Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2

	This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

Radical rewrite

This page underwent a major repurposing today. It is no longer the home of the actual list of allowed stories. Rather, it now serves as the basic explanation for how the BBC's lack of definition of canon affects the wiki. Importantly, it divorces discussion of canon from the actual list of allowed stories, which now can be found at tardis:valid sources.

The lengthy talk page that used to be here can now be found by clicking on the archive at right, and it has also been moved to forum:The original inclusion debates, so that it can easily be found in the forum archives.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">00:27: Wed 06 Jun 2012 

I fully approve of this rewrite effort, and some of my reasons can be found at Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time. In fact, I think it might be good to include some of the background there (talking about Sherlock Holmes fans' "Great Game", and so forth) in this article. CzechOut, would you mind if I brought some of that here? I'd just do it anyway on the old "be bold" principle, but I don't want to step on your toes while you're doing such a major revision. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 03:31, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I've added this, somewhat belatedly. Feel free to edit mercilessly. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 02:34, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

Canon. Says who?

I posted along ramble earlier which has now been archived. The gist of it was "If the BBC has never stated its position on what is/isn't canon, then how can people editing a fan website make such a declaration"? Someone here makes a point to the effect of "since the BBC hasn't, we must!" Which really smacks of arrogance and/or fanwankery. There are some key points here:

1)Contrary to what some people like tot think the current production team does have a policy. Without going into anal detail, they have clearly decided that the VNA don't fit into their continuity(looms, Human Nature etc etc etc). And, likewise that the PDA don't fit into their continuity(whither PDA #64). Sarah's comment about "Ace" also seems to disregard the DWM comics pre-2005. And then there's the Two Time Wars. Thus it can clearly(yes it can) be established that the current team's idea is that the tv show 1963-89, J9 and company and the 1996 movie ARE canon. As is everything from Rose onwards in all media. Anything else is safe to be contradicted.

2)But if we accept the PDA and EDA as canon, we are contradicting the canon of the present show. And again, very important one of the PDA is "Scream of the Shalka". Either all the PDA including this are canon, or none of the PDA or canon. However, in the EDA "Gallifrey Chronicles" it is mentioned that the Doctor has three possible Ninth incarnations. This does allow the Shalka, and thus the pDA and EDA to be canon, but in a parallel universe to the New Series and its spin-offs.

3)We thus are faced with clear choices. a)only the tv show is canon. b)The canon policy that is used by the current production team(mentioned above) is used. c)Using the BBC novels, BOTH Richard E. grant and Christopher Eccleston are the Ninth Doctor, just in alternate realities. d)Everything is canon, including Cushing, Grant, the annuals, the merchandise "histories" etc. Since the BBC hasn'y stated their canon policy, who are some internet fans to decide on it for them, and then use that as a rigid rule?

Personally, I'd suggest the articles be structured that only the tv information is in the main body. And then underneath ALL relevant information be listed, whatever medium, but with notes indicating where they are contradictory. And, importantly, NO official proclamation that one medium is somehow superior to another(like the idiots who claim that No Future somehow decanonises the FASA game. How is one "superior" to the other??). – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.132.116.62 (talk).

Well, as you can see the Canon policy page has recently been rewritten. The wiki now makes no claims, by policy, about what is or isn't canonical Doctor Who, or that one medium is superior to another. There may be some stray remarks here and there which need to be edited or removed to fit this policy; if you come upon them, as they say on Wikipedia, so fix it.

You are of course, right that the current production team treats licensed material such as the novels and comics differently than it treats television stories, but I'm not sure that the difference amounts to an actual "canon policy" on the part of the production team. First of all, they'd never use that word. Second, they're just as willing to contradict a past TV story as a past book — otherwise we'd never have gotten from "You can't rewrite history! Not one line!" to "Time can be rewritten!" The difference is that when they're contradicting past TV stories, they usually use a throwaway line to patch up the discontinuity, something they don't bother to do when contradicting the books.

Now, you can say that by abandoning the word "canon" and shifting to a valid sources policy, we're trying to have it both ways: we don't make canonical claims, but we still get to draw lines about what does and doesn't "count". But that's just an inevitable part of the game we're playing here, trying to make a single coherent fictional universe out of nearly 50 years of stories by hundreds of different writers. When we list valid sources here, we're not making any claim about Doctor Who as a whole. You can still say that the Master and the Monk were the same person if you like. We're just saying which sources we're going to use here.

If you'd prefer to play the game by different rules, you can either try to convince the rest of the editors here in the Panopticon (though I doubt you'll get very far), or you can start up your own Doctor Who wiki using different rules (TV only or whatever you please). But here, the most active editors have mostly agreed on what we're going to count in our version of the "game". We have no objection to other people playing with different rules, but these are the rules we've decided on here, and it'll take a lot of effort to convince enough editors to make the change you're suggesting.

We've been discussing that "game" here, if you'd care to join us. But if you do, please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~. That'll produce a signature and timestamp. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 19:01, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is quite frankly nonsense. You admit that the BBC hasn't ruled on which(if any spin-offs) count. You admit that the makers of the tv show from 2005 onwards have disregarded certain spin-offs. You admit that there is no hierarchy of the spin-offs. Then....you say "but we here have our version of canon so that's that we're using!" Well, whatever. There was nothing remotely radical about what I proposed. This site needs to decide whether it's a Doctor Who wiki, or just a wiki devoted to a small group of Doctor Who fanboys with a unique take on "canon". If it's the latter then things are fine the way they are. If it's the former the "canon policy" needs a major overhaul ASAP. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 06:47, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

41.132 from your earlier post.

Prove that the current production team does have a policy. This proof must be from a valid source. You state that they "clearly decided that VNA don't fit their continuity".

From what I can tell, your argument seems to stem from this observation, that because there is this contradiction then therefore all of the stuff that's contradicted shouldn't be included. Or that anything said in a later story be that 1964 or 2004 which contradicts another piece of information from earlier means it should be disregarded. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

That is taking the main point off on a tangent. The main point is that, as this site insists, there is no official canon policy, then who is anyone here to declare something "non-canonical" or a "non-DWU adventure"? Yes, the clear contradiction between the New Series and the Virgin books(as an example) was from the power of observation. But then all the differences this site uses to de-canonise various adventures also comes from observation. And, if stories take superiority over guidebooks etc. the entire thrust of "canon" here is totally meaningless AND contradictory. Quite a feat. And just because something doesn't "git in with the DWU continuity", it must be "non-canon" is absurd on multiple levels. Since the current continuity uses the early 70's dating for UNIT The Web Of Fear and The Invasion must therefore be non-canon. Since we witnessed the destruction of the Earth in the New Series, then The Ark must be non-canon. Since Davros is now an integral part of Dalek history, then The Daleks(the first story) must be non-canon. And on and on it goes. And yet, recognising that two stories contain contradictory contnuity is achieved through....observation! The same thing you make a big deal out of. If one book states one thing, and another book states something else, we have to observe the difference. Then, of course, who is to say one book is "right" and one is "Wrong"? So deeming ANYTHING "non-canon" or "non-DWU adventure" is entirely a POV and quite frankly retarded.41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 16:04, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

To add to this, there was a lot of stuff that was regarded as official, yet appears to(observation) have been contradicted. As an obvious example, The Daleks was meant to be a self-contained story, yet the Daleks have returned a few times since then. Likewise, the VNA were meant to be the official continuation post-Survival, yet various facts in the subsequent tv stories(as well as the audios, comics and other books) can clearly be observed to contradict these books. In 2003 Richard E grant's "Shalka" Doctor was clearly meant to be the official Ninth Doctor(and the BBC book The Legend states as such), yet the New Series states that Eccleston is. And yet simple observation sees the New Series wildly contradicting the Classic Series. Then there's the whole "half-human" thing which in 1996 was clearly meant to be the official continuity. So, what it boils down to is this...one person states something is real/official/canon. Someone else states something else is real/official/canon. The BBC takes no stand either way. Anyone with any powers of observation sees the two things can not exist in the same so-called "Whoniverse" or "Doctor Who Universe"(both of which are unofficial fanwank terms btw). Sadly, the two most frequent solutions are either to go for the "total" Who continuity(ala the Compleat Adventures), or to choose one specific continuity, declare that "Canon"(on whose authority?!) and declare supposedly everything that doesn't fit into that a "non-DWU adventure). While both are flawed, the former is better as it doesn't set some internet fans up as "authoritie" on what is or isn't "canon", and what is or isn't a "DWU adventure". The continuity changes all the time, depending on the writer of that particular story you're experiencing right now. And it is all canon. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 16:41, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've arrived at this policy through lengthy discussion.

I picked that main point because the rest of your argument was split from that main point.

I'm not going to argue any of your points that lead from that. So I went back to your primary argument. Your observation I noted was of actual actions in the real world, you were it seemed interpreting what the production team has done.

Observations of a narrative are...well that's what you do, you read, watch, listen to the narrative and make observations.

Canon is a convenient umbrella term that covers the concept of "what we cover on this wiki". Don't get bogged down on the term canon. We're not imposing on anyone's personal idea of canon. We're just stating what we cover in order to manage this wiki effectively. We've got pages like the Tardis:Valid sources to cover questions like this. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:14, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

But that is very subjective. We need to look at things logically and rationally. BBC Television makes a programme called "Doctor Who". We can get into the fact that the show itself is riddled with continuity errors(UNIT Dating, Atlantis, The Doctor's age, being half-human etc. etc.) but we don't need to go into that here. In addition to making the show the BBC also produces Doctor Who spin-off tv(eg. Torchwood), Doctor Who audios, Doctor Who Books(both fiction and guides). Even these often contradict the tv show. But then we get to the main point here. The BBC licenses out the rights to produce original Doctor Who fiction to non-BBC companies. Since these are all NOT the BBC, and are using valid licences, who is to say that one is "more right" than another? I used the FASA/No Future example for a specific reason. That at the time of the FASA game's release it didn't contradict anything. In fact it still doesn't contradict the tv show one bit. What it does contradict is a book(again a licensed novel) released many years later. And that book itself contradicts the tv show.

But that is really not the main point. The main point is this....the BBC has licensed out the rights to Doctor Who to various companies over the years(IDW, World Distributors, Telos Publishing, Marvel, Virgin Books, Target Books, Big Finish Audios...well you get the idea). None of these companies are the BBC, yet every one of them was making officially licensed Doctor Who fiction. The fact that one group may have chosen for their officially licensed Doctor Who fiction to be a retelling of a classic tv serial on the big screen(Cushing of course) does absolutely not mean that it is any less "real" than another company trying to make stories that could fit seamlessly into the tv show. Because neither is "Real" in the way that the tv show is. They are both licensed spin-offs. And again, the thv show itself is full of contradictions that only the worst kind of fanwankery can explain. Whether it's the World Distributors Annuals. The Pescatons LP, the Virgin Novels, the Big Finish Montjly Line, the Peter Cushing movies, the TV Comics or whatever...it's all the same. Officially licensed Doctor Who fiction that the BBC are under no obligation to be consistent with. The fact that, as an example, 'Phantasmagoria' could slot into the tv continuity while, say, 'The Night Walkers' couldn';t is neither here no there. And the tv show may very well do something that makes it impossible for Phantasmagoria to do so. Then there's the fact that Mission To Magnus was specifically written for the tv show, and has since been ofccially adapted as both a book and an audio(with the original cast). And yet, comments in 'Mindwarp' mean that Magnus doesn't fit into the tv continuity. Then there's the whole "Which Shada if any is canon?"

But this can all be disregarded. ANY official Doctor Who fiction/product is canon. because there is no way anyone, even Ian Levine, could tie it all together into one continuity. And anyone who claims that one spin-off(whether book, audio, comic whatever) is "part of the Whoniverse" while another is "a non-DWU adventure" needs their head examined. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 18:02, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm now a little confused at your mention again of the FASA material. In short narrative are what we use to build the in-universe elements of this wiki.

That is how we use information on this wiki, along with other policies it's how we decide what's included and what isn't. Again, have you read the Tardis:Valid sources article? Four little rules in very big font.

Again I'm confused at why you're discussing contradictions in the narrative in your second paragraph. See T:VS. The BBC was never under any obligation to be consistent with any of its Doctor Who production, the TV series especially is not consistent.

Finally. Fine. Disregard it, personally. We are not telling you or anyone who's reading this wiki what to believe, we're just saying this is how we cover it and these are the rules and polices we've arrived at. It's a decision based on countless discussions with people who edit frequently on this wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:08, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

You're nitpicking small details. Any specific item was simply an example. The big picture is that you constantly state that "the BBC has never made any pronouncement on canon". You agree that all licensed spin-offs are equal, and that the tv show is under no obligation to be consistent with any licensed spin-off, You also agree that the tv show itself is full of continuity errors.

And yet, because of "lengthy discussion" we now have a "canon policy" where some stories are part of "the Doctor Who Universe" and others are not part of "the Doctor Who Universe". In addition certain officially licensed spin-offs are valid sources, while other equally official licensed spin-offs are not. And you fail to recognise how completely absurd this all is...tagging certain official(in some cases even BBC-produced) stories as "non-DWU adventures". Whatever policy this wiki has (vs, canon policy, lengthy discussions, whatever) it will fail, as there is no single "Doctor Who Universe", and there can never be. The other quite frankly ludicrous thing is the "Timeline". ie 'This story occurs before/after [x]'. The only things where that works is with tv stories, and where the spin-offs actually say that(eg. with the Big Finish stories). Even then they completely fail to fit into a single "DWU continuity" or whatever you call it.

My main pint is this:if it's an officially licensed Doctor Who story it's canon. Period. Whether it fits into "the continuity" is irrelevant, because even the tv show by itself has no single continuity. Dismissing officially licensed Doctor Who stories or products as "non-DWU" because of "discussion" is wrong. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 05:42, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view.

I and other admins (and other frequent editors) manage this. So it's not absurd at all. It's manageable.

As we've said the BBC hasn't made a statement on a canon for Doctor Who, just licensing.

Officially licensed Doctor Who and canon are separate things.

Discussion is how decisions are made on wikis, it's a community discussion. As with our inclusion policy, you can believe that it's wrong.

But we don't. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:11, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

No they aren't. If it's an official product it's canon. However, it may necessarily fit into the continuity, which is something completely separate from canon. The Peter Cushing movies are canon. Scream of the Shalka is canon. Doctor Who Unbound is canon. But none of them fit into the current continuity. I say current because the continuity itself changes all the time. Not just in-universe, by timey-wimey stuff or whatever. But because the production team of the time have certain ideas about what Doctor Who is and what it should be. So Innes LLoyds' idea or Barry Letts' or John Nathan-Turner's or whoever's will be different to Steven Moffat's. And the next producer may very well set out to make a show as different as possible both in style and in content as the current era. In addition, many of the official spin-offs were never "edited" or "produced" ala the tv show, so you could(and frequently did!) have authors deliberately inserting their own pet fanboy theories into stories, or even writing stories that deliberately screwed with established continuity. Thus, there is no such thing as "Canon" in the sense that you are using the term. Whether "We do" think it exists, it doesn't, "discussion" or not.

There are two separate issues here:

a)A television show called "Doctor Who" which should (but doesn't necessarily) have a self-contained consistent continuity.

b)All the officially licensed(ie legal) Doctor Who products produced by anyone with a proper legal right to make them. Thus, a Target book, a Big Finish audio, a Cushing movie, and IDW comic, or information on a Doctor Who chocolate wrapper are all equally canon. A novel written by someone connected with the show, and the "information" on a Cyberman action figure written by some who doesn't know Telos from Traken are both canon. Even if one may be consistent with the tv show, and one is way off. Because if it's an official Doctor Who product it's canon. You may not think that. But it's true. It's damn true. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 16:13, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said you're free to think that. But there is no concrete proof of a connection between canon and licensing. That may be the position of other wikis and other series/licences.

But that's not what the policy of this wiki is. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:38, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

There is no concrete proof of anything. However let's play simple logic.

a)The BBC have never stated what is or isn't canon.

b)All sorts of official Doctor Who stories have appeared as books, comics, audios etc. Many contradict each other. But see a)

c)The only way that a certain type of fan can comprehend this is the fan-created idea of a Whoniverse. The next step is fanwankery such as "Season 6b" or the idea that clones of the Master were created after Survival.(why?!) It makes me shudder just typing this

d)Certain things contradict each other. Eg. the comics and the Big Finish Audios, the VNA and BBC Books, the VNA and the comics.....and yet we have things like Fribisher in BBC Books, Bernice Summerfield and Izzy in the BFA etc,

e)AT the time many products were created there was no question of them "not being canon". Largely because such a concept didn't exist. And yet that's what we are told today. As an obvious example, early TV Comics and World Distributor Annuals unambiguously state that the Doctor is from Earth. And yet, that isn't in the continuity. Likewise the Cushing movies were stated as being another(future or past) incarnation of the Doctor etc.

f)Likewise the dreaded retconning. Eg at the time of Morbius those other faces 'were the Doctor. But it was later stated that they weren't. And thank God that Lungbarrow never became a tv story that that "loom" nonsense. And yet Lungbarrow became an officially licensed book, with that loom crap. Despite the numerous references to families, and Time Lords being children.

Now, we can either go point-by-point making an "inclusion policy" that "We" "discuss" should be included(but this would often mean literally going line-by-line through tv episodes). Or we can accept that since the BBC makes no pronouncement about any of the spin-offs, and it's all officially-licensed Doctor Who...well you work it out. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 16:55, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Good. Okay. We agree. No concrete proof. Hence, our policies.

Nothing you've so far said disagrees with our polices, though you seem to have mis-interpreted some things.

Narratives are the things that are important whether they're contradictory or not. I won't repeat the rest but it's in our valid sources policy that I've mentioned above.

We've already had a majority of the discussions concerning this policy in order to arrive at the policy. These are rules for the wiki. As I've said you seem to have your opinion of this and that's fine, but this is what the wiki is doing. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:07, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I've said disagrees with your policies. Specifically the idea of stories being "non-canon" or "non-DWU adventures". And "narratives"in the sense og Doctor Who is totally subjective and personal, as we all know.

You say you've had "a majority of the discussions" implying there is stuff said here that hasn't been raised before. And, in a quick recap, how did it arrive at the policy that certain stories are "DWU" while others aren't?

Of course, the "no concrete proof" statement was that there is no concrete proof that stories that this site treats as being non-DWU have been designated as such by the BBC, or anyone else, NOT "no concrete proof" that all officially licensed Doctor Who stories are canon. Since the BBC has never made a pronouncement on that. You are deliberately twisting words around, taking things out of context and misinterpreting what has been said in order to suit your own ideas. Maybe you should try writing an updated Discontinuity Guide? 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 17:53, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

There are links to the various inclusion discussions we've had on the valid sources page.

See Whoniverse Discontinuity Guide for an online discontinuity guide that covers stories following the original book's publication. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:01, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Anon, your objections have some validity, but the problem is a practical one. It's just not possible to include all licensed Doctor Who material, because some of it — a small minority, mind you — contradicts the vast majority of other Doctor Who material so blatantly that it's just not possible to write an "in-universe" article including it all. For example, if you're writing an article about the Dalek occupation of Earth, would you say that it was averted when the Doctor (a Time Lord who had stolen a TARDIS) diverted a bomb to blow up the Daleks' saucer, or when Dr. Who (a human scientist who had invented a time machine called Tardis) used the magnetic properties of the Earth to draw all the Daleks and their ship towards the centre of the Earth? Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. was a fully licensed story at the time of its creation, but it's just not compatible with television Doctor Who as part of the same fictional universe.

We've been trying to get away from using the term "canon", because it really doesn't have any meaning with regard to Doctor Who, as Paul Cornell so convincingly argued. We freely admit that what we're doing here, the lines we draw between what is and isn't part of the "Doctor Who universe", are completely subjective, and that anybody is free to accept or reject them. We have, and claim, no authority. That's why the {{notdwu}} template begins with the sentence, "You can believe that this subject is part of the Doctor Who universe."

What we're doing here — creating an encyclopedia for everything that's ever happened in Doctor Who, and connecting it all together as if it were a single narrative — has nothing to do with the concept of "canon", really. It's just a game, a version of what Cornell described thus:

There is, of course, and I wouldn’t want to put a stop to this, an entirely benign sort of canonicity discussion, in which a writer, such as Lance Parkin, enters into a game of where and how everything might fit together, if it did. That’s just fun, and the authority assumed is only that of a stage magician, because the intention isn’t to hurt anyone.

If we put a {{notdwu}} template on top of the Scream of the Shalka (webcast) page, we're not saying that it's in any way inferior to any other Doctor Who story. We're just saying that if we're trying to write an article about the biography of the Master, we aren't going to talk about the time when he was trapped in an android body inside the TARDIS. And there's nothing wrong with that.

By the way, if you really want to see all the previous discussions on this, most of them are here. The oldest ones, which began on this page, are now here. Frankly, it's pretty tedious reading, but that's how we got to where we are today. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 22:20, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is, if you're doing a biography of The Master, then even the period between 'Survival' and 'The TV Movie' has at least 4 very different scenarios, no two of which can be reconciled. Likewise, a biography of Ace would have to have her dying in an explosion, yet growing up to become a Time Lord while running a charity on Earth. A biography on Sil would need him to not meet the Doctor or Peri between 'Vengeance On Varos' and 'Mindwarp', while at the same time meeting them during 'Mission To Magnus'(which is between Varos and Mindwarp). An article on UNIT would need the organisation to have been formed no earlier than 1975, while at the same time having a golden age that "spanned the 60's,,,". And a biography on the Doctor himself would have him regenerating into his seventh incarnation at the age of 953, celebrating his 1000th birthday as Number Seven, and then spending more than 700 years in his 8th incarnation, only to be 900 in his 9th incarnation, and about 1103 in his 11th!

Simply, there is no main continuity as such. As stated above, new writers introduce new ideas of the show as they see it. This often totally contradicts even what was on tv the year before.Attempting to fit it all together into a single narrative is impossible. The only way is to exclude "things that don't fit", what "we don't thin" is part of "the DWU". However, as noted in some cases this means that even certain lines of dialogue from "The Daleks" would have to be removed. Or the Rani's code in 'Time and the Rani" would have to be ignored. Or people saying offensive things like "professor Travers was old, and therefore forgetful". Or Sarah "rounded up" when she said 1980. Or worst of all, creating insane fanwank fanfic to "fill in" areas. One of the worst being the aforementioned idea that after Survival a whole group of Master clones were created. Simply put, even ignoring the spin-offs, the tv show itself can not be placed in a single coherent narrative. I mean we can watch all the episodes/recons in order, but from an in-universe perspective, it's impossible for it all to fit together like that. Unless, of course the Doctor's travels change the past, in which case all the "non-DWU" adventures could also have taken place in altered timelines. And who's to say which timelines still exist "now" and which don't? 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 07:22, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that if we're honest about it, any attempt at a coherent Doctor Who continuity is doomed (how many times was Atlantis destroyed?). But it's still fun to pretend that it's not, and to try to make things fit. Which is all we're doing here. Everyone who edits here has decided that it's fun to try to put Doctor Who into a coherent "universe" — otherwise, there's no point in even having an "in-universe" Doctor Who wiki. So we have a more-or-less coherent narrative at the Master which includes the New Adventures' "The Master (First Frontier)|Basil Rathbone" version, the Big Finish "The Master (Dust Breeding)|back to Beevers" version and the comics' preacher version, but not the android version, because Russell T Davies explicitly excluded that story and Paul Cornell has referred to it retrospectively as "my Unbound" (though that was not at all the intention when it was made).

You're acting as if we haven't considered these issues, or aren't aware of the absurdity of our entire enterprise. But we have, and we are. We know that the boundary lines we've drawn for the "Doctor Who universe" are somewhat arbitrary, but each decision has been made by consensus. And there's also a consensus here that something called the "Doctor Who universe" exists, despite the (entirely plausible) argument that it doesn't — because the alternative would undermine the entire purpose of this wiki. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 20:15, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

But even then we can, as an example, fit the Shalka Doctor into "continuity". In a variety of different ways as well. But that is getting into the same sort of fanwankery that jams all the Masters EXCEPT the android one into the "DWU".

I also don't see why there needs to be a DWU for this wiki to work/exist/etc. I first discovered it not because I wanted the complete(compleat?) history of one character or planet, but looking for information on a specific story. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 06:27, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Because when this wiki was started they wanted to do something different to Wikipedia (see Tardis:About for more info). Inspired by both Wikipedia and the Star Trek wikia MemoryAlpha, it set out to create something that presented in-universe information as "real". Unlike Wikipedia which starts every in-universe article with "this character, from the fictional universe of Doctor Who" (or something along those lines). As well as far more detailed story and other pages than Wikipedia can focus on. --Tangerineduel / talk 10:20, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but then it all becomes the take of one person on what is "real". Deciding that story x is part of the "DWU" and story y isn't. Even though story x completely contradicts story a(which is also "DWU"), while story y doesn't. And Star Trek has a clear and unambiguous canon policy. With Doctor Who, it becomes someone saying "novel i" says this and "novel ii" says that...I prefer novel i so that is "DWU" and novel ii isn't. The best idea if you really want biographies, is to present it all, but point out the points of divergence. There was a rather heated debate over whether Death Comes To Time is canon, and when I last looked it looked like it was....despite the fact that it completely contradicts the tv show. In addition the VNA and the DWM comics can't both be "DWU", yet they are listed as such. As an example, the Gallifrey Chronicles states that the Eighth Doctor has three possible and equally real Ninth incarnations. So they should be named as "Ninth Doctor(Rose)" , "Ninth Doctor(Shalka)" etc. Likewise, after Survival, there are clearly at least two different Aces. It's all DWU, yet the tv show is the "proper" continuity. And even that ius hopelessly self-contradictory. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 15:19, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion that they are contradictory.

They are merely different presentations of different accounts, as I've said the DWU is big and messy and we're putting together articles using several sources. The more sources the more information we have.

As is stated on our T:Valid sources page...well that answers your question concerning the Ninth Doctor and the validity of The Gallifrey Chronicles there was also a community discussion that addressed it as well.

There's never been one person deciding any of what goes into this wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:45, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. It is fact. And if it's just "my opinion" that Ace dying young, yet growing up to both be a Time Lord AND running a charity, then it is just your opinion that the Peter Cushing movies or the Shalka Doctor aren't part of "the DWU". And even a "discussion" is just people's opinions, not a valid source. An officially licensed product which states 'Doctor Who' on the front is far more a valid source than some "community discussion" or "we don't" or anything similar.

What it all boils down is you have your own "personal canon" and want the wiki to reflect that, rather than any sort of concrete reality. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 17:11, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

It is a decision as a result of community discussion.

I disagree that it's fact, as has been said there is no official statement on canon. (Which is noted on the Canon policy page)

I've never stated my opinion relating to or whether I have a 'personal canon'. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:17, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thus far the discussion goes something like this:

Me: How can you say with any certainty that "story x" isn't part of the "DWU"?

You: Because it is not canon.

Me: But two stories you do think are canon contradict each other in a way that is impossible to reconcile.

You: The BBC have never issued a statement on what is or is not canon.

Me: But then how can you say that "story x" is not part of a canon, if no such canon exists?

You : Because we want to! Because we want to! 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 17:24, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as "opinion" hoes, if someone dies young in an explosion, the chance of them growing up and simultaneously living two very different lives on two very different planets is not really probable. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 17:26, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone wanted to start this wiki. A community formed around that decision and decided to create a structure around which we can contribute.

So essentially yes, we are the people saying say so, because we, the community have had to work out what to cover and what not to and the fine lines along the way.

Although, for every "You" statement relating to me I've usually pointed towards our policies. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:31, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

You are aware how much you are behaving like a villain now aren't you? Defending policies that you can't even justify, and using a variety of contradictory reasons and explanations. "oh but that's not part of the DWU", "Oh, but there has never been any official statement from the BBC about canon", "Oh but that's the policy". It is also strange when you state "We" and then I speak about this "we", you point to the policy. In terms of "working out what to cover", well if it is a Doctor Who wiki, then how about covering Doctor Who?! Not fanfic or anything like that, but official Doctor Who stories etc. And even you must admit that he moment you state "this is not part of the DWU" you are making a definite statement about canon, even though the BBC has never made a statement about canon. Policies can and do change. As long as ANY official Doctor Who story is presented as "not being part of the DWU" you are making definite statements about canon and continuity. And again, yes you(in whatever sense you want to take that0 may run the wiki, but you have in effect stated that this "policy" is somehow of more importance than the BBC! If the BBC has never stated any canon policy, or what is or isn't part of the main continuity, then this "policy by discussion" is claiming that it is more important and significant than the BBC itself. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 17:39, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Nope.

Not more important than the BBC. We don't claim that our policies reach any where past this wiki.

That's all anything policy wise relates to, stuff that happens on this wiki.

If you have any further concerns relating to general policy on this wiki please begin a topic on the Forum:Panopticon where more users will be aware of the discussion. This discussion has strayed far too far away from the editing of the current policy page and has been in danger of breaching our Tardis:Discussion policy for some time.

Thank you for contributing to this talk page and should you have any further concerns please begin a forum discussion on Forum:Panopticon. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:47, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is "We do what we want to do. it doesn't have to be right. It doesn't have to make any sense at all. But it's what we want. And we don't like people suggesting alternatives". 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 17:54, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Our Tardis:Manual of Style states things to that affect, we have chosen to use British English on this wiki, which may not be "right" for people who edit on Wikipedia for example. Other elements of our MoS may for some people who have edited or read elsewhere may not make sense to them, but we have tried through our policies to explain why we have chosen to do it the way we do.

As I said you're free to bring this discussion to the Forum:Panopticon where your concerns can be addressed by more users. But I feel that I have attempted to answer all your questions multiple times over and do not believe any further discussion between just us two will result in any further information being delivered. There are multiple help and policy pages on this wiki that seek to explain what we do, why and how we've chosen to do it. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:05, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

To the 41.whatever anonymous poster (hereinafter referred to as "41" or "not quite 42"):

I really do appreciate your frustration. You're coming late to the party and you don't like what you see. If you're dissatisfied with us excluding a very small number of stories, all of which are entirely marginal to the larger Doctor Who experience, I can only ask that you rethink your stance. Does it really matter to your experience of this wiki that we don't count Dimensions in Time or The Curse of Fatal Death? Really? Does it? Realistically, why is that such a big deal to you? I can understand if we were saying, "Yanno, we're just not going to count the whole Seventh Doctor era." But what we're doing is merely codifying what most fans think, anyway.

I know of no fan who genuinely believes, without proviso, that Dimensions in Time is a part of the stories they consider canon. And the same is true for almost everything else we exclude. So what are you fighting for? Why are these stories so important to you?

I should point out, too, that we're only talking about exclusion from the in-universe portion of articles. Nobody is forbidding a notation in the "behind the scenes" sections. And so long as the work is licensed by the BBC, no one is saying "delete the page about <insert story name here>". There will still be a page at Dimensions in Time for instance. All we're saying is, "Actually, the Sixth Doctor didn't meet the Brig around a helicopter in London. Nor is Pat Butcher a part of the DWU (except maybe as a fictional character)."

I honestly can't understand why that's so objectionable.

We're not a "bunch of fanboys" pullin' this stuff outta thin air. We're trying to create some sort of reasonable, administrable order out of the chaos that is Doctor Who fiction. Does that mean arbitrarily making some decisions? Of course it does. But even the arbitrary decisions are ones that have been discussed over time in the eight years we've been up and running. This isn't a case of just rockin' up with some new policy bling. This is a matter of sifting through masses of discussions that have taken place in every corner of the wiki and trying to put it together into a simple, coherent policy.

All Doctor Who encyclopedias must decide somehow what they're going to cover. All of them. At least our process has been consultative, deliberate and, well, slow. You, Mr. or Ms. 41, are simply coming in on the tail end of that process, so it looks like one person — me, I should think — is "imposing their will" on the wiki. But it's really not like that at all.

If that explanation doesn't satisfy you, I'm not sure any will. Tangerineduel and Josiah Rowe have been admirably trying their best to catch you up to speed. At this point, it's time to just accept this as policy and decide whether it's something you can live with. We hope that is, and that you'll enjoy reading our articles or contributing to their editing. If not, if this all just too arbitrary for you, then we wish you well and thank you for your input to date.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">22:15: Sun 01 Jul 2012 

A bit of an addendum:

I think it's possible that you may not be considering how different everyone's view of canon is. I mean, we all pay it lip service — everyone has their own idea of what counts, and all that — but when it comes down to actually writing an encyclopedia in that environment, it's damned hard work. You seem to be an ultra-inclusionist, but there are people on the other side of this argument. There have been a lot of people who've come through here who thought we should be television only or television primarily. Seriously, go back and read something like Forum:The original inclusion debates and you'll see how different the original ideas for the wiki really were. There was a serious move at one point, for instance, to differentiate text that derived from non-televised sources. There was even a suggestion somewhere that we should do a Memory Alpha/Memory Beta kinda split, where televised stuff would be firmly on one wiki, while all the rest of it went on another one. I myself at one point proposed a notion of "primacy of televised material" — which went exactly nowhere.

My point is that there have been a lot of different propels over the years. Where we are right now is a compromise. It's not, therefore, perfect. If it's making you unhappy for being very slightly exclusionist, it's making someone else unhappy for being too inclusionist.

As with all tasks, we do the best we can. And the best we can is a policy which lets in almost everything the BBC (or others) have ever licensed, with a few very minor exceptions.

You said above something like "you can't even defend this policy". I couldn't disagree more. This is a great policy which comes after years of deliberation, and represents a good compromise that doesn't hand a total victory to the inclusionists. It focuses our work squarely on things most users could reasonably see as being a "proper" part of the larger Doctor Who oeuvre, and allows us to boil the whole thing down into more or less a single sentence:

"A story counts so long as it's been cleared by its copyright holders — except for a few special cases where there's doubt as to whether the story was intended to be set in the mainstream DWU continuity."
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">22:40: Sun 01 Jul 2012 

Another addendum:

As CzechOut says, any Doctor Who reference work is going to make decisions about what it does and doesn't cover. Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia covers TV stories from Rose to The Wedding of River Song, plus the Adventure Games and animated stories, but it doesn't cover books, audiobooks or comics. AHistory covers the TV stories, novels, audios, webasts and the DWM comic, but not the TV Comic or TV21 comics. (Parkin includes Death Comes to Time and Shalka, but not the Peter Cushing movies or Curse of Fatal Death. (Though he adds notes to the entries about Death Comes to Time and Scream of the Shalka saying that a lot of fans, and even the makers of those stories, no longer consider them canonical.)

It's fine to dispute the choices we, as a community, have made about what to include and not to include. Those decisions are subjective, and subject to review (though you may find a certain institutional resistance to change). We're also open to suggestions about the best way to describe the lines we draw, to emphasize that we're not claiming anything absolute, just making rules for this wiki. But what's not subject to review is the notion that there have to be some rules. Because if we don't draw the lines somewhere, then we'll get a thousand disputes on a thousand pages about whether this story or that story should be mentioned, and where. If we establish a policy through discussion and consensus, we can point people to that policy. It's just a practical matter, nothing more. We're not dictating anything for anybody else. If you don't like the choices we've made, you're free to ignore us. We're not official. You could even make another Doctor Who wiki, with different rules, or no rules. And if you do, we wish you well. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 23:59, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, JNT himself stated that Dimensions In Time counted as canon. But the point is simple enough...if the BBC have never stated what is or isn't canon, then this wiki saying that something "is a non-DWU adventure" or anything similar is drawing a line that the BBC themselves never have. I would also never claim "what most fans think". In fact, most people who watch Doctor Who likely don't read the comics or novels, or buy the audios, so for them, "Canon" is what's been on television.

And if we were to nitpick, then(as a random example) the opening scenes of "Caves of Androzani" make it clear that what we are seeing follows on directly from "Planet of Fire". However, there are more than a few audios, books etc. set between them.

Basically, what it boils down to is this:

a)The BBC has never stated a canon policy.

b)Every official Doctor Who story is thus equal.

c)The BBC themselves have never stated that there is such a thing as "the DWU". That is a fanboy creation.

d)Neither you nor I nor anyone else can be so bold as to proclaim "what most fans think", or "what most fans believe to be the canon".

e)No matter which form of "the DWUI" or "canon"or whatever anyone attempts to piece together, there will be many major contradictions and continuity errors that are impossible to reconcile. Even if one were to say "just the tv show" it wouldn't all fit together into one narrative.

f)Part of the enjoyment of Doctor Who is that many different people have many different ideas of what "Real" Doctor Who is. Stating ONE(hopelessly self-contradictory) view as "the DWU" and excluding everything else as "non-DWU" is both assuming an authority that the BBC never has AND it's basically telling people "we are right. you are wrong." 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 10:54, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer your individual points, because it's obvious if you're still trying to tell us that the BBC has no canon, then you obviously haven't read our canon policy. Re-read the first paragraph, of tardis:canon policy please.

A "couple three" of your points deserve some specific attention, though.

First, I take issue with your assertion that DIT is canon. I'm sure that the writer would have so advertised it, but it's a hard case to make. The truth is, it's not even a fully licensed story. It's probably the only televised story which has no reasonable claim of being fully licensed.

See, it was produced in such a way that no one fully owns it. It was a one-time-only, for-charity-only thing, so none of the actors gave permission for a repeat airing. This means that the likenesses of the various Doctors and companions are no longer legally licensed from the copyright holders (i.e., the actors themselves). The same is true of the "hit parade of monsters and aliens". This thing has the interests of tons of writers, from Pip and Jane Baker to Terry Nation to Robert Holmes, and none of that remains under license (if such was every specifically obtained). So, DIT is ruled out of bounds because it's a charity event. It is not a BBC-licensed story; it was the conduit by which a lot of individual actors appeared on Children in Need. It's a very different legal situation than that which obtained with Time-Crash, where the production as a whole was copyright the BBC, who then gave the video in toto over to CIN, but retained rebroadcast and home video rights.

Secondly, you seem to be laboring under the false impression that we're excluding things in order to simplify narrative. This is wholly inaccurate. We're big fans of John and Gillian around these parts, so that immediately means that we're going to have difficulties reconciling one part of DW history to another. That's totally cool with us. Neither this canon policy, nor its related valid sources policy are about trying to exclude sources so that it's possible to tell a single narrative about the Doctor. As you've pointed out, it's not possible to do that, even if you limited yourself to just the television show.

Thirdly, absolutely no one is saying "we're right; you're wrong." We're saying:

"These thousands and thousands of fully licensed stories over here are what you can use to write an article on this wiki — and these dozen or so stories can't."

That's it. We're not at all saying the way we've done it is "right". Again, we're explicitly saying that it is a compromise. And no compromise is fully right or wrong.

I would therefore very much appreciate it if you could adopt a more objective tone with your messages, if you feel bound to continue adding them. No one here has nearly so haughty an opinion of themselves as you continue to allege. We're just trying to make a policy that is based on years of community discussions just like this one, and which is as simple and understandable as possible. You seem to be assuming bad faith on our part, and that's disheartening.

Also, I should tell you that you're not really bringing up any arguments that haven't been brought up before. Obviously, if you want to keep posting to this page, you can, but frankly over the last eight years, this community has heard it all before. Your ultra-inclusionist stance is one view that's been articulated in the past. It has met with some resistance, and a compromise was born. So it's not that we're being truculent in remaining largely unmoved by your comments. We're simply protecting the interests of the anti-inclusionists who have a hard enough problem accepting, say, officially licensed comic strips, much less DIT and Curse.

I hope you can see that there simply comes a time to write the damned policy and move on. It's nothing personal against you or your views.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">20:37: Mon 02 Jul 2012 

41ish said:

Part of the enjoyment of Doctor Who is that many different people have many different ideas of what "Real" Doctor Who is. Stating ONE(hopelessly self-contradictory) view as "the DWU" and excluding everything else as "non-DWU" is both assuming an authority that the BBC never has AND it's basically telling people "we are right. you are wrong."

I agree completely with your first sentence, 41. And it's because of that freedom that our {{notdwu}} template reads:

We make it completely clear and explicit that we're not claiming any authority at all. We're just setting rules for this wiki, not for all of Doctor Who. I don't know how we could be any clearer about that. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 01:28, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing personal against me or my views. Yes. But it is personal, because it is your views. As far as "Dimenions in Time", well JNT stated unambiguously that it was part of the canon, and that it deserved its own production number.

As far as repeats, wow. Nearly every episode from 'An Unearthly Child' onwards, up until well into the 70's had specific laws that it was to be shown once, and that's it. Had the BBC even attempted to rebroadcast an episode, they would have had to navigate miles of red tapes and contractual hurdles. Which is precisely why so many stories of the first three Doctors were destroyed. Because of the "show once and once only, and we would have to re-open legal/contractual negotiations if we even wanted a rebroadcast". In addition, foreign broadcasters were required to destroy their copies(or return them to the BBC for destruction) after their one showing. So if you're using THAT for a reason to decanonise DIT, then you would have to remove pretty much everything pre-Tom Baker from the "DWU". And, "fully licensed"? That would remove many BBV, Reeltime, Big Finish, Doctor Who Annuals etc. stories from "the DWU".

See, you told me to re-read what is written. I have. Over and over. and, regardless of who said what before, or what the "compromise" is, the logic is still totally flawed. Whatever, reasoning you use, there will be things you include that you shouldn't, and things you exclude which should be included under the definition. "The DWU" is also the fabrication of the kind of fan who memorises production codes,

Yes, I know the template, and why it is there etc. But your response seems to be "Yes, but this is the best solution." But it isn't. It still comes across as someone trying to dictate what is "canon" and what isn't. It still comes across as someone using a hopelessly self-contradictory set of criteria that they need to state "I'm not replying to your points" to try and justify. Yes, this has been brought up before. And again. And again. Why do you think people KEEP on bringing it up? Why do you think the "Valid Sources" has to be written, rewritten, discussed etc. ? Because this version of "what we think" and "you don't" simply doesn't work. But it's what people decided on eight years ago. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 06:56, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph:

This wiki's canon policy is pretty simple: Doctor Who and its related programmes have no canon. Therefore, we allow articles about most officially licensed stories. However, we do define what stories serve as valid sources to write our in-universe articles.

So, no canon, and nothing other than "We allow...from most officially licensed stories". And the article goes on to state that the BBC themselves have never said which stories "count". And the article even states in bold that the BBC don't have the right to define it. But apparently "We do. It all seems to ginfe on what the "DWU" is. Even though the article states that such a thing is impossible(and apparently illegal) to define.

Going over to the DWU article, we see that its scope is "debated by fans". The article states that the DWU is "the shared fictional universe in which...takes place". So the person who said it's NOT all about narrative was either unsure what the "DWU" is him/herself or simply lying. The "DWU"(as the article states) is about "the stories told in other media were part of the same universe as those told on television". Again, fitting it into the same narrative. And not much else, besides declaring that the Cushing movies, Shalka, Death comes to Time, and Doctor Who Unbound(which interestingly has the same initials DWU) are not part of the "Doctor Who Universe". No mention is made of Dimensions in Time of course. Nor is there any mention of the numerous continuity errors and impossibilities attempting to create such a "DWU". And yes, it IS about placing everything except Cushing/Shalka/Unbound/DCTT into a single narrative, a single continuity, a single canon. Oh, and Dimensions in time too. Oddly enough there's no mention on the DWU page of a Fix With Sontarans, Search Out Space or the Curse of Fatal Death either. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 09:14, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's as simple as this. We decided long ago that we would have "production articles" and "in-universe articles". Production articles are about the production of the stories. So: "real world" articles, like story pages, cast biographies and the like. In-universe articles are those articles about things within the narrative. If there are in-universe articles, there must, by definition, be some kind of universe. We therefore must have some sort of clear set of rules defining what comprises "the universe". Since the BBC won't (and can't) oblige us by providing a definition of what counts, we must come up with that definition ourselves.

You haven't convinced me, or apparently anyone who's responded to this thread, that there's a flaw in that logic. Now, it might very well be a flawed decision to write articles from an in-universe point of view. But that's a whole separate argument. And, in any case, it would take considerable, manual, tedious work to rewrite every article from a different perspective.

As long as we're going with the theory that articles should be written from an in-universe point of view, then we must also carry the burden of defining what is the shape of that universe.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">20:42: Thu 05 Jul 2012 

Yes. That is perfectly clear. The problem is the "we must come up" bit. Deciding that story x is part of the DWU, whereas story y isn't is the issue. The reasons that certain stories have been deemed to be outside the "DWU" is because they contradict the rest of the "DWU". Yet, the "DWU" itself is so horribly self-contradictory on so many levels. that excluding few stories for that reason is silly at best. Just as it is impossible to properly reconcile the various fates of Ace, or the various storylines of the Master between Survival and the TV movie, or the UNIT dating or..... So, unless a story has been clearly designated as being outside the main narrative(eg. Big Finish Unbound) it should be included as part of the DWU. This should include stuff like Dimensions in Time which producer JNT decreed was canon. In fact, considering the number of parallel universes the Doctor has gone to, not to mention the various negated timelines, everything is essentially part of the same universe. For instance, asking "What if the Doctor had never left Gallifrey" is no different than saying "What if Donna had never met the Doctor". 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 05:16, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

CzechOut wrote: "If there are in-universe articles, there must, by definition, be some kind of universe. We therefore must have some sort of clear set of rules defining what comprises "the universe"."

This doesn't follow at all. Writing an in-universe article in no way requires us to decide what comprises the universe. It's just a stylistic quirk, and requires nothing. That's what I mean when I say that it's equivalent to writing in the third-person or past-tense. It's simplicity itself to write "some say the Doctor and several of his other incarnations faced off against the Rani in London" without taking a position on whether or not it our imaginary narrator is certain it happened. -- Rowan Earthwood ^{talk to me} 01:18, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Please give up on the "JNT said it was canon" argument for Dimensions in Time. It simply doesn't wash. He wasn't an employee of the BBC at the time. He had no standing to declare anything canon. He was a freelance writer at that point. I'm not even terribly sure he was actually paid for DIT, since it was, after all, a charity event. What's more, the BBC don't even own Dimensions in Time so there's no way it fits within our general paradigm of "what counts". The license holders are in effect all of the participants, and they all have withheld their permission from it ever being used again. It was a one-off charity special, no matter what JNT said at the time. It is not copyright BBC — at least, not in any way that the BBC could exercise any of the normal privileges of copyright.

And you seem to still not be understanding the core argument of our policies. You say:

The reasons that certain stories have been deemed to be outside the "DWU" is because they contradict the rest of the "DWU".

No, that's totally not true. You're still completely missing the point of the policy. Even if you just look at televised DW, there's an internal inconsistency that can't be resolved. Therefore, our basis of excluding material has nothing to do with the narrative. We're not ruling DIT out of bounds because it's crap. If being poorly aligned with other stories was the determinative factor for us, then John and Gillian, Attack of the Cybermen, Lungbarrow and a ton of other stuff would be out of bounds.

The only sane policy for determining valid sources is one firmly based on out-of-universe considerations only.

• Is it properly licensed?
• Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?
• Is it obviously parodic?

These are the sort of questions that lead to a story being declared invalid around here. Let me say it one more time: We don't declare stories invalid just because they're difficult to place within continuity.

@Rowan. I disagree. If the rule is that we write articles from an in-universe perspective, it does indeed matter what the scope of that universe is. You can't just say "some accounts hold" indefinitely. "Some accounts", like those made by NASA and other real life agencies, hold that there is no life on Mars. But those accounts are invalid in the DWU, where the "truth" is that Ice Warriors come from Mars. "Some accounts" hold that there was no significant British aerospace program. But The Ambassadors of Death tells us differently.

Yes, we use the "some accounts suggest" paradigm in a lot of situations around here. But you can't use it to justify the inclusion of material from an invalid source. As Josiah, Tangerineduel and I have said throughout this document, there must be a clear sense of what stories count and which don't. And I've spent a lot of time carefully discussing the few exceptions one by one in various inclusion debates. There is no whim or fancy to any of this procedure.

I fully admit that we could say The Curse of Fatal Death, for example, is a valid source. And in such a case, we could use the "some accounts suggest" trick to include that material in in-universe articles. But we're simply not going to do that. Why? Because we've had an individual debate about that issue and decided Curse is not valid. I think Josiah has suggested upthread that such a decision was arbitrary, and that's certainly one way of looking at it. Fine. Some decisions in life simply are arbitrary. But I much prefer to think that the decision was deliberative than merely arbitrary. A choice was presented to the community and the community responded with a clear "no thank you" to Curse.

And that's how all of this has been done. Carefully, slowly and steadily. And at the end of the day we're really talking about excluding the tiniest, tiniest fraction of material.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">02:46: Mon 09 Jul 2012 

He wasn't an employee of the BBC at the time. He had no standing to declare anything canon. He was a freelance writer at that point. ALL those points would then mean that ALL non-television Doctor Who is not canon.

Is it properly licensed? would mean that many Dalek, Sontaran etc. stories would fall in a grey area owing to the licensing issues. Even stories where the background music is not properly licensed by the BBC would be iffy at best.

One of your main points about JNT was that "he ahd no standing to declare anything canon". True. But then he never had any standing when he was the Producer either. Neither does Steven Moffat now. Nor did RTD, or Barry Letts, or Innes LLoyd, or Verity Lambert or.... Because as Producers they never had any George Lucas-style control over the show. Doctor Who is a BBC-copyright. As producers, they were never "in charge". They were(or are) BBC employees whose job was to produce the show(ie. make sure it was made on time and on budget according to the guidelines ladi out for them by the BBC). So, whatever ANY producer, script editor, freelance writer(such as Paul Cornell) or fan(such as us) says is canon is equally worthless. We can however point to the facts...

1)The idea of a Doctor Who Universe where all(or most...) of these adventures all take place in some giant continuum is an 80's fanboy creation. The BBC has never indicated that such a "universe" exists.

2)One officially licensed Doctor Who product is no different to another officially licensed Doctor Who product in the eyes of the BBC.

3)Every argument you have used to exclude on story would exclude another. Eg. "not working for the BBC" for Dimensions in Time would exclude most of the comics. And earlier one, someone DID state that the "narrative" was the thing. Every time someone points out the flaw, you change the criteria.

4)Another argument was twofold a)in order to write in-universe articles we need a "universe". True, but who said that articles actually need to be written "in-universe"? The answer to that is b)a lot of work has gone into writing these articles, and it would too much effort to rewrite them all without the in-universe narrative. Yup, you keep denying the narrative argument, and it keeps popping up again and again.

Of course, if you really want to be literal you could point to the facts that

i)The BBC exists solely as a result of HM's Government allowing it to as per the BBC Charter. ALL original BBC Drama must follow the laws and regulations as set out by that Charter. One key clause states that ALL original BBC Drama must have self-contained continuities, and the viewer must not be requried to purchase additional items to "complete the story".

2)The BBC itself is not one company. The BBC Drama Department is responsible for making Doctor Who the tv show. However, a totally separate Department of the BBC is BBC Worldwide(formerly BBC Enterprises). Enterprises/Worldwide is there solely to make money, not tv. As such they license out BBC copyrights to third parties who are then allowed to make products based on BBC television shows, with Enterprises/Worldwide getting a percentage of the profits. One such show is obviously Doctor Who. Thus, EVERYTHING from the novels, to the movies, to the comic books, to the audios, to the action figures, to the candy bars, to the clothing, to the colouring-in books, to the posters, to the biscuit tins, to the computer games etc. etc. is all just merchandising that is completely separate from the Doctor Who Production Office and the television show. Thus, asking whether a novel is canon, is like asking whether Doctor Who ice Creams are canon.

....Okay all of which completely undermines your central point. So to sum up...

There is no such thing as a "Doctor Who Universe". One officially licensed spin-off is no different from another officially licensed spin-off. You wish to create a wiki with "in-universe" articles(and it';s far too much bother to rewrite everything). However, some stories don't fit the in-universe narrative. Rather than just saying "This is the way we do it. But there's no real sense or reason to why we do it this way." You are attempting to explain it as logical, with self-contradictions aplenty. It is in fact highly illogical. I will stop arguing this point now, as it's clear that you have no real sense of understanding why you are doing things this way, other than it's the way that they have been done up to this point. 41.132.116.62^{talk to me} 07:48, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

If Dimensions in Time isn't properly licensed, then it's fanfic and shouldn't be mentioned on this wiki at all. Are you claiming that Children in Need didn't ask permission to make it? Who owns it is irrelevant; the BBC doesn't own Daleks, after all. If the BBC told them it was okay to make it, I think that's a proper enough license and should be, by the standards set in place for everything else, be considered a valid source. It's not obviously parodic and no one involved with it has disavowed it. We don't need to be scrutinizing the fine print of every contract. -- Rowan Earthwood ^{talk to me}

This is a common misconception. The BBC do partially own the Daleks, in that they own the iconic design. Nation's estate is at liberty to do anything they want with the concept of the Daleks — as long as they don't look like pepper pots. It's analogous to the situation with K9. Bob Baker could create a series without the BBC, so long as the K9 doesn't look like K9.

In precisely the same way, Peter Davison retains copyright to his own likeness. If he chooses to sign a contract — as he did for Dimensions — in which it can only be shown once as the Fifth Doctor, then the BBC have exactly zero in terms of a useful copyright on Dimensions.

And, I'm sorry, but are you sure it's not obviously parodic? Its ending was determined by audience participation. It has a line of monsters hanging out the windows of the Vic. It has ridiculous overacting. Surely it is precisely the definition of a parody — or at least, a pantomime.

Nevertheless, lemme come at this from a different angle. I think most people would agree that the most noteworthy thing about the whole affair is and always has been that it's the only place where the Sixth Doctor and the Brig meet on screen. So the question is, what's the better thing to do with that factoid: put it in the main body of Sixth Doctor or put in the behind the scenes note?

Given fandom's unremitting hatred of Dimensions, the average reader of the site will understand better that it's in the "behind the scenes" section than the main body of the article. I think most people won't really respect the wiki if we treat Dimensions (or Curse or Exile) like any other story. Sure, that's just a gut feeling on my part, but editing is about making gut choices, sometimes.

Nevertheless, there are logical reasons to deny it as well, as outlined above.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">01:35: Tue 31 Jul 2012 

The remark about "unremitting hatred" is, I think, the most honest reason for excluding Dimensions. The other reasons are really rationalizations: we've excluded Dimensions in Time because we don't like it, and there are enough odd circumstances surrounding it that we can make a somewhat logical-sounding excuse for excluding it. But really, it doesn't hold much water: regardless of Peter Davison owning his own image, the thing was properly licensed for a single broadcast when it was made. The fact that it's not licensed for subsequent rebroadcast or sale on home video is neither here nor there; it was authorized when it was made. And the other reasons we've given are just as weak: as our anonymous friend 41.x pointed out at Talk:Dimensions in Time#OH YES IT IS:, the logic about EastEnders being shown as a TV programme in Doctor Who would also, logically, exclude Assimilation².

If we're honest, we should admit that we want to exclude Dimensions because we don't like it and, unlike some other not-very-good bits of Doctor Who, it's enough of a stand-alone that we can make up reasonable-sounding excuses to exclude it. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 05:04, August 1, 2012 (UTC)