Bots, emailconfirmed, Administrators
34,286
edits
More actions
Forum:Temporary forums/Validity debate: Scream of the Shalka (view source)
Revision as of 18:58, 25 April 2024
, 25 AprilUpdating links from Series 1 (Doctor Who) to Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005)
m (Updating links from Series 1 (Doctor Who) to Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005)) |
|||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} | {{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} | ||
{{archive}}[[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] | |||
{{big toc}} | |||
==Opening post== | ==Opening post== | ||
Well, this is the first inclusion debate this wiki has had since the old forums fell (which I wasn't around for). I think the fact that this proposal managed to climb to the top of [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads]] anyway demonstrates that, bounded as it is, it reflects an issue where the community feels we need to act, and sooner rather than later. | Well, this is the first inclusion debate this wiki has had since the old forums fell (which I wasn't around for). I think the fact that this proposal managed to climb to the top of [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads]] anyway demonstrates that, bounded as it is, it reflects an issue where the community feels we need to act, and sooner rather than later. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
Separately from the above line of argument, I think the classic line of argument that "by the time ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' came out, the BBC had already decreed it wouldn't be the Official Continuation, and therefore Cornell knowingly put it out as something which 'wouldn't count'" is just wrong. | Separately from the above line of argument, I think the classic line of argument that "by the time ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' came out, the BBC had already decreed it wouldn't be the Official Continuation, and therefore Cornell knowingly put it out as something which 'wouldn't count'" is just wrong. | ||
It might seem strange to believe in hindsight, but no one was sure that [[Russell T Davies]]' [[Series 1 (Doctor Who)|Series 1]] would really work out, even after it entered production. We're talking about late [[2003 (releases)|2003]] here. For reference, ''[[Rose (TV story)|Rose]]'' only started shooting in [[20 July (releases)|20 July]] [[2004 (releases)|2004]]. Even the casting of [[Christopher Eccleston]] hadn't been announced yet — just "Russell T Davies will headline a ''Doctor Who'' revival on BBC Wales". ''Anything'' could have gone wrong yet, and so it's obvious, without hindsight-bias, why the BBC would avoid putting all its eggs in one basket. It downplayed ''Shalka'', yes, because why would you jinx the BBC Wales show before it even started by confusing the branding? But it didn't cast it out entirely, nor immediately cancel the planned sequels. | It might seem strange to believe in hindsight, but no one was sure that [[Russell T Davies]]' [[Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005)|Series 1]] would really work out, even after it entered production. We're talking about late [[2003 (releases)|2003]] here. For reference, ''[[Rose (TV story)|Rose]]'' only started shooting in [[20 July (releases)|20 July]] [[2004 (releases)|2004]]. Even the casting of [[Christopher Eccleston]] hadn't been announced yet — just "Russell T Davies will headline a ''Doctor Who'' revival on BBC Wales". ''Anything'' could have gone wrong yet, and so it's obvious, without hindsight-bias, why the BBC would avoid putting all its eggs in one basket. It downplayed ''Shalka'', yes, because why would you jinx the BBC Wales show before it even started by confusing the branding? But it didn't cast it out entirely, nor immediately cancel the planned sequels. | ||
As reported by [[User:JDPManjoume]], who's done a lot of research on this subject: at [[Talk:Scream of the Shalka (webcast)#Note for possible future validity discussion]]: | As reported by [[User:JDPManjoume]], who's done a lot of research on this subject: at [[Talk:Scream of the Shalka (webcast)#Note for possible future validity discussion]]: | ||
| Line 50: | Line 52: | ||
: I also fully support these stories to be validated. To me, their invalidity reeks of canon and arguments built directly to support that instead of being unbiased. But that' irrelevant, as the record can finally be set straight. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 15:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | : I also fully support these stories to be validated. To me, their invalidity reeks of canon and arguments built directly to support that instead of being unbiased. But that' irrelevant, as the record can finally be set straight. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 15:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
[[ | |||
:: I support the validity of ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' and its related works. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I likewise '''support''' validating ''Scream of the Shalka'' and its related works, both under authorial intent at the time and Rule 4 by Proxy. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]][[User talk:Pluto2|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: I fully support validity of ''Scream of the Shalka'' and related works. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::: I support! 👍 [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I also support. [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::: I wish I had more to say, after so many years, but I think what is listed above covers it all so well. I support validation for ''Scream of the Shalka''. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
A simple, compelling case. I support. [[User:SherlockTheII|SherlockTheII]] [[User talk:SherlockTheII|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I would be wary of using rule 4 by proxy at this juncture. I've found some stuff in the old forums that mean a thread will be coming ''eventually''. (Hopefully when we have real forums. But, y'know.) ''However'', the non R4bp are relatively convincing to me on their own merits, with the caveat that I still wish we could see the old threads, etc etc. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Im confused, Najawin. Do you support validation or not? [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrhc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
I also support validating ''Scream of the Shalka'' and related works. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I ''think'' I support validation? I have procedural qualms with not having dissenting voices, and would really like to see the threads where Shalka was previously ruled invalid. But I have resigned myself to my quixotic quest of being the only person who thinks these things matter. Like. I strongly suspect that even with the old threads and people arguing I'd still support validity, iirc what was in those threads. (Same thing with Death Comes to Time. I distinctly remember ''that'' validity debate, and if R4bp wasn't used I really doubt the ensuing validity debate would have convinced me that it was invalid, had we brought up the old threads + people argued it was invalid.) But as a procedural matter it rubs me the wrong way. Can we leave it at that? It's a view that's gotten me attacked in previous threads, and I'd prefer to avoid that. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
I support the validity of ''Shalka'' and related stories. [[User:MrThermomanPreacher|MrThermomanPreacher]] [[User talk:MrThermomanPreacher|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] | |||
: I support validating ''Scream of the Shalka'' either by Rule 4 or Rule 4 By Proxy. Both arguments are thoroughly convincing --and I take special care to note that we shouldn't even NEED R4BP for this story to be validated, albeit as an alternate reality/universe/timeline/what-have-you. ''Scream of the Shalka'' and ''Rose'' were both released with the intent of being Doctor Who's continuation from the TV Movie. Which one would win out was up in the air for longer than I believe the BBC would like to admit. Coverage on the Wiki would only improve by having it validated. While I understand that beginning with the R4BP argument to assuage the concerns of those that were skeptical of using ''The Tomorrow Windows'' as its basis, I would say in future that any argument for validity where Rule 4 is in question should be structured in a manner like this: | |||
:: (1) This story should be valid under Rule 4 for X, Y, or Z reasons. | |||
:: (2) Even if you believe those reasons are insufficient, it must be valid under Rule 4 by Proxy because of X, Y, or Z reasons. | |||
: Rule 4 by Proxy is meant to be an ''exception'' to a rule. We should only apply it when Rule 4 cannot otherwise be satisfied --that way we don't end up overly expanding Rule 4 by Proxy 'jurisprudence'. All of this is to say, <u>''Scream of the Shalka'' should be valid</u>. [[User:NoNotTheMemes|NoNotTheMemes]] [[User talk:NoNotTheMemes|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't understand why this thread was greenlit, even given its high vote count on [[Tardis:Temporary forums]], since the temporary forums were opened for "essential community instructions" and – as the forum page explicitly points out! – it's hard to argue that an inclusion debate which will affect very few pages is more urgent or significant than other highly-voted proposals like [[T:IUP]] reform. That aside, for all the reasons eloquently articulated above, I unconditionally support full validity for ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' and related works. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 03:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: Well, we've all been waiting for years to finally do this, and Scream of the Shalka was just the ONE story discluded from the previous [[T:VS]] debate. So think of this as just a little bonus thread wrapping up that one. | |||
:::: Also, and I don't mean to sound bitter, but I'll believe in a "permanent forum" system when it's here... [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 06:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: (Yeah, the overview page only warns that inclusion debates "may" be discounted, not that they're absolutely ''verboten'' with no exceptions; especially as the Temp Forums have been chugging along for a little while now. The main thing, beyond votes, is that this had a ready OP, and the IUP policy thread still doesn't. You yourself have come out against [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Incarnation naming standards|an attempt by me]] to obviate the need for an OP on another one of the high-ranking proposals; and, I'll readily apologise again, with every right! But until such proposals are ready to go, there's no harm in getting this done, I thought.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 12:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Supporting this validation too, specifically '''as an outright Rule 4 pass'''. As I did then on the Talk page, I am under continued belief that the contemporary evidence supports it as such. [[User:JDPManjoume|JDPManjoume]] [[User talk:JDPManjoume|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: I fully support under rule 4 however I will also place my support behind rule 4 by proxy should the need arise.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I fully support inclusion and feel that it is absolutely fine for whatever gets voted to the top being what's discussed, within mod discretion. Like OttselSpy, I'll believe a permanent forum will happen when it is live and functional and not a moment before. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
Alright, alright. We're around 5 days of closure, and over for a week there have been no further comments. A lot has been discussed about ''Shalka'' in this wiki's past, and it's been, I'd say, fairly summarized in this very thread's opening post. | |||
[[User:Cousin Ettolrhc]] has made a really solid case under the "Classic Rule 4" argument that ''Shalka'' has always passed our [[T:VS|Valid sources]] requirements, and for that alone this thread's conclusion should be that '''''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' and its sequels are now to be treated as valid sources'''. | |||
However, I think there's some beauty in using our recently-codified "Rule 4 by Proxy" to help us solidify '''how''' we're treating these stories: as-of-2023, ''"the"'' [[Ninth Doctor]] of the ''Doctor Who'' universe is, in our collective minds, [[Christopher Eccleston]]. But as [[The Doctor's ninth incarnation]] illustrates, there's also no doubt that he isn't ''the only'' possible successor to Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor, on [[John Hurt|TV ''Who'' itself]]. Therefore, '''[[Richard E Grant]]'s Doctor and companions fall within the realm of "possible futures"''' (applying [[alternate timeline]], [[parallel universe]] or whichever other terminology individual stories may use). [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||