Forum:Temporary forums/Trailers: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Temporary forums/Trailers (view source)

Revision as of 05:02, 12 May 2023

36,027 bytes added , 12 May 2023

m

SV7 moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/Trailers to Forum:Temporary forums/Trailers: Bot: Moved page

SV7

Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators

228,839

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums]]
+{{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]][[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
 == Opening post ==
 On this Wiki, it has been long held that "trailers" [[T:VS|cannot be valid sources]] as they don't tell narratives of their own, or some variation thereof. And yet, in the years since, the BBC has released what some editors have defined as "narrative trailers", type of trailer that presents an all-new unique narrative, but because these stories have been called trailers, they've been declared invalid sources, and the policy has never changed despite obviously needing to do so. In this thread, as for once I actually feel the most qualified person on this Wiki to talk about this, I aim to explain many things.
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 :I fully agree with this OP (and am happy to go with either it's language of "promotional mini-episodes" or whatever an admin decides), and would like to tangentially vocalise my support of [[User:PintlessMan]]'s point that something being non-serious does not make it "non-canonical". '''Jokes that take place in stories set in the DWU, should be considered to take place in the DWU and refert to DWU events''', if that wasn't obvious. [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrhc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 06:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+::I’d just like to say again that I fully support this proposal and would like to add that it was clear to me that what OttselSpy25's recent arguments were, were also part of the Epsilon's opening post. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::I felt the accusation was ridiculous and didn't merit addressing, but let's do so, since apparently it wasn't. '''''My objection has nothing to do with canon.''''' Indeed, I think the insistence on validating everything in this way is part of a canon mentality! It's not ''entirely'' clear how R4bp is to be applied. Part of the ''problem'' with that thread is that there were two competing attempts to define R4bp, neither of which were quite as fleshed out as they needed to be, and the closing post didn't decide between them, providing no guidelines for the proposal, using vague language like "pull[ing] another source into the DWU". Does The Doctor simply having a Prime computer pull the ad into the DWU? I'm less than convinced. I don't care that the Easter egg is humorous, I don't care that the advert is ridiculous, I care that valid != canon, and R4bp is still so messy that it's nontrivial to say it's obvious that this advert qualifies. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::: In spite of your complaints, R4BP is not a theoretical part of policy. It is codified in [[T:VS]]. And I disagree with the language you seem to always use, which implies R4BP is some temporary fling and not active precedent in action.
+:::: All we are saying here is that we have an instance where ''there is no evidence that something DOESN'T take place within the DWU, and we have one story that directly references these events''. I do not look at this as a story being "pulled into the DWU", I look at it as a clarification. We now understand this stories existence better because we can see its greater relationship to the rest of the ''Doctor Who'' universe. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+Shockingly, I'm aware that it's in [[T:VS]] and that it's not theoretical. However, there's ''very little'' precedent using it, as it's relatively new, and so we have to interpret the policy based on what little exists.
+:I do not look at this as a story being "pulled into the DWU"
+Then we're done here? That's explicitly required to happen in the closing post of [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/An update to T:VS]]. If you don't think that happened, then you don't think it passes R4bp. But look, even if you're refusing to accept that closing post as definitive, and I'm not sure why you would, since that thread forms the basis of R4bp, let's just look at [[T:VS]].
+: One exception to this, named "Rule 4 by proxy", occurs if a later story makes an effort to bring an otherwise invalid story back into the DWU. In these scenarios, the otherwise Rule 4-failing story may be decided to pass Rule 4 in a forum debate.
+So [[Step Into the 80's! (TV story)]] would ''obviously'' need a forum thread to discuss the issue, just based on what's in [[T:VS]]. '''''Which is what I said in the first place.''''' Now can we please stop getting off topic? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+: This isn't off-topic, and we don't need another forum debate for this story. Your quote states that "Rule 4 by proxy" debates are needed to bring stories back into the ''DWU''. But in this case, the Prime adverts have never been invalid for violating Rule 4. They have been invalid simply for being advertisements. This story has never been declared as a violation of Rule 4, it's never been stated or proven that it isn't set in the ''DWU''. So if we remove the widespread ban on advertisements on the site, there is no reason for these stories to be invalid. Unless you have proof that these stories don't naturally pass Rule 4, and were not intended to be set in the ''Doctor Who Universe'', I think it's a non-starter. In this case, the reference to the story in another book is simply evidence that, yes, in this instance where there's a lack of certainty on the topic, we have clarification that these stories do take place in the ''DWU''. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+::"The current understanding is that the Prime computer ads would be valid under Rule 4 by Proxy." - This is your statement that started this entire discussion. You yourself admitted there are R4 concerns. Which I already pointed out.
+:::In this case, the reference to the story in another book is simply evidence that, yes, in this instance where there's a lack of certainty on the topic, we have clarification that these stories do take place in the ''DWU''.
+::How does this work? If there's ambiguity in one area for ''validity'' (which is based on authorial intent), not canon, and then there's another story ''by a different author'' that references the first, how can that ''clarify'' the ambiguity? Either it has authorial intent on its own, and there's no clarification, as it makes no reference to the authorial intent of the first piece, but there's now validity per R4bp, or there's no authorial intent, no clarification, and still ambiguous validity. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+It just seems like you're disagreeing with one of our rules, and if that's the case, I'm not sure what to say. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+:I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of one of our rules, one in particular which is still very new, fairly vague and so needs some level of interpretation. The way you're interpreting the rule, the phrasing you're using to approach the issue, isn't found in the justification for it in the original thread nor in [[T:VS]]. (eg, the "clarification" angle, these sources aren't clarifying previous R4 intent, they are providing ''new'' intent) How this disagreement of interpretation could have arisen, given how little R4 jurisprudence there's been, and how soon after the original thread it is? I'm sure I couldn't say.
+:But again, I do fundamentally believe we're off topic, so can we ''please'' move back to the issue at hand? I don't want to be accused of a [[T:POINT]] violation I'm desperately trying to avoid. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: The time has not yet come to close this thread, but I'll just pop in to offer a clarification that '''Najawin's interpretation of Rule 4 By Proxy is the correct one in this case; the idea of a R4PB source providing "clarification" is misleading'''. It is only understandable for such a misunderstanding to arise with a rule which is still relatively new; I'm looking forwarded to us running a few proper R4BP-based inclusion debates to better show how it works in practice.
+:: However, I think the real disagreement relies on a point which I don't think Najawin has answered: namely, that if we remove the ban on commercials/trailers, there is no particular reason for the authorial intent on ''[[Step Into the 80's! (TV story)|Step Into the 80's!]]'' to be "ambiguous". Absent concerns about commercials, the presumption should be that it's valid unless there is specific evidence otherwise, as with any other non-parodical ''Doctor Who'' minisode. Under that framing, R4BP is wholly irrelevant to this case. There simply isn't any reason for us to ''consider'' calling it {{tlx|invalid}} if we don't have a blanket ban on stories of its type.
+:: To close off this admin intervention, '''being that it concerns the implementation of validity for one of the stories at issue here, this digresson is not ''inherently'' off-topic''' and no one who has participated in it is to be held to be in breach of [[T:POINT]]. Of course, if the consensus on this thread is that the issue should be sequestered off to its own discussion, that is wholly possible; and it ''would'' be good to see more discussion of the wider issue rather than this particular use-case. But it's not fundamentally outside the boundaries of the thread; don't worry. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 21:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::Politely, I do think I've answered that point.
+::::"The current understanding is that the Prime computer ads would be valid under Rule 4 by Proxy." - This is your statement that started this entire discussion. You yourself admitted there are R4 concerns. Which I already pointed out.
+:::I've stated this twice now. [[User:PintlessMan]] attempted to validate them using R4bp as well. It's been the ''stated'' position of people ''who want to validate it'' that it fails R4. I'm just taking this to its logical conclusion. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::: Well, yes. Those people are wrong as well in their assumptions. Sorry if I didn't make this clearer. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 21:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+I think my statement was "less than trivial", and I do think this is true. I suspect that Baker intended for the on screen proposal to be read more as a fun reference than something we took as a serious proposal between the two characters. Similarly, I'm sure he didn't expect us to think that Time Lord technology was inferior to a Prime Computer, given that the entire premise of the story was simply selling Prime Computers and making them out to be fantastic. With that said, the DWU is weird, and these aren't sufficient to the standards of R4 that ''I'd'' prefer we hold. With that said, my preferred standard of R4 disqualification isn't one we've always used. So some may actually think that this is disqualifying. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+: I'd like to suggest new categories also, as the marketing campaigns and teasers and trailers ones may be inaccurate for something, like, say ''[[Hashtag. What's a hashtag? (webcast)|Hashtag. What's a hashtag?]]''.
+: I suggest "promotional videos" that way the teasers and trailers can literally feature them like say [[The NEW Doctor Who Logo (webcast)]] and "marketing campaigns" can just feature overviews of campaigns like [[NewtoWHO]] and [[Doctor Who Evergreen]]. [[Special:Contributions/81.108.82.15|81.108.82.15]]<sup>[[User talk:81.108.82.15#top|talk to me]]</sup> 22:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: I agree, I think "The NEW Doctor Who Logo" isn't much of a trailer or a teaser. It's more like an announcement with video. A gif nearly. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 00:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
+Just chiming in to note that I've suggested <code><nowiki>[[/Promotion]]</nowiki></code> subpages for series, like [[Series 9 (Doctor Who)/Promotion]], over at [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 6: Subpages 2.0#Promotion|Slot 6]]. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 14:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
+It’s amazing to me that this is an issue everyone seems to support. That’s nice to see. Before this thread is close early, which I can see happening, I think we should have two categories “teasers” for gifs like the logo announcement and “promotional videos” for specially filmed promotional content. Those categories can be kept in marketing campaigns which should just feature campaigns. If approved. I’d be happy to sort it. [[Special:Contributions/81.106.187.1|81.106.187.1]]<sup>[[User talk:81.106.187.1#top|talk to me]]</sup> 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+As our I.P.-using friend above notes in the last regular comment, we have a very strong consensus here. I see no reason to extend this thread when it has largely gone dormant, when we have a limited amount of slots, and still many proposals to go through. Moreover, the next proposal up at [[T:TF]] now is another one which may entail the validation of a number of sources, and I would, on the whole, prefer to avoid having two of these running at once.
+This is going to be very long, for which I do apologise. Readers only looking for the essentials are advised that you "only" need to read through "Basics" and "Specifics": quite a lot of bulk here is taken up by a somewhat-digressive resolution to a debate which was, in itself, something of a digression within the thread.
+=== Basics ===
+'''Promotional fiction is now no longer {{tlx|invalid}} by default.''' As [[User:OttselSpy25]] pithily summarised:
+{{quote|What we have effectively done here is ban capitalism. Most ''Doctor Who'' spinoff media has existed to sell something else — be it when the BBC novels were being used to boost VHS sales, or all the times ''Doctor Who Magazine'' has been used to promote the revived series.|User:OttselSpy25}}
+We just cannot assume that some kind of overriding promotional intent on something like ''[[Dalek Wars (series)|Dalek Wars]]'' or ''[[Genetics of the Daleks (webcast)|Genetics of the Daleks]]'' means a story automatically fails [[Tardis:Valid sources|Rule 4]], when we make no such claim about [[Prequel]]s and [[Tardisode]]s and [[Target novelisation]]s. Indeed, we have frequent ''positive'' evidence of intent to be set in the DWU, as with [[Time Lord Victorious: Trailer (webcast)|the ''Time Lord Victorious'' CGI trailer]] having an entry in the grand timeline chart of the series.
+[[User:Najawin]]'s archeology has unearthed the following statement as the origin of the ban on promotional works:
+{{quote|There is no context for the merchandise to have canon, they are an object rather than a 'work'. Everything that is considered canon has content that can give the text context within the wider DW Universe. You can read a novel, watch a TV show, listen to an audio drama. A piece of merchandise, or specifically a figure is an object from a text, its meaning is given definition from its source text.|User:Tangerineduel}}
+Notwithstanding different definitions of the word "work" (surely Michelangelo's ''David'' is a "work" of art?), this is sound, but makes it very clear that applying such a rule to things that ''are actually narratives'', things which are almost indistinguishable from [[Prequel]]s and [[Mini-episode]]s and ordinary comic stories save in presentation, is overreach. Furthermore, the updating of [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 1|Rule 1]] to permit ''non-narrative fiction'' also shakes some of the assumptions under which this decision was made.
+A lot was made in [[User:Epsilon the Eternal]]'s OP about terminology. I think we mustn't overstate the case there — not just because things like American law needn't correspond to [[Tardis:Use British English|British]] Wiki-crafting, but also because it espouses a more {{w|Linguistic prescription|prescriptivist}} view of language than I am comfortable condoning. The Wiki has always blazed its own path in these matters, aiming to be close to what DWU-related sources use, more than the academic standards; see for example our [[Tardis:Italics|indiscriminate usage of italics for all source titles]], rather than the complex differing standards for different genres and media that academic style guides recommend. The truth is, if a whole run of valid, licensed ''Doctor Who'' sources call themselves "trailers" in such an unshakable way that the word is used ''in the credits'' (like all the promotional Big Finish shorts whose credit is "Trailer by [[Chris Walker-Thomson]]"), we would be completely overstepping our bounds by saying "this is ''incorrect''" and banishing all mention of that credit to BTS sections, as it seems Epsilon would see us do. A lede for something like ''[[A return to Skaro for the First Doctor... (webcast)|A return to Skaro for the First Doctor...]]'' might instead read something like:
+{{simplequote|''[[A return to Skaro for the First Doctor... (webcast)|A return to Skaro for the First Doctor...]]'' was an animated prequel to ''[[Return to Skaro (audio story)|Return to Skaro]]'' created by [[Chris Walker-Thomson]], billed as a trailer for (…)|A balanced way forward.}}
+However, it ''is'' fairly clear that Next Time trailers and "promotional minisodes called 'trailers'" are wholly different ''meanings'' of the word. '''Next Time trailers will remain non-valid''' — we can and should continue to ban their ilk, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And I think Epsilon is correct that the indiscriminate ban on "trailers" started in part as an attempt to exclude the former, and the Rule 4-related justifications for the exclusion of the latter were largely ''post-hoc''. '''Next Time trailers will remain non-valid'''.
+Something which was only passingly discussed on this thread, but alluded to in our earlier T:SPOIL-reform discussion, is a corollary of this matter: some things are ''genuinely'' both works of fiction in their own right, ''and'' functional "trailers" for upcoming material. In light of our [[Tardis:Spoiler policy|spoiler policy]], I believe the wisest course forward is that '''promotional fiction explicitly labeled as a "trailer" or "teaser" upon release should remain off-limits for validity until whatever it is a trailer/teaser ''for'' is no longer upcoming''' (usually because it's been released, but the same principle would apply if whatever was being advertised was reclassified as [[List of unproduced stories|unproduced/unreleased]]!).
+In terms of structure, I think [[:Category:Marketing campaigns]] has been a square-peg-round-hole category for years now. Valid or otherwise, a single trailer is not a "campaign". It should be made a subcategory of a broader [[:Category:Marketing]], which will also include [[:Category:Promotional videos]] (as per suggestion above) and whatever other similar categories we deem to be worth creating as the need comes up. '''We should also do away with the dab term "(trailer)",''' whether for valid or invalid works. If we end the blanket ban, if we no longer treat trailers as a shadow-world completely distinct from valid or potentially-valid works in a given same medium, then "(trailer)" is no more sensical a dab term than "(prequel)" or indeed "(sequel)". '''We dab by medium, not by function, and we need to bring the things currently dabbed as (trailer)s in-line with that, even the ones which will remain invalid'''.) However, redirects can be retained for backwards-compatibility and SEO reasons. ''We'' might think ''[[Doctor Who: 50 Years (trailer)|Doctor Who: 50 Years]]'' is a "(TV story)" first and a trailer second, but someone looking for info on it would likely Google "Doctor Who 50 Years Trailer".
+=== Specifics ===
+Given broad consensus on the basic framework above, there are some minor points to be addressed.
+* ''Contra'' [[User:OttselSpy25]], pieces such as ''[[Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death (trailer)|Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death]]'' and ''[[Death of the Doctor (trailer)|Death of the Doctor]]'' should still be considered candidates for validity. Original footage trumps clips, not the other way round. Some of the ''Collection'' minisodes, which Ottsel rightfully reminds us all are ''essentially'' narrative trailer even if an important technical discussion has already allowed their valid coverage for some time, also incorporate clips from the classic TV series whose home-video release they advertise. Then there's things like [[Untitled (1988 TV story)|the 1988 25th anniversary promo]]. I just don't think this is a coherent category to carve around.
+* '''''[[Friend from the Future (TV story)|Friend from the Future]]'' is outside the boundaries of this conclusion and remains invalid for now'''. It was invalidated on the grounds of being a weird, weird, weird case of a '''deleted scene''', not because it was promotional. [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 3: Inclusion debates speedround#Friend_from_the_Future|A detailed examination]] of this very unique case has already been written as part of the OP of the thread which will replace this one at [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 3]], as good a sign as any that this isn't the right place to discuss it.
+* Also set to be discussed in the Speedround are [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 3: Inclusion debates speedround#Doctor Who and the Bootstrap Paradox|stories that break the fourth wall on the mode of the characters talking to the audience]]. [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s [[User:OttselSpy25/Commercial_fiction_sandbox|"commercial fiction sandbox"]] highlighted ''[[Time Is Everything (TV story)|Time Is Everything]]'' as a source of this type; others listed on that sandbox are listed below (and in alphabetical order, at that). I propose that we leave them as invalid for now, and discuss their Rule 4 status as part of that upcoming wider examination of "Doctor talks to the camera" minisode. Also of note is ''[[It's Showtime (2012 BBC Christmas ident)|It's Showtime]]'', which doesn't break the fourth wall in ''that'' way, but is a metafictional piece which treats the Eleventh Doctor as an employee of the BBC by dint of appearing in one of their shows. …Which of course is also what the valid ''[[TV Terrors (TVC 709 comic story)|TV Terrors]]'' does, among others, so I don't feel this is a dealbreaker, but it bears further discussion.
+** ''[[Death of the Doctor (trailer)|Death of the Doctor]]''
+** ''[[Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death (trailer)|Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death]]''
+** ''[[Famine Appeal]]''
+** The grab-bag termed 'Interruption Idents' by that sandbox (''[[The Clock's Ticking (TV story)|The Clock's Ticking]]'', ''[[It's All Been Leading... (TV story)|It's All Been Leading...]]'', ''[[The Moment Is Here (TV story)|The Moment Is Here]]'', ''[[Twelfth Doctor Ident Interruptions]]'', ''[[Countdown to Series 8 (BBC idents)|Countdown to Series 8]]'')
+** ''[[Luckily for me, I have a time machine (TV story)|Luckily for me, I have a time machine]]''
+** ''[[The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer)|The Trip of a Lifetime]]''
+* '''The conclusions of [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1]] apply''', which is something that [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s [[User:OttselSpy25/Commercial_fiction_sandbox|"commercial fiction sandbox"]] seems in place to overlook. Is the [[Walls' Sky Ray lollies advertisement]] a ''narrative''? I dunno. But it's certainly in-universe, and can be valid as such. In the same vein as various Big Finish "character-spotlight internal monologues" which he already included as surefire validations, we should not have too many qualms about things like ''[[A Time For Heroes (trailer)|A Time For Heroes]]'', ''[[Doctor Who: 50 Years (trailer)|Doctor Who: 50 Years]]'', or ''[[The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer)|The Trip of a Lifetime]]''. Compare ''[[She Said, He Said: A Prequel (webcast)|She Said, He Said: A Prequel]]'', a non-trailer webcast which had previously been invalidated on ''non-narrativity grounds'' for being composed of two non-digetic, but character-exploring, soliloquies, and which was validated as part of the Rule 1 overhaul.
+* I am unsure whether ''[[WeLoveTITANS]]'' was rule invalid ''purely'' on promotional grounds or on parody grounds as well. This is one case where [[User:Najawin]]'s typical concerns about not doing anything rash until we can see the old threads seem founded, and indeed [[User:OttselSpy25]] shares them on the sandbox. Let's say these ones remain invalid for now, and can be relitigated in their own thread if anyone's interested.
+* ''[[The Appliance of Science (home video)|The Appliance of Science]]'' is outside the boundaries of this debate: it's not properly an advertisement/promotion at all. And there are heavy Rule 2 concerns, as well as a modicum of uncertainty about how to think about Rule 3 in a case like this (see also [[Talk:The Last Regeneration (comic story)]]).
+* ''[[The Future Is At Your Fingertips (TV story)|The Future Is At Your Fingertips]]'' seems to me to pass Rule 3. A screening is a screening, even to a select audience. Rule 4 will be discussed below.
+==== A semi-digression on Rule 4 by Proxy and Rule 4 ====
+Also problematic in this discussion were the notorious [[Step Into the 80's! (TV story)|Prime Computer advertisements]]. There was a lot of ultimately-misguided talk about Rule 4 By Proxy in this area of the discussion, so I want to dwell on it at a bit more length.
+Some of the points made by [[User:Najawin]] about the proposed R4BP rationale struck me as a little strange. Specifically, he claimed that "there's no continuity here" about the scene in ''[[Christmas on a Rational Planet (novel)|Christmas on a Rational Planet]]'', where [[Chris Cwej|Cwej]] finds a disused Prime computer near the TARDIS control room. I can only echo PintlessMan's replies here, minus the focus on "humour" which Najawin disavowed as the crux of his disagreement:
+{{quote|If, say, a ''Past Doctor Adventure'' set in the 1970s had a villain hyping up his powerful new supercomputer and then it turned out to be an ordinary Prime 200, that would be an in-joke. It might be funny to fans who remembered the advertisement but would imply no continuity connection. But what we have here is a very direct connection to the narrative situation of the advertisements: the Seventh Doctor is shown to have, in storage aboard the TARDIS, a Prime computer which he has clearly acquired at some point in the past. We know exactly when he acquired it, and what the circumstances were, because we have literally seen this happen on television in a story starring Tom Baker and Lalla Ward.|User:PintlessMan}}
+A character finding a recognisable object from a past adventure, gathering dust in the very place it was last time we saw it, is a ''textbook'' example of "continuity". It's "continuity" to ''[[City of Death (TV story)|City of Death]]'' when, in [[COMIC]]: ''[[The One (comic story)|The One]]'', the characters find a spare ''[[Mona Lisa]]'' in a spare room of the TARDIS among other Fourth Doctor memorabilia, and we note it as such in the "Continuity" section. It's "continuity" to ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]'' when [[TV]]: ''[[Remembrance of the Daleks (TV story)|Remembrance of the Daleks]]'' lingers on [[Susan Foreman]]'s history book, left lying around in a classroom — even though, famously, that reference doesn't even actually make sense! This is absolutely a "continuity reference", not ''just'' an "easter egg". (It's both. The world is a complicated place where things can be two things at once. We seem to be coming back to this theme in this closing post!)
+This is an important point. [[User:Najawin]] argued that "there were two competing attempts to define R4bp, neither of which were quite as fleshed out as they needed to be, and the closing post didn't decide between them, providing no guidelines for the proposal, using vague language like 'pull[ing] another source into the DWU' (…)". But the ruling on R4PB was this:
+{{quote|Firstly, there is the issue of authorial intent as opposed to in-text information. In general, it is safe to assume that, if information presented within a source pulls another source into the DWU, that is sufficient for validity under rule 4 by proxy as presented by [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]].|User:Bongo50}}
+With the quote stating "as presented by Scrooge", I feel reasonably confident in my assertion that Bongo '''was ruling in favour of my interpretation''', even if his own summarised rewording was ambiguous; that he was referring back to my own OP, as other closing posts have done since to avoid restating provisions and proposed policies that the OP already put perfectly plainly. To restate this view of mine, which I interpret to be the standing policy: the ''default'' is that apparent continuity to an invalid story constitutes R4PB, and we would require contrary BTS evidence to say otherwise. Something like ''[[The Tomorrow Windows (novel)|The Tomorrow Windows]]'' would and should be R4BP-worthy evidence ''if not'' for the quote from [[Jonathan Morris]] that Najawin unearthed, or an equivalent. If a valid source includes a continuity reference to an invalid source, treating its events as Something That Happened (whether in the main timeline or not), the default is that a R4BP thread should allow it in.
+So any remaining ambiguity rides on what a "continuity reference" is. And we do have a lot of precedent about what we as a Wiki call "continuity": ''the continuity sections we have on all our pages''. It's not perfect (there are ''some'' gray areas in those sections that have been a cause for quiet debate in edit summaries, and which we'll have to spend a T:TF slot clarifying someday: things of the form "the Doctor previously visited [Historical Event] in [Three other unrelated-or-incompatible historicals]", but I don't think ''any'' school of thought would ever rule something like the ''Mona Lisa''/history-book scenario as excessive), and that's part of why we still need to have specific debates about any R4BP proposal; but we're not flying blind here.
+All of which is to say that if the Prime Computer ads ''were'' to be viewed as a potential R4BP subject, I would, in the absence of a contravening quote from [[Lawrence Miles]], rule them valid on ''that'' basis in a heartbreat.
+'''However, as I intervened earlier in the thread to point out, this whole thing is founded on inaccurate premises.''' [''dramatic cough''] As it was written in <s>the Book of Rassilon</s> [[T:VS]]:
+<div id=license style="background:#4441bf;color:white;width:560px"><div id =ss style="font-size:125%">
+{|style="background-color:transparent;color:white"
+!width=60px|
+!width=500px|
+|-valign=middle
+|class=sf style="font-size:500%;font-color:white"|'''4''' || If a work of fiction was ''intended'' to be set outside the DWU, then it's ''probably'' not allowed. But a [[Board:Inclusion debates|<span style="color:gold">community discussion</span>]] will likely be needed to make a final determination.
+|} </div></div>
+Meaning: with the exception of a common-sense carve-out for ''really, really obvious'' parody-cases (which is incidentally also how we're carving out something like the [[BBC Choice ident]]), '''stories which don't break Rules 1-2-3 are assumed valid until proven otherwise by a BTS quote''', not the other way round. [[User:Najawin]] considers it "less than trivial" that ''Step Into the 80's'' was intended to be set in the DWU, but its departures from conventional depictions of the DWU are not so great that it is not  ''also'' less-than-trivial that it ''wasn't''. (<s>I do hope I didn't forget a dangling negative in that sentence.</s>)
+Put more plainly, we do not have any authorial quotes placing it outside the DWU, and I don't think it's an ''obvious'' non-starter for Rule 4 in the same way that, to be topical, ''[[Lenny Henry Regenerates into David Tennant (TV story)|Lenny Henry Regenerates into David Tennant]]'' is. Its only recorded invalidity rationale was its promotional nature. Absent that rationale, from now on, '''the onus is on people wanting to prove it {{tlx|invalid}}, not the other way around'''. It'll be validated as part of the present "slate" of immediate pingbacks from this decision, not as a specific decision on the merits of this specific case, but as a matter of course — because outside of the "promotion conflicts with Rule 4" doctrine, it's just a not-obviously-parodical licensed TV story with no "it doesn't take place in the DWU" authorial quotes, and those are valid ''by default''.
+Of course, an exclusion debate could then be proposed, if anyone believed they had positive evidence that it fails Rule 4. However, as per the hypothetical R4BP above, that would merely switch its ''rationale'' for validity, not induce actual invalidity, so I'm dubious of the usefulness of such an endeavour. Still, pitch what thou wilt; that's what the proposals table is for!
+This situation is admittedly very complicated, so for the benefit of people who feel rather lost in these reams and reams of text, I've made a decision tree outlining the status of ''[[Step Into the 80's! (TV story)|Step Into the 80's!]]''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> validity. I hope it's helpful.
+<gallery position="center" captionalign="center" widths="600">
+Step Into the 80's Validity Diagram.png
+</gallery>
+Incidentally, the same rationale applies for ''[[Meet the Thirteenth Doctor]]'' (and its ''own'' prequel/teaser, ''[[It's Almost Time (TV story)|It's Almost Time]]'', which appears to still lack a page — [[:File:It's Almost Time - Doctor Who|that thing there]]). We don't ''need'', contrary to OttselSpy25's speculation on the [[User:OttselSpy25/Commercial_fiction_sandbox|"commercial fiction sandbox"]], "a future story (…) to give context to what's going on here". The Thirteenth Doctor wearing a hoodie and returning to her TARDIS in a nondescript forest are not, to put it mildly, facts so wildly out of whack with continuity that common-sense Rule 4 concerns even ''begin'' to apply. Now that we've done away with the "promotional intent conflicts with Rule 4" doctrine, this is, in the absence of any exclusionary Rule 4 quotes from its creators and/or the Beeb, no more or less than a Thirteenth Doctor BBC TV minisode with an ambiguous timeline placement.
+[[File:Future At Your Fingertips.jpg|thumb|left|If a colour-blind TV-viewer would see ''nothing'' Rule-4-teasing about these skits, should we really be that worried?]]
+And to round back to the last bullet point of the list in "Specifics," I think this also applies to ''[[The Future Is At Your Fingertips (TV story)|The Future Is At Your Fingertips]]''. The red TARDIS is ''peculiar'', but it's no more than ''peculiar''. Nothing else in the skit flags them as parody-like or not in continuity. I personally suspect that it was as simple as the difficulty of sourcing a blue, British police-box prop, and one is meant to ''overlook'' that it's the wrong kind of phone box in the same way that, as was ratified in the Forums, [[Shada (TV story)|at the end of the 2017 ''Shada'']] where the visibly-elderly [[Tom Baker]] reprises the [[Fourth Doctor]], we should simply overlook his sudden and unavoidable shift in appearance, just as much as we overlook boom mics and the like.
+But for an alternative perspective, the last of these skits does have the Doctor stating that his box is "out of order"; to spell out the obvious, [[TV]]: ''[[Attack of the Cybermen (TV story)|Attack of the Cybermen]]'', among others, ''has'' shown us the Ship turning into a variety of other disguised appearances distinct from the blue box as a result of a malfunction. Either way, I think the conjunction of these two possibilities, improvised off the top of my head, shows that the discrepancy is by no means far-out enough to justify ''default'' invalidity. So once again: if someone wants to open a different debate to ''rule them invalid'', they can, and this time there's no R4BP rationale waiting in the wings to render such an effort moot. But this should start off as valid until and unless proven otherwise.
+=== Final thoughts ===
+Thank you to everyone who's read through all this. If you're exhausted from having read it, how do you think ''I'' feel… But sometimes, one really has to be thorough.
+''…And no, this ''isn't'' an April Fools' closure!'' I may be one to commit to the bit, but — without having checked — I think this is the longest closing post I've ever written. Certainly Top 5. Even I have my limits! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
+</div>