| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| ::There is no need for licensing since it is a fair use parody which is exempt from copyright. Nintendo isn't mentioned at all in that issue.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 04:32, June 29, 2021 (EDT) | | ::There is no need for licensing since it is a fair use parody which is exempt from copyright. Nintendo isn't mentioned at all in that issue.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 04:32, June 29, 2021 (EDT) |
| :::Except this isn’t a parody. Mario and Donkey Kong appear wholesale rather than being imitations of the original characters. EDIT: Checked the issue myself. Indeed, no mention of Nintendo is made. I’m not exactly sure how to proceed on this one. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 05:49, June 29, 2021 (EDT) | | :::Except this isn’t a parody. Mario and Donkey Kong appear wholesale rather than being imitations of the original characters. EDIT: Checked the issue myself. Indeed, no mention of Nintendo is made. I’m not exactly sure how to proceed on this one. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 05:49, June 29, 2021 (EDT) |
| ::::The magazine itself probably isn't licensed, but the comic has to be. I looks like it to me. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:59, July 6, 2021 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Formal proposal to delete the ''Blip'' and Vic Video articles==
| |
| {{Settled TPP}}
| |
| {{Proposal outcome|passed|6-1|Delete and move content}}
| |
| The above discussion was never resolved after nearly two years, so this proposal should allow it to finally reach a conclusion.
| |
|
| |
| The first issue of ''Blip'' makes no reference to Nintendo whatsoever, not even so much as fine print reading along the lines of "''Donkey Kong'' © Nintendo" alongside the other copyright information on pages 1 and 2. Thus, all evidence points to the ''Donkey Kong'' comic in the issue being unlicensed, like the remainder of the magazine. Because of this, this article and the [[Vic Video]] article should be deleted, and any information about the comic should be moved to the [[List of references in publications]], under the [[List of references in publications#Magazine references|Magazine references]] section.
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': June 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
| ===Delete articles and move to List of references in publications===
| |
| #{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Platform}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Hewer}} Per all, though since the whole comic is Mario-based I feel like we should probably keep the entire plot summary as-is on the list of references page without trimming, and these articles can be made redirects to that.
| |
| #{{user|Koopa con Carne}} Predictably, the opposition employs speculation and several fallacies at once to make their arguments. Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Arend}} On the account that the comic is satire like Platform stated, and we have no official confirmation that the comic was officially endorsed by Nintendo, this sadly seems like the more logical option. I do agree with Hewer that the plot summary should be kept, though.
| |
| #{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per Hewer, we don't necessarily have to do anything to the comic summary, just move it to the list of references and add redirects. As the comic isn't licensed or acknowledged by Nintendo, it shouldn't have its own article per wiki guidelines.
| |
|
| |
| ===Keep articles===
| |
| # {{User|PrincessPeachFan}}: So, we can give Captain N and Saturday Supercade articles but this one doesn't deserve one because it's not officially licensed/endorsed Nintendo media?
| |
| <s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - Considering they mention Mario and Donkey Kong ''by name'' and they appear as the characters themselves, we'd honestly be fine enough to deem this as a notable guest appearance, personally. It's not particularly hurting anyone to keep it here, as this was still early enough into the franchises' existence where stuff like this was still new. While it's ultimately not too big of a deal as long as the result of deletion is "merge it to List of references and we basically cover this like Wreck-it Ralph", if we're fine to give ''[[Captain N: The Game Master]]'' and ''[[Saturday Supercade]]'' their own articles, why ''not'' Blip, right?</s>
| |
|
| |
| ===Comments===
| |
| @Camwoodstock, the question at hand isn't whether or not it deserves an article, but whether or not it is an officially licensed/endorsed by Nintendo media [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 14:46, May 27, 2023 (EDT)
| |
| : Fair point; however, given Nintendo was very litigious about unauthorized appearances of their characters even back then (see ''[[Crazy Kong]]'', a technically official re-issue of the original Donkey Kong that went sour fast after the company responsible for the re-issue started making decidedly unofficial re-issues of other Nintendo arcade games) and the lack of any Blip Lawsuits, we think it's safe to assume it's authorized. Admittedly, comic books are not our strong suit, but it seems Blip Magazine was a publication by Marvel; someone more familiar with them might be able to vouch something? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:58, May 27, 2023 (EDT)
| |
| :: Blip didn't need permissions. This is a work of satire, which is protected free speech. It is satirizing the premise of the game, its strange title, its well worn tropes, and also jabbing at muckraking journalism.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 00:59, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
| |
| @PrincessPeachFan they're both licensed by Nintendo. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 08:51, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Here are some clarifications for the opposition to consider: ''Captain N: The Game Master'', ''Saturday Supercade'', and ''Crazy Kong'' are all verifiably licensed by Nintendo, and thus clearly warrant their own articles under the wiki's coverage policy. In advocating for the deletion of the ''Blip'' and Vic Video articles, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence whatsoever which indicates that ''Blip'' received the same official licensing from Nintendo when publishing their ''Donkey Kong'' comic. If there was even the smallest copyright notice or acknowledgement of Nintendo in the magazine's first issue, then one could make the reasonable conclusion that the comic was licensed and the articles should stay. However, because no such evidence exists, it is very likely that the ''Donkey Kong'' comic in ''Blip'' is an unofficial piece of media not endorsed by Nintendo; the satirical nature of the comic is irrelevant. If the comic is in fact unofficial and the articles were to be kept, it would open the floodgates for ''any'' unofficial or fan work featuring ''Mario'' franchise properties to qualify for their own articles, whether the properties were used wholesale or more subtly referenced; this is why information from such unofficial media belongs on the [[Lists of references]]. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 16:46, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
| |
| : Ah, that makes sense. We're retracting our vote, but y'know, be sure to put this onto List of references instead of just nixing all the information, as this'd still fit there. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:49, May 28, 2023 (EDT)
| |
