
This page is supposed to be a real-life page for the individual Antonio Amaral - who was a God tier backer of Omega and had his likeness used in the first issue. Somewhere along the line this page has been confused and is now acting as both a real-life page for Amaral and an in-universe page for his unknown Minyan character. This needs to be split, but does each unnamed Minyan from that crowd scene really need their own page anyway? RadMatter ☎  14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Several things I'd like to address.


 * 1) Well, the page was originally an out-of-universe page, but I disagree that's its supposed to be.
 * 2) Secondly, I wasn't confused when I edited it. I was specifically turning it into an in-universe page, based upon a good amount of intent from Antonio Amaral himself, who said in this Tweet that his in-universe "counterpart" will be returning. So while the character in Omega wasn't named, think of this as future proofing.
 * 3) And I disagree that's it's both an in-universe and out-of-universe page - it's an in-universe page, with a behind the scenes section which contains quotes from Amaral himself, with extra details not present in the page prior to my edits. Ergo, as I don't believe this is two pages in one, I also do not think that this page should be split.
 * 📯 📂 14:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is definitely supposed to be out-of-universe (hence the category of "People thanked by Cutaway Comics").
 * From your conversation with Antonio on Twitter it appears that you haven't actually read Omega, if this is the case you shouldn't have been the one editing in-universe pages about the story anyway. However, it is not my place to call you out on that. But what I will say is that Antonio has no authority when it comes to this story - his likeness was used, yes, but that doesn't suddenly mean that he can state that it was an in-universe version of himself (I have read the actual Kickstarter and the God tier section states nothing more than that individuals will have their likeness used). RadMatter ☎  14:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For the category, well, a category doesn't shape the purpose of a page. These things are kinda fluid, especially on this Wiki.
 * To be fair, there is no rule about editing page about a story that you haven't read. Additionally, I did put in some research into the crowd scene, to make sure it's factually correct.
 * Also, seeing that it is Antonio's likeness being used, I think he has a certain amount of room to speak here - if he has an intent with his in-universe self, which he obviously has, then I think he can determine if this is meant to be his in-universe self.
 * And besides, the actual content of the page is completely compliant with T:VALID - I've only used info from the Omega story in the in-universe body of the article, and with a conjecturally placed name. All well within the bounds of Wiki policy. 📯 📂 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I created this page as out-of-universe, similar to Vitas Varnas and Cornelius Blanc (although the first has many more production credits). You should not have changed this into an in-universe page without discussion.


 * Antonio has absolutely zero say in this story. His likeness was used and that is where it ends. If Cornelius Blanc suddenly stated that his character in the crowd scene was in fact the Boehemoth from his short stories, does that suddenly mean that it is the case? Certainly not. RadMatter ☎  15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In such a case, it is not mandatory to discuss an edit of a page beforehand, especially one as trivial as this one. Only with major changes must the edit be discussed first, and I really do not think that this is a big edit.


 * Secondly, if I am to accept that Antonio has "no say", nevertheless, the structure of this page can still stand. This Wiki has pages for tiny, minor background characters from TV stories, based upon the fact that an actor was credited in the end credits. While the medium of a comic is different, obviously, I still believe this page has precedent to stand as is. 📯 📂 15:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hardly "trivial".


 * This page is for the real world individual who received thanks by Cutaway Comics and had his likeness used in Omega.


 * If it is accepted that each Minyan is worthy of their own page, fine by me. But the information on this page about the in-universe Minyan character with Antonio's likeness should be moved to a separate page. And, unless stated in the story or by someone who worked on the story that they are supposed to be the same character, his character from Lytton should be found on yet another page. RadMatter ☎  15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Admin here.


 * I disagree that the Lytton version should be covered separately. When two characters have identical physical appearances and we know that they are intended to be the same character, it'd be more speculative than not to split them.


 * However, User:Epsilon the Eternal is completely incorrect about the alleged "fluidity" of categories. Category-wise, either something is a RW page, or it's an in-universe page: you can't mix and match. The correct situation here is to create separate pages for the real Amaral and for his in-universe counterpart. Page naming is an issue here — normally in-universe would take precedence, but it's a conjectural name in this case, so — I'd argue for Antoni Amaral (Omega) for the character, and the undabbed form for the real person. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that these two characters are supposed to be the same person. The only person that has said that is Antonio, and he has no authority over the story. One of these characters is supposed to be a Minyan civilian while the other is going to feature in the Earth-based Lytton. Unless stated within the story, or by those producing, how are we going to clarify that these are the same individuals rather than completely separate individuals both sharing Antonio's likeness? RadMatter ☎  15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't mean that categories are fluid - I meant that the content of a page is fluid, and with new information, pages often change in structure. Obviously categories are not fluid.


 * Also, I'd like to point out that I had forgotten to remove Category:People who were thanked by Cutaway Comics, and when the matter was brought up today, I attempted to remove the erroneous category, but RadMatter reverted my edit. 📯 📂 15:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I had already raised a discussion as to whether this page was in-universe or not before you went and removed an out-of-universe category in what I originally assumed was an attempt to strengthen your own argument.


 * This page was created by me as out-of-universe, with categories and information to match others of its like. It should not have been changed to in-universe. RadMatter ☎  16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @RadMatter, Antonio has made it clear that the "reward" he received was "we'll put you in the comic", as opposed to "we'll make a character look like you". Clearly what he's been sold is the right to become a DWU character in earnest. Accordingly this should be treated as a page for an in-universe counterpart to a real person, not about a character designed after a real person.


 * Hence, the relevant precedent here is something like Penelope Creighton-Ward's cameo in The Dying Days. There is a real-world thing (in Penelope's case a preexisting non-DW fictional character, as opposed to a real person, but it's the same principle) which we are told is being depicted. It's being depicted in incompatible ways in different valid accounts (in Penelope's case, her Dying Days appearance does not make sense timeline-wise, at all), but it's always the same thing being depicted.


 * However and once again, please stop belaboring the point: you are correct that this page should be the real-world one, and a new one created for the in-universe version. —Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We can see what Antonio bought, it is still publicly viewable to the public. RadMatter ☎  16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@RadMatter, I don't think you have the authority to dictate what can and cannot be edited on a page you created. Yes, you created it, but I improved it with more information, creating a satisfactory page that was well received on Twiiter. Of course an edit on a page should not be done solely to appease the chaos that is Twitter, but nevertheless, I feel like this edit was for the best. 📯 📂 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well it wasn't improved when it became both an in-universe and out-of-universe page. You repeatedly said that it was former, but I created it as the latter. RadMatter ☎  16:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * But it was not both an in-universe and out-of-universe page! It was an in-universe page, with an out-of-universe category that I had forgotten to remove.


 * And again, even if you created the page as out-of-universe, I adaptated into an in-universe page. There was no out-of-universe information inserted next to in-universe info; the info is in a behind the scenes section. This is completely within policy. 📯 📂 16:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So, shockingly, there are a few things I have to say that I feel are relevant. First and foremost, in respect to
 * if this is the case you shouldn't have been the one editing in-universe pages about the story anyway
 * See Talk:Lolita, this is explicitly not policy. While it's obviously impolitic to argue about the subject of the works with those who have consumed them on factual grounds, that's not what's happening here, nor is that technically policy either.
 * As a technical matter I disagree with Epsilon that edits to a page can't be dictated by the original content or intent (though interestingly I don't think the author of the page is the sole arbiter of those things, it's a little weird), and I also think as a procedural matter it was poorly done of him to change an OOU page to an IU page without discussion, as this almost certainly violates T:BOUND.
 * But as a practical matter, I'm not sure that our current understanding of T:DAB would entail that the IU character is the one that is DABed. (Is there an actual ruling on conjectural names having less priority? That's not on the policy page.) So if we are to take take that approach it's easier just to create a DABed OOU version. Najawin ☎  18:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a weird situation and not one I'm sure has ever happened; I'm open to arguments that I'm wrong about the T:DAB thing. But my concern is about letting an actual name (the OOU one) get overshadowed by a name (the in-universe one).


 * Another issue is how we dab the OOU page. "(thankee)"? "(online backer")? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Which is partially why I think this page is better off covering both the in-universe and out-of-universe Antonio Amaral. 📯 📂 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously a BTS section is nice, but it's hard to argue that we should have one page combine the IU and OOU aspects as opposed to an IU page with a BTS section and an OOU page that references this one. Najawin ☎  18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, given the increased prominence of Kickstarter and things like this, our decision of how to DAB here will likely impact quite a few pages in the future. /Grumbles about the forums really needing to come back or at least a stopgap measure/ Najawin ☎  18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On the question of whether the IU or OOU topic should recieve the dabbed page, Template:Conjecture states it is to be used when "we've had to make up a name". In this case, while the name we've invented for the in-universe subject is perfectly logical, I don't think it should take precedence over the only subject that actually has it. Therefore, I agree with Scrooge in that the in-universe person should be at Antonio Amaral (Omega). Borisashton ☎  21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that there should be a page for Antonio Amaral - the real life person - then a page for Minyan (Antonio Amaral) and Man (Antonio Amaral) (the latter depending on his Lytton appearance). There is no evidence that these characters are intended to be the same individual, nor an in-universe counterpart of the real-life individual, so I think that these characters should be split. One is clearly intended to be a Minyan, while the other will likely (trying to avoid speculation) be a human on Earth in the Lytton series. There's nothing in the God tier section that specifically states that it is an in-universe version of the Backer. RadMatter ☎  02:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, probably not either of those suggestions, since we use stories and universes as dab terms, not actors.


 * Isn't this whole debate about something that hasn't happened yet? Even setting T:SPOIL aside, shouldn't we just ... wait until Omega (or Lytton, or whatever) comes out so we can have an informed discussion? – n8 (☎) 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rad, the names you propose are in egregious breach of T:DAB, though. "Minyan (Antonio Amaral)" is simply not how we disambiguate pages, or else we'd have The Doctor (Jo Martin) and so on.


 * And again, Mr Amaral himself has told us the Minyan is intended to be his in-universe counterpart, not just someone with his face. Barring Cutaway denying it, that is good enough. If there were no other page-worthy, unnamed Minyans in Omega, perhaps we would go with Minyan (Omega) even so, rather than use a . But that is plainly not the case. Again, the title of "Antonio Amaral" for the in-universe page will be marked out as a conjecture. We won't be stating "that is definitely this guy's name in-universe, 100%". But from our best efforts it seems he is probably intended to be called that, so it's the best name we can use.


 * Unless you have more evidence to discuss, I'd like the above to stand as a ruling, please. We can keep discussing which of the two Antonios gets a dab, and what that dab is. But we do separate them, and we call both of the "Antonio" until and unless something better comes up.


 * @Nate, Omega #1 is in fact out and is the crux of the debate. I'm unsure whether the Lytton installment with Antonio in it has come out, now you mention it, though it will be soon either way — but either way, "is the Lytton Antonio the same as the Omega Antonio" is an altogether minor aside to this conversation. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  02:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)