Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)

Revision as of 16:12, 21 October 2024

35,633 bytes added , 21 October

m

Likewise sorting other categories

SV7

Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators

229,566

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]][[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]][[Category:Temporary forums archives|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
+{{big toc}}
 == "Rule 4 by proxy": a necessary update to T:VS ==
@@ Line 57: / Line 58: @@
 ::'''Please outline the reasons you support this proposal below.'''
-:::Way back when in the Aughties, I helped write [https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Help:Ignore_all_standards this policy page] for the Transformers wiki called '''Ignore All Standards''' which boiled down to <tt>"In situations where the standards intended to prevent confusion would instead contribute to it, common sense should rule."</tt>
+:Way back when in the Aughties, I helped write [https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Help:Ignore_all_standards this policy page] for the Transformers wiki called '''Ignore All Standards''' which boiled down to <tt>"In situations where the standards intended to prevent confusion would instead contribute to it, common sense should rule."</tt>
-:::That was for one-off weird cases.  But this is a collection of one-off weird cases, ''several'' of which seem to fall under the same broad circumstances.  At that point, if we are seriously looking at creating exceptions (and since several of these idems are currenly half-covered by the wikiand then either not-covered or half-invalid, we clearly are making weird exception judgements) we should probably examine the category ''as a whole'' and make some sort of policy judgement; even if that policy is, itself, a policy about exceptions to policy.
+:That was for one-off weird cases.  But this is a collection of one-off weird cases, ''several'' of which seem to fall under the same broad circumstances.  At that point, if we are seriously looking at creating exceptions (and since several of these idems are currenly half-covered by the wikiand then either not-covered or half-invalid, we clearly are making weird exception judgements) we should probably examine the category ''as a whole'' and make some sort of policy judgement; even if that policy is, itself, a policy about exceptions to policy.
-:::I'm honestly not sure if I agree with ''all'' of the candidates for inclusion but some of them are well past-due.  And their inclusion should take place under a coherent framework rather than in a willy-nilly fashion. -[[User:Deriksmith|Deriksmith]] [[User talk:Deriksmith|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
+:I'm honestly not sure if I agree with ''all'' of the candidates for inclusion but some of them are well past-due.  And their inclusion should take place under a coherent framework rather than in a willy-nilly fashion. -[[User:Deriksmith|Deriksmith]] [[User talk:Deriksmith|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I wholeheartedly support this proposal and would welcome the given examples as valid. Even setting aside opinions on validity, the current way these stories are covered is difficult, confusing, and tedious. [[Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)|Dr. Who]]-related pages make no sense. I think the concept Deriksmith linked is a good idea to keep in mind sometimes. Perhaps not the only thing we should borrow from the Transformers, [[Death's Head|yes]]? [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::: I completely stand by this proposal. We need to change a whole bunch of stuff to be valid, rather than invalid. ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Shalka]]'' for one, if only due to the fact that for a few years, [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)|the Shalka Doctor]] was the continuation of the main ''Doctor Who'' timeline, being the rightful successor to [[Paul McGann]]'s [[Eighth Doctor]], and ''[[Dr. Who and the Daleks (theatrical film)|Dr. Who]]'' and [[Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)|the Cushing Doctor]] for another, due to the fact that in-universe material actually cover him as a valid Doctor somewhere along at least '''a''' timeline, plus the fact we keep getting more Cushing Doctor novels and we can’t cover them as a wiki should. —[[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+I support this proposal entirely. I wish I'd thought of it myself! Besides what I've written in "Comments and concerns" about how it embodies the principles which are already guiding our validity decisions, there are also strong instrumental reasons for my support, which I'd like to briefly elaborate on. [[Tardis:Temporary forums]] was erected for matters with significant impact on the wiki or its readers: as that page says, "Specific validity debates about specific stories or series may not be selected for discussion in the immediate future as they generally do not have a wide enough impact on the wiki as a whole." Despite this, validity debates for each of the stories Scrooge addresses have clogged up the proposals chart from the start. For better or worse, that is simply the appetite of the editors of this wiki. By resolving all of these stories in a single swoop, this proposal should fill that appetite, clearing up the list so we can move on to more urgent and significant matters. I believe this is why this proposal rose so quickly to the top of the queue, and it's part of why I'm so happy to support it now. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 16:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+: I ''bombastically'' support this proposal, for the reasons outlined below in the comments and for the reasons stated by others above. To put it succinctly: No sane wiki should have both [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] and [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]]. [[User:NoNotTheMemes|NoNotTheMemes]] [[User talk:NoNotTheMemes|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+: I very much '''support''' this proposal. As others have stated, having both [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]] and [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] is a ludicrous thing on the wiki. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]] ([[User talk:Pluto2|talk]]) 18:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::I enthusiastically support this proposal and do not share any of [[User:Najawin|Najawin]]'s misgivings. I would support the proposal as-is with no alterations.
+::I also want to applaud how smart it was to find a root commonality between a number of proposed threads and address the underlying issue rather than waiting for stories to be debated individually. This really saves time. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::I wholeheartedly support this idea, and I'd like to congratulate Scrooge on coming up with one thread to validate a bunch of things, as well as making it future-proof [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrhc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I support this alteration, as it fixes a glaring issue in our rules that will only help the site function more realistically. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
-::: I wholeheartedly support this proposal and would welcome the given examples as valid. Even setting aside opinions on validity, the current way these stories are covered is difficult, confusing, and tedious. [[Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)|Dr. Who]]-related pages make no sense. I think the concept Deriksmith linked is a good idea to keep in mind sometimes. Perhaps not the only thing we should borrow from the Transformers, [[Death's Head|yes]]? [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I also support this idea. Most of what I'd say about it has already been said in "Comments and concerns" much more elegantly than I can, so I'm just gonna stick to saying that I support it. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 === Oppose ===
@@ Line 107: / Line 126: @@
 :: Don't you think this makes sense? Why not? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 13:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
-[[Category:Temporary forums]]
+:::I would need to see the specific page in the book for ''[[Storm in a Tikka (short story)|Storm in a Tikka]]'', but to me this sounds like a no-brainer.
+:::I don't think asking five different people is needed, just one, but for the idea that the book is clear because it gives an explanation for the Cushingverse films, this is ''precisely'' what I think we should be wary of. It's canon in another form. It's a very broad version of canon, but validity is not canon. (I again, want to stress, that I would love for the Cushingverse films to be valid, they're a nightmare. But this reasoning isn't something I'm comfortable with.)
+:::Let me clarify Tomorrow Windows, I definitely wasn't clear there. It's clearly, to me, showing possible ''out of universe'' futures that ''did not come to pass'' (or, at least, have not done so yet). Hence Alan Davies, Eddie Izzard, rebooting the series entirely, ever actually regenerating into the Valeyard, Merlin. I don't think we can say that this is clear authorial intent of incorporating Shalka and Curse. It seems more like acknowledgements of "also rans". [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::Ah, now I see what you mean re: ''Tomorrow Windows''. And yes, this strikes me as idiosyncratic to say the least. I would point out that we have, thus far, had no trouble documenting the Windows visions on the relevant valid pages — [[The Doctor (Battlefield)]], [[The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)]], [[The Valeyard]] (and, contingent on ''Curse'' remaining valid, [[Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death)]]). If all those visions are recognised as pertaining to the "real" versions, why should we do things differently with the Shalka Doctor, and suddenly turn around and say "well, it's a ''reference'' to the Shalka Doctor IRL, but in-universe we just don't know for sure"? Should we not, then, also, purge ''Tomorrow Windows'' information from the Valeyard or Muldwych pages, and say in BTS "one of the future Doctors in the ''Windows'' resembled this character as a reference to such-and-such ways the real-world franchise might have gone, but these are not necessarily references to them as [[possible future]]s in-universe"? Who would this serve?
+::But more importantly, now your opposition seems to be turning into a sort of Catch-22 — we're (allegedly) not sure that ''Tomorrow Windows'' is talking about diegetic parallel universes, so no; ''Survival Guide'' is indeed talking about diegetic parallel universes, so… ''also'' no? What does a successful application ''look'' like for you? I understand your concerns about canon-creep, but I deny the charges. What we want to avoid is "''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]'' explains how the Cushing movies can be real to the Hartnell version without contradiction, therefore the Cushing movies are now valid". But what I say is going on is more like "''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]'', which itself passes Rule 4 (something for which its referencing the Hartnell version is circumstantial evidence), references the Cushing movies as real ''to itself'', and therefore the Cushing movies should be made valid as a extension of ''Survival Guide''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> own validity".
+::To put it another way, I'm not making points about a broader, shared "prime continuity" that things are in or out of, which would be tantamount to canon; my approach is, so to speak, one of [[TARDIS|''relative'' dimensions]] in fiction-space. Validity is not Canon, but it ''is'' a sort of endless family tree of Continuity, burgeoning forth from ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]''. Any given story is valid because it places itself in the same universe as at least one specific prior one that's already considered valid, going all the way back to [[1963 (releases)|1963]]. That's how we roll. ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]'' begets ''[[The Daleks (TV story)|The Daleks]]'' begets ''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]''. My suggestion is simply to put a non-linear spin on that logic, and say that we can in exceptional circumstances consider a "pair" the other way round; that we can look at ''[[Dr. Who and the Daleks (theatrical film)|Dr. Who and the Daleks]]'' as though it postdated ''Survival Guide'' rather than predated it; to look at it as ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]''-begets-''[[The Daleks (TV story)|The Daleks]]''-begets-''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]''-begets-''[[Dr. Who and the Daleks (theatrical film)|Dr. Who and the Daleks]]''.
+::I don't think that's too far afield at all from how we've thought of validity. Mind you, even if it were, that's what a new Forum Thread is for. The current form of T:VS isn't a divine tablet we're bound by. Not that I'm proposing to do such a thing, but a Forum thread with a sufficiently large consensus of the active editors would be perfectly empowered to scrap it altogether and start over from scratch. If everyone thinks my proposal would make for a better Wiki (and you seem to agree ''there'', on a personal level!), '''we can choose to go forward with that proposal and change T:VS to accommodate it rather than the other way around'''. We have that power and that right. The policies exist to serve and assist the Wiki and its community; not the other way around.
+::(EDIT: Oh, in lighter matters, regarding ''[[Storm in a Tikka (short story)|Storm in a Tikka]]'', it's really just as straightforward as I made it sound. Right between the title and the start of the story is a little note that says, in so many words, "This story takes place between ''Dimensions in Time'' and ''Search out Science''".) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::I think you're confusing two parts of the issue here Scrooge. The first is whether or not I think ''Tomorrow Windows'' attempts to bring Shalka and CoFD "into continuity", which I mention as an aside. I don't.
+:::The second is whether or not I think bringing things "into continuity" is a good standard for how we should approach the issue at all. I also don't.
+:::I'm afraid there's no catch-22 here, it's me trying to say that even by the standards you've imposed one of your examples doesn't seem to work, or, at least, doesn't seem to work to me. Which, again, I admit might be idiosyncratic. (Re:Merlin et al, I'd have to go digging through their pages and perhaps other pages to examine all of the details, but it's not immediately obvious that there's an issue here. Checking out [[The Doctor (Battlefield)]] we're citing Tomorrow Windows in the "day to come section", along with the DotD novelization, which in no way explicitly references Merlin, simply the idea of a ginger doctor. Perhaps we're mistaken to cite it in the "appearance" section.)
+:::You claim not to be attempting to create a "prime continuity", but I honestly don't see a way you avoid doing this. Perhaps the loosest possible one, or very near, but one never the less, since your delimiting factor ''is continuity''. Which is the entire issue! Consider the following. Suppose someone writes what they claim is a sequel to DCtT, but it doesn't even attempt to be a clear reconciliation of DCtT with some other portion of the mainstream DWU. It just flat out contradicts parts of DCtT, but is still billed as a sequel to DCtT. People point out that there are contradictions to the author, but he waves them off, "time can be rewritten", or something, but doesn't even try to explain how or why. Would this make DCtT valid? What if the author didn't respond to the criticism?
+:::I don't have an issue with us making our "laws of validity" have time reversal symmetry. But if we do this we should focus still on intent rather than continuity. This is the part that should concern us. Mere continuity is not enough to decipher intent, there's so many instances of DWU writers throwing in fun little Easter eggs from all sorts of different franchises, as well as authors trying hard to give fans the space to decide what they want to accept. (I'm inclined to consider Tikka precisely the statement that would be. But I don't think we should interpret ''explanations'' given to fans who want to reconcile two things, as the authors themselves thinking that the other things are part of the DWU.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::::A sequel to ''DCtT'' alone would not change anything. We already have such a thing, as a matter of fact, in the form of ''[[The Minister of Chance (series)|The Minister of Chance]]''. But a story that presented itself ''both'' a sequel to DCtT ''and'' as, say, a sequel to ''[[Timewyrm: Revelation (novel)|Timewyrm: Revelation]]'', would indeed lead to DCtT validity under my proposal. It doesn't matter if the author offers up an explanation which is intelligible to us, so long as they convey "for the purpose of this new story, which you'll already consider valid, the earlier invalid story ''also'' 'happened' in some shape or form". Do we agree there? I'm genuinely losing track.
+:::::If we do, our disagreement is, I suppose, on the degree to which in-story clue can be taken as evidence of "manifest intent". I think, at the level of common sense, characters looking in the Parallel Universe Machine and seeing a conspicuous reference to a given "idiosyncratic" story ''is'' an example of this. We've been focusing on ''Tomorrow Windows'', but much the same principle applies to the glimpses of parallel realities in ''[[Zagreus (audio story)|Zagreus]]'' and palimpsest universes in ''[[The Infinity Doctors (novel)|The Infinity Doctors]]'' (which people [[The Doctor's reality (Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks)|have]] been [[The Doctor's reality (The Eight Doctors)|Wikifying]] on the [[Virgin reality|assumption]] that they do indeed refer to the stories which are "obviously" being referenced). I don't think there's any real difference between [[Alan Barnes]] or [[Gary Russell]] saying in an interview "in the DWU as presented in ''Zagreus'', ''DCtT'' is a parallel reality coexisting with the Main Range Eighth Doctor's universe", and them writing a script where the Doctor is given a glimpse of the multiverse and gratuitously goes "oh look! over! it's [conspicuous ''DCtT'' reference]". Indeed, as I recall, in the absence of robust BTS quotes, in-story implications have been considered in ordinary Rule 4 discussions before. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 15:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+Once again me typing things out, thinking it was clear in my head but it not quite coming across correctly. Yes, the hypothetical DCtT sequel is ''also'' explicitly part of the mainstream DWU in some way. It's then billed as a DCtT sequel, but contradicts DCtT wildly. (I'm aware of [[The Minister of Chance (series)|The Minister of Chance]], which I wasn't discussing.) The issue I'm trying to make clear is that ''in-universe'' it's not continuous with DCtT, or at least not clearly so, and it's only through ''out of universe comments'' that we can connect the two. Under your proposal this doesn't seem to validate DCtT, since you're placing an emphasis on continuity.
+Can you point me to any stories with the Alan Davies Doctor? I can point you to stories in "the VNA reality." Again, I think my reading of Tomorrow Windows is more plausible. Especially given [https://twitter.com/jonnymorris1973/status/1413442496386899970 these] [https://twitter.com/jonnymorris1973/status/372026874156699649 tweets]. (Morris is not a fan of Shalka, and he's also joked about the Alan Davies Doctor.) It's precisely this kind of tea leaf reading I want to avoid, saying we should simply wait for a direct statement from an author as to their intent with a book. It's got some nice symmetry to our original policy. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+: You write:
+:: ''Under your proposal this doesn't seem to validate DCtT, since you're placing an emphasis on continuity.''
+: But I place an emphasis on ''intended'' continuity, i.e. the spirit of Rule 4. "Intending something to be a sequel" and "intending it to have continuity with" seem to me to be synonymous in this case. That's what I meant when I talked about "manifest intent" — as I see it, in-story continuity serves as (sometimes ''strong'') ''circumstantial evidence'' of intent-of-continuity, without meaning that one is reducible to the other in all cases. What else could Rule 4 mean, save something like intent-of-continuity-with-some-prior-DWU-source? It cannot sanely be divorced from ''some'' concept of "continuity", lest it turn into an arbitrary tag pertaining only and exclusively to a story's status under T:VS itself (and that would be a terrible thing, as it would mean that decades' worth of now-dead writers simply weren't in a position to have any opinions on the matter!) or, at best, some kind of question of "branding" (in which case many ''FP'' stories would fail, despite being intended to be ''in continuity with'' the DWU, because they don't intend to be ''advertised as'' Spinoffs Of Your Bestest Favourite Show ''Doctor Who''. We'd have to throw out anything [[Lawrence Burton]] wrote on Day 1!).
+: Our Wiki's view is that a story is valid if it's ''intended to be'' "set in the DWU", i.e. "in continuity with some prior DWU source". Actual compliance with prior sources is not ''necessary'' to prove intent if we're very sure of intent for other reasons (e.g. the old ''[[Genesis of the Daleks (TV story)|Genesis of the Daleks]]'' chestnut, or, in your hypothetical, a shiny "This Is A Sequel To ''DCtT''" tag on the cover). However, such compliance can, for what I had thought to be self-evident reasons, be ''evidence'' of intent.
+: The ''Tomorrow Windows'' example actually illustrates my point beautifully. It doesn't matter if [[Jonathan Morris]] intends to make a greater point about ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' being "[[canon]]" to the wider True ''Doctor Who'' Universe, if there is such a thing. What matters is that, for the purposes of ''The Tomorrow Windows,'' the reader is intended to recognise the Window vision as connecting to the diegesis of a certain different piece of fiction the reader may have experienced. And sure, there are indeed "many instances of DWU writers throwing in fun little Easter eggs from all sorts of different franchises", but that's just why I specified in my OP that the proposal specifically applies to those stories which we ''already'' cover in full detail on the Wiki ''anyway''. In the spirit of [[User:Deriksmith]], I keep rounding bck to the common-sense point at the heart of all this. Does it look at all sane to you that [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] and [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]] should exist as pages on the same Wiki? Does it really? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I've been following this discussion closely and Scrooge, I think you've pointed toward a framing which reconciles your and Najawin's positions. I urge that when this proposal is incorporated into [[T:VS]], as the overwhelming show of support suggests that it will, it be couched explicitly in the language of authorial intent: the reason we're making decisions based on narrative references isn't because we care about "the timeline", it's because we regard narrative reference as a particularly definitive statement of authorial intent. (In this phrasing, the principle is hardly new; it simply codifies the logic of the ''[[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox]]'' inclusion debate, which I successfully argued based primarily on FP stories' licensed references to ''Who'', including [[Sabbath]] and [[Rex Halidom]].) Even in cases where an author incorporates a reference with some wiggle room so that readers may choose whether or not they're inclined to believe the connection, that's a case where both perspectives are intended to be equally valid, so our current policy of picking only one as authoritative – "not inclined, not connected" – distorts the text regardless. In any case, this phrasing would mean that non-narrative instances of "overwhelming retroactive authorial intent" will be relevant in validity discussions as well going forward, as Najawin suggested. Let this count as my vote for the proposal against Najawin's concerns. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::I feel like we must be talking past each other on some level. To me "continuity" in this proposal is an explicitly textual phenomena. I'm struggling to see a way in which
+{{quote|'''accept the retroactive validity of Rule-4-breakers which are later explicitly referenced in valid sources in a manner which seeks to "bring them into continuity" in one way or another'''|proposal}}
+:::can be read in which this isn't the case, given the phrasing "in valid sources", which suggests to me that this must be textual. I guess we could distinguish between narrative continuity and other forms of textual continuity and suggest that I'm reading you as saying it must be the former, but I don't think I am?
+::::What matters is that, for the purposes of The Tomorrow Windows, the reader is intended to recognise the Window vision as connecting to the diegesis of a certain different piece of fiction the reader may have experienced.
+:::I'm thoroughly unconvinced that we're to interpret this as diagetic (in the context of the properties being referenced). As far as I can tell, Morris clearly does not consider Shalka to be in any sense "in continuity" with the DWU. At this point you've gone ''beyond'' intended continuity, or sources which 'seek to bring [things] "into continuity"'. You've very firmly left any realm of intent behind and moved on to textual continuity entirely. (And, you know, [[Cosmic Hobo]], [[Ceol]], etc.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::::You've clearly established that you disagree with the "continuity" line from the initial phrasing, which is why Scrooge and I have proposed alternatives which don't use that word. For the sake of moving this conversation towards some kind of resolution, I'd be interested in your response to those alternatives. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+: I could have sworn that I already weighed in here, but apparently not. This is a perfect proposal in my eyes. If a story is '''already being covered''', but as an invalid source, and then a valid source makes efforts to allude to that story in such a way that those allusions may only make sense with the context of those invalid stories --they ought to be able to be cited in a normal way. As people keep on hitting at, [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] and [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]] should be covered in the same place. To cover them separately borders on pedantry. Likewise, trying to argue matters of intent is inevitably going to be specious --and intent can OFTEN be contradictory. Is ''Curse of Fatal Death'' intended as a parody? Steven Moffat thinks so. But you know who thinks it wasn't intended as a parody? Steven Moffat. What we do know is that Morris entertains, in ''The Tomorrow Windows'', that ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' and ''Scream of the Shalka'' are potential futures that are peered into by Eighth Doctor. This proposal ought to be implemented. [[User:NoNotTheMemes|NoNotTheMemes]] [[User talk:NoNotTheMemes|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::I don't think this is correct, Scrooge seems to be still holding to the same position. For instance, he says:
+:::But I place an emphasis on intended continuity
+::He certainly doesn't do so in the original proposal. His first response to me uses intent only in reference to the sequels/prequels thread, and then he only references intent prior to this statement in order to say:
+:::If we do, our disagreement is, I suppose, on the degree to which in-story clue can be taken as evidence of "manifest intent".
+::''But this isn't Scrooge proposing a new wording of his proposal.'' It's him suggesting that his original proposal also works "as a shorthand" for the standard I'm suggesting. So I don't think it's correct to say that Scrooge has proposed an alternative. (He may very well have! But it's not clear to me!) Hence why I'm asking for clarification and suggesting we're talking past each other. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::Okay, well in that case I'd like to hear your feedback on ''my'' alternate phrasing. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 17:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::::I'm not ''entirely'' sure what your alternate phrasing is, since your original comment suggests it's something Scrooge created. You seem to be gesturing towards some ideas I'm comfortable with, and some I might be less comfortable with? I'm really not trying to be difficult here. Authorial intent, good. Retroactive authorial intent, I like that, even if I don't think it was brought up prior. The thing is, I'm not convinced that we always do consider narrative to be strong evidence of authorial intent, and I think Tomorrow Windows is a perfect example of where this approach would fail. Or see [[Oa]], which I know you're aware of. (Yes, the situations are different in terms of whether the policy would apply to them, but the point is that I think it shows that we clearly shouldn't always infer intent.) The question has to be "how do we differentiate the authorial intent of allowing people to pick and choose what stories they want to hold true as opposed to simply providing a fun Easter egg". And I don't see a clear answer except for explicit statements from the authors. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::::I think [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] has wrapped up many of my concerns for this proposal, and if I were in a camp it'd be neutral at this point.
+:::::I agree with many of the points like the multiple Ninth Doctor pages above.
+:::::But it's implementing it, and explaining this to new/pedantic users that concerns me. With our current rules it's fairly clear that we need to be able to point to an author / entity that has licence to use it, or intent for it to be valid. My concern is using narrative, even if it's multi-sourced narrative justification, it feels like we're straying into...not canon exactly but certainly narrative justifying the validity of the source and that's going to leave us open to more "what about X story" arguments. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
+: That's fair. But in terms of current precedent, I would remind everyone that [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 4|the current Rule 4]] is very much written with a ''presumption'' of validity. Strictly speaking, we ask for direct authorial quotes to prove that something ''isn't'' intended to be set in the DWU; the presumption, in the absence of a statement, is that it ''is''. I don't find it unfair to suggest that, in turn, when a valid story references a previously-invalid one, the ''presumption'' is that intent of proxy-DWUness is there, and it's to prove the ''opposite'' that an authorial quote would be required! (Arguably we would have example of this above, with [[Jonathan Morris]]'s "''Shalka'' isn't canon" comment "counteracting" the presumption-of-validity that the Shalka Doctor cameo in itself would bring.) I think on a practical level this would also be a wiser rule to implement, because we're more likely to find authorial quotes to the effect of "I know my easter-egg ''looks'' like it means X, but ''actually''…", than authorial quotes to the effect of "by the way and for the record, my easter-egg means what it looks like it means". [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
+::But we're not considering stories that have randomly wandered into this wiki for the first time with this proposal. At least not at this time, and most likely not ever. We're considering stories that have ''already'' failed rule 4, so have the ''presumption'' of invalidity. I'll be honest. I'm not entirely against the practicality concern. I'm not sure it's ''correct'', we've often seen authors talk about how they really do intend to unite various parts of the DWU (eg [[Dave Rudden]]) or talk about their intent for things to be "valid/canon" ([[James Goss]], [[Chris Farnell]]). But if it's true it's something that might move the needle. (And, for the record, I too am neutral at the present moment, in the sense that I want something ''like'' this proposal to pass, but I think the current proposal just doesn't work.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]]
+: Remaining neutral on this proposal (as is my intentions with most proposals at the moment - not particularly specific to this one, I'll make clear), but merely noting that should this proposal pass, I would like to see further clarifying debates (not in the immediate season/three months ahead, but later in the year after other important business is remedied) to distinguish the specifics of the Cushing films & ''Dimensions in Time'' as being valid and Rule 4-abiding '''under nature of the production intents & circumstances of the time''' rather than the amendments proposed here. Simply such that the wording around the Wiki can be refined for accurately explaining their validity, and also so that Cushing's Doctor can be considered a 'side of the coin' for the Hartnell portrayal & mentioned in some manner on [[First Doctor]], in much the same way that we would readily accept mention of the 1965 annual and the early comics. (Exact specifics to be drawn up at a later date.) [[User:JDPManjoume|JDPManjoume]] [[User talk:JDPManjoume|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: Absolutely — validation under any proposed form of Rule-4-by-proxy is not intended to close the door on further discussion of the actual facts at hand. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+I'm always a little put off by any discussions on here that use the phrase "''Doctor Who Universe''" or DWU, especially since I distinctly remember we agreed to abandon this practice in a conveniently unarchived forum from several years ago. As I said there, I can not justify how saying "Is this story set in THE Doctor Who universe?" is any different from saying "well, is this canon?"
+Personally, I don't really CARE if a story is set in ''THE'' Doctor Who universe. As long as it intends to be set in ''a'' Doctor Who Universe, I think it should be featured on the website. The distinction is beyond fuzzy since we now cover the ''Unbound'' series without question or hiccup, the same for ''The Infinity Doctors'' and ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. And we've always covered ''Spiral Scratch'' and ''Zagreus'', despite those stories making it quite blatant that there is no such thing as a single "Doctor Who Universe." And it looks rather silly in the modern era, where we have a valid page on [[She-Hulk]] but not [[Shalka]].
+So this is one reason I agree with this suggestion. It seems rather pedantic that we have to stand around and say "Well, this is a Doctor Who story, set in a Doctor Who universe. But -- is it THE Doctor Who universe? Is it set in the same universe as ''The Long Game'' and ''Boom Town''? If not, throw it in the fire. Because it's not can- errr. Not THE Doctor Who universe!" [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+It's been over a week now and it seems that a general consensus has formed in favour of this proposal. In fact, no-one is outright opposed. Therefore, in general, this proposal can be considered successful. However, there have been a few concerns that I will now address:
+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]]. While it is often possible to find quotes about the "DWU-ness" of a source as a whole, I feel that it is ''much'' less practical to expect to find quotes affirming the "DWU-ness" of separate stories that an author happened to reference. Such quotes would of course be ideal but it’s just not practical to make them an absolute requirement. However, when it exists, out-of-text information can still be used: in a case such as ''[[Storm in a Tikka (short story)|Storm in a Tikka]]'' where the proxy source is billed as a prequel/sequel to a currently invalid source outside of the actual source's text, that is sufficient for rule 4 by proxy to apply. On the other hand, if there are authorial quotes that clarify an in-text reference as not intending to pull a source into the DWU, rule 4 by proxy will fail. To put this into practise with the sources originally presented in the opening post, '''they are all now valid under this framework with the exception of ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', ''[[Scream of the Shalka (novelisation)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' and ''[[The Feast of the Stone (short story)|The Feast of the Stone]]'''''. As much as having both [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]] and [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] pains me, these sources will require further discussion in their own threads to be validated (either via this framework or another) due to the quotes found by [[User:Najawin|Najawin]].
+Secondly, as [[User:JDPManjoume|JDPManjoume]] brought up, any story validated now can have another debate later in order to change our wording and handling of these stories. That is completely fine.
+As a final note, I commend Scrooge for finding a shared root to these stories reasons for validity and utilising it in such a way to "clear out" a large number of the validity debates that have began to clog up the temporary forums' proposal list. These forums were designed to allow us to get through as many big and impactful threads as we can in as short a time as possible and this thread is a perfect example of that.
+I will make the necessary changes to [[T:VS]] but I'm going to leave the rewriting of articles that will follow from these validities to other editors. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
+</div>