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

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Created page with "{{retitle|:Slot ???: "Rule 4 by proxy": a necessar update to T:VS}} == "Rule 4 by proxy": a necessary update to T:VS == Within hours of Tardis:Temporary forums being activated, it began filling up with suggestions that we redeem all sorts of things from ''Scream of the Shalka (webcast)'' to ''Vienna (series)'' from {{tlx|invalid}} status. Now, any one of these cases might have some hitherto-undocumented aspect which would justify their validity under the cu...")
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
No edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 15: Line 15:
After the initial slate of validations on this thread, any further validations on this basis ''would'' have to go through their own inclusion debates; but as I said, I believe a lot of the proposed inclusion debates currently engorging [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads]] fall so straightforwardly within this proposal that they could be validated straightaway if consensus around my proposal builds. I will include an explanatory table here. If any of the examples below are controversial in ways not directly related to the heart of my proposal, they will be retracted and left off to their own threads ''after'' the proposal is enshrined into policy. (This is also why I've left out stories whose invalidity arguably rests on more than ordinary Rule 4 concerns, like ''[[The Skivers (audio skit)|The Skivers]]''.)
After the initial slate of validations on this thread, any further validations on this basis ''would'' have to go through their own inclusion debates; but as I said, I believe a lot of the proposed inclusion debates currently engorging [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads]] fall so straightforwardly within this proposal that they could be validated straightaway if consensus around my proposal builds. I will include an explanatory table here. If any of the examples below are controversial in ways not directly related to the heart of my proposal, they will be retracted and left off to their own threads ''after'' the proposal is enshrined into policy. (This is also why I've left out stories whose invalidity arguably rests on more than ordinary Rule 4 concerns, like ''[[The Skivers (audio skit)|The Skivers]]''.)


(Also of note is ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story)|The Curse of Fatal Death]]'', currently {{tlx|invalid}} but which, according to [[User:Najawin]], may have some additional evidence that would force us to invalidate again once examined under current Rule 4 policy. It is notoriously referenced as a possible future in ''[[The Tomorrow Windows (novel)|The Tomorrow Windows]]'', and its continuity regarding Tersurus is referenced in ''[[The Taking of Planet 5 (novel)|The Taking of Planet 5]]'' as a part of the mainstream DWU's history.)
(Also of note is ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story)|The Curse of Fatal Death]]'', not currently {{tlx|invalid}} but which, according to [[User:Najawin]], may have some additional evidence that would force us to invalidate again once examined under current Rule 4 policy. It is notoriously referenced as a possible future in ''[[The Tomorrow Windows (novel)|The Tomorrow Windows]]'', and its continuity regarding Tersurus is referenced in ''[[The Taking of Planet 5 (novel)|The Taking of Planet 5]]'' as a part of the mainstream DWU's history.)


{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Revision as of 18:09, 11 January 2023

"Rule 4 by proxy": a necessary update to T:VS

Within hours of Tardis:Temporary forums being activated, it began filling up with suggestions that we redeem all sorts of things from Scream of the Shalka to Vienna from {{invalid}} status. Now, any one of these cases might have some hitherto-undocumented aspect which would justify their validity under the current regime of T:VS, and I do not mean to make their potential validation depend upon the following proposal — but it seems to me that there is a common theme to all these proposals, constituting evidence of a systematic disconnect between our validity policies and the intuitions of readers and editors alike. I propose that we tackle the problem at the rule, and examine the possibility of fixing that underlying issue.

As written, Rule 4 of the "four little rules" is currently solely concerned with the authorial intent at time of release. This is very well in the positive sense that a story that was at one point released as being in-continuity stays valid even if someone should change their mind years down the line — that way would lie chaos, not to mention shades of a prescriptive "canon". But there is a mirror scenario which T:VS currently actively prohibits, even though it would be in the Wiki's best interest, and match the intuitions of most readers, to follow it.

To wit: sometimes a story is initially presented or even intended as discontinuous with the DWU, but later "retro-fitted" explicitly into continuity by a valid story by another writer. For example, perhaps Paul Cornell didn't think of Scream of the Shalka as "real" to the Christopher Eccleston-led Who universe in 2003… (I do say perhaps. Let us, for the moment, take that much for granted.) … and perhaps if that were all we had to go on, covering Shalka as completely discontinuous with the mainline DWU would be the fairest way to go. I don't at all mean to say that any old {{invalid}} short story should be declared a parallel universe on principle. But let me call your attention to a few valid stories like The Tomorrow Windows and A Brief History of Time Lords, which do construct bridges between the events of the "Shalkaverse" and NuWho continuity, presenting the Richard E. Grant Doctor's world as an alternate "possible future" right alongside Eccleston.

It is Jonathan Morris's authorial intent in a valid, licensed Who story to present the Shalkaverse as "taking place in the DWU" (broadly defined). Our coverage of valid stories ends up harmed by refusing to take them at their word when they essentially "incorporate" a preexisting text which was, perhaps, not originally meant to be part of the DWU, but is made so "by proxy" through the new source.

Granted, we do not start covering any random fanfiction or non-DW-related work that is referenced in a DWU source; it was very reasonably decided at Forum:Iris Wildthyme: should she stay or should she go? that we wouldn't start covering all of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books just because All-Consuming Fire brings them into continuity. But my proposal concerns stories which are already given coverage on Tardis due to being licensed. In no sane world should Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) and Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows) need to be distinct pages on the same Wiki. As the "Cushing Conundrum" thread of the defunct forums discussed, our page on Peter Cushing's "Dr. Who" doesn't even try, and covers valid references and the invalid movie material on a single page — even though current policy very very clearly disallows this — because… there's just no other remotely sane way to do it. But that just makes a mockery of deeming the films "NOTVALID" in the first place, when we very clearly link to these concepts on valid pages!

Thus, it is my proposal that we 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. The most common implementation would see us cover 'roads not taken' of Doctor Who's history as the alternative realities as which later stories sometimes reference them; but the proposal would also cover the way that, for example, Storm in a Tikka simply gives a straightforward place in the Seventh Doctor's timeline to Dimensions in Time and Search Out Space.

After the initial slate of validations on this thread, any further validations on this basis would have to go through their own inclusion debates; but as I said, I believe a lot of the proposed inclusion debates currently engorging Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads fall so straightforwardly within this proposal that they could be validated straightaway if consensus around my proposal builds. I will include an explanatory table here. If any of the examples below are controversial in ways not directly related to the heart of my proposal, they will be retracted and left off to their own threads after the proposal is enshrined into policy. (This is also why I've left out stories whose invalidity arguably rests on more than ordinary Rule 4 concerns, like The Skivers.)

(Also of note is The Curse of Fatal Death, not currently {{invalid}} but which, according to User:Najawin, may have some additional evidence that would force us to invalidate again once examined under current Rule 4 policy. It is notoriously referenced as a possible future in The Tomorrow Windows, and its continuity regarding Tersurus is referenced in The Taking of Planet 5 as a part of the mainstream DWU's history.)

Invalid story Associated invalid stories Referenced in valid stories
Dr. Who and the Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. Dr. Who and the Daleks, Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor, Dr. Who and the Mechonoids
Search Out Space N/A Storm in a Tikka as straightforward events in the Seventh Doctor's life (explicit)
Dimensions in Time Rescue
Vienna N/A Continuity is acknowledged in Master! as part of the mainstream DWU Vienna's history
Death Comes to Time The Minister of Chance
Zagreus as a parallel reality (implicit)
Trading Futures as events in the mainstream Eighth Doctor's past (explicit)
The Same Face as a possible future as of the Third Doctor (since it prequelises the Minister)
Scream of the Shalka Scream of the Shalka, The Feast of the Stone
The Tomorrow Windows as a possible future for the Eighth Doctor (explicit)
A Brief History of Time Lords as events which, on the NuWho Gallifrey, are rumoured by some to have occurred
Whatever Happened to Susan Foreman? N/A Gallifrey: A Rough Guide as a valid account of Susan Foreman's origins (explicit)

I hope we can come together to finally take decisive action on this matter, which would finally free us of the endless, circular debates trying to peek into the brain of e.g. Milton Subotsky in 1965 when I think we all know that was never the real, principal reason it is felt that the Cushing movies should be valid — and so on, and so forth. Inclusion debates have often been tiresome for all parties involved; perhaps we can make them a little saner today. Scrooge MacDuck 18:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this proposal below.

Oppose

Why do you oppose this proposal?

Neutral

Feeling lukewarm about this proposal? Tell us why.

Comments and concerns

Do you have specific concerns about this proposal that are getting in the way of you making up your mind? Leave them here for discussion.