Forum:Inclusion debate: The works of Douglas Adams

Index → Inclusion debates → Inclusion debate: The works of Douglas Adams

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Proposal

I was just going to create these pages myself but I realised it might cause dispute so I decided I would talk about it here first. I will be brief.

Dirk Gently

Firstly Dirk Gently. The first Dirk Gently book by Douglas Adams was released in 1987. In its first chapters we are introduced to Professor Chronotis. But this was not actually the first appearance of Chronotis. He famously originated in Shada by Douglas Adams.

Unfortunately that serial was cancelled so it does not count as the debut of Chronotis. But after its cancellation Chronotis was featured in The Legacy of Gallifrey in Doctor Who Magazine in 1985. That is two years before Dirk Gently. So Chronotis was an established Doctor Who Universe character at the time that the first Dirk Gently book was released.

For this reason the Dirk Gently series features licensed use of Doctor Who Universe elements. It belongs to the Doctor Who Universe and has belonged to the Doctor Who Universe from the very start. From its very first chapters.

Hitchhiker's

Secondly The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I recommend reading that Tardis Wiki page as helpful context for this discussion.

This is more complex because we have to pay careful attention to timing. There are two types of connection between Hitchhikers and Doctor Who in the writing of Douglas Adams. Note that the very existence of these crossovers indicates that Douglas Adam's authorial intent was that the series were set in different corners of the same universe.

1. The first type of connection is Doctor Who using concepts from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy radio show from 1978. The radio show predates Douglas Adams's first contribution to Doctor Who. However it introduced many concepts like Oolon Colluphid which were later used by Douglas Adams in Doctor Who. So the Hitchhikers radio show does not include licensed use of Doctor Who Universe elements.

1. The second type of connection is the Hitchhikers novels using concepts from Doctor Who. For instance Qualactin and Mandranite debuted in Doctor Who in the scripts of Douglas Adams. They were not mentioned in the Hitchhikers radio show. But they appeared in the first Hitchhikers novel by Douglas Adams.

For this reason it seems to me that the Hitchhikers radio show contains no use of Doctor Who Universe elements. But the novels do contain use of licensed Doctor Who Universe elements.

Conclusion

In conclusion I think some things are uncontestable.

• At minimum the first Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy book is valid because it has licensed use of the Doctor Who concepts Qualactin and Mandranite.

• At minimum the first Dirk Gently book is valid because it has licensed use of the Doctor Who character Chronotis.

I think these two pages could be created today. What is still left undecided is where to draw the line. The whole Dirk Gently series or just the ones with Chronotis? All the Hitchhikers novels or just the ones which mention those elements specifically? Because there is a third thing which is uncontestable.

• The Hitchhikers Radio Show does not feature any licensed Doctor Who elements.

So where we draw the line in these series between covered and not covered is something we should be deliberate about. That is what I hope this thread will be good for. WarDocFan12 ☎ 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Dirk Gently is one I've actually been planning to do a standalone thread about for some time, but ah well, it's been long enough without my getting a shift on that I might hand the reins to someone else… but it must be noted that under T:BOUND, as Dirk Gently was excluded from coverage in a past thread, the pages cannot be "created today" — even if that past thread's rationale didn't really make sense, either factually or in terms of policy.

Also, I must say that as both issues are complex and independent from one another I'm not sure a single thread for both is the best way to proceed (one might for example think that the minerals in the Hitchhiker's book are just "namedrops" and don't therefore demand coverage in the same way as stories prominently using a Time Lord character as an actual member of the cast), but eh, let's see where it goes. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I need a little bit more time to think on this. My immediate concern is that it would open the door to the coverage of **tons** of material that is truly quite immaterial to the DWU. Chronotis's use in Douglas Adams works was more a matter of reusing an (as far as he's aware) unused character from a story that got shelved. The Legacy of Gallifrey ^[+]Loading...["The Legacy of Gallifrey (short story)"] isn't exactly the sort of thing that Adams would realistically have been aware of, so this feels like validity through techicality more than anything else. I don't know, I'll think more on this. Dewinter ☎ 21:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

More to come, but for now let me say that I think there are some interesting similarities between Chronotis and the situation at Talk:The Stranger (novel). Najawin ☎ 22:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say to include them due to their crossover, but to properly substantiate the claim to a page, I think there would have to be more crossing over, rather than just similar characters. Gingerfool ☎ 22:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so, doing my dig through the forum archives, I don't believe that Dirk Gently was ever explicitly ruled against in a forum thread. What I found was that in early 2017, during the height of the "post FP wave of inclusion debates", User:Pluto2 started a thread about the series based on Professor Chronotis. (Thread:209691 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1) The thread was criticized by User:AeD and User:OttselSpy25, as being "insane" and (potentially) "bad faith" and Pluto withdrew it the next day. But it was never explicitly ruled against, afaict. The closest we get is that in the resolution to another thread 6 days later, (Thread:208414 ibid) Czech refers to AeD's characterization of these inclusion debates as "bad faith". (It would be disingenuous for me not to note that there's also an edit by Czech on that same day in the original thread by Pluto, but I have no idea what was done. There's no clear closing post, certainly.) But this thread was about Blake's 7, and contains the fun quote:

The majority of our readers are here -- let's face it -- because of the 2005 series. Which can't even be called "the new series" anymore. They are simply not going to buy [the idea that Blake's 7 and Doctor Who are the same universe].

Look, look, Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives still has no closing post, and we still seem no closer to a full resolution on some of these issues. I think Blake's 7 is the sort of thing that is probably better served on its own wiki. (But am fully willing to be wrong! Unlike FP, I think it largely does make sense disconnected from DW.) But the idea that calling it part of the DWU is bad faith is mindboggling.

Seriously.

Maybe there's a forum thread somewhere I'm not aware of, but it seems that Dirk Gently was just "that's stupid, shut up", without an official admin statement, and Hitchhikers didn't even have a discussion outside of Josiah Rowe saying "u do u" in Forum:In doctor who did the doctor ever state something somewhat like "they discovered a beetle that couldn't have evolved which proved god existed and since god is based on faith he must not exist". (Though see also Talk:Oolon Colluphid. People have known about the issue since 2008 and it's been a very explicit "yeah, no, unless we get more than a name drop, there's no there there", just never a formal forum thread about it.) Najawin ☎ 07:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, that the sources aren't "bad faith", its more that they don't necessarily have much to do with other things that I think it would be more pointless to include than anything else. Gingerfool ☎ 20:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

AeD here. On a new account -- the me from more than a few years ago liked to argue on the internet and was often an idiot, so the new site seemed like a good opportunity to put some more distance between that me and this me, but okay, here we are. Only took two months.

Reading back my words from (ugh) 2017, I don't think I'm calling the argument itself "bad faith," I think I was just frustrated by a spate of inclusion debates that, regardless of the actual motivation behind them, felt to me, at that time, in (ugh) 2017, as people just... throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. My sincerest apologies to Pluto 2 -- my frustration and the words "bad faith" were about the wave, not your drop of water.

Anyway, on the actual debate itself, clearly some of the slippery slopes I was concerned about back then have been thoroughly slid down by now -- to be more specific might be a T:NPA violation, and this isn't the place, anyway -- and my assessment that the existence of the Chronotis of Dirk Gently contradicts the one we see in Shada probably doesn't hold water in the age of "by another account," though I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case for Dirk Gently passing rule 4 -- Douglas Adams was clearly just reusing elements that he owned that never made it to the screen, having no way of knowing at the time they'd do so eventually, anyway. --Alex Daily ☎ 19:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Dirk Gently

@Alex Daily: Having read through the archives of old, I'm certainly sympathetic to the view that the glut of inclusion debates was counterproductive. A good Forum thread has a meaty opening post that explores all known evidence on the issue, and those threads were… not that, even when they were arguing for ultimately-desirable changes. With no offence to the OP of this thread, even this one is barely acceptable given all the complicated issues at stake.

As regards being "hard pressed to make a case for DG passing Rule 4" I actually don't think that's true — as documented at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (series)#Shared Douglas Adams universe, Adams actually does seem to have liked sowing little connections between Dirk Gently, Hitchhiker's, and his Who scripts — one imagines, moreso for his own amusement than because he expected most readers to "get it", but even so. Chronotis in Dirk Gently doesn't actually need any "by another account": there is, pointedly, never any explanation in the novel for how he can be centuries old, and what he retired from. His inability to remember what he did before he joined St Cedd's is honestly a dead ringer for how more conventional spin-offs get around BBC-owned elements without retconning them, e.g. Chris Cwej's doctored memories in Dead Romance and Cwej: The Series which leave him unable to mention the Doctor. (Yes, Dirk believes that Chronotis invented the time machine himself, but this is never externally confirmed, and he's, well, Dirk.)

Compare Shada:

ROMANA: Three hundred years?
CHRONOTIS: Yes, my dear.
ROMANA: And in the same set of rooms?
CHRONOTIS: Ever since I retired from Gallifrey.
ROMANA: Didn't anybody notice?
CHRONOTIS: One of the delights of the older Cambridge colleges. Everyone is so discreet.Shada

And Dirk Gently's Holistic Detectve Agency:

"Ever since I retired."
"Retired from what?"
"Search me. Must have been something pretty good, though, what do you think?"
"You mean you've been in this same set of rooms here for… two hundred years?" murmured Richard. "You'd think someone would notice, or think it was odd."
"Oh, that's one of the delights of the older Cambridge colleges," said Reg, "everyone is so discreet. If we all went around mentioning what was odd about each other we'd be here till Christmas.Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Consider also the matter of the sofa. As Adams scripted it, over the course of the events of Shada, a sofa is dematerialised, sent hurtling out of time and space. As attested by the additional notes made by the shooting script, in the filmed version (and consequently the adaptation) this was tragically turned into a tea tray, but Adams wouldn't have known this; what he scripted was pointedly a sofa.

• 

  The relevant part of the shooting script of Shada, still retaining a mention of the "sofa" alongside addenda discussing the "tea tray".

What seems to very much be that very sofa turns up in 1982 in Life, the Universe, and Everything:

Arthur looked. Much to his surprise, there was a velvet paisleycovered Chesterfield sofa in the field in front of them. He boggled intelligently at it. Shrewd questions sprang into his mind.
"Why," he said, "is there a sofa in that field?"
"I told you!" shouted Ford, leaping to his feet. "Eddies in the space-time continuum!"
"And this is his sofa, is it?" asked Arthur, struggling to his feet and, he hoped, though not very optimistically, to his senses.
"Arthur!" shouted Ford at him, "that sofa is there because of the space time instability I've been trying to get your terminally softened brain to get to grips with. It's been washed out of the continuum, it's space-time jetsam, it doesn't matter what it is, we've got to catch it, it's our only way out of here!"'Life, the Universe, and Everything

After spending some time in Arthur and Ford's company, this sofa eventually vanishes again…

…and what should turn up in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (1987), the original novel, having materialised at a very inconvenient angle in a place where no deliveryman could possibly have physically put it… but a sofa. (This is not mentioned in the quote below, but there is another scene in the novel which specifically describes it as a Chesterfield sofa: a dead ringer for the one in Life, the Universe… whose origins were pointedly elided.)

"Has it been stuck there for long?"
"Oh, only about three weeks," said Richard, sitting down. "I could just saw it up and throw it away, but I can't believe that there isn't a logical answer. And it also made me think - it would be really useful to know before you buy a piece of furniture whether it's actually going to ht up the stairs or around the corner. So I've modelled the problem in three dimensions on my computer - and so far it just says no way."
"It says what?" called Reg, over the noise of filling the kettle.
"That it can't be done. I told it to compute the moves necessary to get the sofa out, and it said there aren't any. I said `What?' and it said there aren't any. I then asked it, and this is the really mysterious thing, to compute the moves necessary to get the sofa into its present position in the first place, and it said that it couldn't have got there. Not without fundamental restructuring of the walls. So, either there's something wrong with the fundamental structure of the matter in my walls or," he added with a sigh, "there's something wrong with the program. Which would you guess?"'Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Of course, the characters' assumption that the sofa is one which Richard had delivered to him in his absence goes unchallenged within the book — but the 'how' of its mathematically-baffling position remain just as inscrutable. (EDIT: See below.) Again I think what we're dealing with is Adams weaving a subtle puzzle, almost a private joke, between all three series, and thus very tangibly hinting at a shared universe. Maybe I'm seeing things; I don't know. Perhaps it seems odd to harp on about mysterious sofas when you've got Professor Chronotis himself right there. But it certainly moves my needle, alongside the famous Oolon Colluphid bit in Destiny of the Daleks and the Pirate Planet minerals.

I think this all is very different from the way that, for example, the Krikkitmen were reused by Adams in Hitchhiker's (or indeed from the way he riffs on the basic idea of Scaroth with The Ghost in Dirk Gently's Holistic Agency itself). As well it should. We must remember that throughout the 1980s, John Nathan-Turner kept trying to make a release of Shada "happen". It was well-known in fandom even before the seminal VHS release, hence why The Legacy of Gallifrey casually integrated Salyavin/Chronotis into its Unified History of Gallifrey (but not other unmade stories such as the Cats of Gin-Seng). I don't think Adams anticipated a prestigious half-animated steelbook "completion" in 2017, certainly, but I think he would have been well-aware by the time Dirk Gently was released that Shada was known to fans, and that something like the VHS release version might happen sooner than later. Aware enough to deliberately drop these little hints of connections, for that small percentage of readers to pick up on and giggle at.

Where it gets tricky is that I think the argument that he would have known about Legacy of Gallifrey specifically is more strained — that is, I don't think he's likely to have published the novel in the specific frame of mind of "I am spinning off the character introduced a few years ago in that one obscure short story published in a niche fan magazine by a nice young man called Gary Russell". But I do strongly believe that he wrote it with the intent that Chronotis was indeed "secretly" a Time Lord. I think this justifies giving it a lot more thought than we would treat the likes of Life, the Universe and Everything's usage of the Krikkitmen. I absolutely get queasiness about equating "reusing elements from a scrapped script" with "spin-off" — I just think that what's going on with Chronotis is distinctly different.

Setting all this aside, we also have to face the interesting puzzle that the two IDW Publishing Dirk Gently comics featuring the Professor give every impression of passing Rule 4, even more than Adams's own stuff does. In the first run, as illustrated at Chronotis, the character was specifically drawn with Denis Carey's likeness; in the second, although the Prof's design was altered (as, indeed, was Dirk's), there all sorts of other nods to the DWU of it all; talk of "fixed points in time", "adventures in time and space", the Professor "reversing the polarity", even a partially-obscured cameo by a Dalek in a dream sequence. Chronotis's time machine does not quite go "Vworp Vworp", but it sure does go "Va Voom Va Voom" and "Vwoop" and other such sound effects that one might use if one wanted to hint at the iconic "wheezing, groaning sound" without treading on any toes, as an instant bit of written sound-design which is not mentioned anywhere in the original novel.

In short I don't think there's any doubt that we're dealing with stories written by people who know about the Shada connection and are knowingly written Chronotis as a Time Lord. This would be true regardless of Adams's intent in the 1980s, and would potentially mean that they could pull the original novel into validity via Rule 4 By Proxy, even if we deemed Adams's own intent to be in question.

But again I don't think this is necessary. There is (to my mind, quite strong) circumstantial evidence for Adams fulfilling Rule 4 on the original Dirk Gently novel. And ever since its inception, Rule 4 has been defined negatively. That is: by default, things that pass the other three rules are assumed to pass Rule 4 unless there is an explicit quote showing otherwise. (There are wrinkles and asterisks — fourth-wall-breaks, parodies, etc. — but none of those are in play with the novel.) No such "Dirk Gently is not in continuity with Shada" quotes exist, to my knowledge, and so the presumption really should be that the book passes regular Rule 4, no questions asked.

Ultimately, I think there's no strong argument against covering the two Dirk Gently novels and the IDW comics. Where it all falls down is in the matter of the two TV series. Covering two entire TV series that don't feature Chronotis feels like a tall order (although the BBC miniseries with Stephen Mangan did have an episode set at St Cedd's College…). And although intent seems to have shifted back and forth over time in a couple of ways — I could expand on this if people are interested, but this post is long enough as it is — one of the Chronotis-featuring comic stories, The Salmon of Doubt, nails down the "classic" Dirk Gently universe of the books and comics (the one who seems to be continuous with Shada) as living in an actual, textual parallel universe relative to the two TV series — most explicitly the later, longer one, but the BBC miniseries gets a blink-and-you'll-miss-it acknowledgement. So covering the second TV series as a valid spin-off would mean a glut of "In another universe…" pages, at that. We could — but do we want to? Eh.

And yet I don't think there's a way out of covering, at the absolute least, the three stories featuring Prof Chronotis himself: Dirk Gently's Holistic Agency (1987), the BBC Radio adaptation thereof (2007), The Interconnectedness of All Kings (2015) and The Salmon of Doubt (2016). I think basically our options are:

Option 1: We cover the three stories featuring Professor Chronotis. They are treated more as "crossovers with the Extended Douglas Adams Universe" than as "spin-offs", which is to say that we do not hold concepts and characters which debut within them to be 'inherently' DWU in a way that makes their validity 'catching'. Thus we do not consider Dirk himself a DWU character at all.

Option 2: Same as above, but we also cover Episode 2 of the 2012 TV miniseries. This is annoying, doubly so because these episodes don't have individual titles, but that's the story set at St Cedd's College. We can only dodge out of this one if we continue to hold that Chronotis is "only" a DWU character in 1987 thanks to The Legacy of Gallifrey. Which is an annoyingly pedantic position — I would be happier treating Shada as a kind of "time-delayed DWU debut", which is how anyone not on the Wiki would think about the sense in which Chronotis was DWU "first" — but unless we want this, we may have to retain it.

Option 3: We cover everything set in the books' continuity. This would mean covering The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (1988) and A Spoon Too Short (2016) in addition to the 'Option 1' bunch. This option is attractive to me on a gut level, but would constitute a kind of "special case" we would be grandfathering into policy, where we would consider the "prime" Dirk a DWU element, but still exclude ourselves from covering the TV shows — not because they fail Rule 4 exactly, but because they're "less relevant" in an inchoate sense. It would also mean us making a judgement call of taking Salmon of Doubt as authoritative regarding the second TV series being its own universe; earlier marketing actually advertised that series as being in direct continuity with the books, and there are continuity references thereto in the TV series even though its Dirk is physically wildly different from the books' physical description, so that at the very least he seems to have gone through 'broad strokes' versions of them. It very much feels like an "according to one account" issue. So I dunno. Much as I would find it annoying not to be able to cover Tea-Time and Spoon, they may be more trouble than they're worth to justify.

Option 4: We cover all Dirk Gently media, biting the bullet that Dirk's introduction in a book featuring Chronotis makes him an innately-DWU character. This is the simplest, most straightforward option suggested by policy. It's also a logistical nightmare (two entire TV series?? All those cast pages!…) and probably not in line with the community's wishes. Lest I make it seem too much like the runt of the litter, Option 4 does have a few arguments in its favour besides Occam's Razor; chiefly, The Salmon of Doubt (one of the stories we would be covering in all cases) heavily intertwines with the continuity of the two seasons of the second series. Those "Barnett-verse" variations are going to get coverage either way. So there's a degree to which covering the TV series would indeed be giving further context on characters we'd already be covering, not just cluttering our systems with reams and reams of stuff about irrelevant alternative versions from a universe that's shed all the DWU trappings of its book/comic counterpart. Still, I don't love this, and I don't expect it to pass.

(There is also a kind of "Option 0" which functions like "Option 1" in terms of coverage, but where people aren't convinced by the Rule 4 argument for some reason, and thus we cover the three Chronotis stories as invalid — i.e. they feature a DWU-licensed character but aren't intended to be DWU. I would find this very annoying, and again I think it would be incorrect. But it would still be preferable to continuing to not cover these stories.)

Sorry for the extremely long post, hope this has been helpful. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If we covered all Dirk Gently media, would we merge with the existing wiki for it, or would we just also cover everything they do? (I guess it depends what that community thinks is best?) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that Wiki being stuck on Fandom, the difference would be fairly academic. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my schtick would be that if there's already a robust wiki for Dirk Gently, it might make sense to just do inter-wiki links to it, since DG does largely make sense without Doctor Who. Buuuuuuttttttt, it's on Fandom, so that's a heavy point against that mindset. Not immediately disqualifying, but, uh, not a fan. Najawin ☎ 01:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I also wouldn't call "under 300 pages" robust, anyway, even for a relatively small franchise. And as for interwiki linking in general… boy, I have a thread cooking about that. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we are somewhat in danger of coverage/scope creep as we try to cover more and more on the periphery of the DWU.

Option 1 most aligns the best for me I think. Chronotis' presence in the stories is enough for us to coverage those. But I don't think it's a good enough reason to pull in everything else around it into our coverage sphere. —Tangerineduel / talk 14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I presented the four options for clarity, but I think Option 1 is the wisest course of action. (Really, I didn't deliberately write them by order of preference, but I think Option 1>Option 2>Option 3>Option 4, if I had to rank them.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To me, Option 2 is the best option. If St Cedd's College appears in the TV series, then that episode should at least be covered, probably valid too. Even if we go by the pedantic view that Shada wasn't actually released before Dirk Gently, then the college still appears (albeit unnamed) in TV: The Five Doctors and its novelisation before the publication of the first Dirk Gently novel. But anyway, regardless of whether we go with option 1 or 2, I think it's best to treat it as a series which crosses over with Doctor Who, rather than as a spinoff. Danochy ☎ 04:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for elaborating so well Scrooge MacDuck. I should have left the OP to you! I agree with Najawin that interwiki linking to Fandom is a nonstarter. And I agree with Danochy that Option 2 is the minimum viable option. For this reason I strongly prefer Option 3. Especially since The Salmon of Doubt is one of the stories we would be covering even in Option 1: we will be taking it as authoritative one way or another. There is no reason for us not to follow that to its logical conclusion. What would we be left with otherwise: deliberately half-incomplete pages which only confuse casual readers who will not follow our logic about semi-arbitrary lines in the sand. As for scope creep. Well. I am sympathetic. But to be maximally blunt the series in question are infinitely more relevant to a Doctor Who Wiki than all the effort that is put into content like PROBE and Jenny Everywhere which for better or worse are read by hardly anyone and are of interest to only the wiki's own editor-authors. WarDocFan12 ☎ 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Danochy: Oh yes! Of course! St Cedd's is in Five Doctors! Of course it is. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, I suppose that strengthens the case for Option 2 considerably. (Of course, it's not as though the Dirk Gently TV story uses the specific visuals seen in Five Doctors, so if we wanted to "technically" our way out of this one, we could argue that with the name going unsaid in Five Doctors, the Dirk Gently episode doesn't actually use any specific details which originated in the DWU… But that's a big stretch.)

@WarDocFan12: Thank you for the kind words! To clarify my thinking on "taking Salmon of Doubt as authoritative", though, what I meant is that common practice would be to treat any post hoc claim of "this earlier story loosely intended as prime-universe was actually an alternate reality" as a "by another account" deal. See the class of pages like Virgin reality or The Doctor's reality (Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks). The VNA novels or Target novelisations were not intended to be parallel universes originally, and we continue to cover them as "main-universe" material by default, presenting any attempted later retcons as just that — controversial retcons. Insofar as the Barnett-verse was originally written and advertised as a continuation of the novels and Interconnectedness of All Kings, the normal way to cover Salmon of Doubt's multiversal lore would be in the same cautious, by-another-accounty way. "These sources documented Dirk Gently's further adventures, seemingly in continuity with his earlier encounter with Chronotis, but a later account claimed that he was actually a parallel version". This is why I think there would be something slightly disingenuous about taking it as gospel just so we can get away with covering Tea-Time and Spoon but not Barnett.

As far as discussion of scope-creep and "relevance", I also feel like there's a degree of confusion going on. Something might be very obscure and yet very relevant. "How many people have even watched the P.R.O.B.E. films" is not the same question as "granted that these people know they exist at all, how many people would expect the P.R.O.B.E. films to be covered on a Doctor Who Wiki". Case in point, millions more people have read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy than, say, The Dalek Chronicles, but that's not particularly relevant to whether Hitchhiker's is of greater relevance to us than The Dalek Chronicles. P.R.O.B.E. is relevant because it's about Liz Shaw/a group founded by Liz Shaw, frequently encountering other elements of the wider Whoniverse e.g. the Yssgaroth, and thus a Doctor Who Wiki is a natural place to cover it.

That is: if Dirk Gently is relevant — and as I said, I agree that at least parts of it are — it's because of how closely Chronotis and St. Cedd's intertwine it with DWU lore and Who's production history. Concerns about "scope creep" go back to Forum:Iris Wildthyme: should she stay or should she go?, and a flagship example there was something no less iconic than Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short stories! (Jenny Everywhere is a better example, because her relevance to the DWU is a creature of crossovers through and through. We should not find ourselves covering Jenny stories unless they directly involve DWU concepts; she's her own thing first and foremost, best-served by her own Wiki. And, indeed, she has one, which is in the process of being moved off Fandom too.)

Incidentally, my big effortpost above didn't go into the Hitchhiker's of it all — as per the concerns in my earliest message, I sort of feel like we should resolve Dirk Gently first, and only then discuss the more anecdotal matter of the Hitchhiker's minerals. But I don't want to block discussion in that area if people disagree, or anything. Thoughts?--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

After more thought, I'm still divided on this, as it could be useful to include the crossover characters, but I don't know whether it properly makes sense to include everything HHGTTG and Dirk Gently related (as would happen through natural page evolution) on a wiki intended for Doctor Who - it'd expand the information available but it would probably clash with Rule 4. SID'gingerfool'RAT 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't really see us doing stage 3 without doing stage 4. I feel like at least a fair bit of Dirk Gently is fairly relevant, but it's worth noting I haven't actually read/watched/listened to/attended any Dirk Gently media, so this is mostly from what I've heard from others (such as in this thread). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to covering all Hitchhiker's, certainly. But as I said I think we should discuss Dirk first. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I split the proposal into a Dirk section and a Hitchhiker. Maybe it would make sense to do the same for the discussion section. I should have thought of that earlier. Will leave the decision to an admin but I put a comment where I think the section header should go. Right before User:Scrooge MacDuck's big explanation. WarDocFan12 ☎ 18:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems entirely sensible. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I must say, out of the options, number three is the most realistic. If we're going to cover Dirk Gently (we should, 1000% cover the relevant bits), we may as well do it properly. My heart feels option four would be best, but that's idealistic and I doubt we'd ever really complete the coverage, considering a lot of other spin-off coverage is also stubby. Perhaps in the future, once the books and the comics are covered to a good level, it may be worth reopening this discussion to allow in the two television series too.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that misgivings about incomplete coverage can be set aside, as we can just use NOTCOVERED to fill in the gaps on pages like Dirk Gently. The discussion at hand, therefore, has to be centred on whether we consider Dirk Gently to genuinely be a Doctor Who spinoff, and not on how incomplete coverage would feel subjectively. So, is there anything to suggest that the use of Chronotis and St Cedds was was intended to tie the series (not Chronotis, but the series itself) and its lead Dirk to Doctor Who? If not, and its simple reuse of ideas, we should just cover the relevant concepts. Danochy ☎ 03:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

NOTCOVERED, as the name implies, is not complete coverage. It can help give broader context on shared concepts e.g. Dirk himself, but would still mean that some of the sources aren't covered in full — for example, Thor wouldn't say anything about Tea-Time, and we wouldn't host a full plot summary of that book or A Spoon Too Short anywhere. This isn't the end of the world, I still think Option 1 or Option 2 are better, but there is a loss of detail there. (Also, I have misgivings about the current form of NOTCOVERED, so it might not be around forever… But that's a separate conversation and I suppose it's not really within the spirit of T:BOUND to say "well, we can't rely on such-and-such policy because some people want to change it later".)

It occurs to me that there is perhaps a pathway to formalising Option 3 in a more airtight way than trying to think of it in terms of "the prime Dirk Gently universe being a DWU concept": looking at subseries instead of individual stories. That is, we might say "the book series (Holistic Agency + Tea-Time of the Soul) and the IDW comics run (Kings + Spoon + Salmon of Doubt) each feature Chronotis, and therefore each should be covered in full; the Barnett TV show doesn't feature Chronotis therefore it shouldn't". Tea-Time is a direct sequel to Holistic, and the three IDW comic stories lead into one another, so bringing a bit of that Incomplete Death's Head spirit wouldn't be insane. I still think the first two options are probably wiser, but if we're going to do Option 3, we should probably think of it that way — as each subseries being a wider "story" featuring Chronotis. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Option 1, specifically the elaboration Scrooge has just given in the above message. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 18:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand — the elaboration above was for a revised Option 3, not for Option 1. Which do you support? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly where I stand on this, but I agree with Option 1 at minimum. When I read the first Dirk Gently book, I really picked up vibes of Adams writing a "Time Lord by any other name". There are also a few other things to note:

• The Shada novelisation has a nod to the first novel in mentioning that Chronotis was having trouble with his phone lines.
• The 2017 version of Shada made a very interesting change compared to its unfinished counterpart. The unbroadcast version featured Chronotis's TARDIS in the Time Vortex as an entire displaced room, whereas the 2017 version depicts it as solely a door. The exterior of the time machine being only the door is exactly how it worked in Dirk Gently.

• 

  The unbroadcast 1979 version, showing Chronotis's TARDIS as a room

• 

  The finished 2017 version, showing its exterior as a door

• And for what it's worth about what people may have made of it at the time, I happened to notice that the letters page of DWM 138 (July 1988) had a letter from a fan remarking how unsubtly Adams re-used his ideas from Shada. An image of Chronotis also appears on this letters page. So that's just to affirm, people knew what Adams was doing when Dirk Gently was published.

So I do think we should cover stories with Chronotis. I somewhat like the idea of Option 3, but at the same time it seems like it could be a bit of a stretch. Chubby Potato ☎ 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thinking this over, now that I have a little more time, I think as far as coverage is concerned, my preference is 4>3>1>2. 2 seems to be entirely untenable to me. 4, the maximal option, is probably the correct option as per our policies, and so I'm gonna support that, but I get that others might not like it. (As in Forum:The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered.) Validity... I agree that stories are innocent until proven guilty, but the sofa example actually is the sort of thing that suggests to me that Adams was just making sly, unserious, jokes rather than a serious attempt at worldbuilding. It actually makes me less likely to think this is valid. But nowhere near enough to overcome the burden necessary here, I think. Najawin ☎ 07:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Scrroge: oh, right. The revised Option 3 would be my preference, with 1 as a backup and 4 as my last choice.Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm going to have to post an erratum regarding the Dirk Gently sofa: it has been pointed out to me that there is a single line I missed later in Dirk Gently that seems to give another explanation for its mysterious appearance, and which I'd misinterpreted on prior readthroughs. So, alas, the sofa in Dirk Gently is not the same as the Shada/Hitchhiker's sofa. (Not that this changes matters that much, given that Hitchhiker's and Dirk Gently have connections of their own so that it all averages out in the end… Plus, as I said from the start, the sofa was only ever just icing on the Chronotis Cake.)

@Najawin, I'm not quite sure what you find more untenable about #2 than #1, particularly if we take into account the "St Cedd's debuts in Five Doctors" of it all so as to not have to think about delayed debuts? (I'm also not sure I understand your objection to the sofa, provided I hadn't been seeing things re: the Dirk one. If we knew for certain that it was indeed the same disappearing-and-reappearing sofa streaking through all three books, then surely that'd be a textbook example of a shared-universe 'nod', "red skies"-style? But since the sofa is turning out not to matter so much, and you don't find it definitive either way, I won't press the point.)

@Chubby_Potato, thank you for the additional evidence! I think there'd be an argument for the two 2010s Shadas subtly R4BPing Dirk Gently, yes, if it were necessary. But I don't think we need get into that hypothetical. No proxy necessary. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 08:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, the sofa could be a joke, rather than a serious indication of authorial intent, the sort of thing which does happen all the time in many stories and properties. Not everyone is as multiversal as us. The way it's written, combined with the Hitchhiker's connections, lead me to read it more as a joke. But, again, R4, etc. As for St Cedd's, perhaps it's just my confusion here, but I'm just not sure how we can get this to be both a DWU element and something Adams has the rights to. He was script editor for S17, and I believe the general understanding of contracts from that time was that script editors didn't retain IP. Which is why it's then available for Five Doctors. I think there's a plausible R2 violation for #2. Najawin ☎ 09:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

But surely that would apply to Chronotis himself, if that were so — he was created for S17 just as much St. Cedd's, and it's a fluke that some of the "stock" footage of St Cedd's showed up in the Five Doctors footage but not Chronotis. Unless there's a highly specific contractual quirk, either nothing is licensed, or all of it is. "Dirk Gently's Holistic Agency (fan work)" would be… well, it would be somethin'.

(It's true that the rules for script editors worked as you say — but again, if it applied to Shada, it would have covered Chronotis too. And yet he did not change the name or specifics of Chronotis in any way. I think we must assume that after filming Shada initially fell through, some clause was enacted, or renegotiation entered, which freed Adams of the original obligations; since at that point, pre-JNT, no one at the BBC was thinking of it someday being completed, I find it unsurprising to suppose that Adams would ask for his IP back and have that request granted without fuss. Just as equally we must, I think, assume the proper Is were dotted and Ts crossed when Nathan-Turner went back and decided to integrate bits of Shada into Five Doctors.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting addition User:Chubby Potato. It is good to see there are already clear ways the wiki will benefit from covering these sources and connecting these dots. I remain happy with Option 3 whether in the original formulation or in User:Scrooge MacDuck's revised justification. Which I suppose might be necessary from a rules perspective.

User:Najawin could you please elaborate on your support for Option 4? I think I understand why you say the rules demand it but I would just like to make sure I know your thoughts. WarDocFan12 ☎ 14:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

So, have mulled on this a bit, and like Najawin I believe that option 4 is the most compliant with T:VS and various precedents. To treat Dirk Gently as a crossover situation wouldn't really make sense, and that this is much more of a Magrsian spin-off situation. And to preclude covering some parts of that would be pretty much unheard of in current policy. I do think, however, unlike some, that it also makes the most sense to go with option 4, as covering the novels and comics but not the TV show would not make any sense at all, especially with how much some of those comics tie into the TV show. We then would, of course, treat the TV shows much like the Cushing movies or Death Comes to Time, where we make note of the various accounts, which of course we are well-equipped to do. Overall, it's just easier to cover these things on a single wiki.

I think that we must take Chronotis as a DWU element due to The Legacy of Gallifrey ^[+]Loading...["The Legacy of Gallifrey (short story)"] anyhow, but I think we must address whether or not he would be a DWU element without this. How this wiki defines a DWU element is rather nebulous, but the general consensus would seem to be that it is an element that has originated in another source covered by this wiki that is not a crossover (with the exception of Iris Wildthyme, who is very explicitly an exception). Now, of course we do not cover stories that ultimately went unproduced or unreleased, simply giving them pages, so the precedent would seem to point towards Chronotis not being a DWU element without LoG, and it would be rather awkward to cover him as such without the completed versions of Shada. However, it feels very nitpicky to just say "Chronotis appeared in this DWM story, then later popped up in DG, so we cover DG".

Consider, if you will, the following hypothetical: Russell T Davies writes a great big series finale all about the Fifteenth Doctor fighting the dreaded Death Lords of Nincompoop who secretly founded Time Lord society and now live in the Sewers of Eternity, and for whatever reason Bad Wolf vetoes it and production is halted partway through. However, Davies is rather fond of the Death Lords of Nincompoop, and so writes a sequel novel to this unfinished finale all about what happened to the Death Lords after the Fifteenth Doctor defeated them. This sequel novel is then published. Surely we would be failing in our duty as a wiki not to at least have a page on it? But then, it would be incredibly awkward to properly cover it, as we do not cover the unfinished finale. There's probably an argument to be made for covering unproduced and unreleased stories, but this isn't the place to make it at all, I've gone off on rather a tangent as it is. However, if this finale were later completed and released, as Shada was, then there would be no such troubles, and hence it would be wholly sensible to cover the sequel novel in full. On the other hand, the much-proposed "rule 2 by proxy" would cover this hypothetical perfectly, and so maybe such an extension is unnecessary. Quite why I have chosen to use a hypothetical that is pretty much exactly one to one with Shada's situation I don't know, but I cannot be arsed to rewrite all that. Now, where was it? Oh yes. In short, until rule 2 by proxy or something similar is finally implemented, we must go off the technically of Legacy of Gallifrey.

Oh, and scope creep. I do think that this argument is valid, but I feel that the scope of this wiki is so broad anyhow that a little broadening won't really do much harm. And I don't think it's an inherently bad thing', just something to watch out for. But yes, the broadness of the wiki's scope is much more a point in its favour than anything else, I think, and it is a good thing our scope is as broad as it is.

In a nutshell, option 4 as outlined by Scrooge is the easiest, most logical, most backed up by policy, and the most sensible, as far as I can see. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think it is logical to consider a concept a DWU element even if their debut wasn't completed and/or released. The concept would've originated in a licensed context, they were still written as a DWU element, etc etc, so the matter of their debut being released is, IMO, kinda irrelevant to their licensing situation. Do consider that a concept is copyrighted as soon as a writer puts them to paper, so I don’t believe (but I am not a lawyer so don't take my word for this) if said story is given a public release changes anything.

As far as I can tell we already use this line of thinking with Republica ^[+]Loading...["Republica (audio story)"], which was adapted from the unproduced novel Cromwell's Dust ^[+]Loading...["Cromwell's Dust (unproduced novel)"].

Standardising this idea would be more beneficial to us in the long run rather than going down complicated loopholes like "while Chronotis was meant to appear in Shada, but the serial wasn't released, we consider his DWU debut to be an obscure story in DWM thus allowing us to cover Dirk Gently'". It would just be easier to say "Chronotis originated in Shada, and then Adams wrote Dirk Gently to be in the same continuity". Y'know?

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

17:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The alternate timeline seen in Republica is mentioned in The Roundheads ^[+]Loading...["The Roundheads (novel)"] prior to Republica's release (in reference to the unproduced novel), which I believe is our current rationale for covering it. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well hang on. I understand the impulse, but think that would need some serious guardrails at best. Otherwise — like — any Tom, Dick or Harry can pitch to a DWU producer. Becoming the write of an unproduced DWU story is laughably easy. I could mail something to BBC Books, and they would inevitably say no, and I could say that I Had Pitched a Doctor Who Novel to BBC Books which was Ultimately Unproduced. Limit it to submissions which actually had a snowball's chance in hell of being produced, as opposed to "theoretical" pitches of that kind, and you're still left with every Spragg and Boulevard pitch. (Sure, there hasn't historically been a lot of bad-faith claims of that kind, but if "spin-offs from unproduced pitches" become 'a thing' in the fandom psyche…) So you'd need some specific delineations to, at least, only rule in things like Shada whose production was begun but then interrupted… But that's still messy and seems like tailoring a very convoluted policy to one specific case.

I should add that if we take St Cedd's-in-Five Doctors seriously, Chronotis's Legacy of Gallifrey debut becomes starly irrelevant regardless. Five Doctors was 1983, the first Dirk Gently book was 1987 and it's set in St Cedd's too. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the two cases are quite analogous. There's copyrightable creative expression present in Dirk Gently that is overlapping but not identical from that in Shada for Chronotis. I'm not convinced of the analogous position. (I do have similar concerns with Dirk Gently in general, as it so happens, but I think option 2 is simply untenable, Chronotis might be able to be worked around.)

User:WarDocFan12 - If we hold that Chronotis is evidence that these works are intended to be in the DWU, then since a variety of features and characters all debut in these same works, they themselves become DWU concepts and it cascades from there. Treating this as a crossover only works if the concepts are priorly established, imo.

I'm strongly against Epsilon's suggestion, fwiw. We've had discussions before about the differences between unproduced/unreleased for various mediums, and this just seems like a nightmare to adjudicate for anything but Shada specifically. Najawin ☎ 19:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm… very confused by your entire copyright tangent. Surely there are only grounds for coverage if Chronotis is in fact licensed? It's not about the license to Chronotis being "able to be worked around" on the basis of being a slightly different interpretation of the character brief, or whatever you're driving at. If, having at one point written a DWU, copyrighted character but not retained the rights, someone goes off and creates an analogue who's held to be legally distinct and might be diegetically continuous… that character may well be distinct enough to not warrant exclusion, but nothing can make the character inherently DWU as T:VS sees it. Otherwise we'd have been covering everything Callum Phillpott's written with the Man in Grey from day one! If you believe that Douglas Adams did not retain the rights to the Shada Chronotis, and the Dirk Gently Chronotis is some kind of legally-distinct analogue, then there should be no inclusion debate to be had.

Am I missing something? Surely you're familiar enough with T:VS to grasp that much, but this leaves me wholly at a loss about what I'm overlooking. My best guess is that you believe that somehow Adams's putative I.P.-reversion agreement after Shada wrapped up would have specified the ways in which he was and wasn't allowed to repurpose the Shada concepts in non-BBC stuff, such that he was only allowed to do it if he wasn't copying the Shada script too directly? But that feels like a bizarre thing to just assume given that I've never heard of such an agreement, that several lines from Shada are quoted verbatim in Dirk Gently, and that the names of St Cedd's and Chronotis were unchanged even though it would have been trivial to alter them a bit (as he did in changing the Jagaroth to the Salaxalans, to the extent that "the ghost" is a sneaky remake of City of Death's Scaroth).

Nor do I see in what sense St Cedd's in Dirk Gently is closer to its TV counterpart than Chronotis, particularly St Cedd's as seen in Episode 2 of the miniseries, which is (unsurprisingly) depicted via different location shoots and sets than in Shada, and with wholly original faculty. But again I'm primarily confused as to why we're even talking about this. (Or why, in your model, Adams would have abided by that hypothetical clause in his use of Chronotis but not in his use of St Cedd's.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In effect I think we probably shouldn't cover Dirk Gently at all, under current policy yes. But I think I'm going to be overruled on this, so I think the best path forward is to say that Chronotis came from Legacy, St Cedd's came from Five Doctors, and a legally distinct Chronotis and St Cedd's came in Dirk Gently. Then, as Shada was later released, and we probably have R4 here, and already have R1 and R3, we do R2bp to make Chronotis retroactively a DWU concept and bring in all of Dirk Gently. I don't think this approach is viable with St Cedd's, because I don't believe that in going between Five Doctors to Shada to Dirk Gently we get enough copyrightable creative expression to maintain that there's not an R2 problem here. It's a legally distinct St Cedd's that happens to merge over into the same IU concept, but that doesn't then retroactively justify other iterations of the Adams St Cedd's as being valid. Imo. Najawin ☎ 21:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

……………Ah. Najawin, it appears you have been thinking and arguing around a completely different premise from the rest of us. There's no such thing as R2BP under T:BOUND, and even if there were it shouldn't work like this. I don't think anyone arguing for Dirk Gently's validity is arguing along those lines; certainly I'm not.

We are simply taking it on faith that Adams would not have written Chronotis and St Cedd's into Dirk Gently by name unless the normal rules on script editor copyrights had been suspended and he did in fact retain full copyright to everything in Shada in 1979 (either because the rights reverted to him when Shada was cancelled, or because it was one of those fiddly "script-editor commissioning himself as if he were a freelancer" contractual loopholes). I think this is an eminently plausible view when we consider the much more careful way Adams went about repurposing elements from broadcast episodes such as City of Death. I think this is the natural assumption we should make when a Doctor Who writer not otherwise prone to copyright infringement prominently reuses their TV character, by name, plus lines from the script, in a wildly-popular internationally-printed book that is later adapted by various parts of the BBC with no one batting an eye.

Yes, it's surprising that Adams should have kept the rights to the contents of the Shada script. By our understanding of how the script editor contracts normally worked, it is odd that he did. But odd things happen sometimes. Including the specific odd-thing of a script editor retaining rights to their creation through legal specifics to which we are not privy: Robert Holmes licensed the Wirrn to BBV Productions (which he created in The Ark in Space, broadcast during his tenure as script editor); more recently and prominently, Eric Saward's been using Lytton, as introduced in Resurrection of the Daleks (smag dang in the middle of his era as script editor), at Cutaway Comics. The entire pro-coverage position rests on taking the position of humility of "it seems very likely that Adams knew something we don't about the contracts, and we should assume he was acting lawfully rather than accuse him of wrongdoing based on a general assumption" rather than "the script editors Never Retained The Rights therefore Chronotis and St Cedd's in Dirk Gently cannot have been licensed in 1987".

Though this does remind me that, like, the Dirk Gently mini-series was made by the BBC. If we follow your model, and it's the BBC who own St Cedd's, then 'Episode 2' (and, I suppose, the BBC Radio adaptation of Dirk Gently) would have a better case than the original book and the IDW comics. But again I think this whole assumption is a dead end and our priors should be on the other side of the equation. This is just a passing observation. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point about the radio and BBC show. (And, yes, I'm aware R2bp doesn't currently exist, but given that people seem to want these things covered, this seems to be the way to do it. And it's not like we're not discussing the issue semi-concurrently.) Najawin ☎ 22:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer option 1 the most, taking the view that Adams was probably just reusing a good character that he didn't want to waste and not attempting to contribute to Doctor Who. But I'd also settle for option three, and that probably makes a more useful resource. I think option two would be awkward and I'm not really a fan, but that episode should definitely be NC'd in where it makes sense at least. Super opposed to option four though, I think it solidifies a bad standard and would not actually be useful to anyone. Dirk Gently fans would certainly not find articles awkwardly mashing three separate versions of the character together useful. And on the other side, without sending every visitor to this thread first, we'd run the risk of giving off the impression that the Netflix version is a Doctor Who spinoff which is just not true - so really bordering on misinformation.

As for the other wiki, I think it should be standard common courtesy to reach out to the editor base there, but it's super inactive - I can see there are only two admins who last edited in 2017 and 2022 - so I think that need not be the case here. Guyus24 ☎ 00:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I remain against Option Four overall, but I want to clarify that "primarily cover the Mangan and Barnett Dirks as accounts of the original Dirk" is not inherent in that option. Option Four just means we cover all of it; it doesn't dictate how we do so. I think we would have to give some coverage to the "Barnett is in continuity with the first two books" view, but we might do it less like Virgin reality and more like the very cautious way in which we cover the extent to which the Cushing Doctor is just another account of the First Doctor. (And as for Mangan Dirk, I actually don't think anything presents him as continuous with the books, so that'd be a nonissue. He's been a reboot from the start, unlike the weird flip-floppiness regarding Barnett.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed something, but @Guyus24 what's the other wiki got to do with it? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Dirk Gently Wiki, I think is meant, not the old Tardis host. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I meant the Dirk Wiki, sorry for not making that clear. I'm mainly speaking as someone from a "Who adjacent" wiki (Thunderbirds) who was a bit miffed at the start to randomly find TB content here without anyone reaching out first just to sort of give a heads up. I think I would have appreciated that at the least. And covering an entire franchise is heaps worse than that. But there isn't an active community at the Dirk Wiki so it isn't a problem here. Guyus24 ☎ 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote

Well discussion has stalled here. Copying I did from the season series thread. I tried representing the responses from the thread above but forgive me if that was overstepping or I mislabelled anyone. Please add your name with ~~~ WarDocFan12 ☎ 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

#	Description	Vote
0-A	Nothing	0 supporters
O-B	Coverage of the 3 Chronotis appearances as invalid.	0 supporters
1	Just the three stories with Chronotis.	1 supporter Danochy ☎
2	1 + Episode 2 of the 2012 TV miniseries.	2 supporters Danochy ☎ Cookieboy 2005 ☎
3	Book series + comic series.	2 supporters WarDocFan12 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️
4	All Dirk Gently media.	5 supporters WarDocFan12 ☎ Look-a-troopa ☎ Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Neverlast999 ☎

Oh no, no, now please don't do that. Creating a table is one thing, but assigning votes to people based on what they said weeks and weeks ago is, I think, improper (though I do admire the initiative) — people might very well have changed their minds, or had subtler views than their posts reflected. I don't think it's good practice to put the onus on them to make a fuss about correcting it. I've also taken the liberty of separating the "invalid" and "nothing" option, as invalid coverage is actually completely different from non-coverage — covering something as invalid is much more like covering it as valid than it is like not covering it at all. Though I still worry the table is incomplete; this is a complicate case… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for organising a poll, WardocFan12, though I agree with Scrooge that the table is incomplete. I think a better way of conducting the poll would be a list of each individual piece/group of media under consideration, with a binary "yes"/"no" vote for each group. Otherwise it becomes difficult to have an option for every single combination of works people think should be covered. Danochy ☎ 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Danochy that this would be a more sensible way to conduct the poll (but am not entirely sure that we have completed discussion of the topic to an extent where a poll is helpful/necessary.) Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Danochy, as that is probably the simplest and most effective way of sorting this debate out. SID'gingerfool'RAT - ☎^🔎 |📂|📝 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Further developments

I have recently become aware of another work which ought to be taken into consideration, the 1992 episode of The South Bank Show entitled simply Douglas Adams. This was usually a documentary show, but for the Adams showcase, they did something a little different and wrapped all the interview bits into a fictional framing device featuring the TV cast of Hitchhiker's, and also several characters from Dirk Gently, including Dirk, Macduff, and the Electric Monk.

Chronotis's TARDIS on ITV? O brave new world…

Having watched it, I actually think its validity is more or less assured, should we cover it; it doesn't break the fourth wall in a traditional sense but actually features a straightforward instance of meta-fiction universes, with an extended sequence of technobabble towards the end establishing that the various characters have slipped through into a parallel universe where they're fictional as a result of "all possible Earths" having a terrible tendency to interfere with one another.

Most interesting for our purposes is the Dirk Gently element; the joke in this respect is that the opening scenes of the plot of the first novel seem to be happening concurrently with the documentary-filming and Arthur-and-Ford-wandering-round-the-"real-world" bits. In consequence, before the Electric Monk slips through a quantum groove and briefly finds itself at Douglas Adams's house, we're actually treated to a 'straight' visualisation of its first few scenes in the novel, i.e. wandering on the rocky promontory… and then finding "The Door". i.e. this thing features an actual, on-screen, live-action appearance by Chronotis's time machine. (We don't, unfortunately, see the interior with Chronotis himself having tea with Coleridge; instead we cut away as the Monk steps in, and it's swanning around 20th century London the next time we catch up with its plotline.) Under the circumstances, I think any solution that involves covering appearances of Chronotis and St. Cedd's should also account for this story on the basis of the time machine.

Regardless, this has stalled for a bit for various reasons — so I'm taking the liberty of implementing the above suggestion of an itemised vote. Please vote, and, this is important, only vote for coverage if you agree with the assumption that the usage of Chronotis or St. Cedd's was indeed licensed in the relevant stories. No R2BP talk here. (And note, of course, that under current policy the stage play is invalid by necessity if covered at all, whatever else we do.)

#	Covered as valid	Covered as invalid	Not covered
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (novel)	7 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ Najawin ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (novel)	6 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ Najawin ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	2 supporters Dewinter ☎ Danochy ☎
Dirk Gently's Holistic Agency (stage play) (a.k.a. Dirk)	2 supporters Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎	5 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
Douglas Adams (TV story)	6 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ Najawin ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
BBC Radio's Dirk Gently's Holistic Agency (audio story)	7 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
BBC Radio's The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (audio story)	6 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ Najawin ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	2 supporters Dewinter ☎ Danochy ☎
Episode 2 of the BBC Four Dirk Gently TV series	7 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
Other three episodes of the BBC Four Dirk Gently TV series	5 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	2 supporters Dewinter ☎ Danochy ☎
The Interconnectedness of All Kings (comic story)	6 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
A Spoon Too Short (comic story)	5 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	2 supporters Dewinter ☎ Danochy ☎
The Salmon of Doubt (comic story)	6 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ Danochy ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	1 supporter Dewinter ☎
The Netfix/BBC America Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency TV series	5 supporters EPSILON🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝 Cookieboy 2005 ☎ Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ Najawin ☎ WarDocFan12 ☎	0 supporters	2 supporters Dewinter ☎ Danochy ☎

I think that covers all our bases. The results of the above shouldn't be taken as absolutely binding for the closing admin, but should at the very least be taken into consideration. We've had a lot of arguments back and forth, a lot of hypotheticals — this is one of those rare cases where it'd be useful to know who, actually, supports what. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Post table page break

If someone(s) is willing to put in the effort to cover these stories, I do support their coverage.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

15:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve voted for the validity of the stage play, the only issue surely is that we currently consider all stage plays invalid? Unless I missed something, in which case I may change my vote. All in all, I support coverage of Dirk Gently due to Chronotis and, as the series, mentions, the sheer interconnectedness of… kings. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think covering these stories would have massive implications for an in-universe Wiki that I don't think is tenable. Comparing Chronotis's forgetfulness in the Dirk Gently stories (a trait that existed in the original Shada script, I'll note) with Chris Cwej's doctored memories does not work, at least not for me. The Legacy of Gallifrey connection similarly makes my eyes roll, but I think most here acknowledge that such a connection is dubious. Scrooge acknowledges scope creep and that continues to be my prime concern. Looking at the options, I think 1>>>3>>>>>>>4>>>>>2. Chronotis is a Dirk Gently character whose origins lie in a scrapped episode of Doctor Who, but then the episode got unscrapped. Whether or not the public was 'aware' that that was what Adams was doing is irrelevant. If I write a Doctor Who story centered on the Cybermen ("The Archons of Destiny"), the story gets scrapped, and I reuse the ideas without the Doctor (replacing him with "Surgeon") and without identifying the cyborgs as Cybermen, and then continue writing stories with the Surgeon, wherein the cyborgs are not present, those subsequent stories shouldn't be covered on the Wiki, even if "The Archons of Destiny" ends up being released somewhere down the line. Even ignoring the fact that I don't think it works for our validity rules, I think it's genuinely bad policy for the Wiki. If our rules allow for it, that means we've done something wrong with the rules. Dewinter ☎ 16:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Fixed the formatting. Remember to add a "|" before your signatures people!)

@Dewinter, I think the problem with your analogy is that it comes across as if the cyborgs would be replacements for the Cybermen, as opposed to distinctive, copyrightable characters in their own right who may or may not be explicitly identified as Cybermen-offshoots. You also elide the question of Rule 4 — again, I think the questions are radically different whether you intend for your spin-off to be in continuity with Archons of Destiny or not. I contend that what Adams did with Chronotis is fundamentally different from what he did with the Krikkitmen, which is much closer to your hypothetical. I agree our rules should not let Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen be grounds for coverage for Life, the Universe & Everything; but I do think that if, for example, The Mark of the Rani had fallen through, and the Bakers had gone off to use the Rani somewhere else while still writing her as implicitly a renegade Time Lord who's lived through the events of Mark of the Rani, and in the meantime Who short stories featuring the Rani had come out, and down the line Mark of the Rani itself got a release in some form — in that scenario, I think it would be silly not to cover that "first" Rani story. Not necessarily everything that spun off from it, but certainly the Rani story itself. (I also note you didn't go into the matter of St Cedd's in The Five Doctors…)

I'm also unsure what you mean about "massive implications for an in-universe Wiki". The Dirk Gently stories are small-scale science fiction which don't do anything more radical to the fabric of the universe than the average episode of SJA at most. I can see how one would balk at covering all of Hitchhiker's or the like, but Gently — with the possible exception of Barnett, but then I still hesitate to support coverage of that — Gently as Adams envisioned and wrote it is pretty painless. (Not that I agree that should be taken into consideration in an inclusion debate; we are here to cover faithfully and unflinchingly, not ever to editorialise.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with covering the two television series but sighs current policy seems to me to say that they should be covered and valid, and it'd be a bit of a pain if we didn't, what with the comics, which we can't really avoid covering, if we are to consider Chronotis a DWU element, which we would be silly not to. I don't think this example should be really used as precedent except in certain cases, which should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, with long forum threads such as this one.

@Cookieboy 2005 The stage play can't be valid under current policy, no, I think the option is only there so that the option can be shown in the rest of the table. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(The Doctor is to the Surgeon is to Dirk Gently as the Cybermen is to the Time Lords is to Chronotis's species) The massive implications is that if we cover the first novel, what really is keeping us from covering the rest? Our current policy (the skeleton of which was established before we sought to include any and all franchises that we could) would establish Dirk as the lead of a Doctor Who spin-off, a la Captain Jack or Bernice Summerfield, and thus would justify coverage of the whole franchise on the Wiki because he's a licensed character that has splintered off. That's 2.5 books, two distinct television series, the radioplays, a stageplay, and a Douglas Adams documentary(?), all of which have characters and settings and whatnot -- and that leaves alone the inevitability of "Well, Hitchhiker's Guide is already pretty connected to the DWU, and we've already got Dirk Gently, which is connected to Hitchhiker's Guide, so we should really cover Hitchhiker's Guide too." I am comfortable covering Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency if it stopped there, but the truth is I don't trust that it would. As for the use of St. Cedd's in The Five Doctors, it wasn't named, it is merely the backdrop of Emmanuel College. I'm not inclined to say the existence of a real building in the background is a sufficient use for the purposes of coverage. In fact, it's that kind of spurious connection to promote coverage that makes me skeptical about letting in Dirk Gently at all. Dewinter ☎ 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aquanafrahudy, just to be sure, where would you stand on 'Episode 2' even if you were to otherwise come down on the side of not covering the TV series?

@Najawin, may I take it from the pattern of your votes that you still believe we should assume Chronotis in non-BBC media is unlicensed? If so, I still think that's very strange. I don't believe you ever justified that view in the face of my arguments why assuming otherwise would be more reasonable — would you care to expound? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think your arguments amount to much more than "well it could have happened, Douglas certainly did a lot of things that would have been sketchy if it hadn't". In general it didn't, and we know authors have done sketchy things before. The burden of proof seems to me to be entirely on the other side. Maybe this is a black swan event, sure. But I think induction places us pretty distinctly on one side of this. Najawin ☎ 17:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scrooge Against coverage. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Najawin: I see. My response to that is twofold.

Firstly, you misrepresent the substance of my argument somewhat: it's not just "Adams certainly did a lot of things that would have been sketchy if it hadn't", but "Adams went the extra mile in the same book with the Jagaroth to avoid impropriety, so it would be very strange of him to leave another, much more major element open to a lawsuit".

(You might reasonably cite Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet?, but… it's just a lot easier for me to believe that yer Bill Baggs would do something sketchy in a niche spoof direct-to-video film that might as well be titled Yeah, We Know We're A Bit Sketchy Sometimes, than to believe that a best-selling ex-Doctor Who script editor would do it in a prominent novel release — and even harder to think that as that novel kept being reprinted and adapted, in some cases with the BBC's involvement, it would still fail be questioned or otherwise regularised it.)

But secondly, and more importantly, it isn't a one-of-a-kind black-swan event. Lytton exists. I just don't see why we should assume sketchiness-by-default with Chronotis, but not with Lytton. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Sketchy" in this case for me is more Milesian than Baggsian. I think there's enough that's different that he could reasonably get away with it, especially given the nature of Shada. (And let's be honest, the BBC wouldn't have remembered The Legacy of Gallifrey.) Which is why he had to get rid of the Jagaroth reference more definitively.

As for Lytton, well, don't threaten me with a good time. (I note that the forums were closed the month the first one was published. :P) Najawin ☎ 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Najawin: Trying to pass Professor Chronotis and Professor Chronotis as legally different characters seems to me more akin to The Killing Stone than to anything Miles has ever done. If the names weren't the same, perhaps… But a made-up name like Chronotis (and make no mistake, it is an original coinage, even if it obviously has Greek roots), with the exact same gimmick of being a forgetful old English professor whose apartments are secretly a half-busted time machine? Really now; that seems every bit as sketchy as saying "well, yes, my story does feature a time-travelling supervillain with a goatee called the Master, but it's okay, it's my version of the Master".

And I scarcely know how to express to you how ludicrous the idea sounds to me that Lytton might be fanfic. Cutaway is as prestige and profesh as the non-BBC EU gets. They don't joke about. They've taken pains with Sutekh to communicate how they're not infringing on the BBC license, for example. We also know they dropped a whole plotline because they couldn't make the licensing work, namely the idea of throwing in the War Chief and the Aliens from The War Games into the opening storyline of Omega. Were I a betting sort I would, in a heartbeat, stake significant money on Lytton being above-board. But they have a contact email on their website; this seems like a dispute easily resolved, if it must come to that… (Regretfully I can't find anything like so direct a line to the Douglas Adams Estate.)

@Dewinter: I'd missed your post — remember to always write messages chronologically, even if you're responding to an earlier message! Yes, I realised that Cybermen="Chronotis's species", but it seemed to me that "some cyborgs" seemed vague in a way that Chronotis distinctly isn't. If the story featured a specific Cyberman character, a Kroton or Mr Clever, and that characte appeared in creator-owned material that neither relied upon nor contradicted them being a Cyberman, then I think the analogy would hold.

With regards to "if we cover the first novel, what really is keeping us from covering the rest": a binding ad hoc decision in this thread, that's what. A popular suggestion throughout this discussion has been to assert that all uses of DWU things in Dirk Gently media are "crossovers" rather than "spin-offs", perhaps by relying upon the (debatable, but defensible) extent to which Dirk Gently is an extension of the wider Hitchhikersverse. We might thus say that we cover every Dirk Gently story that has Chronotis or St Cedd's in it, without concerning ourselves with further uses of whatever concepts debut therein. Depending on whether we look at individual stories or subseries, this might mean covering as little as four Dirk Gently stories (discounting the direct stage play and radio adaptations of the original, but I think those would be a given even if we covered "only the original" as in your hypothetical). Even a more generous reading of that proposal would still save us the trouble of covering the Barnett TV show. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Lytton was their first work, is my comment there, and it was simply something we never litigated at the time, due to circumstances. Again, my position on this sort of thing is "guilty until proven innocent", but Cutaway's subsequent work would move my needle were we to actually have an inclusion debate on Lytton now. (I don't deny the possibility that Dirk Gently was licensed in the relevant manner, I just think it implausible, and the burden of proof is well and truly on the other side.) Najawin ☎ 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps of some note, here we have a page on the official doctorwho.tv website acknowledging Chronotis's appearance in Dirk Gently. The phrasing seems extremely hard to reconcile with any theory that the BBC understand Book!Chronotis to be a distinct character for legal purposes, merely speaking of the way his status as a Time Lord is dropped:

Shada’s next reappearance came in an even more unexpected form, when Douglas Adams cannibalised parts of his script – including Professor Chronotis, no longer a Time Lord but still a Cambridge academic with a time machine in his study – for his 1987 novel Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. Two decades later, the book would be adapted for BBC Radio 4, starring Henry Enfield as Gently and Andrew Sachs as Chronotis.

This doesn't strictly speaking constitute confirmation that Adams was within his rights to reuse the same Chronotis used in Shada, but come on. This is not how a BBC source would address what they understood to be an infringement on their property; nor would they so casually equate the two if they subscribed to the sort of tortured "Prof. Chronotis (DG) is legally not at all the same character as Prof. Chronotis (Shada)" reading you've outlined. I think to any reasonable analysis, for your theory to be correct, the author of that BBC article would have to be wrong. It would be another thing if you had opposing topic-specific circumstantial evidence, but in fact, you only have a simplified, outsider understanding of general policies about script editors' copyrights to point to. In a world where no one's even really sure how the rights to the Daleks work these days, I just don't think that sort of received wisdom about How Things Work should warrant disregarding an actual article on www.doctorwho.tv and insisting on seeing a copyright dispute where decades' worth of BBC and franchise lawyers have evidently seen none that they saw fit to comment on publicly or take action about.

Besides, the idea that licensing cases are "guilty until proven innocent" is one which does not align with Wiki policy as I understand it, in the first place. In most cases, loosely proportional to the reputability of the publishers, we accept claims by publishers at face value, without trying to "double-check" them — and prominently using a DWU character in-story has typically been treated as a de facto claim on the part of the publisher. Indeed, despite User:CzechOut's initial prejudice against (but then — he's CzechOut), the book was not closed on The Killing Stone at Forum:BBV and canon policy until comments were found from Franklin's own mouth which supported the idea that the BBV version was copyright-infringing. Something stressed for both Concept of War and Do You Have A License… is that we shouldn't bandy claim of unlicensedness about without a hard source; at best, when there is strong but inconclusive circumstantial evidence, we can elect to treat a work as if it were unlicensed but with clear public disclaimers that we aren't actively claiming it is. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't considering it to be unlicensed in the same sense as Killing Stone. I'm really not sure how many times I need to repeat that. The website does move the needle though. I'll rethink coverage based on it. Najawin ☎ 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

NGL I do not feel comfortable with a "guilty until proven innocent" approach in regards to to licensing. While we occasionally have bad actors (see Baggs) there is a strong track record of publishers doing their due-dilligence, and, frankly, I feel that such practices could lead to harmful disinformation that could actually damage the livelihood of smaller publishers.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

20:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(@Najawin, well, I know you don't, I just don't think the average human person who is not you would align with that "he's not the BBC Chronotis but it's okay" reading, such that to an outside view — very much including the kind of outside view that might have legal consequences for the Wiki if we were seen to be making a libelous claim) — describing your account of things would come across as an accusation of ill doing.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Epsilon. It was "guilty until proven innocent once we're in the situation where a script editor is using IP from their time as a script editor". Which is a particularly niche situation and we do have some reason to adopt that perspective. Najawin ☎ 20:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What does a writers status as script editor have anything to do with it. Rob Holmes was script editor when he wrote all the serials that introduced his most famous concepts which were later independently licensed. Such as Sutekh and even Mr Sin from Talons of Weng-Chiang. If we do not assume innocence for Adams then we had might as well just throw out FP audios then. Maybe script editors in New Who have different rules but I do not see why we would expect them to apply to Classic. WarDocFan12 ☎ 15:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't know the situation on Talons in particular, but Pyramids is not at all similar. It was originally written by someone else, Lewis Greifer. Najawin ☎ 16:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well we do know that material created by script editors in the Classic era typically followed different copyright rules than work-for-hire, hence, for example, the BBC retaining ownership of most TV companions, or the Master, or the Time Lords. There are, I agree, prominent counter-examples, with Lytton only the most recent; but equally there is a long history of the pendulum swinging the other way.

(As for Sutekh, he's really his own kettle of dogfish. Not only was Holmes rewriting somebody else's script, but also, if you take away the BBC-designed mask, he's fundamentally a public domain character. You can cast Gabriel Woolfe as the Egyptian God Sutekh without anybody's permission, much as several people did Christopher Lee Dracula films without Hammer Productions; and indeed we know that's what Cutaway have officially done with Sutekh the Heretic. It may well be what True History did as well; it might be notable that True History has Osirians instead of Osirans, and Servitors instead of Servicers. Then again it may not. Who knows? Magic Bullet's website offers no clarification; I don't think its coverage is in doubt either way.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine. In that case the Wirrn is another example then. There seems to be a difference between things an author introduces "as script editor" such as companions. Vs things they introduce "as a writer" like RTD with the Ood or Moffat with the Paternoster gang. In the end I think the whole thing is sufficiently vague that it is a waste of time to speculate on this stuff. WarDocFan12 ☎ 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

So that's not quite true. Contracts changed between the old show and the new, we know that very definitively. The Ood and the Paternoster gang were written by the Showrunners as Writers, which means that they get to have their name attached when the BBC uses them (and they might get some royalties, idk), but the BBC retains full control over them. Again, Ark was originally written by someone else, John Lucarotti. It's also not really relevant to this thread, given Scrooge has provided enough evidence to compel me here. Najawin ☎ 16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have some information about the rights of Shada that comes from the gallifrey guardian in DWM #176. The passage reads "Douglas Adams’ three serials The Pirate Planet, City of Death and the unfinished Shada - also have problems both financial and personal in nature. ... Following the abandonment of the strike-hit Shada project as a television story, Adams subsequently reused some of its concepts in his book Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. Since the script remained his copyright, he was fully entitled to do this. Adams says he was not happy with the final script for Shada, describing it as “a patch-work quilt of a story” and it was not the story he wanted to write." (emphasis my own) Neverlast999 ☎ 01:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Were the above not already compelling, this certainly would be. Najawin ☎ 18:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC).

Yeah, I'm pro adding any and all Dirk Gently media that features Chronotis and/or St Cedds. NOT everything featuring Dirk himself though, for much the same reason we don't have pages for every story featuring Lady Penelope or almost every episode of Roland Rat: The Series. Crossovers still shouldn't make the entire universe being crossed over with DWU. However, as for those stories featuring explitly DWU elements, whether a character or a college, then yes, absolutely, very much pro adding them. Also I dispute "scope creep" simply because historically Adams's other work HAS been of particular interest to Doctor Who fans, and Gently most of all, largely BECAUSE of those Shada links! Even the adaptations that leave of Chronotis play into this (Netflix's Gently is 100% meant to be based on how Americans perceive the Doctor, what with his whole "quirky British scientist" gimmick). So yeah. Pro inclusion here (only for the actual crossover stories though). 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by NightmareofEden (talk • contribs) .

Would you then argue that, had Class not been set in Coal Hill, only episode 1 should have been covered, treated as a crossover, it being the only episode featuring DWU elements? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 18:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike NightmareofEden ☎ 11:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is to say, yes, if Class had been an entirely different series - not set at Coal Hill, not featuring returning characters and concepts like Frank Armitage and the Weeping Angels, entirely divorced from Doctor Who and never remotely referencing it again after the Doctor's cameo in the first episode, then yes I would argue this. But then it would be a totally different show and not a Doctor Who spinoff. You may as well go further and ask "would you include Class if it wasn't set at Coal Hill nor featured any DWU elements whatsoever AND the Doctor didn’t appear in the frst episode? And that's why we should include Buffy!". It's a total non sequitur that imagines a bizarre case where a Doctor Who spin-off has zero connection to the parent franchise whatsoever but we know it's a spin-off because....???? NightmareofEden ☎ 11:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

But, since you like hypotheticals - if, in theory, some Doctor Who character had made a licensed appearance in the first episode of, say, EastEnders, would you advocate for filling up this wiki with pages on all of the thousands of its episodes? NightmareofEden ☎ 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of BBC Four's Dirk Gently Ep 2. St. Cedd's appears (unnamed) in flashbacks in the pilot episode and is namedroped in Ep 1. Shteblan ☎ 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Above, it's questioned what would be done with Class if on the the first episode had DWU elements - however, I believe this is not the case for Dirk Gently, which actually seems more like the real Class than the idea thought of above, as DWU elements appear several times in the series (of course, every episode of Class has DWU elements predating the show, but still). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)