Forum:Roland Rat: The Series: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 1: Line 1:
''WIP.''
{{Forumheader/Inclusion debates}}
 
==Opening Post==
==Opening Post==
===Introduction===
===Introduction===
I'm not entirely sure how well I can manage a long-winded OP, so I'm not sure how clear, let alone elegant, this will be, but I'll do my best.
On the [[13 September (releases)|13 September]] [[1986 (releases)|1986]], the second episode of the first series of [[Roland Rat: The Series (series)|''Roland Rat'': ''The Series'']] aired. In [[Untitled (1986 TV story)|what this wiki has mistakenly identified as a continuity ident]], [[Colin Baker]] appeared, in-character as the [[Sixth Doctor]].  
 
So, reading through [[User:Najawin]]'s opening post for [[Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives]], I was struck by a thought. Namely: What exactly is the point of [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 4|Rule 4]]? Now, Najawin linked to [[Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?]] (a very interesting read, and seemingly the originator of Rule 4), and provided the following quote, which seems sensible enough:
{{Quote|Tangerineduel has made the point that we can't believe a writer who says that their work is canonical. That's very true. But, in my opinion, he's incorrect on the reverse. I think we do have to believe a writer who declares, "Look, this isn't a part of the mainstream continuity." After all, we've believed it before. I don't see any rational argument for doing something different in this case. Moreover, it's kinda stupid to say that as the author, unless you mean it. Saying something is out of continuity will have a negative impact on sales. So if someone says it, you do take it seriously, because they're acting against their self-interest.|[[User:CzechOut]]|[[Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors Canon]]}}And that was how Rule 4 was spawned.
 
Now, for those who do not know what Rule 4 (and I very much doubt that any such people who are likely to read this exist, but it is best to err on the side of caution), Rule 4 states: "If a work of fiction was ''intended'' to be set outside the DWU, then it's ''probably'' not allowed. But a [[Board:Inclusion debates|community discussion]] will likely be needed to make a final determination."


However, something that has long been held to be very strong evidence for not being intended to be in the DWU, since that very first thread in fact, is parodies, and the other is fourth-wall breaks. These don't really appear to jive with the above quote, so let's go over both in detail.
It wasn't a continuity ident, although it certainly looks like one. Let me explain.  


=== Parodies ===
The conceit of ''Roland Rat: The Series'' was that it was an actual talk show broadcast on [[BBC Three (in-universe)|BBC Three]], and that [[Roland Rat]], [[Errol the Hamster]] and the like all existed in-universe. To invoke this deception, they invited various personnel to introduce RR:tS in fictional continuity idents. It was one of these in which the Sixth Doctor appeared.


=== Fourth-Wall Breakers ===
===Why we should cover the whole thing===
Someone made a reasonable mistake and presented incorrect facts. That's about it. There's a draft of what a page for the overall series would look like over at [[User:Epsilon the Eternal/Sandbox Four]] that I've contributed to rather significantly, and there's really not much more to say. Except...


=== Proposal ===
===Additional nuance that shouldn't affect validity but is worth mentioning===
One can't really expect a new television series to introduce all of its recurring segments in the first episode, so in the second episode (which, I may remind you, is the Doctor Who crossover), several concepts were introduced that went on to appear several times in the series. And this means that the majority of RR:tS actually passes [[T:VS]]. (The concepts introduced, as far as I can make out, for those interested, are [[Iris Rat|Iris]] and [[Freddy Rat]] and [[RatEnders]], although there may be some that I've missed.)


==Discussion==
==Discussion==
''to be added''
''to be added''

Revision as of 17:16, 3 September 2023

Index → Inclusion debates → Roland Rat: The Series
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.


Opening Post

Introduction

On the 13 September 1986, the second episode of the first series of Roland Rat: The Series aired. In what this wiki has mistakenly identified as a continuity ident, Colin Baker appeared, in-character as the Sixth Doctor.

It wasn't a continuity ident, although it certainly looks like one. Let me explain.

The conceit of Roland Rat: The Series was that it was an actual talk show broadcast on BBC Three, and that Roland Rat, Errol the Hamster and the like all existed in-universe. To invoke this deception, they invited various personnel to introduce RR:tS in fictional continuity idents. It was one of these in which the Sixth Doctor appeared.

Why we should cover the whole thing

Someone made a reasonable mistake and presented incorrect facts. That's about it. There's a draft of what a page for the overall series would look like over at User:Epsilon the Eternal/Sandbox Four that I've contributed to rather significantly, and there's really not much more to say. Except...

Additional nuance that shouldn't affect validity but is worth mentioning

One can't really expect a new television series to introduce all of its recurring segments in the first episode, so in the second episode (which, I may remind you, is the Doctor Who crossover), several concepts were introduced that went on to appear several times in the series. And this means that the majority of RR:tS actually passes T:VS. (The concepts introduced, as far as I can make out, for those interested, are Iris and Freddy Rat and RatEnders, although there may be some that I've missed.)

Discussion

to be added

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Forum:Roland_Rat:_The_Series&oldid=3595567"