Talk:The History Tour (comic series)

Validity?
Most of the Tim Quinn/Dicky Howett strips are considered invalid because of the no parody rule, so why is this any different? The strips are pretty clearly meant to be parodic and outside of the continuity of the show.
 * Make sure to sign your comments with four ~. But yeah, I agree. What is the argument for these to be valid? They look pretty parodic to me. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  23:00, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold on, hold on! Now, these are not parody. While the artists' art style might be reminiscent of parody, the stories themselves are soley comedy. It's an aesthetic style, really. It's important to see the difference. Epsilon the Eternal  ☎  23:06, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just because Quinn and Howett's most famous work is the parodical, fourth-wall-breaking Doctor Who? doesn't mean every story of theirs that happens to be "funny" is a parody.


 * The "cartoony" artstyle is no argument, as their not-even-comedic The Test of Time is drawn in the exact same style. It's just how these guys draw. (The Dr. Men and A Rose by Any Other Name inclusion debates explicitly established that art-style has nothing to do with Rule 4.)


 * Do these stories do anything more outrageous than an Iris Wildthyme short story might? Or even an Eleventh Doctor minisode? Really now. There is no evidence that these stories were meant to be set outside the DWU, and they certainly aren't parody (all the jokes area bout Earth history; the Doctor himself is not lampooned).


 * If you find evidence in e.g. Drawing Breath that the History Tour series was thought of by its creators as parody, we can of course open an exclusion debate. But right now, I don't see it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:12, September 5, 2020 (UTC)

An inclusion debate has been opened at Thread:282770. Further comments should be posted there. Shambala108 ☎  23:55, September 5, 2020 (UTC)