Talk:Loose Ends 5: Ian Memoriam (short story)

Conundrum

This short story presents a rather unique little conundrum that I don't believe I've ever seen in any other story to date in terms of validity.

The main attraction is, of course, the "Scenes Unseen" portion, depicting a clearly in-universe extension of The Power of the Doctor. But "Where Are They Now?" focuses on a character from an invalid source, Harry from An Adventure in Space and Time.

How do we approach this? WaltK ☎ 20:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there are two approaches here. The first approach would be to say that the "Where Are They Now?" is a serious attempt to tie into the DWU, and so validate AAiSaT via rule 4 by proxy. The second would be saying that it is not a serious attempt to tie into the DWU, and call it invalid. Perhaps the two sections ought to be split into their own separate pages for every instalment, being functionally separate stories, which would mean that we could keep the "Scenes Unseen" portion of this valid while invalidating the "Where Are They Now?". We could, of course, do this and still say that the "Where Are They Now?" section is valid. Since they're released under a single title, I would lean towards saying it's the same story, and I would also lean towards the "Where Are They Now?" being a serious attempt to tie into the DWU, though I'm willing to be persuaded on both counts. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 21:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit dammit. Are we on earth just to suffer?

This should be in a forum thread Forum:Inclusion debates, about whether we invalidate this or validate AAiSaT. Dammit. Najawin ☎ 21:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say this should be in a forum thread, but forgot. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 21:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Just had it pointed out to me that this is actually likely a reference to publicity photos of Tom Baker they took shortly after he was announced as the Doctor outside the television centre, and so there's likely not a 4bp argument after all, and it can be safely invalidated. Which is sad. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 21:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible solution: we just slap an invalid tag into the section for "Where Are They Now?" and not at the top of the article, so that part of this story can be invalid. But this absolutely will require a forum thread as it will change a lot of precedent.

I will also say, for the record, I absolutely do not support splitting Loose Ends instalments into pages such as Where Are They Now? (DWM 606 short story).

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What if we just ignore the connection to AAiST? As in: converting Harry (An Adventure in Space and Time) into Harry (Loose Ends), or whatever, and making it a valid page with the main body covering this story, and the AAiST info being moved to BtS. WaltK ☎ 21:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think if we are to treat the Harry bit as valid then we have to validate AAiSaT. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 22:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A: This should be a forum thread, really.

B: This just isn't true. You need both to infer specific authorial intent in this bit, and you need to assume that there aren't other problems in AAiSaT (spoiler: I think there are). You can absolutely assume the Harry bit is intended to be valid while not itself intending to validate AAiSaT. Indeed, it's what we did universally before R4bp was adopted, and it's what we do with Tomorrow Windows. Najawin ☎ 06:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Tomorrow Windows has been used for R4BP, though. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 08:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Surely we only do that for Tomorrow Windows because of the evidence existing that it was not intended to validate CofD. The assumption is that it would validate CofD, but because of the evidence that it probably didn't intend to, it doesn't. I don't see any such evidence existing here. And yes, there are problems with AAiSaT itself. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 09:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Aquana is correct that Tomorrow Windows at best only demonstrates that active BTS evidence otherwise can counteract the basic assumption of intended-in-continuity-ness; the latter remains the default.

I also don't have the faintest idea what problems AAiS&T could possibly have than Rule 4. It certainly passes all the other rules.

But with both of those things said, I'm not very impressed by the R4BP credentials of this thing. Nothing indicates the two vignettes to be in-continuity with one another. Prima facie I come down on the side that we should just split them into two different pages, because they really are basically just two unrelated stories (one of which obviously passes Rule 4 and the other presumptively not). I think it is both acceptable and necessary for this talk page to come to a decision on whether to split as our first response, even if a Forum thread will be necessary to hash out the validity/R4BP reading. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with splitting each section. They're clearly supposed to be presented as a whole product, and it just feels like a really unnecessary splitting of hairs to accommodate this one anomaly. WaltK ☎ 12:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree @WaltK.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Forum:Validity: An Adventure in Space and Time. Najawin ☎ 16:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That particular validity discussion is not likely to be resolved any time soon, so in the meantime, now that we're a month out and have a new instalment to start covering, I could do with a final ruling on how to cover that aspect of this one. I personally still don't understand why we can't just promote Harry himself to valid character status while treating his AAiS&T appearance as invalid. WaltK ☎ 18:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well his appearance here is evidently in continuity with AAiS&T is the main thing, if we validate his bit we have to validate the film (I just wish we had a source calling AAiS&T a parallel universe or something). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Conversely I still maintain we can invalidate certain parts of this story.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)