More actions
XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:117868
I see that the Find Your Fate and Decide Your Destiny books have been designated invalid sources due to their multiple endings. Wouldn't this apply to the video games as well? I haven't played any of them but I understand at least some of them have bad endings (e.g. Amy being exterminated in City of the Daleks). I doubt anyone wants to label them invalid sources but it seems to me that the same logic we're using for the FYF and DYD books could be applied to the games.
- Tybort
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting question, but still, do game overs and life losses count as alternative endings, or do are you referring to something in the line of an actual "bad ending" that's appeared in several video games? (I'm not really familiar with games that use alternative endings depending on playthrough or playtime, so I can't give a specific example)
- MystExplorer
I was thinking of the games in relation to the FYF and DYD books. In both cases, we have narratives that play out differently depending on the choices the reader/player makes. Since there is no one way to experience these stories, there can be no "true" version of them. Does that make them invalid sources? And let's not forget Attack of the Graske has two very different endings. Is that an invalid source too?
- MystExplorer
I hope I'm not beating a dead horse but I think there should be a debate as to whether or not video games can be considered valid sources for this wiki. If the Find Your Fate and Decide Your Destiny books aren't valid, then why should the video games be treated differently?
- CzechOut
It's not that you're beating a dead horse. It's that, for some inexplicable reason, December seems to be the month of questions about the validity of obscure parts of the DWU. And there's only so much detailed discussion about the validity of sources that the user base can take at one time.
We've had several debates on this matter already, so I this matter has actually been settled already. You are meant to make the inference you are making. Namely, if a video game has multiple endings — like the DYD and FYF books — then it's not valid, because we have no mechanism — unlike the Star Wars universe – for deciding which path is the "correct" one.
- MystExplorer
Yes exactly. So my question is, why are video games valid but not the FYF and DYD books? That's all I'm asking.
- CzechOut
First of all, I gotta ask one question: what's leading you to the impression that they're valid?
Secondly, the reason that T:VS is currently worded as it is is because we're stressing that only a particular type of video game is invalid. Those with more linear tales, like most every video game from the 20th century and most Flash games, are in fact valid, because they have only one outcome.
What's troubling to us are only modern videogames, and mainly those starring the Eleventh Doctor.
In other words, the rule isn't "all games are invalid", it's "all stories with multiple endings, or indeed mushy middles, are invalid".
The ability to "opt out" of certain parts of a story is what makes some video games problematic for us.
- CzechOut
Perhaps the position would be clarified for you by reading Worlds in Time.
- MystExplorer
Yes, I read that and understand why it's invalid. More to the point, I'm wondering why The Adventure Games, The Eternity Clock and arguably Attack of the Graske don't have the Non-DWU stamp on them. If you're saying they're not valid sources, then it seems to me they should be designated as such.
- CzechOut
It's hard to put a {{notdwu}} stamp on The Adventure Games since they are the only works of fiction in the entire history of Doctor Who that the production team have explicitly called "canon". It's hard enough getting people to understand that we don't deal in canon on this wiki, but realistically the place would explode if we said they were {{notdwu}} — a determination about the sources we find accepable — when the production team called 'em "canon". Plus, the stories don't technically have multiple endings. There is a "right" way to play the game, and there are no social aspects to it. It's pretty linear storytelling. Although it's possible to do things in different orders, you kinda have to do almost everything that's possible to do.
Attack of the Graske did at one point bear a notdwu banner. If that's been taken down it should be replaced. It's very clear that you can fail the options and the game just ends. So failure is an option. Plus, ya got the whole thing of the Doctor breaking the fourth wall and talking to you, which is a nightmare for us to deal with. At one point, we actually had an article called "You" on this wiki because "you" are a character in Attack of the Graske. I'm not kidding.
I'm honestly not sure about The Eternity Clock, because I haven't played it or seen anything to do with it, aside from the videos on the site. Isn't the deal that it's just a side-scroller? If so, and there's not much deviation in the narrative path, then it very well could be allowable.
- MystExplorer
All right. I'll relabel Attack of the Graske as Non-DWU. I can see why we should leave the others alone.
This directly follows from Rule 1 of T:VS: "Only stories count". If there are different endings (or different middles, or different beginnings), it is not a story, it is not a narrative. Thus, it cannot be used as a valid source.
The consensus opinion explicitly names Attack of the Graske as invalid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:125464
Please note that Big Finish have explicitly stated that the Vienna audio series starring Chase Masterson is not set in the DWU. Yes, the character is a part of the DWU, but only in The Shadow Heart. After that, we're looking at a kind of "Faction Pardadoxy" situation.
Accordingly, The Memory Box has been deleted, and it should not be recreated. Obviously, this also means that other stories in the series should not be covered on this wiki.
See Vienna Salvatori#Behind the scenes for more.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
When did statements by BF or Moffat or whoever have a bearing on our decisions on this wiki? I say we should actually listen to the story and see if it conflicts with anything.
- 92.232.180.244
I don't recall anyone at Big Finish saying that the series is set outside the normal DW universe, however, I did hear them saying that it is an independant series in it's own right, but still part of the Whoniverse. I can understand the reasoning for putting Faction Paradox media into a separate wiki, because it technically doesn't have any direct links to the Whoniverse, but Vienna has. Vienna has appeared in a Doctor Who story, and has backstory (Wrath war) and creations featured in Doctor Who (the Slithergee), similar to the Bernice Summerfield series. So I suggest that we keep the Vienna series on this website.
- SOTO
Perhaps we can just create story pages for them and cover them (but not in in-universe pages), and just stick {{Notdwu}} on them?
- Revanvolatrelundar
Where did Big Finish state that it wasn't in the DWU? They said that it wouldn't feature characters like the Doctor in them, like Graceless. But from "The Memory Box" you can see that it is set within the DWU, as Pakhar's feature in it.
- Trebligoniqua
I followed the link, but it's somewhat of an off-hand statement. I think it should probably be confirmed directly. "Doctor Who world" can be read to mean her adventures don't involve him, and not explicitly mean her adventures don't take place in the Whoniverse.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Trebligoniqua wrote: I followed the link, but it's somewhat of an off-hand statement. I think it should probably be confirmed directly. "Doctor Who world" can be read to mean her adventures don't involve him, and not explicitly mean her adventures don't take place in the Whoniverse.
Yeah...I think it's ridiculous to delete something that most think is DWU based on an offhand statement that could be differently interpreted.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Why was it deleted immediately in the first place? I find it a tad rude that a delete tag wasn't placed for a discussion to start, instead of just assuming that everyone would agree with you, CzechOut.
Vienna in no way resembles the Faction Paradox situation, as it doesn't directly oppose elements of the DWU to create its own. Vienna is basically Big Finish's replacement for Graceless, which creates its "own universe" - which doesn't mean another universe, just its own unique sci-fi within Doctor Who, like Torchwood is. Your interpretation of Big Finish's statement is totally invalid, and the deletion of the Vienna series should be reverted.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I've just trawled through Big Finish's news feed on Vienna, and found nothing in the articles that stated that the series was nothing more than a spin off of Doctor Who. Even the series description on the website says this:
"Impossibly glamorous bounty hunter Vienna Salvatori (Chase Masterson) takes on the galaxy's toughest cases and most vile villains in this brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure The Shadow Heart."
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Yeah, looks like Czech really jumped the gun here.
- Revanvolatrelundar
A comment in a podcast doesn't overide what everything esle says: Big Finish's website calls it a spin off, no news article has called it anything but a spin off, and "The Memory Box" itself contains appearances from aliens from the DWU.
It's about as much proof as me saying in an interview that Torchwood is outside the DWU - it's irrelevent when we know for a fact that everything else says that it is.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Exactly. Just like we don't count every word Moffat says as canon, we shouldn't count an offhand statement in a podcast that can be interpreted in many ways canon.
- Rowan Earthwood
Sounds like someone should go ahead and recreate the deleted page, then.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Yes, I'll do it.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Cult Of Skaro wrote: Yes, I'll do it.
Or not. Apparently you need an admin. :(
- 92.232.180.244
Looks like Mr CzechOut is going to have to swallow his pride and restore the page himself, by unanimous decision.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'll take care of it, but I'll leave a delete tag on the page so that CzechOut has a chance to defend his position before we make a final decision.
- CzechOut
Whoa whoa whoa. What are you guys talking about? I haven't jumped the gun or done anything outside our usual practices. We've consistently said that if the producer of the play explicitly says that it's not in the DWU, then we don't count it as DWU. We've been operating under that procedure for years.
The actual producer of the series has said in no uncertain terms that, while he understands that other people have viewed it as a spin-off, he disagrees with that assessment and instead believes it to be not a part of the DWU in any way.
Removing it was simply a straightforward application of rule 4.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
He said it in uncertain terms, actually.
- CzechOut
Cult Of Skaro wrote: He said it in uncertain terms, actually.
How?
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Trebligoniqua wrote: I followed the link, but it's somewhat of an off-hand statement. I think it should probably be confirmed directly. "Doctor Who world" can be read to mean her adventures don't involve him, and not explicitly mean her adventures don't take place in the Whoniverse.
I think he said it best.
- CzechOut
Oh that is ridiculous. It is very clear what he's saying.
- Revanvolatrelundar
It's pretty clear what Big Finish as a whole say about the series too:
"Impossibly glamorous bounty hunter Vienna Salvatori (Chase Masterson) takes on the galaxy's toughest cases and most vile villains in this brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure The Shadow Heart."
- CzechOut
To expand, here's the complete transcript. Richardson is "selling the series". He's not making an offhand comment. He's setting it up, explaining it for people who have no knowledge of the situation.
- David Richardson: Vienna is a character who was created by Johnny Morris for The Shadow Heart, one of our Doctor Who releases for last year, um, and Chase Masterson just came in on the day and just did something wonderful.
- Others: She did, she did.
- DR: She just kind of sparkled. And we just started talking about maybe creating a series for Chase as that character. Um, I know some people refer to it as a Doctor Who spin-off. I do not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off. It's its own thing. It's not set in the Doctor Who world at all.
Notice that he says, twice, that he does not see it as a Doctor Who spin off. Very clearly what is meant by "Doctor Who world" is what we would call here at this wiki "the DWU".
Richardson would not "casually", or in an "off-hand" way, do this. In many, many different episodes of The Big Finish Podcast, Briggs and company directly say that the attachment to the DW license is a big financial deal for them. If something is DW, it sells better than their other stuff. Period. They would not twice say it's not a DW spin-off and then say it's not part of the "DW world" unless they meant it.
To suggest that there is a more direct confirmation than David Richardson saying, "it's not a DW spin-off" is, as I said above, ridiculous.
This is a dead cert.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
No, it isn't. Doctor Who World could mean the DWU connected to the Doctor.
- Revanvolatrelundar
He says that he does not see it as a spin off. But as we can see from the website, Big Finish clearly do.
- CzechOut
That is a completely unreasonable reading of that line, especially in context of twice denying that it is a DW spin-off. The common sense reading is that it's not a part of the DWU.
Cult Of Skaro wrote: No, it isn't. Doctor Who World could mean the DWU connected to the Doctor.
- CzechOut
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: He says that he does not see it as a spin off. But as we can see from the website, Big Finish clearly do.
He, as the representative of the company and producer, introducing the work on the official podcast of the company.
- CzechOut
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: He says that he does not see it as a spin off. But as we can see from the website, Big Finish clearly do.
He as the producer of the work, introducing the work on the official podcast of the company, in the presence of the lead creatives of the company, who in no way contradict him.
- Revanvolatrelundar
So you're basing your whole argument on the words of one man. When the company also states that it is a Doctor Who spin off, and the audio itself features two creatures that are from the DWU.
I think its clear to see which side of the argument that Big Finish are on.
- CzechOut
And the website doesn't say it's a "Doctor Who spinoff". It very carefully says that it's a "spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure, The Shadow Heart".
Mad Norwegian used to dance this very careful line with FP, by suggesting that FP was a spin-off from particular Larry Miles DW novels.
- CzechOut
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: So you're basing your whole argument on the words of one man. When the company also states that it is a Doctor Who spin off, and the audio itself features two creatures that are from the DWU.
I think its clear to see which side of the argument that Big Finish are on.
How big do you think Big Finish are? Yes, the words of David Richardson, in the company of a non-protesting Nick Briggs, on a thing called The Big Finish Podcast, do indeed equate to "the official word of Big Finish".
The website we know is not written by the principle creatives and is sometimes wrong, as made clear on several podcasts. Again, though, the website merely says that The Memory Box is a spin off of The Shadow Heart, not that it's a "Doctor Who spin-off".
That's exactly the same situation as FP and Minister of Chance. You've been party to both of those decisions in the past, Revan. I'm a little surprised you're so resistant to this decision, since it's exactly the same situation.
- Revanvolatrelundar
By that logic you can call Jago and Litefoot a spin off of the Talons of Weng Chiang - its the exact same thing!
But unlike FP and MoC it is still being part of the DWU by using the same species and referencing the same events without contradicting previous narrative. From an in universe perspective its most certainly within the DWU.
- CzechOut
Yes, and that's precisely why we went away from using in-universe elements as a way of determining whether something is allowed here or not. Scream of the Shalka and Dimensions in Time use in-universe narrative elements; the kicker is that the copyright holder/producer/writer/key creatives tell us that they're not a part of the DWU.
- Trebligoniqua
Using terms like "ridiculous" and "dead cert" do not take away the fact that the quote is open to interpretation. If anything, the word "world" is what makes it ambiguous. When people talk about fictional universes, they usually use that word: universe. "World" can be used to mean environs, concerns, sphere of influence. I think unless more precise wording is used in a second quote, or something establishing the Vienna from The Memory Box is not the same one from The Shadow Heart, making such a drastic decision is premature.
- CzechOut
Let's say i accept that, Trebligoniqua. How then do you wave away the fact that the producer of the series twice says before that, "not a Doctor Who spin-off"?
In the context of twice saying "not a DW spin-off", "Doctor Who world" does mean what we at this wiki refer "the DWU". How can a thing at once be "not a DW spin-off", not in the "Doctor Who world", yet be set in the DWU?
What words could you possibly use to explain its situation?
- Trebligoniqua
I am not saying there is no reason to question it. It could very well mean what you say. I think it should be clarified, as I am not "dead cert" that is what he means. The fact is, no matter what Richardson says, Vienna is a Doctor Who spin-off. A spin-off is "a by-product or incidental result of a larger project". Vienna, like Jack Harkness, Sarah Jane Smith, Bernice Summerfield, etc., started out as a Doctor Who character. Since he's not using the term correctly, it leaves it open to interpretation. What Richardson means can be "a series which takes place in the same fictional universe". I freely admit that. But it can also mean, "a series which shares common characters, elements, or themes". I read on a fan's site that a panel said that there would be no time-travel and no appearances by the Doctor. Thus outside the Doctor Who "world", and possibly Richardson's definition of a "spin-off".
- SOTO
CzechOut wrote: Let's say i accept that, Trebligoniqua. How then do you wave away the fact that the producer of the series twice says before that, "not a Doctor Who spin-off"?
In the context of twice saying "not a DW spin-off", "Doctor Who world" does mean what we at this wiki refer "the DWU". How can a thing at once be "not a DW spin-off", not in the "Doctor Who world", yet be set in the DWU?
What words could you possibly use to explain its situation?
To be perfectly honest, when I first read the quote, I gathered that he was talking about a different issue entirely. In saying that it's "not a spin-off," he was stressing that it's a series in its own right, and not just Doctor Who's kid sister. "It's its own thing." In saying that it's not set in the "Doctor Who world," he's not talking about the universe at all — rather, he's saying that it's not centred around Who elements like regular spin-off (Torchwood: rift, jack, cyberwoman; SJA: SJ, Slitheen, Doctor appearance). He's saying that it's centred specifically on Chase, not the Doctor, and not any elements from his life.
- CzechOut
SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: He's saying that it's centred specifically on Chase, not the Doctor, and not any elements from his life.
But, SOTO, for what you say to be true, we'd have to believe that when Richardson says "Doctor Who" he's referring to a character called "Doctor Who". And that, it seems to me is really the very most unlikely reading of the quote possible.
When someone says a thing is not a spin-off of Doctor Who, they mean that it is not a spin-off of the programme Doctor Who. And when they say that it's not in the "Doctor Who world", they mean that it is not set in the world in which the programme, Doctor Who, is set. And in that sense, world is a synonym for universe—that is, what my dictionary gives as one definition of world: "the material universe or all that exists, everything".
- AdricLovesNyssa
We could email Big Finish, either through [email protected] or [email protected] and ask them how they would classify it, possibly wrt this wiki. I have done this before wrt the Black TARDIS and whether the Klein trilogy of stories are part of the arc with the Black TARDIS, and got a satisfactory answer.
- CzechOut
This was actually done a few days ago. I'll be returning here within the next day to write all that up. Lots of plates spinning on the wiki right now. Not enough hours in the day to get to it all.
- Trebligoniqua
Someone keeps deleting the Deletion box from the page. Has this been resolved?
- SOTO
Yes, has Big Finish replied yet? It's well past "the next day."
- CzechOut
Yeah, sorry, this is like the 57th thing on my list. I kinda forgot about it. Sorry :)
Here's the question I asked, in its entirety:
Hey, Paul:
On the final Christmas 2012 podcast, David Richardson introduced the Vienna audio series. He twice stated that it was "not a Doctor Who spin-off" and then said, "It's not set in the Doctor Who world at all." Yet the website says that it's a spin-off of the particular Doctor Who story, The Shadow Heart. We've taken the position at the wiki that it is therefore not a part of the broader Doctor Who universe, but a completely independent production. It matters deeply to us what David meant by "not set in the Doctor Who world at all". See, if it's a spin-off that is actually set in "the DWU"—like the Benny audios or Torchwood--we cover it. If it simply involves the same character but in a different universe unrelated to the DWU—like Faction Paradox or The Minister of Chance—then we don't. That probably seems like a silly fan demarcation, but it affects policy at our wiki. If we didn't set up a boundary over the issue of where the authors meant to set their stories, it'd be possible for all those "pseudo-Doctor Who" things from BBV, like The Stranger, to make it in. So generally when a key creative goes on the record and says, "this thing is not a part of the Doctor Who mythos/world/universe", we don't touch it.
I guess what we're struggling to understand is how is Vienna different from the Benny series? Or maybe more to the point, how is it different from Graceless? Are we right to have discerned that David seemed to be going out of his way to distance Vienna from Doctor Who, in a way that hasn't happened with Benny or Graceless?
Any help you could give would be appreciated. :)
And Paul responded:
Hi there
It's a bit of a tricky one, this. From the basis of promotion and licensing, this isn't a Doctor Who spin-off. It's not licensed through AudioGo or subject to compliance rules because Vienna is our character and thus can exist in her own series as long as the Doctor doesn't turn up. Also, it's useful to distance the series in the hope it will appeal to non-Who fans and have appeal to, say, the Deep Space Nine fans who follow Chase but have no interest in Who. But there's no denying that this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart. So all the tropes of that story are present, that setting is present (and events of the story referenced in The Memory Box), but to all intents and purposes it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in.
I suspect that probably doesn't help you, but that's basically it: David wanted Vienna to stand on its own so it helped to separate it from Doctor Who. We didn't want to call it a spin-off and have it saddled with the need to know Who, listen to The Shadow Heart and all the other stuff that comes with that.
Paul Spragg Big Finish
Now, I see the phrase, "it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in" to be key. This puts Vienna in the same situation as Death's Head. We could say that because the Doctor definitely visited the Marvel Universe, landing his TARDIS on top of the Baxter Building, that we can therefore include the Fantastic Four on this wiki. Or we could at least include every single issue of Death's Head (1988) on this wiki, because the Seventh Doctor happened to appear in issue #8.
But of course we don't do that, because Simon Furman and company obviously were trying to create a series independent of Doctor Who (and The Transformers, where Death's Head originated), and so we at Tardis only cover Death's Head's direct interaction with the Doctor.
Essentially, if we cover the Vienna series, logic demands that we open up the wiki to cover the Marvel Universe—and that's simply unreasonable.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
No, no it doesn't. No one from Marvel ever said that the Fantastic Four were 'the same' fantastic Four.
- CzechOut
The same as what? The Doctor unambiguously travels to the Marvel Universe. Which Earth, we don't know. But it's absolutely the Marvel Universe. And once you get to one of the Marvel Earths, you're a part of the broader Marvel Universe.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Look at it this way. There's a Pete Tyler in the Doctor Who Universe and in Pete's World. Whose to say it's not the same with the appearing Marvel characters? Whereas we know this to be the same version of Vienna that appears in the DWU story The Shadow Heart.
- CzechOut
Plus, we only cover one of the earlier issues, before Death's Head goes on the multi-issue jaunt to the Marvel Universe. And we don't try to back link by suggesting that since Death's Head comes from The Transformers universe that the Doctor belongs to that franchise, too. And we don't cover Death's Head II at all, and this incarnation, narratively derived from Death's Head, is pretty firmly in the Marvel Universe.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
But even so, in this case, the head of BF unambiguously said this is 'the same' version of Vienna from The Shadow Heart.
- CzechOut
Cult Of Skaro wrote: Look at it this way. There's a Pete Tyler in the Doctor Who Universe and in Pete's World. Whose to say it's not the same with the appearing Marvel characters? Whereas we know this to be the same version of Vienna that appears in the DWU story The Shadow Heart.
No. The Pete's World example is irrelevant. Pete's World is explicitly another dimension of the mainstream DWU. Rose Tyler's story works only if you understand that she's in the same narrative universe as the Doctor, but a parallel version of it. There has never been an effort by anyone owning control over the Rose Tyler character to suggest that she's divorced from the DWU.
By contrast, both Spragg and Richardson have now used the phrase "this isn't a Doctor Who spin-off" in connection with Vienna. What's happening with Vienna is precisely the same as what happened with Death's Head. The Doctor had an adventure with a character. That/Those adventure(s) had a lasting impact upon the character, but the new stories with the character do not refer back to the Doctor, and in fact the character is no longer in the same universe as the Doctor.
If we allow Vienna we logically have to allow in Marvel and the Transformers and that's not gonna happen.
- CzechOut
Cult Of Skaro wrote: But even so, in this case, the head of BF unambiguously said this is 'the same' version of Vienna from The Shadow Heart.
Yeah, this is the point that a lot of people don't understand about our inclusion policy. A thing can have narrative connections to the DWU and yet still be excluded from the wiki.
I mean, after all, fan fiction has narrative connection to the DWU. What's the point of fan fiction unless it's totally hooked into what you see on TV? If it's not narratively connected to the DWU, then it's no longer fan fiction but original fiction.
Therefore, inclusion debates are always settled by out-of-universe, real world, behind-the-scenes factors. This is the very point of our four little rules. Does the author have a right to tell her story? Are the characters being used legally? If not, it's fan fiction, no matter how "good" the narrative is.
Likewise, when a producer tells us they don't mean for something to be set in the DWU — as both Richardson and Spragg have said — that's it. Game over. There's no wiggle room.
If we relied on narrative continuity to make these decisions, the wiki would become absolutely unworkable, because so much of the narrative contradicts itself. If we instead went on the notion that narrative links were the basis of inclusion, we would then start excluding a ton of things that were meant, at the time of publication, to be taken as a legitimate extension of the DWU, like the John and Gillian era of the comics. We'd also have a really hard time with television stories, such as the fundamental incompatibility between the vision of the mid-late 21st century given in The Seeds of Death versus that seen in The Waters of Mars.
Assessing authorial intent allows us to keep in many more narratives than some subjective assessment of narrative worth. Yes, in this case, the way we do things means that we're not covering something you possibly have bought and are enjoying. But it's an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good of the wiki.
At the end of the day, we now know that Richardson did not misspeak in December. He did mean to say that this product is not set in what we call on this wiki "the DWU". The producers have made it clear that they do not intend this as a Doctor Who spin-off, so the website—written by other BF employees—is advertising contrary to their stated marketing intent.
So that's it. That's all we need to know to exclude it. On the scale of the various inclusion debates that this wiki has had over the years, this one is a slam dunk. We rarely have such a clear explanation from a producer/copyright holder. In fact, I'd say his is the very model of the "rule 4" exclusion.
(Please note that to stop the back and forth on removing the {{delete}} tag on the page, I've re-deleted the page. There's no doubt that at least a {{delete}} tag is justified, so the removal of that tag is vandalism and specifically contrary to T:DELETE. Thus the best course of action is simply return to the phase of this process where the article was simply deleted on the basis of reasonable administrative interpretation of existing policy. It's more useful to think of this as an "undelete discussion" or a "review of administrative action" than as a discussion of whether to delete.)
- Cult_Of_Skaro
The character was used legally. It's not fan fiction. And Spragg still hasn't said what universe means. For all we know he means it's the same universe, and she theoretically could meet the Doctor, but it won't happen, and there's no Time Travel.
- CzechOut
I'm sorry, but that's not a reasonable read of his statement. He does not mean it's the same universe. He explicitly says "it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in." Equally, the Seventh Doctor also appeared in the Marvel Universe, which could also be described as a "locked off little side universe".
And we don't deal in what could theoretically happen around here. The series will never involve the Doctor, because that goes completely contrary to what Spragg says above.
At any rate, the "real world" language is particularly clear. The phrase, "It's not a Doctor Who spin-off" has been said twice by Richardson and Spragg. That's four times they've collectively said 'not a spin-off".
Big Finish do not mean for listeners to think of this as a part of Doctor Who. Read again: "David wanted Vienna to stand on its own so it helped to separate it from Doctor Who. We didn't want to call it a spin-off and have it saddled with the need to know Who, listen to The Shadow Heart and all the other stuff that comes with that."
That is a clear statement of authorial intent. Now, why do they then go and use the word spin-off on their website? I have no freakin' idea. Nor does it matter. The intent of the people in charge of project was that it not be a spin-off. That the webmaster screwed up has no relevance to this discussion.
Remember, there are elements of the Faction Paradox series which do occur in Eighth Doctor novels, and those elements are not hidden behind changed names in the FPU. Hell, the Sontarans and Osirians appear in the FPU. The reason we don't include FP here is because the intent of Lawrence Miles was to crete a different universe. And that is what's happening here. They are creating the "Vienna universe".
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Would Lawrence Miles, if asked, classify his Sutekh as 'the same' Sutekh?
- CzechOut
I would imagine he'd do the same sorta dance that Spragg is doing. Yes, they had to pay Holmes' estate (and maybe Griefer's, I dunno) to use it and the Osirians as a whole. So in that sense it's the same. But I don't think he would say that his usage of them added to the narrative of the DWU. He was using them in his own universe, in exactly the same way that Death's Head was used by the Marvel Universe for Marvel UK's purposes.
The Death's Head analogy is a bit closer to the Vienna situation overall, because there you have a completely creator-owned character that's floating between different fictional universes that are owned or licensed by the company for which the creator works. So whatever happens to that character in whatever universe is carried through to the next universe. Death's Head starts big, Transformer size, but is shrunk by the Doctor in the pages of DWM. That new size carries on to the character's solo title. Then the Doctor visits that solo title and takes DH to one of the Marvel Earths. Then he goes on to have adventures with the mainstream Marvel US characters, like Reed Richards and many members of the Avengers. But we're not having an article about Reed Richards here, because that's a different universe—even if the Doctor did briefly visit it.
By contrast, Miles is using someone else's character, and can't directly refer to the story in which that character originated. So is it the same name and basic concept? Yes, cause Holmes has those rights to sell? Does Miles want to vaguely imply that it's the same character? Sure he wants to hint int hat direction, to get the DW fanboys to buy his stuff.
But can he actually, directly say that? Not really, because Holmes has no rights to the TARDIS or Time Lords or Sarah Jane or the Doctor. And let's not forget that he created the FP series because he was disgusted with the BBC. Although he might see the marketing need for licensing some DWU-originating characters from Holmes, he's not trying to build an adjunct to the DWU. He's trying to tell the story of The War the way he wanted to tell it. And he is trying to create something of his own. He is not playing in the DWU as it is. He's creating something he finds creatively more satisfying and interesting. He's creating something quite definitely apart from the DWU.
At the end of the day, the authorial intent is to create an alternate, close-but-not-cigar version of Sutekh.
- SOTO
Personally, I think that "a side-universe" means, not a separate universe, but rather just a different side of it.
Did the Doctor ever appear in Torchwood? Sure, there were references to the Battle of Torchwood, a Cyberman (woman...), the Doctor's hand and such, but it was essentially a "side-universe" that you don't have to have watched Who to understand.
But there's really a fine line between allowing Torchwpod and allowing Marvel Comics. Our rules aren't really as specific as you seem to think.
Anyway, I think we should just leave it as not DWU until there's a specific reason to think it is. I wish we'd get a more specific answer from BF!!!!
That aside, if there's any sort of loose mention to the Doctor, her origin story, or anything in the DWU, we can reconsider. Until then, though, there's a risky a lot of weight in Czech's above statement.
- CzechOut
Your Torchwood example is not what "side universe" means. Torchwood is not in another universe. There are clear references to UNIT and the Doctor in every single series. You can't possibly think that Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang has Jack coming back to Torchwood from a totally separate universe. Nor can you reasonably believe that the sound of the TARDIS that's heard in End of Days is something Jack can hear from a physically separate universe. Or that the Martha and UNIT are some sort of weird alternate version of themselves—I mean, it's rather the point of their appearance in The Stolen Earth that Reset has in fact happened. It is not the point of The Memory Box that the Seventh Doctor adventure happened. The producers are flatly telling us that they intend it as a distinct universe that the Doctor has visited once. This is precisely the case with the Seventh Doctor's relationship to the Marvel Universe.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
You misread SOTO's comment. He said:
SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Personally, I think that "a side-universe" means, not a separate universe, but rather just a different side of it.
And that Torchwood fit this version of side universe, not that it was your version of side-universe.
- Josiah Rowe
I don't have a dog in this fight, as I haven't even listened to The Shadow Heart yet, much less any of the Vienna stories. But reading over this thread, I have to agree with... well, pretty much everybody except CzechOut... that the situation is a lot less clear than CzechOut seems to think it is. Specifically, the phrase "locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in" does not, to me, seem equivalent to "a distinct universe that the Doctor has visited once". The former means that from the point of view of the Vienna audios, the Doctor showed up once and had an adventure with Vienna. The latter means that from the point of view of the Doctor, he left his "usual universe" and had an adventure with Vienna. That seems to me to be contrary to the stated purpose of the trilogy which starts with The Burning Prince: that The Burning Prince, The Acheron Pulse and The Shadow Heart are all set in the same part of space, over the course of many centuries.
Now, if Big Finish were to lose the rights to make Doctor Who audios, they would still be able to make Vienna audios. I suspect that's what "locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in" means. It seems to me to be closer to the situation with Iris Wildthyme, or the K9 TV series, than Faction Paradox. Unless there's some narrative reason to believe that the Vienna audios take place in some separate universe, I think that the comment from Paul Spragg actually gives us the choice to treat Vienna however we wish. If we want to say that her further adventures are not part of the DWU, we can do so, using the comment from the podcast as justification. However, if we want to say that they are part of the DWU, we can do so, using "this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart" as justification.
When Paul says it's not a Doctor Who spin-off, that's clearly a marketing decision, not a narrative one. Faction Paradox was separated by both marketing and narrative decisions — despite the presence of Sontarans and Sutekh, the Great Houses aren't quite the Time Lords of Doctor Who. But it looks to me as if Vienna is still taking place in the DWU as we define the term here.
- CzechOut
Alright, let's say Spragg is giving us a choice. Why would we want to avail ourselves of a choice that muddies the waters? Is Vienna actually worth it? Is this series (which we don't even know will make it beyond a handful of stories) really worth the complication that will be caused by keeping it in?
If we ban it, then we can continue to say — for this is no new thing – that if the producers say it doesn't happen in the DWU and that it's not a DW spin-off‚ we won't cover it. If we ban it, then we can say that we're following the precedent previously set with Death's Head.
If we allow it, then we have to say that narrative must be considered in inclusion debates. And that's what we've — and I do think I include you in this — have been trying to weed out of the inclusion debate process. I just don't see how inclusion debates can function in future if we say, "Yeah, Big Finish gave very strong and really quite clear indication that they didn't view Vienna as part of the DWU from an out-of-universe perspective, but because they left this little, tiny crack open narratively, we're gonna go ahead and let it in."
I strongly feel that allowing Vienna in fundamentally breaks tardis:valid sources. If you can think of a way that it doesn't, I'm all ears.
- Trebligoniqua
CzechOut wrote: If we allow it, then we have to say that narrative must be considered in inclusion debates. And that's what we've — and I do think I include you in this — have been trying to weed out of the inclusion debate process. I just don't see how inclusion debates can function in future if we say, "Yeah, Big Finish gave very strong and really quite clear indication that they didn't view Vienna as part of the DWU from an out-of-universe perspective, but because they left this little, tiny crack open narratively, we're gonna go ahead and let it in."
This is a mischaracterization of the point of view of those who think it is part of the DWU. The people who have a contrary view are not being irrational in the face of clear evidence. They disagree that the evidence is clear. I don't know your position in terms of the hierarchy of the wiki, but I don't think the bar is whether you believe it, CzechOut. Forgive me if I'm mistaken.
Incidentally, I haven't listened to The Shadow Heart yet either, so I couldn't say whether there are in-story reasons to believe that it takes place in an alternate reality from the rest of the universe, but if you are going to use that as a new argument, you should be able to justify it other than by a creator's statement. And if Burning Prince and Acheron Pulse are storywise connected to Shadow Heart, then they should be treated as extra-dimensional as well.
- CzechOut
You are kind of mistaken. My "position in terms of the hierarchy of the wiki" is that I am one of the principal authors and executors of policy on the wiki. This means that I have to have read the hundreds of forum discussions that have taken place already, and then synthesise them into policies that are as simple and easy-to-follow as is possible. This not only respects the work of people who've come before, but it hopefully stops a lot of needless debates by including points that have already been raised.
In terms of past inclusion debates — for which most of this thread's participants were not around — the decision to delete The Memory Box is an absolute dead cert as I mentioned, but was sort of ridiculed for, above. In a number of earlier inclusion debates, it was easily accepted that if we'd had as clear a statement as the one we got here from Spragg and Richardson, the matter would have been definitively settled.
That is why the debate started with the tone of notification. I reasonably believed, based on past inclusion debates, that this thread was merely technically required by the text of T:VS, and that there would not be any significant resistance to it.
Instead, people have raised objections that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate into current policy. From the perspective of someone who maintains and administers policy, it is not at all clear how policy can be written which is based on a number of the objections that have been raised here. I do not see a way to write a single, clear, simple, understandable policy that, among other things:
- includes the Vienna universe, but excludes the Marvel Universe, given that both include one visit by the same incarnation of the Doctor
- allows situational meaning for the phrase "not a spin-off of Doctor Who
- respects the functional difference between BBV/RP stuff and Vienna. In the case of the BBV stuff that we allow, the producer is absolutely saying that P.R.O.B.E. and Downtime and the like are set in the DWU but just don't involve the Doctor himself. Here the producers are using a character that existed in an adventure with the Doctor—just like those in P.R.O.B.E. and Downtime — but they are explicitly saying that it's not set in the DWU. We have to treat the two cases differently.
- stresses the importance of using out-of-universe rationale for disqualifying stories, but, in this one case, requires that we consider the narrative
- doesn't contort the meaning of ordinary words, like universe and world, to such a degree that they can't be commonly understood. The skill set required to write articles here, in which we very carefully parse words to determine exactly what a character said, is not the same that's required to write good policy. In policy writing, we're looking for simple, ordinary, likely meanings — not technically-possible-but-unlikely meanings. Policy cannot concern it self with a Clinton-eseque search for the definition of is. Or universe, for that matter.
So, yes, the bar really is whether I believe it. Because if I can't believe it, I can't write it or execute it. And I just can't conceive of a way to allow in Vienna that respects past inclusion debates.
I also am very much interested in finding a mechanism that will drastically reduce the time admin have to spend on these inclusion debates. Dig enough around here and you will find pages and pages of material where various admin go through days and days of debate over individual stories. THat's time we could have been spending on actually making the wiki a better environment for other users.
We have a simple mechanism before us that will largely turn inclusion debates into inclusion notices. Does the producer/writer/copyright holder say the story is not set in the DWU? If they do, then we don't cover it. Simple. Easy. Elegant. That question frees us as admin from having to relitigate the fundamentals of the policy every time some publisher tries to attract a few thousand Doctor Who fans to a project they can't or won't say is related to Doctor Who. Best of all, it's based upon the previous work of the community as a whole. This simple litmus test isn't my invention, so much as the logical distillation of what a number of users have said through the years.
- SOTO
I understand and agree with all of that, but I still don't see how you can possibly think they were being definitive about it not being in the DWU. Both of them were being purposely vague about it, allowing Whovians to accept it as canon, and non-Whovians to not feel like they have to watch/listen to Who stories to understand what's going on. They're keeping it ambiguously right in the middle, so that it goes both ways depending on the audience.
I think it's interesting that you bring up Downtime in this discussion, as, to my eyes, it's the exact same situation. To demonstrate, let me quote the lead on our very own article on the story:
- Downtime is a 1995 direct-to-video production featuring elements from the Doctor Who universe, but not the Doctor. Reeltime Pictures did not have a licence from the British Broadcasting Corporation to use the character — and were not even allowed to refer to him directly. The video was directed by long-time Doctor Who director Christopher Barry.
Like in the Downtime situation, BF don't have the rights from the BBC to use the character of the Doctor, nor probably even refer to him directly. Exactly why they worded it as:
From the basis of promotion and licensing, this isn't a Doctor Who spin-off.
[...]
There's no denying that this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart. So all the tropes of that story are present, that setting is present (and events of the story referenced in The Memory Box), but to all intents and purposes it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in.
That quote is just screaming that Vienna's part of the DWU but not featuring the Doctor, same as Downtime. The only reason that they can't explicitly say so is the politics of it all.
I'm not hearing anyone saying that it's not in the DWU (as you must be hearing simply because you're expecting to). There's nothing that narratively contradicts the DWU (in fact, the events are referenced in The Memory Box!), and we've been given multiple statements telling us that it does in fact take place in the same universe, only a different sans-Doctor side of it.
Honestly, the quotes that we've been provided with can easily be interpreted in both ways, and you seem to be the only one who's reading it as "not set in the DWU."
- CzechOut
It's so hard to know what to do with your comments sometimes SOTO. You "understand and agree with all that" — yet you then completely dismiss everything I'm saying. Which is it?
Downtime is set in the same universe as the Doctor. In fact, one version of the story actually has the Doctor briefly in it. Vienna is not like that. The producers have said it's either "not in the Doctor Who world at all" or "another, locked off side-universe that the Doctor has once visited". Take your pick of those two creator-given explanations, but that is not the same as Downtime or P.R.O.B.E. or even your average episode of SJA or Torchwood which in no way even mentions the Doctor.
And indeed, you're quite wrong that they don't have a license from the BBC to use the Doctor. They could if they wanted to. They could just make Vienna a companion of the Doctor. They do have a license to use the Doctor. But they choose not to. That's completely different from Downtime or other RP/BBV productions.
These two things are not the same:
- a story set in the DWU that doesn't feature the Doctor
- a story not set in the DWU which therefore does not feature the Doctor
And, really, SOTO: "you must be hearing ['not in the DWU'] simply because you're expecting to]"? Why in the world would I expect to? I didn't bring it up. I wasn't on a witch hunt to get rid of this thing. I literally found a BF Christmas podcast in my iTunes feed that had somehow escaped my Yuletide notice, and Richardson introduced a new series by saying it's "not set in the Doctor Who world" and "I know people have been saying it's a spin-off of Doctor Who but it's not." I had no prejudice whatsoever towards Vienna. But the common sense interpretation of those words is that the creator is saying it's not a part of the universe in which the Doctor Who series is ordinarily set.
Your interpretation of what side-universe means stretches the English language to the point of incredulity. Just like your interpretation of "Doctor Who world". "Doctor Who world" does not mean "the world inhabited by a character named 'Doctor Who'". It means the world (in the dictionary sense of "universe") in which the show Doctor Who is set. And side-universe doesn't mean "a side of the universe". It means another universe that is "on the side" of the principal one – in exactly the same way that the mainstream Marvel Universe is "on the side" of the DWU thanks to Death's Head.
Now please stop trying to break the English language. :P
Instead, please explain to me how it's possible to allow Vienna but not allow the Marvel Universe. Tell me why it's better to allow Vienna than to have a simple authorial intent litmus test. I don't think that there's any doubt whatsoever that both these guys have clearly said, without any qualification, two times each, that Vienna is not a Doctor Who spinoff. So what I need in order to allow Vienna in this site is a way to explain in T:VS how a thing that is not a Doctor Who spin-off can be a valid source for writing articles about the Doctor Who universe. And I need to know why we would want to sacrifice a perfectly good, simple litmus test for determining the validity of a source on the altar of Vienna.
It isn't about this one thing, guys. It's about how this thing impacts broader policy. And it's not about you guys against me. It's about the voices in this thread being opposed to the voices in other threads. It's about determining a coherent, rational and simple policy that fits this discussion and others, so that the work of other users in the past isn't just tossed aside by this one discussion with good cause. If we allow in Vienna it will be an exception. So the reason for making the exception, in the face of one of the clearest statements we've ever had from a copyright holder, needs to be better than anything I've heard so far.
So far, all that your side has is that there's enough in what Spragg said to allow us to choose to cover it. Let me grant that to you for the sake of conversation. Even if Spragg gave us the opportunity to choose to cover Vienna, why would we want to? What's the upside to not choosing the easier option? How does it help the wiki to choose to make narrative continuity the basis for allowing a source to be valid?
I freely admit that our policy will exclude the very occasional story for which there might be a plausible narrative rationale for inclusion. But by focusing squarely on authorial intent and out-of-universe considerations, we keep in a heck of a lot more than we would by any other method I can think of.
Again, if you guys have anything better than "everything is included as long as
- it's an officially released story
- it's fully and properly licensed
- it's not obviously parodic
- there's no suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU
I'm all ears. Until then, it is simply easier to automatically disqualify things that are described by the makers as "not a spin-off of Doctor Who".
- SOTO
What I meant by "I understand and agree with all of that" is that I get all that about clarity of policy etc., but I disagree with the way that you're applying that in this case. I agree with the policy — I just disagree with saying definitively that the makers call it not set in the DWU. You and I must be reading it differently, because all those quotes mean to me is that it's set within the DWU, but isn't centred around the Doctor or the main themes of Who. This is done purely to widen the audience, and doesn't place the story outside of the Doctor's universe.
The two quotations from BF that are provided are intentionally vague, and can be enterpreted either way, therefore there's "no suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU," since that's just your interpretation of their words. And, from reading through this thread, you seem to be the only one participating in this discussion that reads the quotes that way.
- SOTO
What I meant by "I understand and agree with all of that" is that I get all that about clarity of policy etc., but I disagree with the way that you're applying that in this case. I agree with the policy — I just disagree with saying definitively that the makers call it not set in the DWU. You and I must be reading it differently, because all those quotes mean to me is that it's set within the DWU, but isn't centred around the Doctor or the main themes of Who. This is done purely to widen the audience, and doesn't place the story outside of the Doctor's universe.
The two quotations from BF that are provided are intentionally vague, and can be enterpreted either way, therefore there's "no suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU," since that's just your interpretation of their words. And, from reading through this thread, you seem to be the only one participating in this discussion that reads the quotes that way.
- Trebligoniqua
As I said before, using terms like "common sense" and "dead cert" doesn't make them so. You are not addressing the ambiguity everyone else sees and saying there is no ambiguity. Given Revanvolatrelundar, presumably an admin, restored the page, it's not even a consensus among the Admins. That's why I asked what your position in the hierarchy was; was it somehow greater than that of other admins.
Anyway, to get as close to demonstrating ambiguity as possible, from the Oxford English Dictionary Online:
World. 1st definition, part 3:
(one's world) one’s life and activities: he felt his whole world had collapsed
Easily fits with the Doctor Who world. You would probably argue there is no character called "Doctor Who". 2nd definition, part 3:
all that relates to a particular sphere of activity: they were a legend in the world of British theatre; the news shocked the football world
Universe, 2nd definition: a particular sphere of activity or experience: the front parlour was the hub of her universe
Even if one ignores this, you have not addressed the new "fact" that the investigation would reveal if you are correct: The Shadow Heart takes place in an alternate timeline/reality. How do you address this? Should all characters that appeared in that story now be said to be inhabiting a parallel reality? Again, I haven't listened to it or Burning Price or Acheron Pulse, but if there is a story thread across, does that mean those two stories take place in the same alternate reality?
- CzechOut
That's illogical, SOTO. If it is intentionally vague and can be interpreted either way, then therefore there is at least a suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU.
Like Josiah said, they Spragg is offering us a choice. The question before us is why would we not choose the easier option that doesn't require a rewrite of a core policy? Why would we opt to make narrative continuity the reason for accepting this thing which is completely consistently described by Spragg and Richardson as "not a spin-off of Doctor Who"?
And who's going to write the rationale for including Vienna? Because I sure as heck don't see a clear and straightforward way to do it. If someone comes up to me a year from now and asks me, "Why do we include Vienna but not the Fantastic Four?" I really wouldn't have a clue what to say to them.
Conversely, if we banned it because Big Finish said it wasn't a Doctor Who spin-off, everyone in this thread could wrap their minds around that statement and know that it was a true statement. That rationale would at least be completely transparent and provable by showing legitimate quotes.
- CzechOut
Trebligoniqua wrote: As I said before, using terms like "common sense" and "dead cert" doesn't make them so. You are not addressing the ambiguity everyone else sees and saying there is no ambiguity. Given Revanvolatrelundar, presumably an admin, restored the page, it's not even a consensus among the Admins. That's why I asked what your position in the hierarchy was; was it somehow greater than that of other admins.
Do I have a higher position on the wiki than Revan? Nominally. I am a bureaucrat and he is an admin. But this is not an hierarchical issue. I do not feel myself superior to Revan or Josiah or indeed you.
I think that, by virtue of the fact that virtually no one has waded into the choppy waters of actually writing policy, I have a unique outlook on this problem. It must be satisfied. This cannot be decided on the basis of how many people agree with me. It only matters whether the policy which emerges from this debate is clear, simple, and easily understandable.
We went into this debate with a policy that said, "The existence of narrative continuity is not the basis by which a story is considered valid on this wiki. What matters is whether its makers intended it be set in the DWU. If there is doubt on that matter, then it cannot be a valid source here."
The statements by Big Finish do make this an easy case, even if you dislike the certainty with which I express it. With respect, you haven't been here for past debates. You don't really know how comparatively clear this is. There's no reading of tea leaves necessary here. Richardson and Spragg have made this extraordinarily clear by saying four times "this is not a spin-off of Doctor Who".
It seems to me that the majority of the thread are looking at this case in isolation. I'm looking at it as one of a series of inclusion debates we've had and assessing it as a comparative dead cert.
… you have not addressed the new "fact" that the investigation would reveal if you are correct: The Shadow Heart takes place in an alternate timeline/reality. How do you address this? Should all characters that appeared in that story now be said to be inhabiting a parallel reality? Again, I haven't listened to it or Burning Price or Acheron Pulse, but if there is a story thread across, does that mean those two stories take place in the same alternate reality?
To the contrary, I've addressed this in every post. This sort of messiness is precisely why the existence of narrative continuity is not used to determine validity. The whole virtue of T:VS is that it doesn't matter what the continuity is. What matters is what the makers/copyright holders have said about it. And they've said that Vienna is not a spin-off of Doctor Who.
- Trebligoniqua
Sorry, I was actually asking about the alternate reality as a side question. If the final outcome is indeed the Vienna series is not part of the DWU, and the Vienna from that series is the same one who appeared in The Shadow Heart, doesn't that logically flow that the reality of The Shadow Heart and linked stories are set in an alternate reality? And thus, shouldn't the articles be amended to include language saying this? I looked at the article on The Burning Price and saw a link to an article about an Empire. This Empire thus is not known to exist in the main Doctor Who universe if the policy takes both the "same Vienna" and "side-universe" statements to be true and interpreted in the manner you subscribe to. Or does it mean that narrative policy does not need to reflect inclusion policy? An easy answer, I suppose, would be that Vienna was visiting the Doctor Who universe in The Shadow Heart, but that would be speculation.
- CzechOut
Trebligoniqua's post proves my point entirely. We avoid all that speculation, all that worry, by just saying the story concludes with The Shadow Heart. Whatever happens with the character of Vienna beyond that point is of no concern to this wiki because Big Finish have said that the series Vienna is not a spin-off of Doctor Who. If someone says their work isn't a spin-off of Doctor Who, it's simply easier to believe them.
Likewise, Death's Head's adventures with the Fantastic Four and various members of The Avengers after the Seventh Doctor drops him off on top of the Baxter Building because the Marvel Universe is no concern of ours, and Sontaran adventures in the Faction Paradox universe don't matter to us.
- MystExplorer
I don't want to wade too far into this debate but if the policy of this wiki is that Vienna is not part of the DWU, then the Big Finish Vienna voice actors category should be deleted to keep things consistent.
- Josiah Rowe
It's a fairly small point, but surely it's very simple to distinguish the "Vienna universe" (one audio play, possibly two) from the Marvel Universe (decades upon decades of comics with a highly developed multiverse). If the "Vienna universe" exists as something distinct from the DWU (which is how Czechout is reading the comment from the producer), then it was created either in The Shadow Heart or in The Memory Box. The Marvel Universe existed before the TARDIS landed on the roof of the Baxter building, and continued to exist afterwards. It's a well-documented fictional universe. The "Vienna universe" isn't, to my knowledge, described anywhere.
A wiki is a way to present and organize information. When we say that we're not covering The Fantastic Four, no information is lost; there are plenty of other resources discussing the history of the Fantastic Four. There are even other wikis. As far as I know, there is no wiki discussing the narrative content of The Memory Box.
As for the claim that allowing Vienna would break tardis:valid sources, I don't see how that's the case. The fourth rule — the one that Vienna would presumably break — says:If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed make a final determination.
This is the community discussion required by that rule. And honestly, it looks to me as if the community wants to include this story.
I'll note that at one point in this discussion CzechOut has paraphrased rule #4 as "there's no suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU". That's not quite what the rule as currently written says. What we have is a situation where there is conflicting evidence about whether Vienna is a Doctor Who spin-off or not. On the one hand, the producer says that it isn't; on the other hand, the Big Finish website describes the series as a "brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure The Shadow Heart." So we can choose whether to include it or not. And that's what this discussion is.
As I say, I don't have a position on the matter myself. But if policy is meant to reflect community views, and not just what the people who enforce it think those views should be, we should respect the opinions given here.
- Trebligoniqua
Given that CzechOut has once again deleted The Memory Box, does that mean the discussion is closed? Who gets the final say? As far as I can see, CzechOut has convinced no one that his/her position is correct. Is it ultimately moot, as CzechOut is a bureaucrat?
- Imamadmad
Maybe, since the biggest problem here seems to be a matter of policy wording, since the main policy writer can't think of how to phrase things so we could include Vienna but not a whole bunch of other things, maybe the people in this thread who want Vienna to stay in can try their hand at drafting a policy which would work to allow in Vienna but not the others. If they can successfully do it, maybe it would be more likely for that to become policy and for Vienna to be deemed valid on this wiki. If nobody can figure out some good wording, it will have to be concluded that Vienna is invalid. Just an idea. Anyone agree?
- Josiah Rowe
Well, there's also some dispute over whether the policy as currently written does in fact demand that we exclude Vienna. The writer of that policy thinks it does, but we all know the danger of the intentional fallacy, don't we?
If a change in wording were needed to include Vienna (and, again, I'm not sure that it is), all we would need to do is make rule #4 say that we exclude a work if it is clearly intended to be set outside the DWU. Given that Big Finish itself is being equivocal on this subject, we could say that we allow Vienna because it's not clearly set outside the DWU. One word, if needed.
- Shambala108
It seems pretty clear to me. We don't use in-universe information to determine the inclusion of stories (if we did, we'd have to exclude nearly every Dalek story after The Daleks).
Therefore, we have to use out-of-universe information, and the author/publisher's intent has been used in the past, twice recently (for P.S. and Death Comes to Time).
If the author says it's not part of the DWU, there is precendent for us not including it here.
- Trebligoniqua
But the author didn't say it's not part of the DWU. They used terms that many find ambiguous.
- SOTO
Obviously. But Big Finish's being intentionally vague about it, as I've said many times. While it's certainly one interpretation that they say it's not part of the DWU, their wording makes it so that it's not clear. They're keeping it so that it works both ways, so that it sells to both audiences. Clever marketing, but not so good for us.
Since it's not clear whether or not the author says it's part of the DWU, the quotes above should not be used as proof, as they can be interpreted both ways. Therefore, in this one case, and in perhaps others in which the author isn't clear, we need to look at other aspects.
As Josiah said, if the wording was:
4 If a story was clearly intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed make a final determination. then what we say applies. If it ever comes to the author not being clear, as it does now, then we look at the other three rules. Looking at them, it all checks out.
If I may quote the explanation of Rule 4:
Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4.
I don't know about you, but I'm not seeing the author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU -- there's nothing "direct" about the responses we've been given. As has been demonstrated in this thread, what has been said by representatives of BF can be enterpreted either way, and therefore no one has "directly" told us that it's non-DWU. Considering everything, if you apply the above quoted rule, this story cannot be "kicked out" based on Rule 4. Unless there's another reason that we shouldn't cover it, then I think that Vienna should be considered part of the DWU, and therefore covered by this wiki.
Anyone wish to rebut? (can't believe I just said that!)
- CzechOut
Josiah Rowe said:
If a change in wording were needed to include Vienna (and, again, I'm not sure that it is), all we would need to do is make rule #4 say that we exclude a work if it is clearly intended to be set outside the DWU. Given that Big Finish itself is being equivocal on this subject, we could say that we allow Vienna because it's not clearly set outside the DWU. One word, if needed.
I don't see how this works as a solution, Josiah, since this entire debate is over just how "clearly" BF have worded things. I think two of its top creatives saying four times, "this is not a DW spin-offs" is super, crystal clear. I additionally think that "not in the DW world at all" and "in a locked-off side-universe" are clearer than just about anything ever said about any other stories we've excluded. Apparently now Shambala108 finds that convincingly clear, too.
SmallerOnTheOutside said: I don't know about you, but I'm not seeing the author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU -- there's nothing "direct" about the responses we've been given.Really. You don't see anything direct in "not a Doctor Who spin-off? Uttered four times? You don't see anything direct in, "This is not a part of the Doctor Who world at all?" And how is the normal DWU possibly a "locked-off side-universe"? Seriously, if that's not plain, simple, and direct, then there will never be a direct declaration ever made about anything.
Josiah Rowe said:But if policy is meant to reflect community views, and not just what the people who enforce it think those views should be, we should respect the opinions given here.
Policy is continuous. It's not just this debate that matters to the overall valid sources policy. T:VS emerges from the several debates we've had on it stretching all the way back to the beginning of the wiki. As I've said before, if we'd had such a clear statement as "not a DW spin-off" and "not in the DW world, at all" in other debates, that would have been it. Game over. Discussion ended.
And policy does not emerge simply from a head count. Could you assemble a majority of users to overturn, I dunno, T:HONOR? Probably. There are obviously a lot of people who see it as weird to type "Dr" instead of "Dr." There are any number of arbitrary policies that could go the other way, and so you could get a majority in a thread to vote for change. And then comes the important question: who is going to enact this policy change? And the motion is suddenly, quietly tabled.
Policy on a wiki must above all else be practicable, which the change to T:VS caused by allowing in Vienna would not be. Allowing in Vienna would render T:VS, rule 4, moot.
To my eyes, what's happening in this debate is that people have agreed that the colour of the sky is red. Fine, you have agreement on that issue, but that doesn't make the sky any less blue. There was once near universal agreement that the world was flat. Does that mean that those who said the world was round were wrong?
Guys, I've never seen a better case for a rule 4 exclusion. Again, that's why this thread was originally an announcement. I have often brought such matters before the community in a more solicitous way, inviting discussions that lasted for days. So it is not that I "tried to pull a fast one", as was indicated above or am "anti-community" as Josiah has I'm sure only unintentionally implied. It is that, after having participated in a ton of these debates over the years, I cannot imagine a dismissal that will ever be clearer.
If there were a poster child for Rule 4, this would be it.
So if this is allowed in, the policy wholly fails. Everything excluded under a rule 4 debate would have to be reviewed. And one little story isn't worth that.
The one thing we all agree on is that the language provided does allow us to exclude the story. You might think there's wiggle room to accept the story. But everyone seems to grant, however grudgingly, that the language does present the opportunity to dismiss.
So that's where the consensus is, it seems to me. I think we can all agree on the notion that Richardson and Spragg have cast doubt on whether this is a part of the normal DWU and whether it is a genuine spin-off of Doctor Who.
And, look, if someone in this thread has a love for Vienna that burns white hot, we can always create w:c:vienna. The URL is available. I'll help you provide prominent links and even give you whatever templates you want to set up over there. Excluding Vienna from this wiki does not mean, as Josiah claimed, the destruction of information. It just means, at most, the repackaging of it elsewhere — an "elsewhere" that can be fully linked here. We could put the Vienna Wiki in exactly the same sort of "locked off little side-universe" that Spragg enjoins us to put the audios.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Er...the Vienna wiki is taken....
- CzechOut
How odd. I checked it before and got nothing. Must have accidentally misspelled. Well, whatever, w:c:viennaaudio then.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
But either way, side-universe is a VERY ambiguous term. And the website does say it's a spinoff. I find it very unlikely that no one checked over the website entry to see whether or not it's accurate. Also, you said we're basically all agreeing that the sky is red, yet multiple people have offered logical explanations for Vienna being in the DWU.
- CzechOut
I don't. Website errors are common for Big Finish. A semi-regular feature of The Big Finish Podcast is website errata of one kind or another.
And the website does not say it's a Doctor Who spin-off. It says it's a spin off o The Shadow Heart. At no point have BF ever said anywhere that it's just a straight up spin-off of DW, and indeed they've now said, again, four times that it's not a DW spin-off.
For comparison, you used to be able to see FP described as a spin-off of the Doctor Who novels by Larry Miles. And we don't have FP here.
But anyway the point is that we all agree that there is doubt, introduced by the key creatives, as to whether Vienna is in the DWU. Everyone in this discussion agrees to that. Consensus is actually to throw Vienna out, because everyone says that one reading of the statements given is that Vienna is not a spin-off of DW. We disagree only about the level of ambiguity of that statement, not about whether that is a plausible reading.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
CzechOut wrote: But anyway the point is that we all agree that there is doubt, introduced by the key creatives, as to whether Vienna is in the DWU. Everyone in this discussion agrees to that. Consensus is actually to throw Vienna out, because everyone says that one reading of the statements given is that Vienna is not a spin-off of DW. We disagree only about the level of ambiguity of that statement, not about whether that is a plausible reading.
Almost no one agrees that it should be thrown out...I don't know where you got that they do from.
- CzechOut
I didn't say that. I said that the one thing we all agree on is that one plausible reading of the statements from Big Finish is that Vienna is not a DW spin-off and that it doesn't occur in the normal DWU.
Since that is where the common ground is, then the logical action is that we throw out Vienna.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
I thought majority did't rule in this case.
- SOTO
CzechOut wrote: I didn't say that. I said that the one thing we all agree on is that one plausible reading of the statements from Big Finish is that Vienna is not a DW spin-off and that it doesn't occur in the normal DWU.
Since that is where the common ground is, then the logical action is that we throw out Vienna.
...Yeah, not really seeing the logic in that. We also all agree that one plausible reading is that it is a DW spin-off. So what?
- CzechOut
No we don't agree on the converse. I absolutely do not think that it is in any way, shape or form correct to convert four very firm "not a DW spin-off" statements into "Yeah, this is a DW spin-off".
- Trebligoniqua
It would be nice if you were consistent with your arguments. You don't agree it's a DW spin-off. Ok. I thought the issue was the Doctor Who Universe, not whether something is a spin-off. Those are not the same thing. A spin-off does not have to occur in the same universe. A spin-off is a marketing term. So is your argument that it's not a spin-off, or not set in the DWU? If The Shadow Box takes place in the DWU, then Vienna takes place in the DWU. You shouldn't conflate the two ideas.
- CzechOut
I've consistently said throughout the thread that I don't believe it's set in the DWU, because that's what two key creatives at Big Finish have said.
- CzechOut
To elaborate, the obvious, general thing that this wiki does is to "cover Doctor Who and its spin-offs". We had that exact language on our front page for the first couple years, before it became clear we needed to specify the SJA, K9 and Torchwood franchises. If we have people saying that something is not a spin-off of Doctor Who, then you can't just dismiss that statement. That's a major disqualifier before you even get to the question of whether it occurs in the DWU. If it's not even a spin-off of Doctor Who then why do we care about determining whether it's in the DWU?
- SOTO
Well, I suppose it's not really worth the fight...
While there's certainly no definitive proof that it's not set in the DWU (just two quotes that can be read either way), I suppose we don't need to cover it. We could always just pull a Faction Paradox and make the series its own wiki.
Could we perhaps make it sort of "branch off" this wiki, like we do with FP? You know, expand the family? :P
- Cult_Of_Skaro
I think it is absolutely worth it, just as I would think it would be worth it if Czech argued SJA, TW, Gallifrey, UNIT, or Benny were not DWU.
- CzechOut
But I'm not arguing that. And it's not my argument that Vienna is not DWU. It's Big Finish's argument. If the boys had just kept their mouths shut about the connection to Doctor Who, then I'd say we have no out-of-universe statement to the contrary, so we should believe that this Vienna character is the same one as in the Seventh Doctor adventure, so therefore this is a legitimate spin-off of Doctor Who.
But that's not what's happened.
And, yes, SOTO, if people want to make a wiki, I'll fully support that by transferring over templates and other basic "wiki building blocks" so that the process is hugely streamlined. But I'd strongly suggest we wait to see if the Vienna series actually turns into a true series. I mean if it's just this one run of stories followed by swift cancellation, it's probably not worth it.
- Trebligoniqua
CzechOut, I am sorry, but you are all over the place here. You quoted their response specifically saying she was the same Vienna. They said, "But there's no denying that this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart."
- SOTO
CzechOut wrote: But I'd strongly suggest we wait to see if the Vienna series actually turns into a true series. I mean if it's just this one run of stories followed by swift cancellation, it's probably not worth it.
If that happens, we will all regret this long discussion. :P
Jut so I know, what are the release dates for the stories?
- Josiah Rowe
CzechOut wrote: And policy does not emerge simply from a head count. Could you assemble a majority of users to overturn, I dunno, T:HONOR? Probably. There are obviously a lot of people who see it as weird to type "Dr" instead of "Dr." There are any number of arbitrary policies that could go the other way, and so you could get a majority in a thread to vote for change. And then comes the important question: who is going to enact this policy change? And the motion is suddenly, quietly tabled.
Policy on a wiki must above all else be practicable, which the change to T:VS caused by allowing in Vienna would not be. Allowing in Vienna would render T:VS, rule 4, moot.Really, it wouldn't. Unless you are using a version of rule 4 which doesn't include the word "probably" and the clause "but a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination".
I'm not suggesting that policy derives from a head count. I'm suggesting that the interpretation of policy, and how it applies in a particular case, is subject to review by the community. And if the community says, "in this case, we disagree with your judgment", we (and I include myself in this) need to go along with the community — even if we think that judgment is incorrect.
It's akin to a police officer who makes an arrest. He or she does so in good faith, believing that the person arrested is guilty of the crime (or at least that a legitimate case can be brought). But what if a jury of the accused's peers say the accused is innocent? That doesn't mean that the police officer was in the wrong, or that the law which the police officer thought was being broken is now invalid. It just means that in this one case, the community (jury) disagrees with the police officer's interpretation of the law.
Guys, I've never seen a better case for a rule 4 exclusion. Again, that's why this thread was originally an announcement. I have often brought such matters before the community in a more solicitous way, inviting discussions that lasted for days. So it is not that I "tried to pull a fast one", as was indicated above or am "anti-community" as Josiah has I'm sure only unintentionally implied. It is that, after having participated in a ton of these debates over the years, I cannot imagine a dismissal that will ever be clearer.
If there were a poster child for Rule 4, this would be it.
So if this is allowed in, the policy wholly fails. Everything excluded under a rule 4 debate would have to be reviewed. And one little story isn't worth that.
It really doesn't break the policy, because rule 4 already says that a community discussion will probably be necessary. In fact, what does go against rule 4 is the suggestion that if one admin believes that a work is excluded, it can be deleted without discussion.
Yes, I did not mean to say that CzechOut is anti-community in general. In fact, he's done an extraordinary amount of work codifying past community discussions into policy, and in so doing has on more than one occasion recorded policies with which he personally disagrees (or which he would prefer were stronger or weaker, etc.). All I'm saying is that in this case what seems sky-is-blue obvious to CzechOut is apparently not that obvious to the rest of the community, and he seems to be having trouble accepting that.
The one thing we all agree on is that the language provided does allow us to exclude the story. You might think there's wiggle room to accept the story. But everyone seems to grant, however grudgingly, that the language does present the opportunity to dismiss.
So that's where the consensus is, it seems to me. I think we can all agree on the notion that Richardson and Spragg have cast doubt on whether this is a part of the normal DWU and whether it is a genuine spin-off of Doctor Who.
And, look, if someone in this thread has a love for Vienna that burns white hot, we can always create w:c:vienna. The URL is available. I'll help you provide prominent links and even give you whatever templates you want to set up over there. Excluding Vienna from this wiki does not mean, as Josiah claimed, the destruction of information. It just means, at most, the repackaging of it elsewhere — an "elsewhere" that can be fully linked here. We could put the Vienna Wiki in exactly the same sort of "locked off little side-universe" that Spragg enjoins us to put the audios.
See, to me that looks like needless work, when the option of simply including this audio in our wiki — an option which I still maintain that Spragg's note allows us — is available. But I agree that having a side-wiki with information from this story is preferable to having the information simply deleted and/or not accessible from here.
- Imamadmad
Just wondering, when it comes to a debate like this when people are starting to consider head-counts, even if only from a "your the only one who agrees" or "the community disagrees with you" perspective, that doesn't take into account anybody who either clicked on the highlighted link, agreed, and then went on with their business, or anybody who is mostly just reading this thread and, although maybe having an opinion, can't see any point in expressing it because somebody else already has. Is there any way of re-highlighting this thread? Maybe de-highlighting and then re-highlighting again. This might bring back some of the people with the opinion that Vienna shouldn't be included, or at least might draw a few more people's attention to the fact that there is actually a debate going on about this; that this thread has evolved into something more than just an announcement. And maybe if there are any other people who are just reading the conversation without participating, maybe it's time to speak up, even with just an "I think Vienna should/shouldn't be included for reasons others have already stated". Hey, I'll start.
Personally, I think Vienna seems to be more trouble than it's worth, for reasons others have presented above, and that the statement from the makers of the audios does seem to pretty clearly state that they don't intend for it to be inside the DWU, although you can believe that it is if you want. As a result, it should be considered to be outside of the DWU.
Because of the evolution of the form of this thread, I think it would benefit by brining more people to it at this point in time. Just an idea. OK, I'll go back to just lurking around now. If you disagree, feel free to just ignore everything I just said. It's just that this conversation doesn't seem to be getting very far.
- Shambala108
I'll go on record as saying that the author's comment clearly states to me that this series is not part of the DWU and should not be included on this wiki per wiki policy that has been used before in P.S. and Death Comes to Time.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Though I still think the argument against P.S. was ridiculous. Whatever the original intention, it's more than just another deleted scene, as they did complete it...
- Cult_Of_Skaro
And it's been backed up by the Beeb and Moffat.
- Quest?on
For reasons that have been stated above, I think that we should not include the Vienna Audios.
- ArrowheadVenom
If there's nothing in the audio itself that makes it uncanonical, then I say it should stay. If there's any conflict, though, I say it should go. It shouldn't go purely because of what BF said about it.
- CzechOut
Josiah Rowe wrote: It's akin to a police officer who makes an arrest. He or she does so in good faith, believing that the person arrested is guilty of the crime (or at least that a legitimate case can be brought). But what if a jury of the accused's peers say the accused is innocent? That doesn't mean that the police officer was in the wrong, or that the law which the police officer thought was being broken is now invalid. It just means that in this one case, the community (jury) disagrees with the police officer's interpretation of the law.
This is a really interesting analogy. I'd point out, though, that it's possible for the judge to overrule the jury on a guilty verdict if he or she finds that the jury is ignoring things that a reasonable jury would not have ignored, such as a lack of evidence to support their finding.
And, in a way — though it perhaps stretches the metaphor a bit — that's what's happening here. In my view as the "judge", setting aside Big Finish's statements can only be done if you ignore the rule completely.
Arrowheadvenom wrote: If there's nothing in the audio itself that makes it uncanonical, then I say it should stay. If there's any conflict, though, I say it should go. It shouldn't go purely because of what BF said about it.See what I mean? This opinion is not taken in light of our policy at all. In fact, the opinion is rendered completely against policy. It says, as so many do upthread who are opposed the policy, as long as there is no narrative reason to exclude, it should be included.
Such opinion is, in my view, completely invalid. We are not litigating the nature of the policy in this thread. We are trying to determine whether Vienna should be excluded on the basis of existing policy.
Josiah Rowe wrote: It really doesn't break the policy, because rule 4 already says that a community discussion will probably be necessary. In fact, what does go against rule 4 is the suggestion that if one admin believes that a work is excluded, it can be deleted without discussion.That's a bit unfair. I did start a forum thread which I didn't lock. Deletion before anybody started massively linking to it seemed to make good administrative sense, because that would mean less to clean up later. This isn't like I ripped up the work of something that had been on the wiki for years. This was a brand new thing that I stopped from being linked before people got too used to it being around.
And, in my eyes, the policy says probably because there are some cases which will be clear — like this one. Again, if we can't exclude on the basis of the statements that have been made by Big Finish in this case, then the rule falls.
To continue the legal analogy, law is partially made on the basis of precedent. If we set the precedent here that we're going to set aside completely what BF have said, in what case will rule 4 ever be employed?
Josiah Rowe said:All I'm saying is that in this case what seems sky-is-blue obvious to CzechOut is apparently not that obvious to the rest of the community, and he seems to be having trouble accepting that.
Since you made the statement, it's pretty clear that it is not me against the rest of the community. Shambala108, Imamadmad and Quest?on have also stated that, under current policy, Vienna should go.
- ArrowheadVenom
OK, I've now examined the Valid Sources Policy in more detail, and I realize my previous comment was rather stupid, since, I'll admit, I hadn't really looked at the Policy before.
Now that I've read through it, I've formulated the opinion that if the character is obviously meant to be the same one from the DW universe, then it really ought to be covered. The Policy doesn't seem to be terribly specific about this, but I think that I'd have to listen to it to decide whether or not the character is clearly intended to be the same character (not a duplicate, but the same one), then their stories should definitely be covered by the wiki.
- Bubblecamera
Hi everyone,
I seem to remember that earlier in the thread, there was some talk about whether the future of the Vienna series would influence things at all.
If that's still relevant, then it should be noted that BF tweeted today that a box set of three stories is set for release next year.
(Oh, and I'm personally neutral on this debate - I was formerly in favor of inclusion, but after listening to Czech's arguments I think I'd be fine either way.)
- ArrowheadVenom
Bubblecamera wrote: (Oh, and I'm personally neutral on this debate - I was formerly in favor of inclusion, but after listening to Czech's arguments I think I'd be fine either way.)
I kinda feel the same way. I actually really want it to be included, just for the sake of completeness, but I'll try not to let my personal desires get in the way of following rules. As far as the rules go, I think this is a really complicated decision to make. It's not very clear whether it should go or stay. I personally would like it to stay, but I'm thinking it should probably go, because of the Policy.
- CzechOut
Well, see, that's still not what policy says. Valid sources policy doesn't have anything to do with continuity, because the related canon policy tells us that there is no canon. Therefore decisions are not based on continuity. As policy states, "a story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories". The opposite is therefore true: a story cannot be ruled valid because it is continuous.
ArrowheadVenom wrote: Now that I've read through it, I've formulated the opinion that if the character is obviously meant to be the same one from the DW universe, then it really ought to be covered. The Policy doesn't seem to be terribly specific about this, but I think that I'd have to listen to it to decide whether or not the character is clearly intended to be the same character (not a duplicate, but the same one), then their stories should definitely be covered by the wiki.
Continuity has nothing to do with inclusion.
Inclusion is all about authorial intent. Did the writer/copyright holder/producer intend for the story to be set in the normal DWU? If you can present language that throws doubt on this, then the thing is thrown out. Otherwise, it is assumed by the presence of the phrase "© British Broadcasting Corporation" that the story is a valid source on this wiki.
To return to an earlier example, the character of Death's Head is assumed to be the same character in Death's Head (1988) #10 as he was in #8, which featured the Seventh Doctor. But at that point, DH is firmly in the Marvel Universe and so we don't cover him. Equally, DH is to be found in the pages of The Transformers before coming to DWM, where the Doctor shrinks him to a more manageable size. He's obviously narratively continuous with, or the same character as in, his appearances in The Transformers universe. But that's a different franchise, and quite obviously we don't cover it.
I think it's clear that the character in The Shadow Heart is the same as the one in The Memory Box. But it's a different universe, a different franchise. If we choose to cover Vienna, then there's no real reason not to cover The Transformers or the Marvel Universe. Vienna was a guest in the DWU, just like Death's Head before her. Since Big Finish are allowing us the wonderfully clear way out, we should avail ourselves of that option and thereby save ourselves a lot of mental gymnastics.
- Revanvolatrelundar
But the thing is that Death's Head's universe in no way resembles the DWU, therefore we can't include it. We know for a fact that if Vienna does have her own universe, it includes Slithergees and Pakhars just like the DWU does. From a narrative point of view it is the same universe.
- 78.8.132.97
If directly asked, the producers of the K-9 TV show wouldn't be able to state that their show is a Doctor Who spin-off because BBC's lawyers would be after them. They are not calling it a spin-off purely for licensing reasons, not narrative ones. If the author owns the Bernice Summerfield character and not BBC then her series is also not a Doctor Who spin-off, and Big Finish would give you the same answer as regarding Vienna if asked. Same with Iris Wildthyme.
- 37.225.52.51
I have just listened to AUDIO: Buried Secrets and the behind-the-scenes extras. In these, Gary Russell states in a conversation with Paul Cornell that she was created as a Doctor Who companion, but she "left the Doctor Who universe" in her own stories. Therefore, if such statements about Vienna Salvatori are taken as her solo stories according to User:CzechOut in Thread:125464 not taking place in the DWU, so should all Bernice Summerfield stories that do not feature the Doctor.
- 92.232.180.244
http://bigfinish.com/ranges/v/vienna
If you check out the following link to the Big Finish website, then it says that Vienna is a "brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure The Shadow Heart." Big Finish have acknowledged themselves on their website that Vienna is a spin-off. If you are not including it, because it doesn't have concepts that have appeared on the TV version of Doctor Who, well neither did Graceless or "Iris Wildthyme", yet that has been added. Also, if Vienna does include the appearance of Doctor Who concepts, would you then reconsider including it?
- Revanvolatrelundar
Well that's my point, Vienna does use Doctor Who concepts: a Pakhar and Slitergee make small appearances.
- JagoAndLitefoot
In the "This Is Doctor Who at Big Finish" behind the scenes audio in The Light at the End collector's edition, David Richardson actually does call Vienna a Doctor Who spin-off, when he discusses it among other spin-offs like Counter-Measures and Jago and Litefoot. Given this, and the fact that the exclusion was based on Richardson's own previous statement on this, I think it might be good to reconsider the decision.
- CzechOut
Exactly. He's speaking generally about the range of other product they sell, because he knows that TLATE is going to be a great time to expose new listeners to Big Finish. It does not trump him speaking specifically and solely about Vienna, upon that product's launch:
- "Um, I know some people refer to it as a Doctor Who spin-off. I do not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off. It's its own thing. It's not set in the Doctor Who world at all."
That's the truth about authorial intent for Vienna. It is not trumped by a little advertising blurb served up with what is likely their most popular release of all time, clearly there to gin up interest in their wider body of work.
The earlier statement comes from a place of sober reflection where he is talking directly to an audience of knowledgeable Doctor Who fans, in which he is admitting the honest truth: there is no connection between Vienna (the series) and Doctor Who.
This statement is just him saying rattling off a list in a sorta scattershot way. I mean, if I were speaking of Faction Paradox and encapsulating it in a sentence or less, I'd call it a "spin-off of Doctor Who", too. But Faction Paradox ain't on this wiki.
- JagoAndLitefoot
"there is no connection between Vienna (the series) and Doctor Who."
Well, it's not entirely true, as mentioned before, aside from the character herself, there are also e.g. alien races that first appeared in Doctor Who stories and reappear in Vienna. And there are likely to be more of such references as the series progresses.
And still, he doesn't mention ranges like Dorian Gray or, say, Mervyn Stone, among the Doctor Who spin-offs, but does call Vienna specifically a spin-off there.
- JagoAndLitefoot
- CzechOut
That's not "links to Doctor Who". That's links to the stuff for which they have copyright, links to Big Finish characters and concepts. Show me Vienna fighting a Dalek and you'll have established a "connection to Doctor Who". Show me Vienna in an adventure with K9, and you might have something.
But a story that mentions Kylo? You con't even know they're the same thing. At very best, you'd have to say that this is an alternate universe to the normal DWU, so all you really have in these mentions is a commonality of name. You absolutely can't prove they're really the same characters.
Look, here's what's going on. As a key creative for the Vienna, when interviewed about it and it alone,, Richardson's saying it's not linked to Doctor Who. Because it isn't. There is no copyright link between Doctor Who and Vienna.
As a part of Big Finish marketing on TLATE special features — where he knows he's got a chance to reach more people than ever — he's saying that it's a Doctor Who spin-off.
When a person makes two contradictory statements, truth lies in the context.
And there is absolutely no doubt as to the context in which Richardson was speaking in the podcast. There, he's preaching to the choir, talking to the really hard-core Big Finish fan where the fine distinction between "spin-off" and "reusing a character we own" makes a difference. And to that audience, he disclaimed it as a DW spin-off. Repeatedly. And with some insistence. The context is,
- "So, David, people are calling this a spin-off of DW. Is it?"
- "No, I know people have said that, but it really isn't." And then he goes on a couple more times to deny it spin-off status.
It is a flat denial that we just can't ignore on this wiki if T:VS is to have any meaning.
His later statement on TLATE isn't a recanting. It's situationally different. The fine distinction simply doesn't matter to the casual fan who they hoped would buy TLATE. So to that audience, sure, it's a spin-off of DW.
- 24.219.32.116
Big Finish have been clear, http://www.bigfinish.com/podcasts/popout/doctor-who-merry-christmas-and-a-happy-new-year-december-2012-7
I don't see anyone making a real argument against that. Lots of reasons why people would like it to be here but I can't see one shred of evidence pointing to the fact that it should be here. Show me one case where any of the principles have said, "It's in the DWU". One. Has anyone ever claimed that? The fact it might be doesn't make it so. And that's a mighty slim to non-existent "might".
Why does making it a spin-off make it DWU??? All this debate about spin-off status is specious. Is "Unbound" cannon now? In the DWU? Does being a spin-off have anything to do with those questions?
This is a very disappointing debate. Dr. Who uses Lovecraftian characters all the time. Does that put Dr. Who in the Lovecraft universe? Really. A cameo by a Pakhar supercedes what the producer says? Give me a break.
- 88.208.237.198
Very disappointing. Whovians are supposed to be smarter than this. Memory Box should never have been here. Lots of contortionists here, but getting your head way up your arse doesn't mean the world really is brown.
- Shambala108
@ 88.208.237.198:
Please note that name calling is a direct violation of Tardis:No personal attacks. The comment you posted doesn't add anything useful to the debate and could be interpreted as insulting.
- 110.174.166.224
I don't know why you people decided to remove the Vienna audio series from the wiki. I've only skimmed through this debate, but most the arguments in favour of deletion have been ridiculous. Vienna is a Doctor Who spinoff. Exactly the same as Jago & Litefoot. Exactly the same as Dalek Empire. Exactly the same as Bernice Summerfield. Exactly the same as Charlotte Pollard. If it stars a character who first appeared in a Doctor Who story, that makes it a Doctor Who spinoff, even if Big Finish says otherwise.
It doesn't matter whether it's canon or not. It doesn't matter if it's part of the Doctor Who universe or not. What matters is that it's a Doctor Who spinoff and includes at least one Whoniverse species, the Slithergee. If someone wanted to listen to every audio story that the Slithergee appeared in, they might go to the Slithergee wiki page and incorrectly conclude that the Slithergee have only appeared in Flip-Flop.
Lovecraft characters, the Fantastic Four and Death's Head did not originate in Doctor Who stories. They are crossovers, not spinoffs.
Please restore The Memory Box and Vienna: Series One to the wiki.
- Shambala108
I suggest you read through the debate more thoroughly. By our policies, if the publishers/creators say it's not in the DWU, then we don't include it. You might also want to take a look at Tardis:Valid sources for the full explanation of our inclusion policy.
And please note that we take Tardis:No personal attacks very seriously on this wiki. By calling certain arguments ridiculous, you not only run the risk of violating the policy, but you are insulting the very people you are trying to convince of your own opinion.
- 110.174.166.224
My apologies if I offended anyone. I just really dislike it when people remove information from a wiki. Especially if it doesn't exist in any other wiki.
The Tardis: Valid sources page is about which stories can be included in the Doctor Who canon. It's not about which stories can be included in the wiki. In fact, there are lots of stories on this wiki that are not part of the Doctor Who universe: the Peter Cushing Dr. Who movies, The Curse Of The Fatal Death and the Doctor Who Unbound series. Why can't Vienna be included too?
- Shambala108
That's incorrect. The valid sources page is exactly about what is included on the wiki, because Doctor Who has no canon (see Tardis:Canon policy and Canon). This wiki does not at all try to decide/define canon, we are only trying to decide what we cover on this wiki.
- 110.174.166.224
Actually the valid sources page is about which stories can be used as sources for writing in-universe articles. It's not about what can be included on the wiki. However, it does briefly mention two types of stories that can't be included:
Fan Productions Note that the BBC do sometimes issue what they call "creative licenses", which allow fans to make things that have the "approval" of the BBC, but which cannot be sold. Such things are not covered by this wiki in any way.
Faction Paradox Note that the BBC do sometimes issue what they call "creative licenses", which allow fans to make things that have the "approval" of the BBC, but which cannot be sold. Such things are not covered by this wiki in any way.
Vienna isn't either of those things.
As I've already mentioned, there are plenty of stories on this wiki that are not part of the official Doctor Who universe. Why can't the Vienna series be among them?
- AdricLovesNyssa
This question was again reference in the podcast http://www.bigfinish.com/podcasts/v/janurary-podcast and David Richardson says in response to this question, rather ambigously, but also says that how do we know that The Shadow Heart is not set in the Vienna universe not the Doctor Who Universe
- 110.174.166.224
Too bad I can't edit my posts. This is what my previous post shoud've said:
Faction Paradox Faction Parodox stories which do not appear within BBC-licensed stories are not covered by this wiki.
- SeaniesBeanies
I think we should leave Vienna until it contradicts massively to the DWU. It's early days yet, there may be crossovers etc that the folks at Big finish hadn't come up with yet. Of course authorial intent matters, but only really in situations which contradicts the source material.
I would like to point out this is nothing like the Faction Paradox situation, as that was an explicit reaction to The Ancestor Cell, which used code names for things within the DWU so copyright would not be infringed.
- Shambala108
Contradictions have nothing to do with our considerations of Tardis:Valid sources. DW stories have been contradicting each other for almost fifty years. If we disallowed stories based on contradictions, we would have a very small wiki.
As CzechOut has pointed out numerous times in this discussion, author intent is that this series does not take place in the DWU, and that is what we consider. As such, we do not cover it on this wiki.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Jonathan Morris posted this in the Divergent Universe forum:
"My feeling is that canonically she exists in the same sort of hinterland as Bernice Summerfield or the Graceless girls, if that helps (it probably doesn't). The character is owned by Big Finish, not the BBC, so legally speaking she's not from 'The Worlds of Doctor Who'. With the three series, my approach has been to establish the character in her own right, so (since 'The Memory Box') there haven't been any references to Doctor Who. But are the stories set in the same universe as 'The Shadow Heart'? In my opinion, yes."
http://notthebigfinishforum.freeforums.net/thread/443/vienna-series-cast-story-online
I'd say this is good enough to reconsider covering her in the wiki.
- Bwburke94
Is this truly similar to the Bernice situation, or is Vienna Salvatori just a non-Doctor Who Big Finish character who happened to debut in a story involving the Seventh Doctor?
In any case, none of this stuff should be added to the wiki until a decision is made, because the last community discussion placed her own series as invalid.
- Bwburke94
Given that our last discussion hinged on the definition of "Doctor Who universe" and that we just moved NOTDWU to NOTVALID for similar reasons, this is the perfect time to discuss the situation again.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Well, at least her creator considers her to be on the same level as other Big Finish-owned DWU characters, like the Graceless twins and Bernice Summerfield. So I'd say it' just as valid as any other creator-licensed spin-off.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Morris says there have been no references to the DWU since The Memory Box, yet Pakhars are mentioned (they might have even cameod, if memory serves) in that play. This has kind of been my argument from the beginning: if Vienna was to do something akin to Faction Paradox and write its own name for things, then fine. What Vienna is doing is having its own little bubble away from the DWU, with subtle DWU references (like the Pakhars), and crosses back into the DWU for occassions like The Worlds of Big Finish. That's pretty much what Benny does to be honest.
- RogerAckroydLives
Indeed. It's quite clear that, from a marketing point of view, Big Finish are eager to advise customers that the Vienna series isn't drawing heavily on anything from the DWU not featuring Vienna herself, rather like how they have marketed Torchwood and focussed on elements from the TV series only. However, from a creative point of view, as explained by the late Paul Spragg and even Morris himself, the series most definitely is set in the DWU. Like Iris Wildthyme, Bernice Summerfield, Charlotte Pollard and Graceless, these are DWU stories based on original DWU characters not under license from the BBC. Anything stated by David Richardson is expressed for commercial purposes, not for narrative continuity, and therefore I feel that the intent of the creator is more applicable to this situation than that of the producer.
- RogerAckroydLives
Also of note are numerous statements found on the BF website which detail that Vienna most definitely is a "Doctor Who spinoff", something which heavily implies the "narrative universe" it is situated in, as well as the infographic found at this link which makes clear that it is a "special" or "spinoff" release from "the worlds" of Doctor Who.
- RogerAckroydLives
As further evidence against Richardson's word being definitive narrative stance, but rather rhetoric based on sales and marketing, I refer readers to Talk:Love and War (audio story), which makes explicitly clear that Richardson is not referring to Vienna being outside the DWU, but rather not a part of the story of BF's ongoing Doctor Who ranges. Vienna Salvatori will likely never again be seen in a main range story again, much like Charlotte Pollard, Iris Wildthyme, Bernice Summerfield, the Graceless twins, etc. But she is part of a "side universe", ie a contemporaneous but uninvolved narrative. Much alike Nicholas Briggs with his constant insistence that placement and continuity "doesn't matter" (see initial statements made by him regarding how Raine can be in Dominion and his choice to rid stories of the company's "production codes"), David Richardson is a producer who is marketing his product/s. He doesn't mean "we made Vienna with a whole new universe in mind, and therefore openly contradict the established DWU" a la Faction Paradox, he means "worry not, you need zero knowledge or even interest in the DWU to listen to and enjoy my new series". Other spin-offs are also set in "side universes", but are firmly based in the DWU, rendering them difficult to understand without extensive knowledge of the show. Vienna, even more so than Graceless, is not, being based in a simple sci-fi universe with little reliance on the breadth of the ongoing narrative of Who. This is what Richardson means. Not like Miles on FP, or Freedman on TMoC. Like his past statement with regards to Love and War: I am targeting this at sci-fi/VNA fans, and so I say "it is part of a sci-fi/the VNA universe", and more people but it.
- Bwburke94
Disqualifying Vienna from validity was one of this wiki's worst mistakes. I feel confident in saying that this was outright policy abuse by CzechOut, and that any normal Rule 4 discussion would have found Vienna valid.
Still, without CzechOut I see no way this discussion can end.
- SOTO
I'd be interested as to what statements RogerAckroydLives referred to in December. I do think this was a decision we made rather early, and if there have since been new quotes which add to this discussion, and might go against our initial reading of the case, we should definitely look into them.
- SOTO
That Facebook infographic is certainly compelling at least. Not sure whose opinions it actually reflects, though.
- Bwburke94
Other than CzechOut, who here has argued against the validity of Vienna?
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: Disqualifying Vienna from validity was one of this wiki's worst mistakes. I feel confident in saying that this was outright policy abuse by CzechOut, and that any normal Rule 4 discussion would have found Vienna valid.
Still, without CzechOut I see no way this discussion can end.
I absolutely agree. Disqualifying Vienna is up there with the decision to not cover The Confessions of Dorian Gray for convenience reasons in the list of worst wiki policies.
- Bwburke94
The Confessions of Dorian Gray had a legitimate reason to be excluded. Vienna didn't.
- WJDTwGL
The argument against Dorian is literally just "Big Finish Sherlock Holmes must be avoided at all costs." But this wiki has All-Consuming Fire, and The Worlds of Big Finish, with all the references to previous Dorian that entails. Like Vienna, Dorian is just a normal spinoff.
- Bwburke94
Dorian is a pre-existing non-Who character, similar to the Holmes situation. This really has nothing to do with Vienna, so let's get back on topic.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Actually, the producers of Confessions have stated repeatedly that Shades of Gray is not part of the Confessions continuity. And we know that it's part of the DWU. The only story that can be considered part of both continuities is the one in Worlds of Big Finish.
I'm very much a supporter of including Vienna, but I also think that Dorian and BF Holmes ranges should not be included.
- Bwburke94
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Actually, the producers of Confessions have stated repeatedly that Shades of Gray is not part of the Confessions continuity. And we know that it's part of the DWU. The only story that can be considered part of both continuities is the one in Worlds of Big Finish.
I'm very much a supporter of including Vienna, but I also think that Dorian and BF Holmes ranges should not be included.
This is exactly the position I have. The question is how to use our policy to achieve this solution.
- RogerAckroydLives
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Actually, the producers of Confessions have stated repeatedly that Shades of Gray is not part of the Confessions continuity. And we know that it's part of the DWU. The only story that can be considered part of both continuities is the one in Worlds of Big Finish.
I'm very much a supporter of including Vienna, but I also think that Dorian and BF Holmes ranges should not be included.
Precisely. Just like Star Trek or Death's Head, Confessions and Holmes are completely separate series. Shades of Gray is not part of the Confessions series, and All-Consuming Fire is not part of the Holmes range. Bloomsbury Bomber and Feast are crossovers, and therefore take place in both continuities, but since we cover the DWU alone, we need only cover the crossovers, not the ranges themselves.
- Bwburke94
RogerAckroydLives wrote:
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Actually, the producers of Confessions have stated repeatedly that Shades of Gray is not part of the Confessions continuity. And we know that it's part of the DWU. The only story that can be considered part of both continuities is the one in Worlds of Big Finish.
I'm very much a supporter of including Vienna, but I also think that Dorian and BF Holmes ranges should not be included.
Precisely. Just like Star Trek or Death's Head, Confessions and Holmes are completely separate series. Shades of Gray is not part of the Confessions series, and All-Consuming Fire is not part of the Holmes range. Bloomsbury Bomber and Feast are crossovers, and therefore take place in both continuities, but since we cover the DWU alone, we need only cover the crossovers, not the ranges themselves.
Where does this leave Vienna, then? Is there clear intent that the range is intended to be set outside the DWU?
- RogerAckroydLives
Bwburke94 wrote: Where does this leave Vienna, then? Is there clear intent that the range is intended to be set outside the DWU?
No. Much has been made of the marketing of the series, in which David Richardson expressed that he "does not see" it as a DW spinoff. However, other staff and the "head writer" and creator Jonathan Morris have expressed that it is set in the DWU, just that it isn't a spinoff requiring BBC licensing given that the characters and races are all owned by BF writers and producers, a la Graceless, Iris Wildthyme, Charlotte Pollard, etc.
- Bwburke94
RogerAckroydLives wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Where does this leave Vienna, then? Is there clear intent that the range is intended to be set outside the DWU?
No. Much has been made of the marketing of the series, in which David Richardson expressed that he "does not see" it as a DW spinoff. However, other staff and the "head writer" and creator Jonathan Morris have expressed that it is set in the DWU, just that it isn't a spinoff requiring BBC licensing given that the characters and races are all owned by BF writers and producers, a la Graceless, Iris Wildthyme, Charlotte Pollard, etc.
I'll repeat an earlier question, with different wording. Other than CzechOut, is there anyone here who believes Vienna is not valid under T:VS?
- Revanvolatrelundar
I don't believe there is, which begs the question: are we a dictatorship here, or a community? The major consensus here is that Vienna does take place within the DWU, and a long discussion between the wiki's members here have pretty much concluded this. CzechOut, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinion on the subject, but it doesn't make it the only one that is right. If we as a community here believe that Vienna does take place within the DWU and falls under our rules (which are not set in stone, and also need to grow and change with our community), then we should get the ball rolling and make steps to conclude this debate. I for one am in support of adding Vienna to what we cover on this wiki. What do the rest of you think?
- Bwburke94
Someone should alert CzechOut to the fact the Vienna discussion is still ongoing. That seems to be the only way we'll resolve this.
- SOTO
I think we should definitely wait for CzechOut to come back to this thread, to see how his opinion holds up to all these new pieces of information. I definitely stand by his stance from the perspective of the time in which he participated. Now further evidence has been brought to the table. Can we get a list of direct quotations and sources here, please?
- Bwburke94
Who is actually going to get CzechOut to show up here, though?
- Bold Clone
It should be easy enough to post on his talkpage. Then it's just a matter of time until he comes around to the thread again.
- Mewiet
Bwburke94 wrote: I'll repeat an earlier question, with different wording. Other than CzechOut, is there anyone here who believes Vienna is not valid under T:VS?
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: I don't believe there is, which begs the question: are we a dictatorship here, or a community? The major consensus here is that Vienna does take place within the DWU, and a long discussion between the wiki's members here have pretty much concluded this. CzechOut, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinion on the subject, but it doesn't make it the only one that is right. If we as a community here believe that Vienna does take place within the DWU and falls under our rules (which are not set in stone, and also need to grow and change with our community), then we should get the ball rolling and make steps to conclude this debate. I for one am in support of adding Vienna to what we cover on this wiki. What do the rest of you think?
This is a very long discussion and I've been reading through it when I have the time for the past couple months. I finally reached the most recent posts but I held off on replying to see where things might go, but they appear to be at a standstill at the moment. Since the question was posed by two different people recently I guess I should say I've come to the same conclusion as the vast majority of people in here.
- WJDTwGL
http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/have-you-heard-vienna
There's a Big Finish news thing from today, which once again treats Vienna as the same character in Doctor Who, her own series, and The Worlds of Big Finish.
- SOTO
Can we please collect all relevant official quotes in one post so newcomers/those returning to this discussion after all this time know what's been going on?
The only relevant quote from the link posted above which I found is the following:
- "Vienna follows the adventures of Vienna Salvatori, the galaxy's deadliest – and most glamorous – bounty-hunter. Originally appearing in Doctor Who: The Shadow Heart, Vienna faced off against the Doctor in a war against the murderous Wrath. But despite her villainous persona, the character proved to be a hit with Big Finish's producers – and her very own series was soon being written!"
That does seem to be language which suggests that this is a Doctor Who spinoff, giving a DW character her own show, much like Torchwood. But I haven't examined this case as much as other people in this thread, so don't take my word for that.
- "The complete Vienna range is available to order today from the Big Finish website. Her debut adventure in Doctor Who: The Shadow Heart can be enjoyed for just £14.99 on CD or £12.99 to download, with Vienna: The Memory Box available for £9.99 on CD or £7.99 to download."
They don't seem to want to separate the series from The Shadow Heart at all, but they also haven't linked her to the Doctor Who range in general—only her debut appearance, as an isolated story.
- WJDTwGL
They even list The Shadow Heart as a Vienna audio on their website.
- TheChampionOfTime
- "For as long as Big Finish have been making audios, we've always been interested in a good spin-off. Our first ever range continued the adventures of the Doctor's New Adventures companion Bernice Summerfield, and over the years we've added to our universe, with Dalek Empire, Jago & Litefoot, Counter-Measures, Gallifrey, Charlotte Pollard and more. But while some of these ranges have been long in the making, Vienna holds the record for the quickest commission of all..."
I would argue that the opening paragraph is a relevant quote as it flat out states "Vienna is a Dr.Who spin-off".
- SOTO
This is true. All examples given, aside from Vienna, are those series which we at Tardis consider valid Doctor Who spin-offs.
- Mewiet
Fwhiffahder wrote: http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/have-you-heard-vienna There's a Big Finish news thing from today, which once again treats Vienna as the same character in Doctor Who, her own series, and The Worlds of Big Finish.
SOTO wrote: The only relevant quote from the link posted above which I found is the following:
- "Vienna follows the adventures of Vienna Salvatori, the galaxy's deadliest – and most glamorous – bounty-hunter. Originally appearing in Doctor Who: The Shadow Heart, Vienna faced off against the Doctor in a war against the murderous Wrath. But despite her villainous persona, the character proved to be a hit with Big Finish's producers – and her very own series was soon being written!"
That does seem to be language which suggests that this is a Doctor Who spinoff, giving a DW character her own show, much like Torchwood.
And this one from the same link, a quote by David Richardson:
- "'It's quite unusual for us to get the edits in for a story and then suddenly decide that there was the potential for a spin-off character,' says Big Finish line producer David Richardson. 'We do spin-offs at Big Finish, but rarely that quickly!'"
- Bwburke94
Mewiet wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote: http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/have-you-heard-vienna There's a Big Finish news thing from today, which once again treats Vienna as the same character in Doctor Who, her own series, and The Worlds of Big Finish.
SOTO wrote: The only relevant quote from the link posted above which I found is the following:
- "Vienna follows the adventures of Vienna Salvatori, the galaxy's deadliest – and most glamorous – bounty-hunter. Originally appearing in Doctor Who: The Shadow Heart, Vienna faced off against the Doctor in a war against the murderous Wrath. But despite her villainous persona, the character proved to be a hit with Big Finish's producers – and her very own series was soon being written!"
That does seem to be language which suggests that this is a Doctor Who spinoff, giving a DW character her own show, much like Torchwood.
And this one from the same link, a quote by David Richardson:
- "'It's quite unusual for us to get the edits in for a story and then suddenly decide that there was the potential for a spin-off character,' says Big Finish line producer David Richardson. 'We do spin-offs at Big Finish, but rarely that quickly!'"
Next question: does "spin-off" always mean "valid source" in this context?
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: Next question: does "spin-off" always mean "valid source" in this context?
I don't think so. Big Finish doesn't care about the terminology used by anally retentive fans.
- Bwburke94
Sorry for the bump, but this is still unresolved... and I think I might know how to resolve it. However, my resolution revolves around not proposing a resolution, so the best option is still to get CzechOut involved.
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: I think I might know how to resolve it. However, my resolution revolves around not proposing a resolution
Can you elaborate on that?
- Bwburke94
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: I think I might know how to resolve it. However, my resolution revolves around not proposing a resolution
Can you elaborate on that?
I'm trying to define policy without proposing any change to the status of the Vienna-related articles.
- Bwburke94
Is this discussion dead again?
- WJDTwGL
Yep. It's like an anti-filibuster: want to keep something off the wiki? Refuse to talk about it.
- Shambala108
Fwhiffahder wrote: Yep. It's like an anti-filibuster: want to keep something off the wiki? Refuse to talk about it.
Fwhiffahder, please read Tardis:No personal attacks and in the future, refrain from ascribing negative motives to other users.
If you want to resolve this issue, leave a message on User:CzechOut's talk page asking him to check here. He is the one who understands Tardis:Valid sources the best, and once he makes a ruling, that should settle the matter.
- WJDTwGL
Shambala108 wrote: leave a message on User:CzechOut's talk page asking him to check here. He is the one who understands Tardis:Valid sources the best, and once he makes a ruling, that should settle the matter.
You do that if you like. I don't like CzechOut. He's already made his position clear anyway.
- Bwburke94
Haven't we already tried the "message CzechOut" solution?
Then again, when at first you don't succeed, try again. We've been waiting long enough to settle this.
I know some people refer to it as a Doctor Who spin-off. I do not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off. It's its own thing. It's not set in the Doctor Who world at all.
There is no reading of that that puts Vienna in the DWU without some serious twisting of the common sense definitions of "spin-off" and "world". Narrative considerations aside, the creative intention is clear: Vienna is not set in the DWU, and will not be covered by this wiki under rule 4 of T:VS.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:129043
The Benny audio Shades of Gray featured the character Dorian Gray, who Big Finish spun off into his own series[1]. A release in that range[2] crosses over with BF's Sherlock Holmes range[3]. If we accept the continuity of the Dorian Gray range into this wiki's scope, this would also appear to make Nicholas Briggs' Holmes a definitive in-universe portrayal for purposes of the Sherlock Holmes article. Would this, then, also bring in the rest of the Big Finish Holmes range into the DWU, or should we pre-emptively figure out somewhere to draw a definitive line around what we cover as we did with the Star Trek crossover? — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 19:23, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:130255
I have just listened to AUDIO: Buried Secrets and the behind-the-scenes extras. In these, Gary Russell states in a conversation with Paul Cornell that she was created as a Doctor Who companion, but she "left the Doctor Who universe" in her own stories. Therefore, if such statements about Vienna Salvatori are taken as her solo stories according to User:CzechOut in Thread:125464 not taking place in the DWU, so should all Bernice Summerfield stories that do not feature the Doctor.
- CzechOut
Wait. Who says it? Russell or Cornell? And could you reprint the entire exchange for evaluation, please?
- CzechOut
I take it you don't mean Buried Secrets. That's a Sarah Jane story.
- 37.225.52.51
I mean Buried Treasures, sorry. Gary Russell said it. I'll try to transcribe it later. Anyway, if the BBC does not own Bernice, the copyright situation is the same for both her and Vienna, so it should not be a surprise. Legally, for copyright reason, any spin-off that is not owned nor licensed by the BBC can officially claim to be a spin-off or to take place in the Doctor Who universe, whether it's Vienna, Bernice or K-9 the series.
- CzechOut
Bernice can't be lumped in with Vienna or even K9. The situation is completely different.
I have little doubt that in 1999 you can probably find Gary Russell saying such a thing, because this is before the get the license to make DW. (By that I mean that Treasures is released in 1999, but likely made as early as 1998, or at least a point in 1999 before they inked the BBC deal.)
You can make an argument that the audios of series 1 were indeed produced with the notion that they weren't part of the DWU. But once you hit The Extinction Event, there's Irving Braxiatel, ultimately derived from City of Death. And by series 3, all of a sudden she's much, much more hooked into the DW universe. Her status as an ex-companion is more heavily featured. Daleks and Monoids and Ice Warriors and the whole DWU toy box is opened. And this new age is pretty much announced by the obvious title pun that starts off series 3: The Greatest Shop in the Galaxy.
Then of course you've got Benny showing up in a variety of BF stories that are firmly part of the DWU. The Excelis Saga can't be finished without Benny's The Plague Herds of Excelis — now marketed by Big Finish as a part of series 3.
There's no doubt that once they got the broader DW license they very firmly wanted her to be thought of as a part of the DWU. After all, Big Finish's entire aim with Benny was to create a portfolio that they could take to the BBC and win the Doctor Who license with. Without those early series of Benny, there would be no Doctor Who at Big Finish.
If you really listen to Benny after series 3 starts, it's pretty chock full of unambiguous Doctor Who references. It's not at all like K9 where there are just no clear references to the DWU, and the established DWU is often contradicted. Nor is it like Vienna, where Big Finish are clearly in the position to make it a DWU series, but have explicitly decided to go in a different direction.
So the question becomes not "what do we do about Benny as a whole", but rather just "what do we do about the first series"? And here I think there is some room for debate, because series one is comprised solely of adaptations of novels.
Our current Target novelisation policy is that if the novelisation contradicts the serial, the novelisation is deemed to be incorrect. You wouldn't throw away the whole novelisation, of course, because most of it is similar to the original. But with the first series of Benny audios, I think you have to take a firmer line. Because the author has removed major characters which they can't legally use in their derivative work, then that work should be excluded from the wiki.
Thus Birthright (audio story) and Just War (audio story) should probably be wholly removed from the wiki, since they originally starred the Doctor, Ace, Chris, and/or Roz in novel form, but do not have any of these major characters in audio. The differences between the novel and audio are huge, when it comes to writing articles on this wiki. We can't even assert with confidence who performed most of the major actions in the narratives. In the book it might be the Doctor; in the audio it might be Benny. And we're talking about nearly every scene having a different set of characters.
These accounts are in fundamental conflict with each other, and the audio version, as very much the secondary version, should be banished.
- Tangerineduel
Jac Raynor removed the characters, not the author, she's the one who adapted those two audios that CzechOut's mentioned. Raynor adapted all the first series audios (and incidentally also Love and War (audio story)) except Beyond the Sun (audio story) which was adapted by its author.
Both versions, novel and audio I think are valid, but I wouldn't argue about overlaying the novelisations policy on all of the first series of Benny audios, not just the Doctor Who New Adventure derived ones. As Dragons' Wrath (audio story) especially suffers the adaption process being cut down from a full novel to a single story CD.
- 78.8.142.136
"Because the author has removed major characters which they can't legally use in their derivative work, then that work should be excluded from the wiki."
I wouldn't say they should be excluded from the wiki, even if they are not considered valid sources.
"It's not at all like K9 where there are just no clear references to the DWU, and the established DWU is often contradicted. Nor is it like Vienna, where Big Finish are clearly in the position to make it a DWU series, but have explicitly decided to go in a different direction."
OK, but why is then K9 covered, if it's contradictory to the established DWU and is not an official BBC-licensed spin-off? Also, I don't think Iris Wildthyme audios are really a Doctor Who spin-off, given that her character predates her inclusion in Doctor Who media, and I don't think her own solo stories actually reference the DWU. I haven't listened to Vienna yet, on the other hand, but it looks like her first solo adventure has quite a few references to Big Finish Doctor Who continuity, even if they don't mention the Doctor himself.
- 78.8.142.136
"Both versions, novel and audio I think are valid, but I wouldn't argue about overlaying the novelisations policy on all of the first series of Benny audios, not just the Doctor Who New Adventure derived ones. As Dragons' Wrath (audio story) especially suffers the adaption process being cut down from a full novel to a single story CD."
I'd say that Target novelizations and Big Finish adaptations of novels aside from Birthright and Just War should remain as valid sources, even if they're secondary to the original versions, while audio versions of Birthright and Just War should be marked as non-DWU, but stay on the wiki.
- CzechOut
There was a debate about including K9 back in 2009/10, and really only one participating user then objected. Since then, our inclusion policy has moved on a bit and now establishes that, generally speaking, as long as the rightful owner(s) of the character have given permission to make the story, and as long as they don't actually say that it's not set in the DWU, then it's assumed to be in the DWU.
The key feature of our inclusion policy is that determinations are made on the basis of known behind-the-scenes facts — not questions of narrative continuity. So, yes, K9 is a nightmare of continuity issues, but then again, so are the John and Gillian comics and plenty of other stories.
To disqualify K9, we'd have to find evidence that the owners said K9 wasn't set in the DWU, or that the BBC have officially objected to the use of characters and situations from Doctor Who that they do own.
Neither has happened with K9.
In fact, Bob Baker, the only living owner of K9, has bent over backwards to say that it is absolutely "Leela's K9". He made the rounds to the Gallifrey One convention a few years back in order to stress the fact that it is connected to the DWU. And the legal inclusion, however briefly, of the BBC-copyrighted design neatly cements that.
Basically, the use of what absolutely appeared to be K9 Mark I in Regeneration was the condition for being able to use K9 Mark IV simultaneously in SJA. So we here at Tardis are stuck covering a four-year-old failed series that none of us are particularly enthusiastic about.
- 78.8.142.136
"In fact, Bob Baker, the only living owner of K9, has bent over backwards to say that it is absolutely "Leela's K9". "
Sure, but Vienna from The Shadow Heart is also the same character as Vienna from The Memory Box.
- 78.8.142.136
Also, aren't most of the BBV videos and audios covered by this wiki based only on writer-owned characters and not using any BBC-licensed content whatsoever as well?
- CzechOut
You're taking little snippets of what I'm saying and not putting them altogether. Vienna might be the same character but the owners of the character have said the series is not set in the DWU, even though they have a perfect right to do so. By contrast, K9 is the same character and the owners of the character have publicly said so and the majority owners of the DWU have not protested this statement.
BBV videos are dealt with on a case-by-case basis on the wiki. Each of their situations is different. P.R.O.B.E. actually uses Liz Shaw by permission of the BBC. The Killing Stone did not use the characters of the Doctor, the Master, Mike Yates and others with any sort of permission whatsoever, and the BBC has recently stepped in to stop Richard Franklin continuing on with that storyline. Things like the Zygon and Sontaran stories make use of the copyrights emanating from the writers, but don't claim that it isn't the DWU, and the BBC hasn't objected.
At any rate, this thread is just about Bernice Summerfield. It's not a complete review of our valid sources policy, which has been debated at great length. If you have any more questions about Bernice Summerfield, please ask them.
- CzechOut
Tangerineduel wrote: Both versions, novel and audio I think are valid, but I wouldn't argue about overlaying the novelisations policy on all of the first series of Benny audios, not just the Doctor Who New Adventure derived ones. As Dragons' Wrath (audio story) especially suffers the adaption process being cut down from a full novel to a single story CD.
Just to bring us back on point, I really have to question this statement, TD. How can a story like Birthright loose four of its five major characters and be considered "equally valid". How are we to write events from that story? "One account said that Roz and Chris did <x>, while another held that Bernice Summerfield did?" I mean that just seems clunky and unwieldy. You'd have to do that with so much from that story that you'd almost need to create a template.
What's the benefit of keeping the audio version around? I just think from a simple editorial standpoint, audio adaptations of novelisations by definition have much less information than the novel. It's kind of opposite to the novelistation/serial relationship. There, the novelisation often tells you something the serial doesn't. So it's useful.
With these things, you're not going to find the name of a character in the audio version that's not present in the book. You're not going to get more motivation. You're not going to have a plot point explained better. You're only going to get less and/or confused information from the adaptation.
Our articles surrounding these stories are going to be as confusing to read as w:c:harrypotter. It's bad enough that the DWU is a continuity nightmare as between stories. We shouldn't be making it more confusing within the same stories.
- 78.8.142.136
"One account said that Roz and Chris did <x>, while another held that Bernice Summerfield did?"
Bernice's part in all these stories is largely unchanged, with the other characters' roles replaced by Jason Kane.
- Tangerineduel
I just don't really like the attitude of "we should wholly remove them from the wiki" and think excising them, removing them entirely from this wiki would be detrimental to our coverage.
I should have been more specific above, in saying that I think novel and audio are worthy of equal coverage on the wiki, and shouldn't be excised.
If we use the novelisation policy of "if there's a conflict between audio and novel the novel takes precedence". I can't see having a similar policy to the first series of Benny audios to be any more complicated than our policy with regard to novelisations.
The audios do build on Benny and Jason's characters which while they were developed in the Virgin novels gets a much quicker development in the audios.
- 5.173.129.25
Yeah, e.g. we can consider any information in Birthright or Just War about past events in Benny and Jason's relationship to be valid, or about Jason's relationship with his father, as there are mentions of these here and there.
- CzechOut
I'm still not gettin' it. If the actions of three people are given over to one person, as is the apparent case with Birthright, how can the novelisation policy possibly cover this? The novelisation policy is essentially for minor differences. This is a question of wholly different people being assigned the same actions.
I really do think we need to say that if you remove the Doctor and/or companions from a derivative work, then that derivative is wholly invalid. It's just changing too much of the story to lose major characters like that.
I mean, fine, if you really wanna keep the story pages for these two audios, we can. But I think we should definitely slap them with {{notdwu}}.
- Tangerineduel
Through its adaption it has become a wholly Benny work. It's essentially created a new work, derived from the DW novel.
- CzechOut
Okay, what i'm worried about are the practicalities here. Let's say there were a scene where, I dunno, the Doctor drinks a cup of tea on the planet Zog in March 2345, and it gave him a rare case of contrafibularity flu. But in the Benny version, Jason drinks the tea, and he's the one who contracts the flu.
At the articles tea, 2345, and contrafibularity flu, how do we handle this?
- JagoAndLitefoot
I wouldn't mention the Jason version, except perhaps in a behind the scenes section. However, let's say that in Just War Benny reminds Jason about the time that he had cheated on her with a Zygon, in a scene that included the Doctor in the original novel (with no mentions of Zygon-cheating). I would still consider this fact to be a valid part of Benny and Jason's (and Zygon) history, as it's just dialogue about past events that took place regardless of the actual plot of Just War.
- CzechOut
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: I wouldn't mention the Jason version, except perhaps in a behind the scenes section.
Well, fine. If we restrict coverage to the behind the scenes section, then that means we're treating that source as invalid. By restricting to the BTS, we'd be saying that the audio version was {{notdwu}}. Although my initial call was just to delete the audio versions outright, I would find {{notdwu}}-ing them an acceptable compromise.
- SOTO
But what if there's no mention of the contrafibularity flu in the original novel? I think we should cover both, but, if anything contradicts, the original novel takes precedence.
Hence, if both mention the flu, we only say that the Doctor caught it. If only the audio mentions the flu, then we say that Jason caught it.
I believe this is Tangerineduel's stance as well.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
CzechOut wrote: Okay, what i'm worried about are the practicalities here. Let's say there were a scene where, I dunno, the Doctor drinks a cup of tea on the planet Zog in March 2345, and it gave him a rare case of contrafibularity flu. But in the Benny version, Jason drinks the tea, and he's the one who contracts the flu.
At the articles tea, 2345, and contrafibularity flu, how do we handle this?
Look. We are the wiki who cover two versions of Human Nature, with different doctors. How is having two versions of a novel different?
- CzechOut
The two Human Natures are fundamentally different stories, though. I mean, they have pretty vastly differing plots, so much so that we don't allege that the main characters are even the same. You'll note that the credits for Human Nature/Family of Blood do not say it was based on the book. They're much more dissimilar than alike.
With these Benny adaptations it's the same story but with different people performing the same beats. The comparison with Human Nature isn't a particularly strong one.
These are really in the same boat as Robots of Death (stage play).
- Cult_Of_Skaro
It still was obviously based off the book, but with different characters. I say we just cover both, like we do with the redrawn TV comics. People can decide which is the definitive one, but we shouldn't.
- CzechOut
Nah, the situations are fundamentally different. With TV Comic redraws you can just say "either the Third of the Fourth Doctor" did <x>. Easy. Done. With Human Nature it's not actually that obviously based on the book. It's really not. They are two adventures that have in common that the Doctor turns into a human who teaches at a boy's school. But that's it. They are different in almost every important factual detail, and one doesn't call into question the validity of the other — except maybe for the fact that the book has a Tenth Doctor (but not Tennant's Tenth Doctor) in it.
I just don't see how we can practically cover both of these Birthrights, because they are very closely aligned in detail to the book, but you have different people doing the same actions. So for every point you made, you'd be doing the dance of "according to this source, it went down like this; according to this other source, it went like this".
It's far easier to say, "The audio doesn't count, so if you wanna talk about it, you can only do so in the BTS."
- Cult_Of_Skaro
CzechOut wrote: Nah, the situations are fundamentally different. With TV Comic redraws you can just say "either the Third of the Fourth Doctor" did <x>. Easy. Done.
All right. "Either Jason Kane or John Smith did <x>." How is this different?
- CzechOut
Please stop taking things out of context. You were trying to compare the Human Nature situation with the TVC stuff. I was explaining how those two things are dissimilar, and you're using my words about that situation to there to talk about the Benny situation. Not cricket.
TVCs are, panel for panel, the same, except for the facial redraws and, in one instance, the name of the companion. The Doctor (as a gestalt character) performed the action; it's just not clear which incarnation. Big deal.
I said rather glibly that you'd say "either the Third or Fourth Doctor" did <x>, but that's not really true. The Fourth Doctor stuff is a retelling, so if we apply the novelisation policy to it, he presence of the Fourth Doctor version contradicts the the original printing, and so is invalid.
The Benny stuff is far more complex than the TVC stuff anyway. They aren't models for each other at all.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
All right, I don't agree, but...
Why can't the novelisation policy apply? If it can cover minor contradictions, why can't it cove major ones (and I don't call these major, as long as the story's fundamentally the same)? It's as simple as accepting the bits where it doesn't contradict, and ignoring what does.
- CzechOut
Because almost everything contradicts here. Once you replace four main characters with one character, the overwhelming majority of the story is then in conflict.
- SOTO
Actually, I'm beginning to see what you're saying, Czech. Since almost everything contradicts, we'd pretty much be treating the adaptations as notDWU anyway.
I still hold, however, that maybe we should allow things that don't contradict to be valid, so that we can have a hypothetical page on the contrafibularity flu. If we don't cover both, then we'll be dismissing a potentially good page.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
Why can't we have both, and just not really cite one?
- CzechOut
- Cult_Of_Skaro
That's fair, as long as we do the same with novelisations.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Most novelisations don't contradict the original to this extent.
- Cult_Of_Skaro
But what if one did? Would we include it?
- CzechOut
Cult Of Skaro wrote: That's fair, as long as we do the same with novelisations.
We already have a novelisations policy, which handles a different situation than this. By different, I mean totally the opposite. A novelisation is something written to described a piece of performed Doctor Who. This is a piece of performed Doctor Who which attempts to dramatise an existing prose work, but with a substantially changed cast of characters.
We will not be slapping {{notdwu}} on novelisations.
- Tangerineduel
Saying that everything contradicts is a very broad statement.
The adaptions don't contradict the "history" that is told in the story. The Charrl still send something to London, Spring Heel Jack is still involved. Benny is still stuck on Guernsey and Jason merely takes Chris' role with a little bit of the Doctor's.
As I and Cult Of Skaro have said cover everything and if it contradicts the novel takes precedence, just as we do the novelisations.
The contradictions in these adaptions aren't any more difficult than any of the other contradictions we're presented with in our valid sources, they're just easier to be suggested to be excluded from what we cover than any of the other stories.
- CzechOut
Well I didn't say "everything". I said "almost everything", which is fair. If only 1 out of 5 main characters are the same between versions, almost everything has been changed.
And I really don't think this is something that will take the novelisation rule, because these are the opposite of novelisations.
These were deliberate attempts to create non-DWU versions of DWU stories, as the original poster made clear with quotes from Gary Russell.
- Pluto2
- Pluto2
Paydirt gives us this:
Gould laughed. 'And we all know about her being tortured by the Nazis. So...was her husband with her?' 'Which husband?' the Professor asked. 'Jason Kane or the-?'
- NateBumber
I agree that this is a strange decision. We can look past the contradictions and redundancies in the multiple versions of Human Nature, Shada, Damaged Goods, and all the other Big Finish novel adaptations, but not these stories?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:130675
I think there's a valid debate as to whether She Said, He Said violates Rule 1 of our four little rules. Is it actually a story? It seems to me, particularly with the Doctor's bit, that it's just a sort of "in-character advertisement". He's totally breaking the fourth wall the whole time. We don't count any other ads like this — such as that first "ball of flame" trailer from series 1 — as narratively valid. So why are we doing it with this one? Simply because it has an on-screen title?
That's not good enough for me. There's no difference between what Matt Smith is doing here, and what Chris Eccleston did in his first ad back in 2005. Heck, there's no real difference between this and the Strax bit where he tells you to join the official Doctor Who YouTube channel. I move that She Said, He Said be slapped with {{notdwu}}.
- SOTO
Actually, there is a huge difference: there is absolutely no way you could possibly reason that Strax advertising the Who YouTube channel is narrative. No way. It's an ad; it's not even meant to be narrative, nor does it follow any sort of storyline. I also don't think it's really anything like the s1 trailer you referenced, although I do see where you're coming from.
The big difference here, I think, is authorial intent. It's clearly intended to be a narrative prequel — it gets its own set, its own title — it's even marketed at a prequel!
Also, your "they broke the fourth wall" accusation doesn't hold much water if we continue to cover things like Music of the Spheres, the ultimate fourth wall destroyer. I mean, that fourth wall didnt just break — it imploded!
- JagoAndLitefoot
It's pretty much in the same style as these Torchwood: Miracle Day character teasers
- CzechOut
SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, your "they broke the fourth wall" accusation doesn't hold much water if we continue to cover things like Music of the Spheres, the ultimate fourth wall destroyer. I mean, that fourth wall didnt just break — it imploded!
Nah, Music of the Spheres doesn't break the fourth wall at all — unless you were one of the audience members in the Royal Albert Hall on the day. People have always misunderstood that one. I think the issue is that the BBC released Music of the Spheres initially as just the bit in the TARDIS, never allowing you to see the bit of the Graske at the RAH.
To the audience at home, there's no fourth wall breakage at all, because you're watching Ten talking to the Royal Albert Hall audience, and then the Graske messing with the orchestra. In other words, the RAH becomes a part of the narrative. You've gotta see the piece in context to judge it fairly.
There is a reason that this wiki appends (TV story) to Music of the Spheres. We view it as the thing broadcast by BBC One, not the webcast — because that's the version that lets you see the interaction with the RAH, and therefore does not break the fourth wall.
- CzechOut
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: It's pretty much in the same style as these Torchwood: Miracle Day character teasers...
Precisely. Or indeed the character spots for The Phantom Menace. Which Wookieepedia doesn't consider a valid source. George Lucas would call this a "tone poem".
If you don't like the Strax comparison, fine. But you do have to justify keeping this and not the Eccleston "Trip of a Lifetime" advert for series 1. The only difference between the two is that there are no onscreen titles for the Eccleston bit.
- Digifiend
She Said, He Said also has the wrong dab term. It aired on Red Button, starting before Nightmare in Silver even finished. So it's a TV story and not a webcast.
- CzechOut
Well, if we determine it's an advertisement, then it wouldn't have any dab at all. That's why no action has been taken on what I assume is your rename request at the page. We have to first work out what it actually is before we can worry with dab terms.
- SOTO
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: It's pretty much in the same style as these Torchwood: Miracle Day character teasers
Yes, I will admit the similarity between the two. But the difference is: that trailer is meant to be a trailer, while She Said, He Said is clearly at least meant to be a narrative prequel.
The BBC market it as "the new prequel to [finale name]," the the words used to describe every other narrative prequel, such as The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel. The Miracle Day ad, however, was marketed as "character videos," specifically meant to be advertisements. In fact, if they weren't specifically referred to as advertisements, I might even argue that they too are narrative!
Once again, my main point is authorial intention. Both Moffat and the BBC (and everyone else involved) clearly intended She Said, He Said to be narrative, whether or not it conforms with the normal style.
Also, as far as your fourth wall claim, I don't really see very much fourth wall breaking in the webcast. Barely more than the recurring "Run you clever boy, and remember" being uttered directly at the camera.
If this were the opening sequence to an episode, you would not contest its narrative-ness (narrativity?). The story's pretty much a dream sequence, meant to represent their thoughts. The props from the past always coincide with them talking about related topics (such as snowman and Rose & Crown sign when talking of Victorian Clara), suggesting that they're thinking back.
- SOTO
Just to clarify, I think that neither SS, HS nor the Torchwood ads mentioned above break Rule 1. The Torchwood ads, however, break rule 4, as they are not intended to be narrative. This prequel is intended to be narrative, and is, in essence, narrative.
- CzechOut
Why do you believe SS, HS is intended to be narrative? I don't get it. It's obviously an advertisement to me. I mean, no question. Just because the BBC say it's a prequel doesn't make it so. They've never used that word properly, anyway, and obviously don't know what it means. Why should we trust them ever using it?
- Digifiend
True, this one's a sequel, if anything, not a prequel, but released before the episode as a prequel would be. Of course, the previous ones should be called prologues.It was actually User:Tybort who put that header up, but I agree with them. In any case, thanks for the explanation.
CzechOut wrote: Well, if we determine it's an advertisement, then it wouldn't have any dab at all. That's why no action has been taken on what I assume is your rename request at the page. We have to first work out what it actually is before we can worry with dab terms.
- CzechOut
In order to classify this as a narrative, you've got to come up with convincing arguments for a few things:
- all the props used throughout this series being littered everywhere
- an explanation of whom they're talking to
- a plausible narrative reason that the character not talking is standing immobile in shot
Now, maybe the finale will give us answers for these. But if it doesn't, then you not only have fourth wall breakage, but you can't even begin to describe the "plot" because you have no nouns to work with. The Doctor is <where> talking to <whom> in front of a (replica of? immobilised? android?) Clara about the mysteries that surround her. That's your plot. You've got nothing to hang your hat on, anymore than you do with Eccleston was talking about series 1 from the TARDIS interior.
Fine, we can park this discussion until Saturday, but after that, if there aren't any answers as to what's going on here, I strongly feel we gotta put this bus in the {{notdwu}} parking lot.
- SOTO
CzechOut wrote: Why do you believe SS, HS is intended to be narrative? I don't get it. It's obviously an advertisement to me. I mean, no question. Just because the BBC say it's a prequel doesn't make it so. They've never used that word properly, anyway, and obviously don't know what it means. Why should we trust them ever using it?
No, they do not know what "prequel" really means. Prequel means to them "a narrative short video set and released prior to an episode." While that may not be factually correct, they apply the same "prequel" tag to SS, HS, indicating that it's meant to be narrative. They're also selling it in the exact same way that they sold the Bells prequel, and even gave it a similar name.
As far as your last post, it's definitely implied to be in their heads (the BBC lists the setting as "a museum" - not getting that). They are talking to themselves, and, as they remember things, the props from those memories appear behind them. The "character not talking" is not actually there; they're just an image from the other's memories, just like the props in the background.
- SOTO
Anyway, maybe (unlikely) this "museum" place will return in the finale; it could a museum dedicated to the Doctor or something. Your main objection is that they're talking to themselves. Is the only reason that the Bells prequel's considered narrative that the Doctor's talking to someone? People talk to themselves all the time, and I'm sure we've had several stories and/or scenes in the DWU set in someone's mind.
- CzechOut
But SOTO, if they don't know what the word prequel means, then it means nothing when they use it.
And as for your second paragraph: pure speculation on your part unsupported by any narrative fact. That's not to say that it won't be confirmed later, but, nah, you're just laying that interpretation over the piece. Don't get me wrong: it's a completely plausible interpretation, but there's absolutely nothing which definitively confirms it. It's not "definitely implied".
- CzechOut
SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Anyway, maybe (unlikely) this "museum" place will return in the finale; it could a museum dedicated to the Doctor or something. Your main objection is that they're talking to themselves. Is the only reason that the Bells prequel's considered narrative that the Doctor's talking to someone? People talk to themselves all the time, and I'm sure we've had several stories and/or scenes in the DWU set in someone's mind.
Ahh but they're not talking to themselves. They both break the fourth wall and look right at the camera. She when she's first seen, the very instant she comes down the corridor, and he for a more extended moment.
My objections are that they're talking to the audience, and there's no obvious way to write about it. You can't write an article on this wiki without nouns. And this thing just doesn't give us any solid, incontrovertible nouns to work with.
- SOTO
No, it doesn't mean nothing; it just doesn't really mean "prequel." They don't apply it to anything; they apply the term to short stories set and released prior to an episode (occasionally released afterwards). So, if they call SS, HS a prequel, then they're calling it a "BBC prequel," which is narrative.
All I'm saying it that I get that it doesn't seem to have much of a plot, but it was clearly intended to be narrative, and we should at least take that into consideration. I get all your objections, and agree with most of them, except your claim that it was simply intended to be a trailer.
- SOTO
There are two characters in this story, and they are telling a story. Some of the story we already know from previous episodes, but it's a story nevertheless.
Do we debate who the Fourth Doctor's talking to, or who he's talking from, in Ghost Ship? No! That's just another way of recounting a story: narration. And that's exactly what's going on here. Except, here, we actually see the Doctor and Clara talking, at least in their heads. The prequel is narration, but brought to a visual level.
- CzechOut
But by your logic we could say that the first significant trailer of the BBC Wales era had the following "plot":
- Ninth Doctor comes into the TARDIS console room inside his mind and starts to rehearse the things he will say to Rose to convince her to come travelling with him. Along the way he imagines a few scenes of things that she will see once she agrees to do so. Since he's a Time Lord, he's able to imagine a variety of futures — some that will come to pass – like a ship crashing into Big Ben — and some that won't — like him running down a tunnel just in advance of a big ball of flame.
Clearly we ain't doin' that. So why should we treat SS, HS any differently?
- SOTO
Okay, here's my thoughts: as far as the narrative itself, they're not that different. But, you see, your Ninth Doctor example above pretty much breaks Rule 4: it's not intended to be narrative. And other ads with plots, such as the 2009 BBC Christmas idents (and, even more so, the 2010 one, are clearly parodic (unless we want to say at Dalek that one Dalek wanted to go to Skaro from an Earth airport), and therefore non-DWU.
Both of the above stated examples are meant to be simply ads, meant to get people in either a festive mood or a mood to watch series 1, not in any way meant to be part of the over-all narrative. I believe that, because of its title and its marketing as a so-called "prequel," SS, HS is meant to be narrative, although it might not achieve this in everyone's eyes.
If it's not narrative, then explain to me why they gave it a unique title (not even the lazy The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel), and why they called it a "new prequel."
Another point of mine is that, unlike your Ninth Doctor example (which is just a montage of clips with a bit of narration at the beginning), SS HS not only features a unique setting, but gives us insight into the character's thoughts and feelings. Clara calls the day she met the Doctor "the best day of her life," expresses for the first time that the Doctor needs her, and says that "the trick is, don't fall in love." The Doctor calls Clara "perfect in every way for me."
- StevieGLiverpool
I'm sure this is kind of like a dream. Both of them dreaming, talking about events in the next story too, so I'm quite sure it's pretty official.
- CzechOut
Rescuing comment from Tangerineduel:
- As it's a prequel we are missing the rest of the narrative structure through which we can fairly frame it.
- Can't we wait until the finalé is broadcast to see if this prequel actually fits with its narrative?
- CzechOut
StevieGLiverpool wrote: I'm sure this is kind of like a dream. Both of them dreaming, talking about events in the next story too, so I'm quite sure it's pretty official.
This debate has nothing to do with whether it's official. I'm not at all alleging any sort of problem with rule #4 of our four little rules. This debate is solely about whether SS, HS violates rule #1. The question before us whether this is a story or an advertisement.
In that regard, I do think that Tangerineduel is quite correct to suggest that the finalé itself will help us out with this discussion.
- CzechOut
SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:
I believe that, because of its title and its marketing as a so-called "prequel," SS, HS is meant to be narrative, although it might not achieve this in everyone's eyes.
If it's not narrative, then explain to me why they gave it a unique title (not even the lazy The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel), and why they called it a "new prequel."Again demonstrated incompetence with a word means that you don't get to use it with credulity. Just because they say it's a prequel doesn't mean it is. They've said that the Adventure Games were "new episodes of the television series", or very similar, but our dab term for City of the Daleks is not (TV story).
Another point of mine is that, unlike your Ninth Doctor example (which is just a montage of clips with a bit of narration at the beginning), SS HS not only features a unique setting, but gives us insight into the character's thoughts and feelings. Clara calls the day she met the Doctor "the best day of her life," expresses for the first time that the Doctor needs her, and says that "the trick is, don't fall in love." The Doctor calls Clara "perfect in every way for me."
Well, I would again refer you to the Phantom Menace tone poems, or, perhaps more relevantly, the Torchwood: Miracle Day character pieces. In fact, the Torchwood pieces are established to be the characters talking into a camera that's recording them. But we've never for a moment considered these as a part of the actual narrative of Miracle Day. How could we? Although they have the sort of "trappings" of narrative, it would impossible to speculate when and where they could have possibly occurred within the Miracle Day narrative.
Same thing here. So far, we have absolutely no narrative indication where these are set, who the characters are talking to, why the sets structurally look the same but have different props, and why one character is wholly immobile while the other is talking. Your "it's all in the mind" theory is a pretty good one, but it doesn't explain why the two characters have fundamentally the same room, but filled with different stuff. The metaphorical implication there would be that they have the same brain, or at least the same type of brain, and she's been scanned enough for us to know she can't be a Time Lord.
Anyway, the "in the mind" thing is just a theory and obviously inadmissible.
- SOTO
So your objection to the Miracle Day pieces is that you can't place where or when they would take place?
Whatever happened to...
- CzechOut
The following comment by DCT was rescued:
- Yeah, the main problem with this seems to be that it's taken to break the forth wall and the main problem with that criteria for rejection is that it's not true, not at all.
- Obviously the idea that this story might break the forth wall is a biggie, if it did it would utterly change the relationship of the programme to its audience. It's thus taboo. And for this reason I think it seems pertinent to argue that unless it can be shown that the story can't possibly be understood unless it is accepted, by the exclusion of all other legitimate arguments, that the forth wall has been broken then we should conclude it hasn't. Afterall, if the story can be understood without recourse to a forth wall breach it hasn't been breached very effectively. And it certainly hasn't been breach effectively either.
- You argue that they look at the camera? Almost never, Matt perhaps slightly more so, and the glances that they do give don't translate into addressing the camera in a way that could be interpreted as addressing the home audience; which would be required to prove a breach of the forth wall. The information is for our benefit but they aren't addressing us, they'd need to be a lot more direct to show that.
- What we have in this prequel is a pair of soliloquies. A soliloquy is a legitimate dramatic technique for conveying a characters thoughts to the audience and should not be dismissed so lightly. Certainly they are rare on television but that doesn't mean they constitute a forth wall breach.
- At the moment, what we seem to have is two journeys into the minds of Clara and the Doctor. In the prequel the main addressee is the mannequin of their opposite number - the main focus of their thoughts.
- They are surrounded by artifact representing various memories of the journey with with other, because it's plausible and likely they would think of one with the other - and it makes it more interesting for the audience.
- It may not be a dream but as it can currently be understood it definitely takes place in their heads and definitely does not break the forth wall.
- CzechOut
SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: So your objection to the Miracle Day pieces is that you can't place where or when they would take place?
Whatever happened to...
Nothing happened to it. Again, this is a rule 1 debate. We're trying to determine if it's a story at all. If it's not a story then it's ruled invalid because it's not a story, not because it's discontinuous.
The question is whether it counts as a story just because it has the trappings of a narrative. In order for a thing to be ruled a narrative you have to be able to answer the basic questions of who, what, when, and where. Just like the Torchwood things, this is problematic because we don't know the when, where and what(-the-hell-is-happening) of this thing. The only thing we think we know is maybe who, and maybe then only in the case of the He Said bit.
Unless Saturday gives us more, this is an advertisement told using the visual language of a story.
- SOTO
Actually, that's a good point: it's, by definition, a soliloquy. Not very common in modern art, particularly not in television, it's just another way of characters expressing their thoughts. Hopefully, we'll get more context for the soliloquy in the finale, but, even if we don't, I still think the "prequel" should be considered narrative, and therefore a valid source. Ruling out a soliloquy just because it's "different" would be like ruling out comic or prose just because it's not TV, which is very much contrary to T:NPOV.
- CzechOut
This debate wasn't brought because this is "different". It was brought because of its obvious similarity to other advertising campaigns in this genre, and even under the DWU franchise. Nobody is talking about deleting the article She Said, He Said. This is, rather, about whether the information conveyed within the piece can be used to inform other, in-universe articles. If we don't know when and where Clara had these feelings about travelling with the Doctor, then how can we possibly add them to the article Clara Oswald? Are these purely thoughts? Or did these events literally happen? Or is it just a tone poem designed to advertise the finalé in an unusual way?
See, you say it's an unusual narrative use of soliloquy, but I think it could equally be thought of as a sly way to get an extended advertisement. An advertisement told in a narrative style is not the same thing as a short narrative.
- SOTO
Well, it clearly takes place sometime after Clara and the Doctor visited Trenzalore, as evidenced by the use of past tense ("when we went to Trenzalore").
A few choice quotes from T:VS:
- "We specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story. Instead, we are guided by the legal status of a work as well as the authorial intent."
- "In these discussions, sufficient evidence must be provided that that the story either doesn't have permission from all relevant copyright holders, or that there are solid non-narrative reasons to believe the story does not occur in the DWU."
So, where are your non-narrative reasons? I've heard quite a few continuity issues (which are ruled out by "a story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories"), but
I've yet to hear any real, non-narrative issues.Okay, points taken, but, when in doubt, take a look at the authorial intent (one of the main things that T:VS says we are "guided" by), which is unquestionably that SS, HS is meant to be narrative. Do I have to dig through every advertisement and announcement for the "prequel" to show that they consider it to be narrative, just like any other prequel?
- Badwolff
So, do you all work towards a consensus to decide these issues? Take a vote?
Or does one of the website admins decide on their own what is to be done?
Or is it a process of attrition and the last editor standing, when everyone else is tired of the debate, takes charge?
Just wondering whether it is worth it to weigh in on this and other topics.
- SOTO
Logic always prevails. We all pretty much write policy, although admins make the final order. Please, weigh in, give your thoughts. This discussion needs a new face.
- CzechOut
SOTO, please stop confusing the issue by quoting from portions of T:VS that specifically have to do with Rule 4 debates. This isn't about Rule 4 at all. No one is questioning whether, if this were a story, it would count. Obviously it would count, if it were a story. This is about whether it's a story. That's it.
For clarity, here's the bit from T:VS that this discussion is concerned with, quoted in its entirety.
Rule 1 may seem redundant or just plain unnecessary. It's not. There are a lot of things about the DWU that aren't, in themselves, narratives. Most obviously, the thoughts of someone on the production team can't be used to write an in-universe article. But there are plenty of other disqualified circumstances. Sometimes you'll find a piece in a magazine written as if it's "real life" journalism about events in the DWU. Or you may encounter a game in an annual which sets up the puzzle using the Doctor or his companion. Or there may be information about a DWU character on the back of a playing card or in the packaging on a toy. None of this counts. - CzechOut
Badwolff wrote: Just wondering whether it is worth it to weigh in on this and other topics.
Yes, it's always worth it to weigh in on this and other topics. All views are thoroughly read and considered when policy is eventually written. The process is explained in greater detail at T:WRITE POLICY.
While Tangerineduel or myself — as the site's two active bureaucrats — usually are the primary authors of policy, we have often written policy from opinions contrary to our own. I wrote T:ITAL, for instance, but it is very much the "will of others".
Of course, sometimes it takes a while for policy to get written. Some discussions have lasted for over a year, with months where the discussion is sorta dormant. So, in a sense, when you suggest that there's a "last man standing" element to policy writing, you're sort of correct. Often, someone has to come by a dead conversation and either stoke it back to flame or write up the results as they then exist.
On the other hand, some policies go through in about a week.
It just depends.
- CzechOut
So what's the rationale you guys are gonna give for how Strax's Field Report must be in-universe?
- Bold Clone
I don't think Strax's Field Report can be considered in-universe by the definitions of this wiki. Simply put, SFR violates Rule 1 of the Valid Sources Policy: it is not an actual story. Basically, it is "fictional information presented non-narratively," which this wiki does not consider "valid." Thus, based on the rules laid down by the wiki, SFR cannot be considered a valid source. That said, are the terms "valid" and "in-universe" synonamous?
- SOTO
I think it's parodic. I mean, Strax advertising the next episode to the Sontarans from the Doctor's TARDIS? It's ridiculous!
- Bold Clone
Well, it certainly seems parodic to you, but did the BBC intend it to be parodic? I mean, it seems non-parodic to me, at least.
- Bubblecamera
I agree, SFR is definitely invalid. It's not a story or a webcast so much as a trailer.
I don't think SS,HS is valid either. If you follow the logic that "it takes place inside their minds," then that's suggesting that the Doctor and Clara, completely independently,
- imagine the exact same museum to set internal monologues in
- conduct those internal monologues in strikingly similar fashions
- end the monologues with the exact same phrase
I find that pretty hard to believe.
- SOTO
SFR (as Bubblecamera promptly called it) is most certainly a story, but it's also most certainly a parody. Then again, since Strax himself is sort of a parody on the Sontarans, it's very much possible that Strax would be stupid enough to send a message to Sontar from the Doctor's TARDIS. In fact, he's done it previously (in a video released by the BBC on 9 April 2013 that I can't make a page for yet, as the video contains spoilers at the end).
Both this and Strax's first field report (which I can't link to due to our spoiler policy) could be taken as in-universe, but they were both clearly intended to be parodic.
Now we could cover both, and be able to add to Trafalgar Square and Battle of Trafalgar. Actually, forget what I said earlier — I think we should cover the Strax field reports too.
- To an admin who knows which field report video I'm referring to, would we be able to create a page for the intro field report, and just not upload the video? And, of course, completely ignore the spoiler-y ending? The Strax webcast itself is not a spoiler; it's actually an officially released story in itself!
- CzechOut
Moving this over from the talk page:
- I'm not Czech, but assuming "narrative" in this context means "canonical storytelling" I have to side with those who feel it isn't. The breaking of the fourth wall, the placement of the characters among props from last episodes (including ones the Doctor couldn't possibly possess) suggests this, at its base, is no more canon than the 2013 BAFTA skit, barring any indication of it being a dream. I place it in the same category as the trailer for The Web of Fear in which the Second Doctor encouraged viewers to hold mummy and daddy's hands while watching the episode. 23skidoo ☎ 23:00, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Tangerineduel
I still think that we don't lose anything by waiting 3 days for the broadcast, just to see if it's framed within the TNotD narrative. Fourth wall breaking isn't an always an a indicator of non-narrative look at "The Feast of Steven's" "Incidentally a happy Christmas to all of you at home" fourth wall breakage.
It is titled as a prequel, which means we need the story to which it is a prequel to, in order to allow us to frame what it is.
It wouldn't be the first time that the Doctor and companion have had shared dreams and wandered around in one another's mental landscapes talking to themselves or an unknown viewer.
- DCT
I placed my responses to most objections in my last post that had to be recovered but I feel I must strongly reiterate that this prequel most certainly does not break the forth wall. That would require us to prove that Clara and the Doctor are addressing us, the audience, with conscious awareness that they are addressing us, and this cannot be shown to be the case.
As for the rest I do sort of understand why the strange presentation of the story would cause potential confusion. However, I am struggling to understand the difference between the terms "story" and "narrative" as they are being using in this thread to make arguments as to whether the clip has equal status.
On the matter of whether or not it is and advert. Well, obviously, yes it is. It has the time and place for episode 13 on the back. However, as it's an advert that only likely to be seen by people who already plan to watch episode 13 that's hardly likely to be its primary role.
Is it a story? Well whoever wrote up the article has managed to write story notes on it, both characters are telling their own personal story, they are both fictional characters and it has "By Stephen Moffat" on the front so it looks like a story.
So is it narrative or non-narrative? Well it would seem, again, to be narrative. Whosoever wrote the page on it was able to write several pieces under the continuity heading and continuity is a narrative element. The fact is, because this prequel is sequentially connected to E13, if we watch episode thirteen and it turns out that what they said happened, happens then it's narratively consistent and a valid addition.
It easy to say that we can wait until Saturday night, but I don't find that particularly satisfying because the problem isn't going to go away if it doesn't provide the answer we hope for. It could even make things more confused than are now.
Strax's Field Report is harder because we don't generally follow Strax narratively so much while we do follow Clara and the Doctor. But at least that should be clearer if something comes up tomorrow.
- Digifiend
Indeed, and it's only 23 hours to go now. Not much longer to wait! :)
Tangerineduel wrote: I still think that we don't lose anything by waiting 3 days for the broadcast, just to see if it's framed within the TNotD narrative.
- CzechOut
Yeah, none of these were narratives. The Strax stuff is especially hard to reconcile, because he's narratively established as not knowing what the secret of the Doctor was, so therefore he wouldn't possibly know he was going on a mission about "the name of the Doctor". And he didn't at any point get anywhere close to the TARDIS, much less find a way inside the TARDIS itself.
- DCT
Yeah, that worked out well. Since no one has actually left Trenzalore it's not quite as easy as you are suggesting to rule on these things, although I will agree that Strax's Field Report is hard to reconcile at present.
The only thing it still has in its favour is that he does look like gaining access to the TARDIS soon as it's the only way out of the place and the Doctor gave all three of them permission to use it if he didn't come back.
- CzechOut
So you're suggesting that Strax somehow knows how to a) use the TARDIS communication systems and b) knows them well enough to send a message to the Sontaran Empire at a time — relative to the events on Trenzalore — when they would even know who Strax was? And if Strax is on good enough terms with the Empire to send field reports back to them, why is he essentially allowing himself to be on Victorian Era Earth in more-or-less permanent exile?
Obviously all that invites speculation, so I just bring it up sort of rhetorically. I think it is an extraordinarily common feature of modern-day marketing that production houses cut ads that appear to be narrative. The new Star Trek movie, for instance, has three ads "told" from Cumberbatch's perspective that I'm quite certain Memory Alpha wouldn't even consider for a second to be a valid narrative. And it seems to me that's what we've got here. We'd be foolish to confuse long-form advertisements told in a narrative style with genuine narrative.
So I would say with conviction what you said with sarcasm, DCT. Because Name did not feature anything that remotely looked like the setting of SS, HS, or even contained any elements later picked up by Name, it's now super clear that this was in no way a genuine prequel. I mean, you don't get the White House, you don't get Nixon, you don't get Clara's mum, you don't get Victorian London, you don't get anything like the elements seen in previous prequels. In fact, it's not even a prequel using BBC Wales' definition.
SS, HS definitely fails rule 1. It's just a teaser. If we elect to view it as an actual story, we will be fundamentally changing the definition of the word on this wiki. We will then have to include Tom Baker's trip to the cinema prior to Terror of the Zygons or the Miracle Day pieces or Eccleston's "Do you wanna come with me?" or Rose's reply to that, or — and this is what this damned thing really is — the Donna spots just prior to the broadcast of series 4.
- DCT
You've misunderstood me I think. I don't particularly care if Strax's Field Report is declare non-canonical, I don' find it particularly interesting. My point was the observation that it seemed to be decided that this would be easily resolvable after The Name Of The Doctor went out. It went out and silence fell nowhere, except on this discussion when it gave us a cliffhanger so open that it still was difficult to resolve.
I note your arguments and in the interests of debate I will try to respond to them. But they were all true before the episode went out and my observation was that, rather to my surprise, it did actually end with Strax being in a position to access the TARDIS communication systems. Does he know how to use them. I don't know. I know he's the only one of the three I can be sure has been in the TARDIS before and, as a Sontaran, I at least credit him with the ability to figure it out. The rest I'll leave rhetorically but that one point seemed worth remarking on.
Do I think it's canon? I'd be quite surprised if it turned out to be but I feel it in unfair not to acknowledge that the episode left us in such an open position as for all this still to be possible. And those Field Reports are still coming, there's three of them now. The third should resolve the matter, though.
- SOTO
May I note that there's been a third field report? This one's supposed to take place after Name, and has Strax apparently knowing about the Hurt Doctor.
- HarveyWallbanger
And Strax wouldn't spoil away that secret of an ally. Nor we can imagine why and when the Doctor should have told him. We have to treat these voices as webcasts, but underlining their continuity issues due to their promotional nature.
- CzechOut
No, we have to treat them as advertisements, and recognise that ads are often cut these days so as to include narrative elements.
Seriously, where's the line between the Strax stuff and the in-character Donna ads of series 4? Where's the difference between SS, HS, and the in-character Martha/Ten stuff at the top of series 3? Where's the difference between these things and the Rose/Ten stuff at the top of series 2, or the Rose/Nine stuff at the top of series 1? Or the Four thing at the top of season 13?
If we allow this, we're going to have to treat any number of clear adverts as "stories".
And I shudder to think what implication allowing these things in would have for in-character ads for things other than Doctor Who itself. I mean, where would this leave us with the totally in-character Prime Computer ads? Will we seriously be allowing a Prime Computer ad as the source for the exact length of the Doctor's scarf? Or will we allow the ad to tell us that Sol is a constellation? Or that Four and Romana II — as opposed to Tom Baker and Lalla Ward — got engaged?
Obviously, you can have advertisements with the look and feel of narrative. Indeed it's a major facet of advertising. Here's just the tip of the proof iceberg, if proof is really required for this:
- Exeriencing Ad Meanings: Crucial Aspects of Narrative/Drama Processing
- Surprise! Narrative Ads Work Better
- Who Talks Advertising? Literary Theory and Narrative "Point of View"
- Narrative ads: The effect of argument strength and story format
But just because you can have narrative advertisements, it doesn't mean that such advertisements would pass our rule #1. There are serious nightmares involved in confusing the terms in-universe and in-character.
- 70.36.140.206
SS, HS breaks the fourth wall in exactly the same way that a voiceover narrative does. These are incredibly common in the Moffat era—more than one in three episodes either begins or ends with one. But they happened before, as well. When the Eighth Doctor started the TV movie saying, "It was on the planet Skaro that my old enemy the Master was finally put on trial," who exactly was he speaking to here, if not the audience? There's no way he spoke these words aloud in-universe, and it's pretty unlikely he even thought these sentences to himself—yet they're clearly part of an in-continuity narrative.
And I don't see how seeing Clara and the Doctor speak their soliloquys, instead of just hearing them as a voiceover, makes them substantially different, any more than seeing the Fourth Doctor's in The Deadly Assassin appear on a text scroll did.
- 70.36.140.206
I think the episode answered most of the other points. The prequel probably takes place inside the Doctor's timeline, so it's perfectly reasonable for us to see props the Doctor couldn't possibly possess.
But, even without that… we've already seen that the TARDIS contains things the Doctor can't possess (e.g., the dress Victoria left wearing is nevertheless in the wardrobe), and Idris even told us that she can access rooms that haven't been built yet. And we've seen (in Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS, and in novels like Time's Crucible and The Ancestor Cell) that in a dead or dying TARDIS the rules are even madder.
So, I don't think there's anything that prevents SS, HS from fitting into continuity.
The only question is whether there's any actual story that adds anything to continuity. Maybe it gives us a little more background into what Clara and the Doctor think of the events of Name, but I can't think of any substantive facts that anyone would want to add to an encyclopedia.
If that's the case, is there really anything worth debating?
- SOTO
If SS,HS had been the pre-titles sequence instead of the (awesome) scene with multiple Doctors, we wouldn't blink to say that it's DWU. If we place it as a little mini-episode after Name, I have no doubt that it's in-universe.
The Prime Computer ads appear to be completely parodic (and not intended to be DWU in the first place), so they go out on that count. The only reason you really don't want ads like that to enter into the DWU is because they're, well, ads. They aren't meant to be in-universe, so we can take them out on that account.
As far as authorial intent for SS,HS, even though it's actually the polar opposite of a "prequel" (released beforehand, takes place after), they call it the longest prequel yet, clearly classing it with the other so-called "prequels."
- CzechOut
70.36.140.206 wrote: I think the episode answered most of the other points. The prequel probably takes place inside the Doctor's timeline, so it's perfectly reasonable for us to see props the Doctor couldn't possibly possess.
Except that the set looks nothing like the set of "the Doctor's timeline" in the episode. There's nothing remotely like the setting of this scene in the whole of the episode. Indeed, the way the timeline works in terms of Clara's interaction with the Doctor is that she always sees the incarnation in motion. There's none of this "I'm gonna talk to a frozen Eleven" business.
But, hey, let's give you that it's Clara walking around the Doctor's timeline. Where's the Doctor walking, then? At no point is The Name of the Doctor about the Doctor walking around Clara's timeline!
…is there really anything worth debating?
Yes. I'm worried about the precedent this sets. In the creation and maintenance of policy, you have to take a step back and examine how this one individual thing compares with other things that are similar.
And if we let these two things in, we'll have to let in a lot more.
I'm sorry, but I think that the Prime Computer ads are not "obviously parodic". Except for the one tiny bit of business about getting married, they're spot-on Graham Williams-era Four and Romana. And you certainly can't say that the character spots that have occurred before just about ever series of modern Doctor Who are parodic. Where are Amy and the Eleventh Doctor travelling in their very first ad? It looks to me that they are spinning around, unprotected, in the time vortex. If we took that as a valid narrative, it would change the way the time vortex article is written. Who is Donna talking to when she says, "And just like that — poof! — we'll be gone"? Who are the characters in the original she said, he said" ad — Martha and Ten — talking to?
And on and on. The prequel to Name of the Doctor is "Clarence and the Whisper Men". SS, HS is not a prequel. It's not a part of the narrative. It's an advertisement done in a narrative style. There's a big difference, and we as a community would be wiser to let this one go than to establish a precedent by which other narrative ads can come in.
- JagoAndLitefoot
"Who are the characters talking to" is not really a valid reason to exclude anything though, since we have had narration by the Doctor and by companions (e.g. Rose) in actual episodes as well. And we know who Strax is talking to in the field reports, but it doesn't make them part of the DWU continuity.
Still, it's not as if SS,HS really adds anything that's worth citing in any articles, so there's nothing actually worth debating here.
- Badwolff
Yes, it actually took me more time to read this thread than it did to watch this clip.
All of this heated debate about where to put a promotional clip of a Doctor Who episode.
- Gallifrey102
This is the way I see it: it's been marketed as a prequel. Which gives at least the intention of it being canon. However, TV stories can over-rule anything and everything about what's canon. So it's the "responsibility" of the "prequel" to be connected somehow to the main episode. And since nothing in the episode is connected to it, that's the essence of The Name of the Doctor, if it were a person, telling us it isn't canon. If this were an actual narrative, with no question of its story status, that might not matter as much, and if it does, it doesn't here. But as there's absolutely nothing in the episode that says it is, then it can't be. That's just my two credits.
- CzechOut
The ship on Strax Field Reports has now sailed. No one upthread had a strong rationale for considering them true narratives, and the truth is that at least two of them (so far) have spoiled future episodes.
On balance, the value of the tiny amount of narrative content within is outweighed by the spoilers they contain, and thus T:SPOIL is the controlling rule in this case.
These are now classed as advertisements, not stories, and therefore putting either new ones (past number 4), or the first one, on the site will almost certainly be ruled a violation of T:SPOIL, and you will be blocked.
Best just not to touch these until 24 November 2013.
- SOTO
Gallifrey102 wrote: This is the way I see it: it's been marketed as a prequel. Which gives at least the intention of it being canon. However, TV stories can over-rule anything and everything about what's canon. So it's the "responsibility" of the "prequel" to be connected somehow to the main episode. And since nothing in the episode is connected to it, that's the essence of The Name of the Doctor, if it were a person, telling us it isn't canon. If this were an actual narrative, with no question of its story status, that might not matter as much, and if it does, it doesn't here. But as there's absolutely nothing in the episode that says it is, then it can't be. That's just my two credits.
That was a bit hard to follow. Nevertheless, we do treat all media as equal on this wiki, so TV stories most definitely cannot "over-rule anything". Also noteworthy is that there is no canon.
A so-called "prequel" is a story in its own right, and is given just as much weight here. I do agree that its marketing as a prequel means that it was intended to be in-universe.
Once again, we cannot knock down stories simply because they are discontinuous with others. The Strax Field Reports are in-character advertisements, but SS, HS is meant to be an in-universe story.
- CzechOut
Correct me if I'm wrong, SOTO, but doesn't your entire defense of SS, HS essentially rest on the fact that it has a title sequence?
- SOTO
Uhh... No. It meets every single criterion for stories. Yes, it has a title sequence, but that's not the point.
- It's marketed as a story, so authorial intent agrees with my stance.
- It has a plot: the Doctor and Clara went to Trenzalore and found out about each other, and they are now recounting that story in a soliloquy.
- It meets the Mirriam Webster definition of a "story": "an account of incidents or events". SS, HS is just as much a story as a narrated novel sold as an audio story.
If my entire defence rested on the title sequence, I wouldn't be arguing my point, would I? No, I'm arguing my point because your entire defence is that:
- It's a soliloquy, and thus is different. For some reason, the fact that it's different seems to make you think it's not a story. We treat all media equally here, including narrations and soliloquys.
- It narratively contradicts The Name of the Doctor, which specifically goes against T:VALID.
See, the only reason I'm fighting my case is because your entire defence is specifically contrary to current policy. And I'm just not convinced. If you can cite policy to explain to me how it's not a story, then I'm all ears.
- CzechOut
No, I've never complained about it being a soliloquy. I'm saying it's quite obviously an in-character advertisement. And you continue to grasp for a part of the policy that is not applicable to this situation. I've quoted, above, the entirety of the policy that is relevant to this discussion.
I'll quote again:
- Sometimes you'll find a piece in a magazine written as if it's "real life" journalism about events in the DWU. Or you may encounter a game in an annual which sets up the puzzle using the Doctor or his companion. Or there may be information about a DWU character on the back of a playing card or in the packaging on a toy. None of this counts.
There is such a thing as being in-character but non-narrative. In-character advertisement is a common ploy of marketing, as I've demonstrated above with a number of industry and academic reports.
What you haven't explained is how we can allow this, but disallow the dozens of in-character advertisements otherwise associated with Doctor Who. You're arguing for this one thing and I'm worried about the precedent that this is setting. It's better to get rid of one thing that may be marginal, if it helps us weed out things that are clearly over the line, than it is to keep the thing that's debatable and thereby cast doubt on things that should be easily eliminated.
- SOTO
You're completely misunderstanding. SS, HS is nothing like a magazine or a game or a puzzle or a playing card. It is quite clearly a story just as much as every other.
The reason I am bringing up points that are not "relevant to this discussion" is because they're not relevant. Almost all of your arguments are about points "not relevant to this discussion". Your main argument that you've repeated again and again is that we don't know where it takes place, who they're talking to, etc. If Name answered some of those questions, you'd have reconsidered. Do we disallow TV stories just because they have massive plot holes, or because they contradict others? Once again, no.
While you claim that you don't complain about its unusual format, you use that as a basis to claim that it's an advertisement. Of course, it is in a sense an advertisement. In the same way that The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel is advertising the upcoming episode. And this prequel is just the same, and has not been treated different by anyone — not even its creators — other than you. While there are many non-story advertisements out there, Doctor Who has used a lot of stories as advertisements. Every "prequel", while a story, is really a marketing ploy. Cliffhangers at the end of finales (like "Doctor Who?" in TWORS and Hurt in Name), while part of the overall story, are really only there to spark interest in the next series. Doctor Who often uses itself to market itself, and this is one of those cases.
As far as the precedent, I've answered that question multiple times already. It all rests on how it's marketed, what it's meant to be. Strax Field Reports are parodic, and unlikely intended to be in-universe. If the BBC or anyone else call something an "advertisement", it should generally be thrown out the window. Immediately. I'm sure that all the examples you've given and will give are classed as advertisements.
Anyway, I'm going to stay away from this discussion for a short while to get new faces to voice their opinions, and hopefully get some new arguments. At the moment, we seem not to understand each other, and we're just repeating the same ones over and over again.
- StevieGLiverpool
No offence guys, but I'm sure this debate isn't getting any further.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:131416
in the season finale, there was a unknown doctor that has already passed because the 11th knows about him, it has to be the doctor of the time war because between the 8th and the 9th there was a vaque zone to us what happened
- Superbatd
I agree with this idea
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:132799
Clara is the TARDIS
- Shambala108
This forum is for debating what stories should be included on the wiki. For speculation and theories, go to Howling:The Howling. Thanks!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:133189
If you deleted Vienna, is there any reason Graceless isn't deleted as well? Despite it being as much of a spin-off as it gets if you consider the very definition of spin-off (the origin of the main characters literally depends on a part of Doctor Who lore), a Big Finish person (this time Lisa Bowerman) states in the behind the scenes commentary that it's not actually a Doctor Who spin-off and is in "its own universe" with "its own ethics".
It's pretty obvious that both Graceless and Vienna are spin-offs in every way other than legal and are thus not called such for licensing reasons.
Mind you, I don't actually think they should be deleted myself. But if we were consistent, we should also delete Graceless, Iris Wildthyme's solo adventures, and even Virgin's Bernice Summerfield New Adventures, as they are all basically the same - spin-offs that used publisher- or creator owned characters and maintaining continuity with the previous (and later) stories as far as that character is concerned without using anything BBC-licensed.
- CzechOut
The difference is the statement of the copyright holders. With Vienna they stated — in a way firmer than almost any other we've had from a copyright holder — that it's not a part of the DWU.
Has such a statement been made about Graceless? I dunno for sure. You've mentioned a vague statement from Lisa Bowerman, but we'd need something a little more precise before we could investigate it. If you can provide more details about where or when you heard Bowerman opine, it'd be a helpful starting point.
[Iris Wildthyme and Benny have been discussed in other threads, and the reasons why they're included given there, so let's just keep this thread to Graceless alone. But I will say that your rationale isn't the one we use. It's not just cause they're a spin-off. We're cool with spin-offs. The issue is when a producer/creator/copyright holder makes a statement to suggest that their work is somehow narratively set apart from the DWU.]
- JagoAndLitefoot
Thing is, every copyright holder will say it when asked when their story only has rights to specific non-BBC owned characters. They would be in a legal hell if they didn't.
"It's completely... the universe is completely their own. It has no points of reference at all. I think the expectation was that because they were linked to The Key 2 Time that this is some sort of spin-off from that. And it really isn't. This is completely... This universe has its own morality."
It's just as explicit as the statement for Vienna. And it's being made purely to cover their asses legally, as Graceless is very much narratively linked to The Key 2 Time. It references characters, including the Doctor (although Abby only says she was taught cricket by "the Do.." before being interrupted, and the Time Lords (although, again, Abby only says that she went to "the Academy" and that it was run by people who don't like meddling with time etc.) It's being done in a way that people who don't actually deliberately look for this would assume that they're making direct references.
- CzechOut
"When asked" are the key words there. There are plenty of cases where there's absolutely no effort to say "this thing isn't in the DWU". Creators/copyright holders have often historically just kept mum, never allowing themselves to be drawn on the question at all.
Our policy allows this situation, but disallows cases where the relevant parties have just flatly said "the isn't the DWU".
- JagoAndLitefoot
Perhaps the BBC does require them to state that it's not in the DWU or there will be trouble. Still, the whole story of Amy/Abby and Zara doesn't make any sense if considered apart from "Key 2 Time". Graceless heavily depends on these events narratively, even if they have to make the references to "the Do...", "the Academy", "the segments" vague.
- 92.232.180.244
If Graceless is included on this wiki, then why have the episodes of Graceless 3 not been added yet?
- JagoAndLitefoot
Probably because no one bothered to so far.
- CzechOut
Okay, JAL, I've just come across this thread again and I think I didn't ask you the right questions the first time around. Where does that quote from, and who made it? We might need to take a harder look depending on the source of that statement.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Lisa Bowerman (director). In the CD extras.
- CzechOut
On which specific CD are these extras found? What's the whole context of the statement? Can you give a more complete transcript?
- JagoAndLitefoot
I believe it was on one of the series 2 CDs. Would need to look for it now.
- 217.42.246.107
Hey this is still open but has been dead for four years. This discussion needs to be resolved and locked.
- Bwburke94
Given the direction the Vienna thread went, it would be better to close this and re-examine Graceless later.
- Shambala108
Please leave such determinations up to the admins.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The last episode of Graceless Series 4 has them mention the Doctor and that they will cross paths with him again. Pretty conclusive evidence, if you ask me.
Having reread it again, I get a distinct feeling that, in fact, no one was too interested in actually deleting it. The invalid tag has never graced the page Graceless (audio series).
But the question was asked, and it was taken seriously. It took several years, but finally Revanvolatrelundar found incontrovertible evidence that the series is not intended to be separate from DWU.
At this point, I'm afraid I have to apologise to him personally because I saw the above post and thought how brilliant it was that we could finally close this thread. And then I completely forgot about it.
Thus, it is now my pleasure to close the thread denying the OP's request. No, Graceless should not be deleted from this wiki. It remains valid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:136481
Greetings! I feel a bit awkward asking this, as I'm involved in the question but it is objectively a matter that could be of interest for the wiki, so here it goes.
I'm the author of two essay books on Doctor Who, "La Bendición de la Muerte Fatal" (with an english translation, "The Bliss of Fatal Death") and "Algo nuevo, algo viejo, algo prestado, algo azul". Although self-published, they've been the first (and at the moment, yet, only) books about Doctor Who written in Spain or, to my knowledge, in Spanish.
Would you feel they would have the right to have an entry in the site?
Thank you!
- Tangerineduel
We do cover essay-style books on this wiki. However we predominately cover Doctor Who in English on this wiki.
There is the Español wiki w:c:es.doctorwho where you can create an article for your books. That wiki is linked to ours and vice versa.
- KalElelVigilant
Thank you for pointing me to w:c:es.doctorwho which I was unaware of!
I started wondering about the inclusion of the essays because the first, "The Bliss of Fatal Death" was originally written in english, then translated into spanish (although for marketing reasons the Spanish edition ended being published some three months prior to the English one; which, on the other hand, allowed for a more well rounded English edition).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:136969
I don't care for the why right now, especially considering I was 2 in November 1993, but I am aware that we're not covering Dimensions in Time, and its basis is out-of-universe moreso anything in-universe calling it a dream.
Now, as Rescue features Cyrian, a character originally from that sketch (although not an EastEnders character), I gather that his appearance with the Rani in Rescue is also not a valid source simply by extension of Dimensions not being one, and it not having a notdwu category is just an omission rather than anyone considering it "valid". Am I right on this?
- CzechOut
Yes.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:140309
Anonymous user User:41.132.179.34 has put across on Talk:The Last Word (comic story) that The Last Word, the tenth anniversary celebration of the Virgin New Adventures, is supposed to be parodic; they say "most Who sites", as well as AHistory say it doesn't fit into NA or pre-Ground Zero DWM continuity. I'm re-asking the question here, to give it more visibility, as it seems to be a reasonable inclusion debate.
Doctor Who doesn't have a canon, so what they're saying about NAs being difficult to reconcile with other Seventh Doctor and Ace media and whether DWM has referenced or reinforced Ground Zero in later strips isn't what I'm looking at here. Just whether or not Word is a Curse of Fatal Death-style parody, which if so, would place it outside of our valid sources.
I've not read it myself to give my two cents on it, so can those more familiar chip in?
- Revanvolatrelundar
The story didn't seem like a parody to me, just an opportunity to fit as much New Adventures creations as it could into a small story.
Closing this discussion; comments can be left over at the talk page if necessary.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:141232
Can someone take a look at Talk:Seven Keys to Doomsday (audio story)#Fourth Doctor? and help clear up the continuity questions there? It's clear why the play is {{notdwu}}, but I don't get why the audio would definitely be so. It's the only audio adaptation of a play that we're currently calling {{notdwu}}, and I'm not sure why we're doing that.
- MystExplorer
I haven't listened to the play either but according to Wikipedia, it begins with Nicholas Briggs playing the Third Doctor. It's true that it's an adaptation of a play but it's with a Non-DWU Doctor. Therefore, we treat it the same way we do the Doctor Who Unbound series.
- Master of Spiders
Is it ever explicitly stated that it's "Unbound" though? Tim Treloar is set to play the Third Doctor is new Big Finish Audios. Meanwhile, William Russell and Frazer Hines are now listed as playing the First Doctor and Second Doctor respectively in BF Audios. And what about John Guilor voicing the First Doctor? Or Richard Hurndall for that matter?
- MystExplorer
It's an adaptation of a play featuring a Fourth Doctor that is nothing like the Tom Baker incarnation. That's why it has to be Non-DWU.
- PicassoAndPringles
The original play is out not because of the alternative Fourth Doctor, but because it is a stage play and the narrative was subject to change performance to performance. None of that is true about the adaptation.
The Doctor played by Nicholas Briggs regenerates into the Doctor played by Trevor Martin. There is nothing to suggest a numbering, and nothing that puts it explicitly outside the DWU, any more than The Doctor (Good Companions) or The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light).
- MystExplorer
Those incarnations were never performed so they are open to interpretation. This one, on the other hand, is very clearly NOT any one of the televised Doctors. And saying he's a future Doctor would be too speculative. So I think that's why the adaptation should be classed as Non-DWU.
- Shambala108
To be clear, stage plays are not valid sources as decided at Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do: revisited for the reason PicassoAndPringles stated above. It has nothing to do with the actor(s) playing the Doctor(s).
MystExplorer, if I'm understanding your point, then by your logic The Five Doctors would be NOTDWU because the First Doctor is not played by William Hartnell.
CzechOut's point is that this is the only audio adaptation of a stage play that we have classified as NOTDWU and he's trying to find someone who has actually listened to the story to give us some insight as to why.
- MystExplorer
I'm not sure you do understand my point. Yes, Richard Hurndall played the First Doctor in The Five Doctors. But he was doing it in the style of William Hartnell, just as the actors Master of Spiders mentioned do in the audio plays. By contrast, Trevor Martin is doing his own version of the Doctor that doesn't correspond to any of the televised Doctors. That is the point I was trying to make.
The other play adaptations are all right because one is a Sixth Doctor story and the other doesn't feature the Doctor at all. But unless you can give me an argument for how the Trevor Martin Doctor can possibly fit into continuity, I stick by what I said about why it should be Non-DWU.
- Shambala108
Have you listened to it?
- MystExplorer
No but I don't think I need to in order to know that Martin's Doctor is nothing like the televised Doctors. The play premiered two weeks before Tom Baker's tenure began so they had no way of knowing what his Doctor would be like. And this story is an adaptation of the play so I doubt Big Finish tried to make Martin's Doctor more like Baker's.
- PicassoAndPringles
From Tardis:Valid sources:
[A] story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories.
Which of the four little rules does Seven Keys to Doomsday break? As far as rule four goes, there is no out-of-universe evidence that it is deliberately set outside the DWU.
- MystExplorer
You mean other than the fact that it features a Doctor who doesn't appear anywhere else in the DWU?
- PicassoAndPringles
So do lots of stories. Look at Category:Incarnations of the Doctor, and you'll see quite a few that don't fit in with continuity and have only been featured once or twice. The policy is really inclusive, and this audio doesn't break any of the four rules we use to decide if a story is in or out.
- MystExplorer
Well, if you're going to declare it DWU, that means declaring all the characters in the story DWU as well.
- Shambala108
Back to CzechOut's original question, is there anyone out there who has actually listened to this story and can tell whether the pre-Trevor Martin incarnation is definitively stated to be the Third Doctor? I checked the DWRG and a few other sources and they give no useful information.
- PicassoAndPringles
Yes, it would. That's less than a dozen pages. It can't be done till we reach consensus, however.
- PicassoAndPringles
Shambala, I've listened to the story and there is nothing to suggest a numbering for either the Briggs or Martin incarnation.
- Shambala108
PicassoAndPringles wrote: Shambala, I've listened to the story and there is nothing to suggest a numbering for either the Briggs or Martin incarnation.
Given this information, I've left a message on CzechOut's talk page asking him to visit this discussion, as it will hopefully answer his original question.
- OttselSpy25
Can anyone find any info on the people who adapted the drama and what they took it to be? If we have someone saying "it's an alternate universe" or an "alternate timeline" or "it's not a thing meant to be serious," it might mean a lot to this discussion. We already know that this is not a Fourth Doctor, and that it features two incarnations of the Doctor -- neither meant to be Pertwee. According to what I can tell, the only thing blocking this from being valid is that we're used to it being invalid and we're used to it not being a story we take seriously in the DWU -- but the thing is that that is not relevant in our policy. That is, unless someone working on the audio policy (and I mean higher up) had the same position. If they did, we could choose to see it as invalid or event an alternate timeline/dimension if the wording is right. If there is no such take, then the story is valid. Simple as that.
- OttselSpy25
Just looked at the issue of Vortex on the audio. Lot of mention of getting the cast together, working with T Dicks, and the production. No mentions of how they saw the story or what their take on it was.
- PicassoAndPringles
I actually found this on a sticky note from back in May, when this discussion first started up: in the extras, Trevor Martin says, "it [the audio] puts its place in the canon of Doctor Who." That is a pretty direct statement that a major person in the production saw it as DWU.
- OttselSpy25
PicassoAndPringles wrote: I actually found this on a sticky note from back in May, when this discussion first started up: in the extras, Trevor Martin says, "it [the audio] puts its place in the canon of Doctor Who." That is a pretty direct statement that a major person in the production saw it as DWU.
That sounds pretty concrete, and I would say is enough to make a decision off of.
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote:
PicassoAndPringles wrote: I actually found this on a sticky note from back in May, when this discussion first started up: in the extras, Trevor Martin says, "it [the audio] puts its place in the canon of Doctor Who." That is a pretty direct statement that a major person in the production saw it as DWU.
That sounds pretty concrete, and I would say is enough to make a decision off of.
That would require treating this story as valid to the Doctor. Because we have already more-or-less determined that the Curator from The Day of the Doctor is an unspecified future incarnation of the Doctor, we can do the same for these two incarnations, renaming the page for the incarnations in question to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) to avoid giving this incarnation a number.
- OttselSpy25
I would just say that he's an incarnation, and leave it up to the readers if he's alternate timeline or future or whatever.
- MystExplorer
I'm not so sure the quote from Trevor Martin is enough to make his Doctor valid. Yes he was involved in the production of the story but he didn't create the character. I thought we only took the authors' intentions into account, not the actors.
- OttselSpy25
Well it's the only word on the subject we can find. Even if we discount his thoughts I think that it's pretty clear that we have no evidence to make the story invalid.
- MystExplorer
Bwburke94 wrote: Because we have already more-or-less determined that the Curator from The Day of the Doctor is an unspecified future incarnation of the Doctor, we can do the same for these two incarnations, renaming the page for the incarnations in question to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) to avoid giving this incarnation a number.
I still think declaring them future Doctors without any evidence would be far too speculative.
- TheChampionOfTime
MystExplorer wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Because we have already more-or-less determined that the Curator from The Day of the Doctor is an unspecified future incarnation of the Doctor, we can do the same for these two incarnations, renaming the page for the incarnations in question to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) to avoid giving this incarnation a number.
I still think declaring them future Doctors without any evidence would be far too speculative.
Fairly early on in the audio Trevor Martin's Doctor states "I've had many different faces!". The use of the word "many" very much implies a future doctor.
- MystExplorer
I'm not sure if implication is enough.
- Bwburke94
Do we have to specify that he's a future Doctor, though?
- 2.28.220.166
Just note i haven't listened to the adio or seen the play but I don't think you have to specify how this doctors relationship with the main 13
- Pluto2
Per this discussion, I'm removing Not-DWU tags. At no point in the audio is it stated Martin is the Fourth Doctor.
- SOTO
You are doing no such thing. This discussion is not over, and you may not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: You are doing no such thing. This discussion is not over, and you may not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
Apologies!
- SOTO
Non-admin are also not allowed to move pages, it should be noted. Please use {{rename}} in the future.
- Bwburke94
It's been nine months since the last progress in this discussion. Is there any reason to not make the requested changes?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: It's been nine months since the last progress in this discussion. Is there any reason to not make the requested changes?
I don't see why not.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
BF intended it to be valid, as with TUA and TCOTD in the series.
Trevor Martin says it's valid. Only because that way the crew's intentions.
- Pluto2
Can an admin make the changes suggested?
- Pluto2
SOTO, wanna comment on this?
- SOTO
I can comment that this discussion is not yet at its completion, despite the amount of time it's been open.
PicassoAndPringles wrote: I actually found this on a sticky note from back in May, when this discussion first started up: in the extras, Trevor Martin says, "it [the audio] puts its place in the canon of Doctor Who." That is a pretty direct statement that a major person in the production saw it as DWU.
This is quite conclusive for rule 4.
This is, I believe, the only stage play adaptation we do not currently consider a valid source. Simply having a distinct Doctor from the main Doctors already established does not automatically disqualify it. We cover many such incarnations already.
Given what I've read, it is quite incorrect to call the Doctor in this story the Fourth Doctor. There is no indication in this story that he is the Fourth Doctor, aside from the use of the period theme music. The stage play is its own entity, remember. It seems equally incorrect to specifically state that he's a future Doctor. Beyond that, I don't know--I have not listened to the story beyond its trailer.
There does not seem to be any indication, either, that this is an alternate universe. So, at this point, I predict that the ruling of this thread will probably be in favour of ruling it valid.
As far as the four rules go, as far as I know:
- It's a story.
- Big Finish owns the rights to everything used within the story.
- It's been released officially.
- One statement has been found saying it was intended to be within Doctor Who's "canon". Strong statement, that. So far, no statements have been brought up to suggest anything to the contrary.
This thread will likely be closed in favour of validity, as this passes all our rules. But for that to happen in the coming weeks, we need an effective plan for all pages involved. Presumably, the Doctor gets moved to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday). Do we keep the page for the previous Doctor? All character pages must be cleaned up and updated following this ruling.
- Pluto2
We do hear the previous Doctor (which one is unspecified) in the audio adaptation - he's voiced by Nicholas Briggs. So keep it, yeah.
- SOTO
Ah, right. So Previous Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) and The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday). BTS sections can discuss their roles in the stage play the audio story was based on, (ie. how the previous Doctor was fairly explicitly implied to be the Third [as I understand it], and the main Doctor to therefore be a Fourth Doctor, alternate to the one later played by Tom Baker).
Fourth Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) will not be retained as a redirect.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Ah, right. So Previous Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) and The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday). BTS sections can discuss their roles in the stage play the audio story was based on, (ie. how the previous Doctor was fairly explicitly implied to be the Third [as I understand it], and the main Doctor to therefore be a Fourth Doctor, alternate to the one later played by Tom Baker).
Fourth Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) will not be retained as a redirect.
So are we waiting for CzechOut at this point?
- SOTO
Time waits for no CzechOut. I am waiting to make sure that there are users prepared to fix up the pages involved, as well as to give anyone a final chance to make any arguments they wish to make. We don't need the approval of any one admin, and indeed, as CzechOut started this thread, it would be more appropriate for someone else to close it, anyway.
If this discussion gains no further attention in the coming weeks, I will close it in favour of validity, and make some cursory changes to the audio story page itself to reflect its status.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Time waits for no CzechOut. I am waiting to make sure that there are users prepared to fix up the pages involved, as well as to give anyone a final chance to make any arguments they wish to make. We don't need the approval of any one admin, and indeed, as CzechOut started this thread, it would be more appropriate for someone else to close it, anyway.
If this discussion gains no further attention in the coming weeks, I will close it in favour of validity, and make some cursory changes to the audio story page itself to reflect its status.
I will gladly fix it up. Count me in.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I agree that it should be made valid. I'd help in anyway I can.
- crys because one of the invalid pages is leaving me
- Pluto2
I will gladly help here, as said previously.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:144642
We know from doctor who books that Galifreyans "Loomed" themselves and created cousins which were born as adults which behaved like children but how do we explain that the doctor has a cot and the master appears as a child in flashback. this is a massive problem since the books are considered canon and intended to be DWU so what is the main descision about the problem.
- Tybort
Through this wiki's policies, the main decision for a very long time has been to say that they're irreconcilable, conflicting accounts but also to discard neither, or consider one of the three "apocrypha".
It's hardly the only instance where the franchise's contradicted itself. As noted on Tardis:Valid sources: "The DWU has messy continuity. A story can't be declared invalid just because it contradicts other stories."
Lungbarrow (and any other books which mention the Looms, not hugely familiar with which specifically make this part of Doctor Who) is an officially-licensed Doctor Who work that's neither a parody or pastiche that's intended to come somewhere after Survival, just like the recollection of the Untempered Schism in The Sound of Drums and the cot scene from A Good Man Goes to War are. Unless authorial intent has stated it's in some sort of alternate continuity, what-if, or parallel universe, we count it on pages which have an in-universe perspective. We also don't have "levels" of canon. Tardis:Neutral point of view basically says we give equal weight to both the NAs and Drums and Good Man from the television series. We don't say television continuity "trumps" 1990s novel continuity.
- Orangerichard56
Well the wiki is having to deal with having both theories squished into one
IDEA: We know that the TV series and the books are on equal ground and both are canon to each other but no reference to Looms in TV that i know of has been given the books should remain part of the canon but certain stories containing this information should be NON DWU.So which theory are we going to go with?
PS: im the owner of this thread it was me and i just couldnt be bothered to log in. - Tybort
Once again, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of discrepancies within our boundaries of the DWU, from monster and species histories to things such as Jo's marriage and likely anything to do with Ace post-Survival. We cannot arbitrarily say "Oh, this isn't canon" or "this is mostly canon" and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Counting the Looming and the non-Loom childhoods equally means counting them equally. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Gallifreyan childhoods are alluded to before the New Adventures as well as after in stories like The Time Monster.
Relegating part of the New Adventures to "non-canon" or "non-DWU" seems to go entire against Tardis:Neutral point of view. We're not defining a Doctor Who canon ourselves, we're just describing as much as we can within an immensely self-contradictory fictional universe, but leaving out things the people who wrote the stories consider obviously outside of the usual continuity.
Marc Platt's Cat's Cradle Time's Crucible and Lungbarrow were stories, were licensed by the copyright holder(s) to Virgin Books, were officially published in their entirety and, so far as I can tell, were intended as continuity that follows somewhere after Survival. From what I gather, this means they fit all four of the four little rules.
- 79.68.240.9
What about susan foreman who is the doctors grandaughter
- 98.65.174.127
The Day of the Doctor doesn't state that the children on Gallifrey were Gallifreyean. There are many possible explanations including that despite their xenophobic tendencies the Time Lords opened their world to refugees from the Time War.
- CzechOut
98.65.174.127 wrote: The Day of the Doctor doesn't state that the children on Gallifrey were Gallifreyean. There are many possible explanations including that despite their xenophobic tendencies the Time Lords opened their world to refugees from the Time War.
That's a profoundly unusual interpretation of Day.
- Moment: And you're going to use me to end it by killing them all. Daleks and Time Lords alike ... Gallifrey. You're going to burn it and all those Daleks with it — but all those children too. (Children dressed in costumes of "Time Lord red" are seen playing.)
The scene and the episode don't make any emotional sense if they're not Gallifreyan. The costume choice makes no sense if they're not Gallifreyan. This site doesn't require the dialogue to specifically say, "These children are biologically of Gallifrey" in order to justify a statement that they're Gallifreyan children. Visually, in terms of the way the scene is edited and costumed, they're unmistakably "of Gallifrey". In terms of visual media, this site treats the way a scene looks as equally important to the way the dialogue is phrased.
- IrasCignavojo
Well, don't we know that fertility went down after killing Pythia, so natural born children were out of the question. It would be just like the Time Lords to invent a (or redirect an existing) technology to cope and produce more offspring, with the loom.
- Orangerichard56
ok so if lungbarrow is canon did the other thing actually happen
- IrasCignavojo
Susan as a granddaughter is canon, therefore the loom as a method can, much like the way The Doctor's Daughter was created, be an alternative method of creating cousins, at a time when giving birth to kids was not an option anymore, due to fertility issues (which are also canon) after the death of Pythia. / Looming might help to asexualize the idea of offspring, but for that see also the good article on "Sexuality" here on TardisWiki.
- CzechOut
Orangerichard56 wrote: ok so if lungbarrow is canon did the other thing actually happen
There is no such thing as canon. There's only whether something is a valid source or not.
Doctor Who contradicts itself all the time. We saw at least one instance of that just last night. We were told in Utopia that only Jack Harkness could survive riding on the outside of the TARDIS through the time vortex. But we saw Clara, an apparently ordinarily mortal woman, do it in The Time of the Doctor.
The DWU is massively contradictory. So on this wiki — whose goal is to cover all stories officially released by the BBC — there's no point in arguing canonicity. There are only four questions that we ask about stories — none of which have to do with the quality of the story.
- Orangerichard56
really but dont all fictional universes have a canon
- CzechOut
Nope. Not this one.
- Orangerichard56
But
"This Wiki Cant Define Canon"
do you know you are not the owner of the DWU
and also
Define Canon for me plz - CzechOut
Orangerichard56 wrote: do you know you are not the owner of the DWU
Obviously. But we do have a duty to set up a structure that allows the wiki to function. We've spent years discussing and defining the borders of this wiki. If you don't like the determinations we've made, this may not be the wiki for you. We hope that it is an environment you can learn to like, but with a decade of edits behind us, we're pretty comfortable with the choices we've made.
Perhaps more to the point, it would be difficult to the point of near-impossibility to change. Almost every article would have to be rewritten, since they've all been written from the point of view that all valid sources, regardless of their medium, are equally relevant.
Define Canon for me plz
An adequate definition, and the reasons why Doctor Who doesn't have one, are provided at T:CAN.
- Orangerichard56
oh so canons are owned by a single authority
when i say canon i mean is it part of the DWU
bbc refusing to define canon is a bit mean isnt it
this is the trouble loads of plotholes in doctor who cannot be solved by the word by a writer - The Light6
CzechOut wrote: We were told in Utopia that only Jack Harkness could survive riding on the outside of the TARDIS through the time vortex. But we saw Clara, an apparently ordinarily mortal woman, do it in The Time of the Doctor.
I know this isn't exactly on-topic, but I don't think that is the best example because that isn't actually an example of contradictory canon. The TARDIS was actively trying to throw Jack off it in Utopia, while in The Time of the Doctor the TARDIS actively protected Clara during the trip.
- IrasCignavojo
Plus: Clara held on to the key, thus being connected to the Tardis while outside. Plus: As The Inpossible Girl we are expecting her to do things impossible to others, so no contradiction here, in my book. As for the original Loom, I tried to give an explanation above, which can be no more than help us see it according in DWU, without adding this theory to In-Universe pages, as it hasn't been published by the BBC (qv 4questions)
- 104.159.165.3
I've decided that I consider everything to be canon. When you are jumping back and forth through time changes are going to happen no matter how careful you are. To quote the 10th Doctor "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff."
So, at some point in the DW universe's timeline timelords were loomed and than a change was made to the timeline. It could be one big change or lots of small changes. Either way gallifreyans now reproduce through biological means and the looms are erased from the timeline. "Normal" beings do not even realize a change has happened as their memories change to conform to the new reality. Time sensitive's like the time lords retain ( to a greater or lesser extent) knowledge of events that occured before the change. There is an 8th doctor story where he says that he remembers being a boy and having a mother and father but he also remembers being loomed and he was not sure which memory was true. There is also another story in which the doctor says that a time lords greatest nightmare is to return home only to find out that your past as you remember it never happened.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The Eighth Doctor Adventures had their way of reconciling it, have a look at this passage from Unnatural History:
'It’s impossible,’ said the Doctor. ‘It’s impossible for my people. Our past is unreachable. What’s written can’t be unwritten.’
‘Who said your history can’t change?’
Another boy answered, ‘Someone from his history.’
And another: ‘Maybe it’s the second-biggest lie in Time Lord history.’ ‘Maybe it changes all the time.’ Someone giggled. ‘Let’s play pin the tale on the donkey.’ ‘Maybe you didn’t use to have a father.’ ‘Maybe you’re living in the middle of a time war. Maybe there’s an Enemy out there –’ The Doctor shouted, ‘I’m not listening!’ ‘– who’s rewriting you when you’re not looking!’ ‘Maybe you weren’t always half human.’ ‘But now you’ve become always half human.’ ‘Maybe you weren’t always a Time Lord.’ ‘But now you’ve always been a Time Lord.’ ‘Maybe you originally came from some planet in the forty-ninth century. Fleeing from the Enemy who’d overrun your home –’
‘I said I’m not listening! Laa laa laa laa laa –’
- DarthKnah
I agree with The Light6 about Clara not being a good example. Anyway, I personally disagree with the canon policy (I much prefer Wookieepedia's), but there's nothing we can do about it. If you disagree with Lungbarrow, don't read articles about Lungbarrow. If you believe only TV stories are canon, simply skip to the info about TV stories. It's that simple. Just keep your own "headcanon."
- Skittles the hog
Wookiepedia has an official canon to work with - we don't, so we can't simply follow suit.
You can dream up your own personal canon, but you'll find that it differs from person to person. Were we to pick and choose, you'd always be aggravating some one by leaving out this medium, or that story.
The current (non-)canon policy works well. Yes, conflicting accounts are annoying, but knee-jerk decisions to jettison rogue elements are preposterous and unjustifiable. Lungbarrow isn't a second-class citizen.
- Bwburke94
We are not declaring Lungbarrow non-DWU just because it conflicts with later stories. I personally ignore the looms in my headcanon, but I acknowledge that Lungbarrow, while it may not be canon to the TV series, is canon to the New Adventures, and that because of this there is no such thing as a definite canon when it comes to the Whoniverse as a whole.
EDIT: Whoniverse canon is loosely defined, I doubt Moffat had Lungbarrow in mind when he wrote Listen. New Adventures writers, on the other hand, had more interest in following Lungbarrow and would at least note that it would cause continuity errors.
- IrasCignavojo
Don't you wish, the TV writers would check TardisWiki before or while writing their episodes? Moffat didn't even give "Lungbarrow" a wink in "Listen" - and Henry Avery, recently included in "DW Legacy", was written into the Curse of the Black Spot without the writer even knowing about his previous episode in The Smugglers... And classic heroes and villains like those around Nottingham make it hard for TardisWikians to tie the threads together.
- MystExplorer
Moffat is under no obligation whatsoever to acknowledge Lungbarrow. He didn't sit down to write Listen and think, "I really want to show the Doctor as a boy but there's this novel from the 90s that says Time Lords are born fully mature. Oh well. Can't go contradicting something only a small percentage of the audience knows or cares about." That's not how Doctor Who gets made. Nor should it be. If the production team wants to acknowledge some of the spin-off media, that's fine. But they can't possibly acknowledge all of it. That would stifle creativity.
- Tybort
Not to mention Moffat's already acknowledged the Doctor as a boy in several of his own scripts.
- Ilyootha
My idea is that the Time Lords are loomed as fully-grown children, rather than fully-grown adults. Perhaps it's somewhat against the authorial intention, but it fixes the only major continuity issue with Lungbarrow, at least to my knowledge (I know, there are also the issues of Susan not being there from the beginning, Romana and Leela knowing each other before Zagreus and some others, but I've dealt with those as well). I think the young Doctor refusing to live "with the other boys" in Listen perfectly fits with how he didn't get on well with his family in Lungbarrow.
Oh, and we don't really know that it was the Doctor's cot.
- Tybort
Well, we know that Eleven explicitly said in dialogue that he slept in there, and Ten and Twelve stated they were dads, Ten mentions he had a brother, Eight describes a father, and the Master describes his own father. We can't just make speculatory remarks like that and "fix" them with "ideas" that some person on the Internet "deals with". Doctor Who has a messy continuity and has done since about the 60s or 70s. For the most part we can't reconcile everything with everything else.
Sorry, but this isn't that kind of forum. We're an encyclopedia. We say the facts based on what exactly the stories give, and we don't give credence to hierarchy of "canon", or for that matter, define a Doctor Who canon.
T:NPOV: "Most imortantly, base your edits on the facts present in valid sources. Ignore your own opinions — and those of fan websites. [...] One of the most important aspects of this wiki is that all media have equal weight here. Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki. That which is said in a short story in Doctor Who Annual 1967 is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who."
T:IU: "Use only valid sources — which is to say narratives — to write your article. [...] All narratives, regardless of medium, have equal weight. Whether it's a comic strip, audio, novel or television story, it's all equally valid here."
T:CAN: "In-universe articles are those written about the narrative elements of the DWU — articles like Amy Pond, ambulance and Andromedan. The only valid sources for these articles are stories."
T:CITE DEF: "Some good questions to ask yourself include:
- Am I going off my own research into the story?
- If asked — and given a few minutes, cause me memory's goin' — could I definitely point to a page, episode or time code when the event I'm citing happened within the story?
- Could I insert a direct quotation from the story into my sentence?
If the answer to any of these questions is "no", you're probably not on terribly solid ground."
T:CITE: "Telling readers where a statement can be verified is important. It helps to focus articles and keeps the details in an article to only that which actually appeared in the various Doctor Who narratives."
T:VS: "1. Only stories count."
- Ilyootha
I know about your canon policy (it's what I really love about this wiki), and I wasn't suggesting that any of my headcanon ideas should go onto public articles - fan explanations should only exist on fan discussions. But I apologise if this forum is not a place for such discussions (do you have a forum for casual discussions like this?)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:145361
on the article about the {{nondwu}} the curse of fatal death it says
In a universe different to the one the renegade Time Lord known as the Doctor called home, a person calling himself the Doctor, a Time Lord in his ninth incarnation, travelled with a companion named Emma in a TARDIS shaped like a police box.
It references as the Cofd version of the doctor is from another universe which means it is a parallell universe rather than a completely different fictional universe.
COFD IS NOT CANON SO WHY IS IT WRITTEN IN THE STYLE OF A DWU PAGE
I say we say The Doctor in his ninth incarnation, travelled with a companion named Emma in a TARDIS shaped like a police box.
- Shambala108
Please see Tardis:Valid sources for an explanation of why this story is not considered valid on this wiki (we don't have a "canon" on this wiki).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:145363
Because even though eastenders if refercned to in doctor who
The charecters in DIT [From Eastenders] are not referenced in doctor who
just eastenders was referenced and also it does not have one main charecter.
If harry potter or narnia was referenced that would be different since harry potter is referenced in doctor who as harry potter is the lead and is mentioned in doctor who.
- Shambala108
Please see Tardis:Valid sources for an explanation of why this story is not considered valid on this wiki (we don't have a "canon" on this wiki).
- 68.146.70.124
To add to the above, the Valid sources link mentions that DiT is not considered a valid source based on community consensus, but beyond that it is one of a handful of episodes that have actually, officially been decanonized by the BBC.I believe John Nathan-Turner (who wrote the thing) decanonized it via DWM.
- Orangerichard56
Actually We do have a canon because we have in universe and out of universe so we do have canon
- Orangerichard56
Srsly saying we dont have a canon srsly tardis wake up
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:145578
When we saw all the children in TDOTC wow lungbarrow just smashed and all those looms srsly guys we are gonna have to remove lungbarrow guys
See what i did with the title there whata TDOTD refernce
- Digifiend
We already saw the Master as a kid. This isn't really news.
- Orangerichard56
yes but the wiki considered not any other action to be taken since the books are at equal canon lets hope this smashes lungbarrow since the wiki have to remove lungbarrow now no choice no matter how many of the 4 rules it just has to go since galifreyan history is a mess
come on wiki remove it
Srsly wiki wake up
- Digifiend
Just because Lungbarrow got contradicted doesn't mean it gets deleted from the wiki. This wiki should be covering everything released for Doctor Who in any media.
- Shambala108
Orangerichard56 if you are seriously asking for the removal of Lungbarrow, you need to provide reasons based on Tardis:Valid sources, and you should consider re-titling your thread if you want anyone agreeing with you to join in.
Contradictions between/among stories are not valid reasons for removing something, otherwise we'd be stuck with only a couple of seasons of DW.
- Orangerichard56
The contradictions between tv stories are so so so so so so so so minor that i dont notice them.
Lungbarrow explicitly expressess its contradiction about the loom
and the stories like COFD are non DWU because of a contradiction
also cushing doctor is also a contra diction
Doctor who tv states that time lords are born as children in The End of time, the 3 parter of utopia and with nearly all of william hartnell (Susan is 15) and the day of the doctor
Usually the contradictions are only of what people say.
Was there proof that there really was looms or was it mentioned or was it a flashback if it was a flashback with real proof then i suggest i could win if it was what someone said we would keep lungbarrow but explain that the looms are not real. - Orangerichard56
Cofd was released for doctor who but is not canon
technically DIT is canon but just not for the wikiI told you before the charecters in dimensions are not mentioned in DWU only eastenders was although Dit was intended to be a crossover out universe that is given no hint in DWU
Just saying dimensions in time was confusing
doctorwhotv decided to come up with a theory round lungbarrow but my brain didnt understand it was so long
Remember i think the tv should be the main level of canon since if would cause major disruption if contradictions are made
Also i rlly want jo grants death to be non canon but i cant since i dont have a reason do i - Shambala108
Lots of things here, so I'll comment one by one.
- Plot/storyline contradictions don't matter when determining if something counts. The DW universe is riddled with contradictions, just look at the Daleks. We don't use contradictions as a reason for including/excluding something.
- The Cushing movies and DIT are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is only about Lungbarrow.
- "i think the tv should be the main level of canon" - Nothing wrong with you thinking that, but this wiki does not think the same way. All media are treated equally.
- Jo Grant - Anything the wiki considers "canon", you are free to believe is not. There are plenty of things that I consider non-canon, though I can't edit that way here.
- Orangerichard56
whats jo grant got to do with this
- Orangerichard56
The lungbarrow contradiction is a Absolutely massive explicit difference with TV.
Which almost makes it like another fictional universe - Orangerichard56
COFD is non canon because the ninth doctor and all others contradict the real series
the COFD version is
Atkinson Grant Broadbent Grant(Hugh) Lumley
REal one is HurtEccelston
TennantSmith
Capaldi (CAnon and in universe because of his TDOTD appearance)
Just an example - 86.178.204.38
There is no contradiction with "Lungbarrow" at all, since Marc Platt's novel ends with the return of the Female Principle to Gallifrey, and the birth of the first baby in aeons. The implication is that the Time Lords will be able to reproduce sexually in future.... and this is entirely consistent with there being children on Gallifrey in "Day of the Doctor". As for the earlier appearance of a young Master, in order for a contradiction to be established, it would have to be demonstrated that some novel or other stated that EVERY house loomed new Cousins as fully-grown adults. This may be the case for the House of Lungbarrow, but I don't recall it being ruled out that other houses might not loom their replacement members at a smaller height!
- Orangerichard56
Ok so the doctor was loomed and born a adult kk but the master was nateral birth
Hmm the thought of the master and the doctor running in the fields of red grass gives me the impression that he was born a child
Prove to me this
So the doctor was created by the other kk
im gonna do some research if your theory is true i will rename this thread Lungbarrow falls no more
- Orangerichard56
Oh dear we are forgetting something
The Doctors Cot...Give me some evidence that in a pre doctor existance the looming never happend and then i win my war
- Orangerichard56
Ive sorted it
The timelords got there powers back but the other jumped into the loom and the doctor was born (From a timelord mother) but his genetics came from the loomIs there any "Loom" Stories that reference the doctor born as a adult
- Orangerichard56
Ok Guys big maintinance on the doctor page i want looms and birth mixed into one
The doctor was born on galifery but his genetical pattern came from the loomed other who diedor something like that
- Orangerichard56
Finally it all makes sense now we just need a bit more information to make it guys
- Shambala108
"whats jo grant got to do with this"
I don't know, you brought her up.
Please keep in mind that it is not the job of this wiki to reconcile conflicting accounts if it involves speculation.
- Orangerichard56
guys we need to get investergating about lungbarrow
- Orangerichard56
guys we dont have theories here but the theory is piecer of canon puzzle put together but we do need a community discussion
- Orangerichard56
Well community discussion is needed
- Orangerichard56
we cant make anything we can only use whatever we have-orangerichard56 On canon
- Digifiend
Jeez! No discussion needed at all. You've been told what site policy is here, and there's no need to reply to yourself, there is an edit button.
- WaitingfortheDoctor
It has been suggested that time lords have evolved over the years, so it could be possible that the curse that prevented natural reproduction disappeared making the looms useless. This could explain how we saw the Master as a child, and we won't have to completely throw out the looms.
All that is required for us to count a story is that it meet those four rules. Lungbarrow does, without question. So Lungbarrow is valid.
See how easy that is?
The way we handle this, or any other apparent contradiction, is remarkably simple. We just do something like this:
- "According to one account, Time Lords emerged from what were called "looms" as fully grown adults and were biologically related to each other only at the level of cousins. (PROSE: Lungbarrow) Other sources held, however, that Time Lords were biologic procreators, and therefore had children and familial relationships comparable to humans. Indeed the most significant moral issue in front of the War Doctor as he decided whether to burn Gallifrey at the end of the Last Great Time War was the number of children that he was going to kill. (TV: The Day of the Doctor)
It's easy to deal with apparent contradictions, so there's no problem at all in saying that all media will be treated equally.
Please do not edit contrary to this founding principle.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:145637
He said she said seems narrative but seems odd to be somethine that could actually happen even in doctor who
like clara is in a mueseam and then she speaks to him but he doesnt answer
and vice versa
maybe it could be a dream but lets say its not something that happens its like a monologue or something
- Shambala108
No new arguments give in favor of inclusion. Closing thread.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:145704
In The Day of the Doctor, the opening scene showed the sign for Coal Hill Secondary School with "I. Chesterton" as Chairman of the Governors, along with "W. Coburn" as Headmaster. Obviously, most people will associate "I. Chesterton" as the First Doctor's companion, Ian Chesterton. Same for "W. Coburn" and Susan Foreman's classmate Wendy Foreman.
I had edited Ian Chesterton's and Wendy Coburn's wikis to indicate their current status, but I wonder if this was premature, as strictly speaking, one cannot make an in-universe determination that "I. Chesterton" is Ian. It could be "Iris" or "Ishmael" or any other of names that start with an "I". Same for W. Coburn.
Is it possible for the administrators to address this problem? Thanks.
- JagoAndLitefoot
I think we can use Ockham's razor on this, given that this is a 50th anniversary special and these were obviously intended as nods to the show's past.
- Accessdbpro
As someone who appreciates accuracy, your usage of the term "Ockham" over the more conventionally understood (but frankly incorrect) term "Occam" speaks volumes about the weight of your recommendation.
Nonetheless, >99.999% is NOT 100%, and even if the inference would tend to fulfill the simplest explanation, it isn't completely proven. However, I will confess that even if the full first names were used and were in fact Ian and Wendy, it still wouldn't mean they were the SAME Ian and Wendy, and the problem still remains, without an actual inference from dialogue or other clues.
To that end, what should the policy be for such determinations in the future?
- Digifiend
W Coburn was a reference to Anthony Coburn, writer of An Unearthly Child.
- Shambala108
Accesseddbpro, to answer your question, we do not allow speculation on the wiki. The DW universe is so large that if we allowed speculation in our articles, the site would become a big mess.
- OttselSpy25
I've never heard that interpretation of W. Coburn.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:145949
Ok, so Day of the Doctor was released recently, well my recently some of you may read this in the far future but the point is, The Doctor is down to his last regeneration aka Capaldi. So why does The Doctor need to find Gallifrey as they mentioned before, well... all time lords have a set 12 regeneration dying on their 13th life-state. The Time Lords are capable of attaining more Regenerative cycles from the high council I assume, but The Doctor isn't exactly a fan among them now is he, I mean there are those two but that's a different story. So is The Doctor going to make a deal with the High Council or whoever permits more regenerative cycles and this is why he is looking for Gallifrey is that he will regenerate during that search and he knows that will happen, therefore upon finding the point where he can communicate with Gallifrey will he bring Gallifrey back into the universe to gain more regenerative cycles, specifically in my opinion another 11 regenerative cycles to bring it up to a clean 24 (total hrs in a day)?
- Shambala108
This board is for discussing what should be included on the wiki. If you want to speculate on future plots, the only place allowed on the wiki is at Howling:The Howling. Thanks.
This thread is closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:146143
EPISODE: The End Of Time
SCENE: Rassilon's monologue after the Council of Time Lords vote and before his and Gallifrey's return to our universe.
QUOTE: "The vote is taken. Only two stand against. And will stand as monument to their shame! The Weeping Angels of old."
NOTE: The two female Time Lords flank Rassilon with their hands over their faces. During The Doctor's indecision to shoot and kill either Rassilon or The Master, one uncovers her face a moment and is weeping; she is the same one appearing to the human Albert.
- Shambala108
For now, this question can only be answered with speculation and theory, which, per Tardis:Discussion policy, are only allowed on Howling:The Howling.
Therefore this thread will be closed. Feel free to move it to the Howling.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:146631
I watched Angels Take Manhattan and I was thinking about the issue with paradoxes. Well they used a paradox to kill them in the episode, but in the novel Touched by an Angel the angels were trying to make a paradox to feed on. I started thinking about that and wouldn't the effects of a paradox on angels depend on where they stood in the situation. In Angels Take Manhattan they were directly involved and thus a paradox in that situation would be like food just disappearing out of your stomach, It would hurt. However, if they're creating a paradox that they are not directly affected by then they would be able to live off of it just as easily as zapping somebody. I just wanted to put that forward given the statements by River and the 11th Doctor in the Episode and the book. Can I get anyone else's take on this?
- Shambala108
Per Tardis:Forum policy, the forums are only for discussing the editing of articles. This particular forum is only for discussing what stories are included on the wiki.
If you'd like to discuss theories, you can take this thread to Howling:The Howling. Thanks.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:147899
Some people are attributing the 'android' comment of the Doctor's in the recent episode (The Time of the Doctor) to be a reference to The Scream of the Shalka. Though evidently the Richard E. Grant incarnation of the Doctor wasn't canon, as RTD retconned all of it with the 2005 revival, can we note Shalka in the story notes or continuity notes?
- Orangerichard56
Anddroid i didnt know the shalka doctor was a android and anyway it isnt canon and what i consider to be Non Narrative Scum
- Digifiend
The Shalka Doctor wasn't an android, but one of his companions was - an android version of The Master.
- CzechOut
If it has anything to do with Scream of the Shalka, it doesn't really represent Shalka very well. I have to say I didn't think about Shalka at all. The line is:
- Clara: So, I may have ... accidentally invented a boyfriend.
- Doctor: Yeah, I did that once and there's no easy way to get rid of an android.
In Shalka, there's no implication that the Shalka Master is "invented" or a "boyfriend". He's the real essence of the Master in a metal body — the Shalka Doctor's reward for the Master having helped Shalka Doc through a rough patch.
I didn't think it was a reference to anything we'd seen before — other than perhaps Handles.
- Orangerichard56
Probably wasnt anything to do with that
- 209.6.48.250
The author of Shalka suggests 'boyfriend.'
- CzechOut
209.6.48.250 wrote: The author of Shalka suggests 'boyfriend.'
Could you expand on that please?
- OttselSpy25
It's been often fan lore and possible truth that the Doctor and the Master in Scream of the Shalka were lovers. I've never looked into it because it sounds dumb weather true or not.
The example listed here isn't a good one because it's not true. The line isn't clearly referencing anything in particular, and it could be interpreted as many different meanings. A better example is the line referencing Snow White and the Seven Keys to Doomsday, which itself is a reference to Doctor Who and the Daleks in Seven Keys to Doomsday, a play we find invalid. Because that's not an in-universe story, it's not continuity. But because it's clearly a reference, it goes under References. Other good examples are the Peter Cushing/David Tennant hybrid sketch in Four Doctors, any ironic in-universe gab at Dimensions of Time and the re-use of the Curse of Fatal Death]] line in Prologue.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:148653
are they dwu
- Tim Thomason
Of course (see: Marvel Comics). You may want to look at the page on Death's Head for discussion on why the Doctor isn't part of the larger Marvel Universe.
- NarnianAslan1
i know but is the doctor who marvel comics part of the DWU
- Tim Thomason
Yes. They are all covered under this wiki and considered part of the larger Doctor Who Universe.
- CzechOut
The entire run of original, non-parodic Doctor Who Magazine comics — whether originating from Marvel or Panini — are considered a part of the DWU by this wiki and therefore are valid sources. There's no doubt that those comics which debuted in the pages of DWM — which would exclude Tales from the TARDIS — were produced under license from the BBC, and that they satisfy our four little rules.
But it's the reverse question that typically interests more people: is the Doctor a part of the MU?
Well, fans typically use Death's Head as a reason why the Doctor is a part of the larger Marvel Universe, albeit a small part of it. There's really no doubt that the Seventh Doctor, at least, landed his TARDIS on the Baxter Building.
Our friends at w:c:marvel call him The Doctor (Earth-5556)}, since Earth-5556 was made official by Marvel in the All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe.
Nevertheless, the connection between the DWU and MU is extremely tenuous and essentially academic. It's not like there could be a Spiderman/Doctor Who crossover without new contracts being drawn up between the BBC and
MarvelDisney. - FitzoliverJ
Can I please ask for clarification as to wiki's exact policy on the validity not of Death's Head's appearance in DWM or the Doctor's in the 'Time Bomb!' story from an issue "Death's Head", both of whcih seem to be accepted but of specifically the reprint comic "The Incomplete Death's Head". The framing sequence of this series is that Death's Head II is drawn to Maruthea (the place where literally anything can happen, from "Party Animals") and shown what purports to be his life history, including encounters with the Doctor, Dragon's Claws, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man 2020 and She-Hulk. Arguably, the context of what he is being shown is such that these things may or may not actually have happened. Anyway, it is revealed that the baddie has brought him here because of what he and the Doctor did in "Time Bomb!". The Doctor himself pops up and claims to have manipulated Death's Head entire life to turn him into the more conventional character that is DH II. So, my question is - firstly, is the Doctor's appearance in the last issue valid for this wiki? Secondly, while I assume the other crossovers are not valid, is the fact that they were merely shown to DH II valid? (on balance, I'm not proposing that an Iron Man 2020 article be created, but it seems a shame not to have one for Tuck, seeing as how the Doctor tried to recruit her as a companion!)
- CzechOut
Sorry, your sentences were a little long and circuitous there. Could I ask you to rephrase more directly please?
- FitzoliverJ
OK, I'll try. The plot of Marvel's reprint series "The Incomplete Death's Head" features Death's Head II, his companion Tuck, the soul of the original Death's Head, and - in the final chapters - Hob from "Time Bomb!" (which appears to be a valid source for this wiki) and the seventh Doctor. Is this plotline (chronicled in a storyline titled "Connections" and "Mind Meet") a valid source for this wiki? The reprint material included in the comic chronicles Death's Head's life and his encounters with the Doctor, Dragon's Claws, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man 2020, and She-Hulk. The context in which these reprints appear - they purport to be memories revealed to Death's Head II - is arguably unreliable, so accepting the storyline as valid for the wiki would only mean that it was 'canon' that Death's Head II was shown these events, not that they actually happened
- RingoRoadagain
Maybe we should fuse this discussion with the one about the validity of The Incomplete Death's Head ?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:149385
in the dvd release of the five doctors the time scoop is 3d and in the original it is 2d
and also tom bakers last scene was different in the original he appears near a fence with the tardis but in the dvd he arrives back on the boat
i just wondered which one is canon
- CzechOut
Neither is canon. Both are canon. There is no such thing as canon.
- NarnianAslan1
Oh i keep forgetting let me rephrase it
Which account actually happend in the DWU and is considered valid - CzechOut
I don't think we've ever debated it, because it doesn't matter to the narrative of the story.
- NarnianAslan1
of course
in the original the fourth doctor was found lying downin the dvd he was transported back to the boat
so we must assume since we saw him being brought back in the boat with the time scoop that afterwards he went for a nap near a fence
- CzechOut
Nope. We don't assume. It's something we might note in a behind the scenes section, but we'd never remark upon it in an in-universe section. It's just not important to describing the plot.
- OttselSpy25
It actually kinda is. In the original, the Doctor and Romana leave and Shada doesn't happen. In the new version, the Doctor and Romana are returned to where they were taken from. Shada happens. (I know, TV Shada isn't valid, but the book is)
Arguably, our discussions about deleted scenes make the answer that the original is the valid form. But if we decide this is so, then that would also answer worries about the third Doctor TVC comics which were edited to feature the Fourth Doctor -- only the original would be valid.
- Tangerineduel
Both are valid.
We deal with it as we do with any other conflicting information, one account suggests X, another account suggests Y.
- Digifiend
Yeah, look at Ace's page. Her comics ending contradicts what happened to her in the novels, and what was later revealed on The Sarah Jane Adventures and in Big Finish. The latter three are compatible, but the comics one is not because she was killed off. So her article says one account suggests she died, another account says she runs a charity called A Charitable Earth, another account says she ended up working for the Celestial Intervention Agency on Gallifrey, complete with her own TARDIS.
- OttselSpy25
I understand that contradictions do not disqualify something, but I still argue that our policies mark for only the original aired version being valid.
- OttselSpy25
Now hold up a second, if we allow special editions versions of episode on this site, why don't we allow versions of comics from later publications that include color?
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Now hold up a second, if we allow special editions versions of episode on this site, why don't we allow versions of comics from later publications that include color?
Because they're just colorized. Nothing new is added to the narrative. Here, however, the new version has the Doctor and Romana go off to resume the events of Shada, while the original didn't.
- OttselSpy25
That's not the case at all -- those are just the more interesting examples. Day of the Daleks is basically the same, but by this ruling both versions are valid.
Furthermore, by this logic we should also ban images from animated reconstructions. All that rule does is make it harder for people to find the stories they're trying to illustrate.
As Tangerineduel said:
- Both [versions of The Five Doctors] are valid. We deal with it as we do with any other conflicting information, one account suggests X, another account suggests Y.
So that's the answer to the original post.
The re-animation of this thread in 2017 was really along different lines altogether. If OttselSpy25 wants to open a new thread for the issues brought up this month, he's welcome to. But let's lay the original topic to rest.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:149557
Some confusion has arisen about the nature of The Gift, a Big Finish short story. The story concerns itself with the funeral of the Brig, and there's a point at which the First Doctor mentions that "all of me" were there at the proceedings.
Thus, some editors here at Tardis have taken that statement literally, and placed a note at Ninth Doctor, Tenth Doctor and Eleventh Doctor that these later incarnations were at this funeral. However, this is, as far as this wiki is concerned, incorrect.
Big Finish do not have a license to publish materials featuring any BBC Wales Doctor, so therefore The Gift is not a valid source for any BBC Wales Doctor. Interpretation to the contrary violates rule #2 of our four little rules.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:152043
https://twitter.com/jonnymorris1973/status/430733811047858176 CORRECT ME IF THIS IS WRONG As an added fun fact, there are rumours that the "Double Trouble" episode of the Mr. Bean animated series would have had other roles of Rowan Atkinson in it, and if the show got clearance, his Doctor would appear.
- Shambala108
Are you suggesting that this "Double Trouble" should be included on this wiki?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:158324
Are these to be treated as 'canonical'? I appreciate that the book gives an in-universe explanation for the material, but that doesn't mean that they are actually more-or-less true reports (in fact, they stem from dreams). Furthermore, taking another tack, it's a bit of a frivalous book, which I don't think we are to take seriously, hence why the genre labelled on the back cover is "Humour".
- Revanvolatrelundar
This wikia doesn't deal with canon debates. The book is official, and features several incarnations of the Doctor. The manner by which the stories are written is irrelevant, to a degree, as with anything sci-fi related, doesn't have to be straightforward as a best-selling novel.
There's nothing in the book itself that firmly contradicts the franchise in any kind of way, so the book shouldn't be treated any different to any other release by BBC Books. In 2005, Doctor Who books published by BBC Books changed from Adult Fiction genre to childrens books, in the same way that some you would classify as sci-fi books, and others as fantasy. I see no reason to disregard this book. In many ways it is similar to AUDIO: Bang-Bang-A-Boom! - a comedy-themed Doctor Who story which still manages to tell a tale in its own right.
- CzechOut
Well, I agree with Revan that the fact it's humorous is not, in itself, a reason to disqualify this work. But this book could well be parodic or non-narrative, in which case it would be disqualified.
But I think the jury is still out as to whether it's actually a narrative. And thing has to be a story for us to count it as a valid source for writing an article.
Part of the reason I'm using a lot of "ifs", is because it's released in the UK right now but not in the US, so I haven't read it yet. But the table of contents seems to suggest that it's mostly various early drafts of Shakespeare plays with the Doctor in those scripts. And that makes me highly suspicious.
The question really is whether the events happened to the Doctor and company, or whether they're fictional accounts that include fictionalised versions of the Doctor and company.
If definitely the former, then, fine, they're valid sources for articles on this wiki. If, however, they're fictionalised accounts, or merely Shakespeare scripts rewritten to include the Doctor and friends — or even parodic — then they're not valid sources.
- 86.178.203.198
Yes, it's bits of Shakespeare - excerpts from plays, sonnets, etc - rewritten to be "Doctor Who"-ey. An in-universe explanation is given for them, but it's not clear that that actually means that, for example, the version of "Macbeth" with the second Doctor, Jamie and Zoe *actually* happened or not.
- Revanvolatrelundar
There's nothing in the story to suggest it didn't happen. Therefore, by the rules of the wiki, we include it.
- CzechOut
That's really only if it's a story, though, Revan. I don't see a narrative in the pages that are made available to read on Amazon. I see, as the title suggests, a "notebook" — a journal of early drafts of other works. Again, I haven't read the full text because it's not out yet where I live, but from what I can tell, it's probably non-narrative and therefore an invalid source for writing articles.
After all, in-universe does not mean narrative. T:VS specifically excludes things that are written in an in-universe fashion but are not themselves stories. Otherwise we'd have to include an absolute tonne of material from annuals, bits of The Making of Doctor Who, bits of Doctor Who DVD Files, and lots of other stuff.
Maybe the best analogue to this situation is Tales from the TARDIS. In those early DWM strips, there was always the framing device of the Fourth Doctor speaking in an apparently in-universe way. This could imply that the events of the comic — which were mostly non-superhero strips written by Stan Lee and company in the 1950s — occurred in the DWU. But of course, we know better than that. We can see an "in-universe" frame for what it is: a gimmick. And, according to the pages I've read on Amazon, that very much seems to be what's going on here. A bit of flimflam papering together what are really just discrete, parodic rewrites of Shakespearian text.
Again, we'll probably have to wait until the book is released globally to have a fully informed discussion about the book. But one thing that seems totally safe to say is that the bulk of the book — the contents of the notebooks, as it were — can't be taken at face value as a true recording of events.
In the real world, we know that Shakespeare's historical plays are in no way accurate, something wholly confirmed by The Shakespeare Code and The Kingmaker and A Groatsworth of Wit. So to take any of this literally would be to assume that Shakespeare tells the truth — which he really doesn't, either in the real world or the DWU.
At best, this is the DWU as seen through Shakespeare's lens. At worst, it's simply parody, and therefore a wholly invalid source for articles.
A particularly vexing verse is found in the bit labeled "Exits and Entrances". Purported to be something from an early version of As You Like It, the fragment gives a rundown of the first seven incarnations of the Doctor, but includes references to stories in which we know Shakespeare never participated. He just wasn't present for the opening stories for the first six Doctors, nor is there a reason given why he should know the word Fenric.
So what does this mean? That Shakespeare was in the TARDIS, or otherwise unseen, in all those stories? Or did the Doctor tell him about all these adventures? Or maybe he got a blast from an info-stamp? How are we to plausibly account for anything in this excerpt? There's probably nothing in the book that tells us the source of his knowledge.
It is certainly much easier to just say, "This is parody" and move on — especially because, if the rest of the book is like the excerpt available on Amazon, there really isn't a story here. It seems to be much more of a pseudo-academic work than a story.
Another point: let's say that we believe that the Macbeth rewrite is actually as "true" as the section's title of "The True Tragedie of Macbeth" purports. That is, let's say that King Macbeth really did interact with the Second Doctor, Jamie and Zoe in the DWU. As I've said before, I think that would be ill-advised, because Shakespeare is a liar in the DWU.
But let's pull the trigger on Shakespeare as a reliable source, anyway. Thing is, we don't have a full play here. It's just excerpts of a few scene. Given the page count, that must be true of all this stuff. It's all just fragmentary, and worse, it's not sequential. So it's not even the case of the Virgin NA preludes in DWM, where you have an introduction, or a Moffat era prequel. These are just random scenes, not full narratives. And that means there are any number of contextual errors we could be making if we treat them as gospel. (Which is a dumb idea anyway, because Shakespeare lies.)
On top of all of that, let's not forget that, by and large, the point of the book is to create text that sounds like Shakespeare. That means highly stylised, poetic language which will admit of multiple interpretation. And it also means that sometimes the accuracy of a passage is sacrificed for a good rhyme or suitable style. Now, understand that Revan's quite right to say upthread that this, in itself, does not disqualify the work, but it's just a heads up that — if we do rule this a valid source — this may be an especially challenging source for articles.
Here's a good example of taking the text here at face value.
In the Hamlet bit, the Doctor arrives in Denmark — or is it Finland? Shakespeare doesn't know — and then lets fly with:
- I am Magician. Do you not know me, for we have met before, Lord Hamlet.
So, taken literally, the Eleventh Doctor calls himself "Magician" and has at some other time met Hamlet. Okayyyy.
Next:
- I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
- Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
- Make thy two eyes, like starts, start from their spheres,
- Thy knotted and combined bow tie to part,
- And each particular hand to stand on end
- Like quills upon Koquillion
Right. So the literal interpretation of that scene is that the Eleventh Doctor mentioned Koquillion to Hamlet. Would that allow someone to add a sentence like this to our article about Koquillion?
- The Eleventh Doctor once referenced Koquillion when speaking to Hamlet. (PROSE: — oh what do you know, there's another problem, we can't actually use PROSE, cause it's not prose — The Shakespeare Notebooks)
I don't personally think so.
Of course, the real kicker is that the Eleventh Doctor twice tells Hamelet to "revenge" his father's death. Really? The Doctor telling someone revenge is a good idea? We know that's not the Doctor talking. That's Justin Richards or whoever putting the Doctor in the same narrative space as the Ghost from Hamlet, and having the Doctor say another character's lines. We absolutely cannot say something like:
- The Eleventh Doctor once met Hamlet and advised the young prince to take revenge for his father's murder. (VERSE: The Shakespeare Notebooks)
That's just not what happened in the DWU event, if indeed there is a DWU event that's being recorded here at all. It certainly seems plausible given the explanatory text that this is something that Shakespeare just made up on the fly. In the preceding prose section, Shakespeare is purported to have written does several way in which Hamlet's father's death could have been relayed to him. The notes indicated that he found the notion of a magician appearing to him to be 'most plausible" because "such things are common in the theatre".
So even if we do allow this thing as a valid source, we'll still have to carefully examine how it might be used on the wiki. To be honest, the best use of this material is almost certainly as a behind the scenes note on our pages about Shakespeare plays. Make decent sense to BTS it on Macbeth, but considerably less sense as a part of the in-universe portion of Eleventh Doctor or Jamie McCrimmon.
- 86.178.203.198
It's worth noting that the book does give an explanation for the material written by Shakespeare. There is also some spoof critical material, at least one of which forms a legitimate story in its own right.
- CzechOut
Awesome! That's useful intelligence.
- 86.152.200.4
This thread is REALLY old and should probably have been closed by now but I just want to note that it doesn't matter how 'out of character' the Doctor's line about revenge was. If the Doctor acting 'out of character' were a reason to declare a story invalid, Master of Spiders would be invalid ('die hideous creature die' anyone?). Some people think the Doctors fear in the face of regeneration in The End of Time was 'out of character' so should that be declared invalid to? How about The Twin Dilemma? Or maybe any and all War Doctor stories? Or any story not featuring the First Doctor? The point is that 'out of character' is inherently subjective, and is not even close to a good to a good reason to go around slapping the 'invalid' label on stories left and right.
- Shambala108
Bumping this.
This needs to be resolved; all the stories are currently labeled as valid, but if it gets ruled invalid, then that's a lot of clean up work. So User:CzechOut's concerns need to be addressed.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I've begun reading it, and I do feel like it's a story, but the "play" bits are suspect, yes.
I think we should cover this with the same caution we do other things presented as in-universe texts, like All-Consuming Fire or The Book of the War. What The Shakespeare Notebooks tells us is "William Shakespeare, following his encounters with the Doctor beginning with the Love's Labour's Won incident, drafted a play in which the Doctor was himself a character, entitled Hamlet…", as opposed to "the Doctor encountered Prince Hamlet of Denmark…".
The thing is, really, that I'm not sure pegging it as a collection of independent short stories is really the way to go. Shakespeare Notebooks seems more along the lines of something like, as I said, The Book of the War, or A Brief History of Time Lords, or The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. A collection of what is purported to be in-universe writings which, taken all together, builds up to an overarching narrative of the place the Doctor must have played in Shakespeare's life post-Shakespeare Code.
- Borisashton
I've now read this and A Brief History of Time Lords is more than enough precedent to close this debate.
The in-universe book The Shakespeare Notebooks is entirely contained within and it concerns the titular Shakespeare Notebooks, basically a journal/scrapbook of encounters/dreams Shakespeare has had with the Doctor. After being freed from the influence of the Carrionites, Shakespeare realises several other mysterious strangers he has met could also be the Doctor.
I have traversed the history of my notes and journals. From these and other divers places have I compiled this book of scraps. A volume wherein I do draw together every incident and encounter that may perchance have involved or been influenced by the Doctor. It has been an enlightenment, and I have found the Doctor to have appeared not only in my life, but in my writings too. Can I have forgot so completely whereof my inspirations came, and thought them but the dew of imagination, the sweat upon the brow of diligence and labour?
It is as if the Doctor has somehow traversed my life in retrospect, removing any references and allusions to himself and to the strange world of wonders and magick that is his habitation. And now, save for the sundry items I do gather here, these recollections do remain only in my most private thoughts and the fading tablet of my memory.
This puts to bed any concerns about literal interpretations. The fictionalised versions here come largely from Shakespeare's dreams and fading memories so should not be treated as fact but with caution. As such, pages like Christopher Marlowe should receive rewrites.
Even if we trust Shakespeare here, the academic publication that are actually publishing the contents of the Notebooks encourages that the reader "determine whether you believe the Shakespeare Notebooks are indeed genuine, or an elaborate hoax" for themselves.
Merging the short story articles into The Shakespeare Notebooks (novel) due to the linking narration is not something I would be against but I implore that to take place at Talk:The Shakespeare Notebooks (anthology) instead of here, in which the question is validity.
In fact, that is not even accurate. This thread was started when we still dealt with canon and since then Tardis:Valid sources has become much more clear in what it allows and the only objections from over five years ago came from somebody who admitted they had not read the thing. Hopefully, we can now get this ancient relic closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:160436
Per this thread, The Gift is not allowed to be construed as referring to the War, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, or Twelfth Doctors, because they are part of BBC Wales Doctor Who, and so are not covered by Big Finsh's audio license. However, I would argue that the decision reached is clearly wrong, for two primary reasons.
1) The story in question does not actually portray any of the BBC Wales Doctors. In the story, the First Doctor simply makes the comment that "all of me" attend the Brigader's funeral. According to Wiktionary, the definition of "portray" is To describe in words; to convey. Thus, the phrase "all of me" can in no possible way be considered to "portray" any of the BBC Wales Doctors, simply because it does not describe any of them in any way, shape, or form.
2) If the previous argument does not convince you, consider this: Big Finish actually has portrayed a BBC Wales Doctor in one of its stories: The Kingmaker. If you doubt me, you can check the page itself. In the continuity section, the fifth bullet point lists this: "In 1483, Clarrie tells Peri and Erimem that the Doctor's letters were delivered to the Kingmaker inn by a 'Northern chap with big ears.' (TV: Rose)"
The evidence is obvious: The Gift does not actually portray any of the BBC Wales Doctors, and the Ninth Doctor was clearly portrayed in a Big Finish story. On the basis of this, I move that the decision established by Thread:149557 be abolished. Thoughts?
- CzechOut
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for, because you seem to agree that The Gift does not include BBC Wales Doctors. So if you agree that the story doesn't include the BBC Wales Doctors, you seem to be only arguing over means, not ends. So I think, if I'm understanding you correctly, this is just an academic problem you have with the earlier ruling.
Problem is that people will assume that the phrase "all of me" refers to, well, all of him, so a ruling upon what all means is necessary.
Thus it's perfectly easy and straightforward to say that Big Finish have no license for BBC Wales Doctors, and that they are not a valid source for any of these Doctors. It's a perfectly straightforward reading of our four little rules, which is why that thread was closed upon creation. Quite obviously, in order for something to be valid here, it must be properly licensed.
As for The Kingmaker — one of my very favourite audios — I would say that the continuity reference in the article is way, way over-confident when it cites Rose. There's nothing in Rose which at all references The Kingmaker. No matter how carefully you look at the pictures in Clive's shed, you won't find anything to suggest a trip to near-Tudor England. The line is meant as a throwaway, tongue-in-cheek nod to the new series, if you want to read it that way. It's by no means definitely saying, "Hey, the Ninth Doctor was here." It would be wildly inappropriate to definitively say that one of the characters in this story was the Ninth Doctor, though it's okay to call it a "sly reference" or something along those lines.
- Bwburke94
In response to the Rule 2 debate, the copyright holder for BBC Wales Doctor Who is the BBC, not specifically BBC Wales. As The Gift was commercially licensed by the BBC, the hypothetical inclusion of the BBC Wales Doctors does not fail our four simple rules.
Tardis Wiki's canon policy states that all stories set in the DWU "count", and as there is no reason to suspect that The Gift is not set in the DWU, my opinion is that the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Doctors, as well as any future incarnations of the Doctor to use the name "Doctor", should be judged to have attended the Brigadier's funeral. The War Doctor cannot be definitively judged to have attended the funeral, as War did not self-identify as the Doctor, and as such may not count as part of "all of me".
- Shambala108
BWBurke94, in Thread:149557 CzechOut states, "Big Finish do not have a license to publish materials featuring any BBC Wales Doctor, so therefore The Gift is not a valid source for any BBC Wales Doctor. Interpretation to the contrary violates rule #2 of our four little rules."
Keeping in mind that here we aren't talking about whether an entire story is valid, but rather whether certain elements are, rule #2 states that "a story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count". Note the word "all". Big Finish, the publisher of Short Trips: The History of Christmas, doesn't have a license to publish works including BBC Wales Doctors. Therefore, The Gift cannot, per this wiki's rules, include Nine and up.
That doesn't mean other stories can't state those Doctors were at the funeral, and it doesn't mean that you personally can't believe those Doctors were at the funeral; it just means that we can't use The Gift as a source to say that Nine and up were at the funeral.
- Bwburke94
Shambala108 wrote: BWBurke94, in Thread:149557 CzechOut states, "Big Finish do not have a license to publish materials featuring any BBC Wales Doctor, so therefore The Gift is not a valid source for any BBC Wales Doctor. Interpretation to the contrary violates rule #2 of our four little rules."
Keeping in mind that here we aren't talking about whether an entire story is valid, but rather whether certain elements are, rule #2 states that "a story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count". Note the word "all". Big Finish, the publisher of Short Trips: The History of Christmas, doesn't have a license to publish works including BBC Wales Doctors. Therefore, The Gift cannot, per this wiki's rules, include Nine and up.
That doesn't mean other stories can't state those Doctors were at the funeral, and it doesn't mean that you personally can't believe those Doctors were at the funeral; it just means that we can't use The Gift as a source to say that Nine and up were at the funeral.
So what you're arguing is that The Gift was not licensed by the BBC?
- Shambala108
No, I'm arguing that BF (the publisher of Short Trips) doesn't have the rights to publish BBC Wales (Doctors 9-12) material.
- Bwburke94
And explain how Rule 2 applies? All of the relevant copyright holders commercially licensed this story.
When you win a license from the BBC, you have to adhere to the specific terms of the license.
In this instance, the license that Big Finish hold allows them to only use the first eight Doctors. It's a fact that's become well-known because they've repeated it publicly in many public venues on many occasions.
So rule two clearly applies because the BBC didn't commercially license Big Finish to make stories with the BBC Wales Doctors.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:161867
Right now Legacy the Ios and Android game is considered by this wiki to be non-canon. I'd like to know why? The game conforms to four rules, it has a story(not the gem matching, the actual story is in the cut-scenes), it is backed by the BBC and has the proper legal material for rules two and three. Finally is is most definitely set within the DWU, it uses its characters and follows the cannon of the show.
- MystExplorer
As it says in the description, the game is different for each individual. The gameplay allows for dozens of different scenarios. Thus, it is not possible to determine which is the "true" version of the story.
- Pcthomas2
As you play the story unfolds in the exact same way regardless of who you have on your team. The game play is the team you take with you but the actual story is told by everyone in the Tardis. This includes characters not on your team.
- 109.150.35.234
But, surely the Adventure Games are considered canon, despite the 'infinite possibilities' that comes naturally with gameplay within that? There can't be a definitive 'true' version of those games either.
- MystExplorer
I asked this question awhile back and it turned out the Adventure Games are far more structured. There aren't infinite possibilities when it comes to those games. Legacy on the other hand is much more free-flowing. It's impossible for us to say which Doctor fought which enemy with which companions. That's why we can't use it as a valid source for articles.
The fact you can have so many different combinations of team-members means that it is of course not a reliable source. To whom did Nightmare in Silver happen? The answer of this wiki is "The Eleventh Doctor, Clara Oswald, her two charges, Porridge, and some near-reject soldiers".
The answer is not "The Second Doctor, Jack Harkness, River Song, Strax, and an Adipose".
We're simply not going to get into a situation where the whole of BBC Wales Doctor Who is up for review because of a video game. That is, Blink definitely happened to the Tenth Doctor, and no other incarnation. The companion in New Earth was only Rose Tyler. The "Pandorica speech" was uttered solely by the Eleventh Doctor, not the War Doctor. And so on. The ability to choose various teammates is a feature of game mechanics, not narrative.
If you wish to explore the complexities of Legacy, please feel free to do so at our sister wiki, w:c:dwlegacy. It's a quite well-developed wiki, but they could always use an extra hand.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:166423
I think the picture used for the profile of the Eleventh Doctor should be changed due to the fact that the Wiki uses pictures from actual non-edited footage of the show and the picture is clearly shown to be edited. The image looks saturated compared to the television broadcast and since this Wiki uses pictures from the show without them being edited, we should do the same for the Eleventh Doctor's page. I recently added 2 photos in the Photos tag to see if they're good enough for the page. They're from the same episode and scene but in it's original quality and no edits. I hope you guys agree with me.
- Skittles the hog
It isn't edited. It's at 1:01:52 of The Day of the Doctor on the 50th anniversary DVD edition.
Please see Thread:148148 for a comprehensive list of our image policies. Thanks.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:167114
It was just announced that The Brigadier is getting his own novel series. Obviously fails rule 3 right now, as they're not out yet (first one is out in February). So would this be covered anywhere yet, like on a series page similar to the one for the BBC New Series Adventures?
- MystExplorer
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tardis:Valid_sources#When_the_licensor_isn.27t_the_BBC Since the novels are licensed by the estate of Mervyn Haisman and endorsed by Henry Lincoln, they'll probably be allowed.
- PicassoAndPringles
- MystExplorer
Yes but I think Digifiend is talking about when the books are released.
- Tybort
No, I think Digifiend means if the Brigadier books fit on any series page right now. And I'm guessing no, considering that it's not being published by BBC Books, but Candy Jar Books, even though it is an official licencing of the character.
- JagoAndLitefoot
When they're released, they pretty obviously fall under the scope of the wiki, but for now they shouldn't be mentioned anywhere.
- Digifiend
Correct, I was asking if they should be covered yet, or if we wait for release.
Tybort wrote: No, I think Digifiend means if the Brigadier books fit on any series page right now. And I'm guessing no, considering that it's not being published by BBC Books, but Candy Jar Books, even though it is an official licencing of the character.
- CzechOut
We do indeed wait for release. We're going to have to make sure the licensing is correct. If they come from Lincoln/Haisman, then all is well. But remember, there have been a few "cowboy" uses of UNIT characters that turned out not to be licensed, and we had to roll 'em back.
But in this day and age, I kinda think these coming books are probably gonna check out fine.
- JagoAndLitefoot
The very announcement press release mentions that they are licensed from Lincoln/Haisman estate. Which allows them to use *Colonel* Lethbridge-Stewart and the Great Intelligence/Yetis, but not UNIT or *Brigadier* Lethbridge-Stewart.
- Bwburke94
Remember, it must be commercially licensed by every relevant copyright holder. But because this is physically released and sold by Candy Jar Books, it is fairly obvious that this does not fail rule 2 once released.
- Tybort
From DWM 482: "The series is licensed by the Executor of the Haisman Literary Estate, Mervyn Haisman's granddaughter Hannah Haisman, and endorsed by Henry Lincoln."
- 86.179.51.235
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: The very announcement press release mentions that they are licensed from Lincoln/Haisman estate. Which allows them to use *Colonel* Lethbridge-Stewart and the Great Intelligence/Yetis, but not UNIT or *Brigadier* Lethbridge-Stewart.
If I may. The licence covers the character of Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart, which is owned by Haisman and Lincoln. His rank is immaterial, except for the context of the stories. To back this up, you only need look at the SJA episode 'Enemy of the Bane' which credits 'Sir Alistair' as created by Haisman and Lincoln. The character is theirs, regardless of his rank.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:169360
Afternoon - I'm in the process of writing my own fanfiction using this site for source material and noticed the Jenny Flint "early life" has been updated with material that does no appear to be referenced and seems unfamiliar to me.
Has this appeared in a recent publication and/or source I am not aware of? Or is this speculation and not suitable for the wiki? I'm tempted to say it doesn't belong.
Thank you!
- Shambala108
Thanks for the heads up. I've added a "source needed" to that section, so hopefully one will be added or we can verify that the information is wrong.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:170052
- Shambala108
This should have been posted at Board:The Panopticon, as this board is for deciding what stories are to be included on the wiki.
To answer your question, though, does it actually specify anywhere in the story or another story that this Clara is a Time Lord? Or is it just an assumption based on her location?
- Unshakespearean
I would assume that she's of Gallifreyan origin, although I suppose she may not be a Time Lord...
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:172926
Can we get a general consensus whether or not we should include the TV version of Shada as a valid source on this wiki.
I have read other inclusion debates on the subject of Shada, and it is apparent that many people believe the TV version is "canon".
Personally I see no reason why we cannot include all 3 versions as valid sources, as although the original version of Shada was never completed, the intent for it to be broadcast exists. As well as this, all TV stories are definitively "canon" in the DWU, and excluding this on the basis that it was not broadcast is slightly strange.
Even if the entire VHS version cannot be included as a valid source, is it not wise to include the completed extracts from the story, and let the novelisation fill in the gaps?
- Shambala108
Since you've read other inclusion debates on Shada, then you'll know:
- There is no such thing as official canon in Doctor Who
- As such, this wiki does not define a canon. See Canon and Tardis:Canon policy
- Shada is considered in the same vein as deleted scenes, which we do not consider to be valid sources, as can be seen in Forum:Are deleted scenes canon?
- SeaniesBeanies
M8. No. It's a missing episode
- 2.125.14.177
Those are not marks on your screen, those are in fact air quotes around "canon"
- Shambala108
SeaniesBeanies wrote: M8. No. It's a missing episode
Shada is a missing episode? You're entitled to your opinion, but on this wiki it's considered in the same group as deleted scenes, which, by policy as I stated above, are not valid sources.
Please note that no one on this wiki is trying to tell others that Shada is not canon. You can consider it canon all you want. You just can't use it as a valid source for in-universe pages.
- SeaniesBeanies
I think that as a community we need to debate whether the TV version ofShada counts as a deleted scene or missing episode.
It's just because too many people regard it as being in the continuity for it to be written off as a deleted scene. As well as this, in the original inclusion debate, I don't recall any discussion about missing episodes, so it's only fair if we thrash this one out, as Shada is an incredibly unique story.
- Shambala108
It's not a missing episode. Missing episodes are completed stories that actually aired, but were lost some time after their airing. See Missing episode for more information on what this wiki considers a missing episode.
- SeaniesBeanies
It's technically not a deleted scene either, but that's what it's considered as on this wiki.
- OttselSpy25
It was completed and released. If the HOMEVID version of Shada is a deleted scene, then so is the Big Finish version of The Nightmare Fair. It was released by itself, advertising as the story finally brought to light. The only reason that Shada ever had the bizarre accident of being classified as a "giant deleted scene" is that it was under such a discussion as "Are Deleted Scenes Canon," which is pretty far from the average editor's interest on this wikia.
We had this discussion before, and I recall some very shady sources being pulled out to justify it not being a story. It takes some extrapolatingly obscure BBC officials to say that the story is not legitimate.
The main consensus the argument against it before was something like this: the BBC itself does not count the Baker version of Shada as a legitimate source, and instead takes the Paul McGann version as the official take. This idea has great holes when you take into account that:
- The Novelization of Shada that came out (I believe) after that discussion clearly takes to the Tom Baker version and is not seemingly meant to be a non-canon story.
- Multiple Short Trip stories reference this story happening, making it clear that at least SOMEONE takes the story as legitimate
- The Special Edition of The Five Doctors features a re-edit so that Shada can still take place.
This clearly shows a straight-coward attempt by the BBC and others to make Shada with Tom Baker a legitimate story. When we say "Tom Baker's Shada isn't canon," what we're essentially saying is "we're passing judgement on an issue of canon in the DWU," and that's something that the site simply should not do, especially considering that we barely can justify it. Let the readers decide which version they consider legitimate, and how they interpret the different versions. Possibly we should consider breaking up the unfinished story of Shada and the Homevideo adaptation of it — but to keep this bizarre and uncharacteristic judgement is beyond logic itself.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: When we say "Tom Baker's Shada isn't canon," what we're essentially saying is "we're passing judgement on an issue of canon in the DWU," and that's something that the site simply should not do, especially considering that we barely can justify it. Let the readers decide which version they consider legitimate, and how they interpret the different versions.
Please see my first and second comments above about canon and how it is handled on this wiki. We are not passing judgement on DWU canon; we are not telling anyone what to believe when it comes to this story or any other. We are merely defining what stories are valid sources for in-universe articles, which you are well aware of, having been involved in several inclusion debates.
- OttselSpy25
Shambala108 wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: When we say "Tom Baker's Shada isn't canon," what we're essentially saying is "we're passing judgement on an issue of canon in the DWU," and that's something that the site simply should not do, especially considering that we barely can justify it. Let the readers decide which version they consider legitimate, and how they interpret the different versions.
Please see my first and second comments above about canon and how it is handled on this wiki. We are not passing judgement on DWU canon; we are not telling anyone what to believe when it comes to this story or any other. We are merely defining what stories are valid sources for in-universe articles, which you are well aware of, having been involved in several inclusion debates.
Even so, it is rather silly, and passing judgement is exactly what we've done in this scenario. We've tried to answer a question that should really be left up to individual opinions, and with little justification.
- OttselSpy25
I still haven't seen any proof that we should see Shada as a deleted scene. The BBC definitely does not.
- SeaniesBeanies
OttselSpy25 wrote: I still haven't seen any proof that we should see Shada as a deleted scene. The BBC definitely does not.
I completely agree. There is no reason to include it as a deleted scene, Shada is a completely unique case and should be treated as such.
- CzechOut
The BBC cancelled production of Shada. It said, we've got these scenes in the can, but we are not going to transmit or finish them. When it finally released those scenes, it was via home media, not the normal venue for its Doctor Who stories. And it made no effort to finish those scenes. Sure, Tom Baker provided context-through-narration, but the serial never went back into production and the scenes were presented as unfinished.
That's what a deleted scene is.
- OttselSpy25
CzechOut wrote: The BBC cancelled production of Shada. It said, we've got these scenes in the can, but we are not going to transmit or finish them. When it finally released those scenes, it was via home media, not the normal venue for its Doctor Who stories. And it made no effort to finish those scenes. Sure, Tom Baker provided context-through-narration, but the serial never went back into production and the scenes were presented as unfinished.
That's what a deleted scene is.
That's entirely your own opinion — there's little more then conjecture to support that this limited idea is enough to qualify the entire story as a deleted scene, particularly when the Beeb has gone out of its way to fit it into continuity again. If the narrative gaps are filled, then the narrative is complete.
- Tyrannosaurus dude11
What's going on?
- Shambala108
Tyrannosaurus dude11 wrote: What's going on?
As stated in all the posts above yours, this particular thread is for discussing whether we count the never-finished version of Shada as one of our valid sources for in universe pages.
- Tangerineduel
OttselSpy25 wrote:
CzechOut wrote: The BBC cancelled production of Shada. It said, we've got these scenes in the can, but we are not going to transmit or finish them. When it finally released those scenes, it was via home media, not the normal venue for its Doctor Who stories. And it made no effort to finish those scenes. Sure, Tom Baker provided context-through-narration, but the serial never went back into production and the scenes were presented as unfinished.
That's what a deleted scene is.
That's entirely your own opinion — there's little more then conjecture to support that this limited idea is enough to qualify the entire story as a deleted scene, particularly when the Beeb has gone out of its way to fit it into continuity again. If the narrative gaps are filled, then the narrative is complete.
No. There is a difference between re-filling the narrative gaps say of missing stories like The Invasion, Reign of Terror, The Tenth Planet, The Ice Warriors which have all at times been released as missing stories with narration and animation. And the release of Shada which has Tom Baker filling in the narrative in the first person a style the blurrs the line between narration and performance and is something that was not in the scripts.
The novelisation of the Tom Baker version and the interviews concerning it are quite clear in that it's based on the original scripts (and not the one with the VHS).
DWM 486 has a rather good feature on "Doctor Who on Home Video" in which Shada is mentioned on pages 51-52. Here's a couple of excerpts from the article:
- "Shada was different. It was the only Doctor Who story to have been partially shot, but never completed or transmitted"
- "The unfinished footage had remained in the BBC archives, unbroadcast, ever since"
- "in November 1985...The BBC Radiophonic Workshop's Dick Mills was hired to complete 'special sounds' that he'd been contracted for back in 1979 and actor David Brierly returned to voice the character of K9 from a sound studio in Soho...new music came from Keff McCulloch"
- "'I don't recall any protracted negotiations. (regarding Shada and Douglas Adams)...But with the Shada thing, because it had never gone out, I think it was fairly straight forward negotiation with the (Douglas') agent, just to get the rights to release it.'" - David Jackson (in charge of BBC Video at that time)
There's suggestion that they and JNT finished it enough to release it on VHS, there was even talk of (during the 80s hiatus) of shooting linking scenes with Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant on the TARDIS set. But it's very much a sense of them cobbling Shada together over several years in order to release something. It's hardly the what the original TV story might have been, nor does what eventually was released follow the scripts (unlike recent DVD releases I mentioned above do).
- OttselSpy25
Tangerineduel wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote:
CzechOut wrote: The BBC cancelled production of Shada. It said, we've got these scenes in the can, but we are not going to transmit or finish them. When it finally released those scenes, it was via home media, not the normal venue for its Doctor Who stories. And it made no effort to finish those scenes. Sure, Tom Baker provided context-through-narration, but the serial never went back into production and the scenes were presented as unfinished.
That's what a deleted scene is.
That's entirely your own opinion — there's little more then conjecture to support that this limited idea is enough to qualify the entire story as a deleted scene, particularly when the Beeb has gone out of its way to fit it into continuity again. If the narrative gaps are filled, then the narrative is complete.
No. There is a difference between re-filling the narrative gaps say of missing stories like The Invasion, Reign of Terror, The Tenth Planet, The Ice Warriors which have all at times been released as missing stories with narration and animation. And the release of Shada which has Tom Baker filling in the narrative in the first person a style the blurrs the line between narration and performance and is something that was not in the scripts.
The novelisation of the Tom Baker version and the interviews concerning it are quite clear in that it's based on the original scripts (and not the one with the VHS).
DWM 486 has a rather good feature on "Doctor Who on Home Video" in which Shada is mentioned on pages 51-52. Here's a couple of excerpts from the article:
- "Shada was different. It was the only Doctor Who story to have been partially shot, but never completed or transmitted"
- "The unfinished footage had remained in the BBC archives, unbroadcast, ever since"
- "in November 1985...The BBC Radiophonic Workshop's Dick Mills was hired to complete 'special sounds' that he'd been contracted for back in 1979 and actor David Brierly returned to voice the character of K9 from a sound studio in Soho...new music came from Keff McCulloch"
- "'I don't recall any protracted negotiations. (regarding Shada and Douglas Adams)...But with the Shada thing, because it had never gone out, I think it was fairly straight forward negotiation with the (Douglas') agent, just to get the rights to release it.'" - David Jackson (in charge of BBC Video at that time)
There's suggestion that they and JNT finished it enough to release it on VHS, there was even talk of (during the 80s hiatus) of shooting linking scenes with Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant on the TARDIS set. But it's very much a sense of them cobbling Shada together over several years in order to release something. It's hardly the what the original TV story might have been, nor does what eventually was released follow the scripts (unlike recent DVD releases I mentioned above do).
I fail to see the relevence to this released version of the tape. It doesn't match the originally planned script? Then split the release and the planned story to two different pages. Shada (TV story) would be your unfinished story and Shada (Homevid) would be the VHS release, which has clearly meant to be functional.
- SeaniesBeanies
In my opinion, we should count the finished segments as a valid source, but the VHS as an invalid source using the system OttselSpy25 suggested. I think it will create a compromise between the two sides of this argument.
Even if you oppose this change: how much of the wiki is going to be affected by it anyway?
- SeaniesBeanies
This debate has been going on for long enough, can we come to a decision on this matter?
- Shambala108
The decision was made a long time ago. This discussion is being allowed to give users a chance to offer new arguments for inclusion. That's what is required for an existing policy to be changed.
See Forum:Versions of Shada (again) and Forum:Are deleted scenes canon? for details on the previous Shada discussions.
- SeaniesBeanies
This has been a new argument for inclusion.
Also, if this decision was made a long time ago, surely it's time for a pair of fresh eyes on the matter?
A solution to this argument has been offered, and I would like to what others on the wiki think about it.
I've let this argument run for way longer than it needed to, in the hopes that it would eventually shake a new argument from the trees. But it really hasn't, and I think Shambala108 and Tangerineduel would agree with me. There are no new products out on the market since our last discussion in 2012. This whole argument is simply a rehash of several earlier discussions.
The reason we have this rule is not to stifle debate. Obviously this one has been both fulsome and exhaustive. Rather, it's to recognise that new fans of Doctor Who are born every day. New people come along every year and become interested in topics that older fans have already throughly explored. If we didn't have a mechanism in place that allowed us to call a halt to these kind of repetitive discussions, we'd have a lot of them floating around without resolution. And since our discussions in The Panopticon are for the purpose of deciding policy — not merely having a good ol' fan chinwag — it's really important that we be able to come to the point.
And so, finding no new facts here, I close this thread and declare that Forum:Versions of Shada (again) in concert with Forum:Are deleted scenes canon? remain in force, with the order or precedence being:
- Shada (webcast) is the top level version. Thus Shada is essentially an Eighth Doctor/Romana II/K9 Mk II story.
- with the following alternates of decreasing importance, but all are invalid where they contradict with the webcast
- with the following versions not at all valid sources, which can only be referred to in behind the scenes sections of articles
- Shada (TV story)
- the script (book) of Shada
Thanks to all who contributed to this lively debate.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:173602
I remember seeing the very same staircases that appeared when the Doctor was investigating the Autons with Rose following him (TV: Rose), when Clara went to the TARDIS to find out that Tasha Lem brought her to the end of the Doctor's life in The Time of The Doctor.
- Digifiend
Clara wasn't at her own house though. She was visiting family for Christmas.
- Tybort
I mean, at most we could say the location shooting is shared seeing as the building isn't named in The Time of the Doctor. For instance, Bad Wolf Bay almost certainly isn't a Silurian spaceship's engine room nor is it on Alfava Metraxis, and the house in Blink isn't literally Irene Adler's house in Sherlock, either. And how many times has the Temple of Peace appeared on the show?
- 87.244.98.132
I don't think it's ever made clear who the flat belongs to in ToTD. Clara is the obvious candidate since she's the one cooking dinner.
And I have to say it certainly at least looks a lot like the Powell Estate staircase (I'd go as far as to say they're probably both shot in the same place)—but there is no in-universe evidence for those two buildings being the same in the DWU. Like Tybort said, at most, it's shared location shooting.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:174271
I posted this on Tardis:Valid sources, but was told to repost it here:
Rule 2 states in big bold letters : A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count..
of note, there are certain stories, like the 'Professor and Ace' stories like "Republica" using characters/concepts from DW that are clearly not valid sources for obvious reasons. Many stories were written as sequels to officially licensed stories by the same authors that wrote the original licensed stories, but do not count as they use DW elements/characters without proper licensing, eg. "Time's Champion" as a sequel to The Quantum Archangel (novel). Then there are stories where some characters are officially licensed DW characters, while others clearly are not. Over on the Faction Paradox Wiki the Main Page states:
"The trickiest thing to understand about the series, is that even though it's a spin off of Doctor Who it is not a part of the DWU. Creator Lawrence Miles had no access to concepts like "the Doctor", "the Master", "the TARDIS", "the Time Lords" — any of the things that make Doctor Who what it is. So you won't find direct mentions of these people and concepts."
Back to this page, and it clearly and unambiguously states:
"A rose by any other name is not as sweet. If the story consistently uses alternate names for DWU characters, places and situations, it's probably not allowed. The big exception to this is the story that contains analogous elements. As a general rule, if something is an approximation of something else in the DWU, then we don't fool with it. The classic example is the independently-published Faction Paradox stories that are not a part of the BBC Books range. Because writer Lawrence Miles does not have a license to DWU elements other than the Faction Paradox organisation itself, he must resort to using "code names" for Gallifrey, the Doctor, TARDISes, the Master and any number of the basic building blocks of the universe."
All of which brings us back to the Bernice Summerfield novels, audios and short stories. Bernice Summerfield of course first appeared in the officially licensed novel Love and War (novel). She then remained for most of the New Adventures. So far, so good. However, after Virgin's licence expired, they decided to carry on using Bernice as the main character(as they were legally entitled to do). However, they no longer had the rights to concepts like Time Lords, TARDISes, the Doctor etc.
Yet, the post-The Dying Days (novel) novels feature what are unambiguously Time Lords. The Big Finish Productions Bernice audios and books exist in a totally separate licence to their Doctor Who Audio ranges. The bernice stories were not legally allowed to use the Doctor, Time Lords, TARDISes etc. Thus, it must be asked exactly who are Irving Braxiatel's people who keep getting mentioned, and are influenetial in numerous stories? What exactly is that "time space machine" that Braxatiel travels in? When Bernice meets Iris Wildthyme and they both mention that they have travelled with the same time-traveller, who was it? It can't be the Doctor, can it, because the Bernice audios couldn't legally use or mention him.
And who are those creatures from Mars in the Benny novels and audios? The way they are described, the way they behave, even what they sound like on the audios, one could be forgiven for thinking they are Ice Warriors. Yet, the Bernice stories never acquired the legal rights for the Ice Warriors. Note how in the officially licensed audio Red Dawn (audio story), the term "ice Warriors" can and is used frequently.
So, what disqualifies Faction Paradox? It's a story that while some aspects are legally owned(eg. The Faction, Compassion, Chris Cwej, Sontarans etc.), when it comes to "the building blocks of the DWU", FP had to use the same "code words" or "euphemisms" for the Doctor, the Time Lords TARDISes etc.
Which is EXACTLY the same as the Bernice Summerfield novels, short stories and audios(certainly the early ones). Characters like Bernice Summerfield and Chris Cwej could be used. Meanwhile Irving Braxiatel was clearly a Time Lord who travelled in a TARDIS, yet they were never legally allowed to SAY "Time Lord" or "TARDIS". Benny mentioned her friend a lot, who we all know who he is, however they could never legally call him "The Doctor". Iris Wildthyme shows up, and SHE can't say "Doctor" or "Time Lord" or even tell us what her bus is! There are characters that are clearly supposed to be Ice Warriors but nobody, not even the characters themselves(!), are legally allowed to call them "Ice Warriors".
In this article's own words:
1)A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.
2)A rose by any other name is not as sweet. If the story consistently uses alternate names for DWU characters, places and situations, it's probably not allowed.
And we can change a few names in the reason Miles' FP isn't part of the DWU and get:
Because writer Paul Cornell does not have a license to DWU elements other than the Bernice Summerfield character herself, he must resort to using "code names" for Gallifrey, the Doctor, TARDISes, the Master and any number of the basic building blocks of the universe.
- PicassoAndPringles
Master of Spiders wrote: The Big Finish Productions Bernice audios and books exist in a totally separate licence to their Doctor Who Audio ranges. The bernice stories were not legally allowed to use the Doctor, Time Lords, TARDISes etc. Thus, it must be asked exactly who are Irving Braxiatel's people who keep getting mentioned, and are influenetial in numerous stories? What exactly is that "time space machine" that Braxatiel travels in? When Bernice meets Iris Wildthyme and they both mention that they have travelled with the same time-traveller, who was it? It can't be the Doctor, can it, because the Bernice audios couldn't legally use or mention him.
And who are those creatures from Mars in the Benny novels and audios? The way they are described, the way they behave, even what they sound like on the audios, one could be forgiven for thinking they are Ice Warriors. Yet, the Bernice stories never acquired the legal rights for the Ice Warriors. Note how in the officially licensed audio Red Dawn (audio story), the term "ice Warriors" can and is used frequently.
It's plainly not true that the Big Finish Bernice stories couldn't use the Doctor.
When Bernice met Iris in The Plague Herds of Excelis, Big Finish already had the rights to the Doctor, and that was the fourth part of a saga featuring Five, Six, and Seven. Audios like The Dance of the Dead called the Ice Warriors "Martians" because, as established in Legacy, that's what they're known as in Bernice's time. The publisher's summary calls them Ice Warriors. Benny's Story and Many Happy Returns both feature the Doctor and multiple references to the BFBS. In its current form, the BFBS even has the Doctor in it, but Benny is still in the lead: "featuring the adventures of archaeologist Bernice Summerfield and her friends the Doctor and Ace!"
Since 1999, the BFBS has had no reason to dance around references to the Doctor, because Big Finish had the rights. There is no doubt the audio series is in the Doctor Who universe. I don't think the argument is strong enough to exclude the Virgin novel series either.
- Shambala108
Master of Spiders, are you suggesting that the Bernice Summerfield stories should be ruled NOTDWU? Or are you arguing for the validity of Faction Paradox?
Anyone who is interested in commenting on this issue is advised to read through Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki? and Forum:BBV and canon policy#The Faction Paradox Protocols, as well as Thread:125464, in particular CzechOut's comment at 13:12, April 8, 2013.
- Master of Spiders
Benny's Story is a Doctor Who story that features Bernice Summerfield. It is irrelevant to this topic.
But the point remains the same. The original Virgin Novels(1997-199) as well as the early Big Finish Bernice Summerfield audios/books did not have the rights to use characters and concepts like Time Lords, TARDISes etc., yet did so anyway, unable to refer to them by what they are.
The Plague Herd of Excelis may very well be the fourth part of the Excelis saga, but so what? In parts 1-3 the time machine can be referred to as a "TARDIS". In part 4 it can not. The Doctor can identify himself as being a Time Lord from Gallifrey in parts 1-3. In part 4 Braxatiel can not be referred to as such. And Iris can't identify where she comes from, what she is or what her bus is either!
Remember that:
a)Virgin chose to carry on after the BBC removed their licence. Legally they could use eg. Bernice Summerfield and Chris Cwej. They lost the rights to use Time Lords etc. yet kept using them anywya, just not referring to them by name.
b)Big Finish tried to get a licence to do Doctor Who Audios, and the BBC refused. So they started doing Bernice Summerfield audios and books instead(as Bernice was owned by Paul Cornell, not the BBC). However, they likewise used many familiar "building blocks of the DWU", which they didn't have the legal rights to, and thus referred to them by other names. Even after Big Finish got the rights to do audios with the Doctor(and later Daleks, Sarah Jane Smith etc.), the Bernice range remained separate to the DW audios, and the Bernice range continued to use characters and concepts that that specific range had no rights to, using other names for those characters and concepts. It is true that in more recent years the Bernice range has been able to legally use certain characters and concepts, but that was not true in the early years, and those early novels and audios undoubtedly break Rule 2 of Tardis:Valid sources.
- Master of Spiders
What is going on? I tried posting about this, but it never came up?
- Shambala108
Just wanted to point out that the question of whether to include these Bernice Summerfield stories was covered two years ago at Thread:130255 for anyone who wants to read that discussion.
- Master of Spiders
Actually about another aspect of these though.
The examples are that the Bernice Summerfield books and audios very clearly use Time Lords, TARDISes, make references to what are clearly supposed to be Daleks, but they never actually identify them by their names. Because they do not have the rights to use the names, or indeed the characters themselves. There is a good essay about this in the Parkin/Pearson Ahistory, called something like "Terminology of the Benny Stories", which makes it abundantly clear that the Bernice Summerfield novels/audios fail TARDIS Wiki's "Valid Sources" criteria.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Novels aside, Benny audio series from series 2 onwards had clear references to the DWU, as Big Finish already had the rights to Doctor Who by then. And the Braxiatel of "Bernice Summerfield" was unambigously connected with the one of "Gallifrey". The Benny range used fully licensed Daleks, Cybermen, Sea Devils and others.
- Master of Spiders
I don't think that's true. They were still talking about "Braxatiel's people" who had "time ships" etc., rather than "Time Lords" and "TARDISes".
Braxatiel actually illustrates the point. When he appears in a DW story, they can call him a Time Lord. When he appears in a Benny story, they can't.
Or Excelis. When Iris was in the first Excelis story with the Doctor, she can speak freely. But in The Plague Herd of Excelis, they can't call anything that is copyrighted by the BBC by its actual name.
- Revanvolatrelundar
If memory serves, Many Happy Returns has Benny uses the word "Gallifreyan", despite the Doctor not appearing. From the way I see it is that Big Finish wants to represent Bernice Summerfield as a series in its own right, and using phrases like Time Lord etc. just implies that Bernice Summerfield is a spin off of Doctor Who, when really it is much more.
- CzechOut
Almost all Benny stories published by Virgin and Big Finish, audio and prose alike, fully satisfy Rule 2 of T:VS. They were all produced under license by Paul Cornell, who is the legal rights holder of the character, and none of them — quite unlike Faction Paradox — posit a wholly different universe in which the stories occur.
For a very brief moment in time — literally the year of 1998 — Big Finish had rights to Benny, but not Doctor Who, so they used words which obfuscated but did not contradict Benny's connection to the DWU. And indeed that first season of audios, and only that first season, is tricky for us at Tardis because they are in part comprised of adaptations of books that did have the Doctor and other characters in them originally, but legally couldn't have those characters in the audio. So if one did a careful study of them as compared to the novel, a lot of questions would present themselves.
However, since that earliest season, there have been many instances where Benny is undeniably operating in the DWU — the latest case being The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield. One of the earliest incidents was, of course, The Plague Herds of Excelis, which is obviously connected to the DWU, since it's a part of the Excelis Saga. But other named characters and species have appeared in the Benny saga, such as Sontarans and Rutans in The Bellotron Incident, Draconians in The Draconian Rage and the Daleks in Death and the Daleks.
Benny is a part of the DWU, and her legally-published stories are under no threat of violating Rule 2. It's worth pointing out that T:VS is the sum of all four rules. Thus, if a Benny story is written which doesn't specifically reference a DWU element — or one that refers to a DWU element only obliquely — it's still considered to be in the DWU unless Rule 4 is offended. That is, Paul Cornell or another rights holder would basically have to explicitly state that it's not DWU, because the natural presumption is that the longest-serving companion of all time is, yanno, someone who exists in the same universe as the Doctor.
Put another way, using oblique references to Time Lords, the Doctor, the TARDIS, or other elements from the DWU does not mean that Rule 2 has been violated. If anything, it strengthens the Rule 2 case, because it means the author has avoided violating someone else's copyright. The BBC is not required to give their license if their copyright has never been engaged. However, if like Larry Miles and Faction Paradox, the author says that the adventures don't take place in the DWU, then the story is thrown out for violating Rule 4.
- CzechOut
Master of Spiders wrote: But the point remains the same. The original Virgin Novels(1997-199) as well as the early Big Finish Bernice Summerfield audios/books did not have the rights to use characters and concepts like Time Lords, TARDISes etc., yet did so anyway, unable to refer to them by what they are.
Just wanted to highlight this. I think it's showing you're not really understanding the nature of Rule 2 because you've got a flawed concept of copyright. A copyright is a specific legal instrument. It generally requires unambiguous, named reference to the concept which is copyrighted. Suggestion is not enough. You have to call the TARDIS "the TARDIS" to violate copyright. You can suggest and hint at the TARDIS all you want without having to pay the Beeb a dime.
Put simply, it's not enough to call it a cola; you have to call it a Coca-Cola before the lawyers roll out of bed.
The Plague Herd of Excelis may very well be the fourth part of the Excelis saga, but so what? In parts 1-3 the time machine can be referred to as a "TARDIS". In part 4 it can not. The Doctor can identify himself as being a Time Lord from Gallifrey in parts 1-3. In part 4 Braxatiel can not be referred to as such. And Iris can't identify where she comes from, what she is or what her bus is either!...though she does refer to a "dimensional stabiliser", which is definitely a concept from the DWU. At this point, Big Finish aren't hinting at the DWU for legal reasons. They have access to the DWU. They're doing it for comic effect.
But put that to one side. It clearly matters that it's part four, because at this point there have been a number of concepts introduced in the first three parts. Excelis and Artaris continue on from the initial chapters of the story, as do the Relic, and the nunnery Iris is in during Dawns that she refers to in Herds. You're so busy looking for the words "Time Lord" and "TARDIS" that you're missing the hundreds of other concepts that are shared between the four stories.
- Master of Spiders
There's a difference between "shared concepts" and "using characters you don't have the full rights to". As examples, the novels Campaign and Time's Champion, as well as the video Time Rift or the Audio Visuals audios all have shared concepts with the DWU.
Yes, Paul Cornell owns Bernice Summerfield. But, how is that relevant? Lawrence Miles own Faction Paradox. What Paul Cornell, and Virgin Books, and Big Finish Audios do not own are concepts like "Time Lord", "TARDIS" etc., the building blocks of the DWU.
From the Cloister Library review of Oh No it Isn't (novel):
Pg 5 "The Galactic War, in which the humans and their allies struggled with an alien species that fundamentally disagreed with them" These aliens are the Daleks, as mentioned in several NAs. We see the effect the Dalek war had on Earth in The Sword of Forever.
Pg 72 "She dreamt of when she was very young, in the house of her mother and father, before her world was invaded by aliens" These aliens are the Daleks, as mentioned in Love and War.
(but note how they can never actually refer to them as "Daleks", because,,,,)
Pg 224 "'A vessel which would actually be bigger on the inside than the outside -' She stopped and glanced at Wolsey, as if to make sure everything was OK. He nodded impatiently. 'I think you got away with it.'" This is a sly reference to the new state of affairs in the Virgin novels, which couldn't directly reference Doctor Who elements.
Meanwhile, the Ahistory section makes this clear(pg. 526):
Terminology in the Benny Books and Audios:
The New Adventures continued after Virgin lost the Doctor Who licence in 1996. They were unable to use characters and concepts from that originated in Doctor Who, but those created for the new Adventures(Benny, Jason Kane, Chris Cwej, Roz Forrester, the People of the Worldsphere from The Also People, Irving Braxatiel etc.) were fair game. For legal reasons, a number of new terms were coined when referencing characters or concepts firmly lodged in Doctor Who.
The Dalek Wars that were so influential to Benny's background were more generically referred to as "the Galactic War". Braxatiel in both the NAs and the Big Finish audios broadly has "time technology" or "owns a time machine", although his timeship's inter-dimensional nature - as prominently seen in Tears of the Oracle and various audios - leaves no doubt that it's a TARDIS, a notion reinforced by Big Finish's use of TARDIS-like noises. The Time Lords, who were still involved in the new Adventures, unnamed, as the signatories to the treaty with the People(Walking to Babylon), as Irving Braxatiel's race and as Chris Cwej's employers(Dead Romance), were occasionally called "the Watchmakers". Big Finish was similarly coy about naming the Time Lords, even though the status of "Braxatiel's people" mirrors developments with the Time Lords in the "Gallifrey" mini-series, and the Time Lord Straxus appears in both the BBC7 aduios and The Adventures of the Diogenes Damsel. While the Benny stories frequently refer to the Time Lords as "Braxtiel's people".
In Dragon's Wrath writer Justin Richards introduced the recurring character of Commander Skutloid, whose description(p109) leaves no doubt that he's an Ice Lord in all but name.
And according to Valid Sources:
2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.The Benny stories are using properly licensed characters like Benny, Roz, Chris, Braxatiel. But they're using characters and concepts they don't have the proper licence to, such as Time Lords, TARDISes etc.
and again from Valid Sources:
A rose by any other name is not as sweet. If the story consistently uses alternate names for DWU characters, places and situations, it's probably not allowed.
Which is exactly what the Benny stories do. They consistently use alternate names for DWU characters, places and situations.(eg. "Braxatiel's people").
Thus, Time's Champion and Campaign can't be used here because they're charity works, and no rights were secured from anyone to publish with copyrighted characters.
Lemme try to make this clear with two examples from the Pertwee era.
The P.R.O.B.E. series of videos uses Liz Shaw, a character wholly owned by the BBC. BBV Productions formally requested a license for the character, and obtained one. But they don't have a license for the whole of the DWU, nor does that series make any explicit reference to that wider universe. Thus, the series does not offend Rule 2.
Conversely, Richard Franklin wrote a book called "The Killing Stone", featuring Captain Yates and really the whole season 8 gang of regulars by name. He didn't obtain permission from the BBC. The BBC subsequently objected most strenuously, forcing him to rename the characters and remove references to UNIT and other concepts from DW. The resulting, "street-legal" book was in no way, not even by allusion, connected to the DWU. Thus, the original, illegal book and the resulting pale imitation have been excised from this wiki.
Rule 2 revolves solely around whether permission was obtained from the relevant rights holders, and whether the writer actually violates someone else's copyright. Allusion is not violation.
However, when the author directly comes out and says that their stories are not set in the DWU, then Rule 4 kicks in. So Larry Miles' Faction Paradox and Paul Cornell's Bernice Summerfield are two entirely different kettles of fish. Miles has specifically said his FP series is not set in the DWU. Indeed the series was written as an explicit reaction against its usage by BBC Books. Cornell has never made any such statement about Benny — although licensors Big Finish were in a bit of a bind for series 1 — and series 1 only — and Gary Russell did a little song and dance at the launch of that series that was almost immediately reversed. It's been a long, long, long time — 13 years or so — since there's been any cause to doubt that the Benny audios firmly take place in the DWU. And any doubt that might have existed has recently been erased by the obvious joining of the two franchises in the most recent Benny/Seventh Doctor series.
I would also point out that we use a work like AHistory with a particularly large grain of salt. The writers are simply giving their considered opinion about various stories. But there's no reason to believe that they are any more capable of doing good scholarship than we are. Our overriding goal at Tardis is to create a unique reference, not to slavishly conform to the conventional wisdom that is created by "published fans". Indeed, we have a responsibility to carefully examine such essay-masquerading-as-reference-books, because we have a wider reach than AHistory ever could.
Still, it's worth pointing out that none of the text you quote from still exists in the latest edition of AHistory. Indeed, the whole of the essay about different terms in Benny stories just ain't there. Actually, the word terminology doesn't even appear at any point. And the current edition firmly and fully catalogues Benny stories as a part of the DWU. The Benny essay this time out instead revolves around trying to work the Benny Box Sets into the authors' sense of DWU history.
Why was the terminology essay dropped? Maybe because you're simply wrong: Benny stories do not "consistently use alternate names", so therefore that essay was built on an increasing untruth. That essay applies really to a very narrow part of the Benny franchise — mainly only to those novels of the 1990s — something that's far removed from the reality of Benny today. Stories like Death and the Daleks — itself now over 11 years old — immediately dispel that notion. There, it's crystal clear that the Daleks are thoroughly tied into the Fifth Axis — a long-running nemesis of Benny. Hard to ask for a better DWU referent than the Daleks:
- BENNY:... because I'm talking to the bloody Daleks, who couldn't exterminate their way out of a bloody tomato!
- DALEK: Silence! Daleks are the superior beings! Daleks are destined to rule the universe and control all other forms of life!
- BENNY: Struck a nerve, did I? Sooooooo, what's your connection with the Fifth Axis?
- DALEK: The Fifth Axis serve us. They embrace the philosophy of the Daleks. They conquer in our name, and prepare world for our arrival. They are human-Daleks.
- from Death and the Daleks, part one
It becomes virtually impossible to argue that Benny stories aren't a part of the DWU when you've got Lisa Bowerman's Benny going toe-to-toe against Nick Briggs's Daleks.
In any case, MoS, you haven't advanced any new arguments to help better define T:VS. As Shambala108 pointed out a long time ago, there have been several conversations to determine precisely how the issue of copyright plays into our acceptance of a story on this wiki. As you've advanced no new arguments, T:POINT would seem to apply.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:174552
A few years ago, Erimem's creator, Iain McLaughlin, used her in a radio play that isn't connected to the DWU. However, since he was the relevant copyright holder, would this be in line with Rule #2? As of now, her infobox includes the actress who played her in that story and her appearances page mentions the story as well. So, vaild or invalid?
- Mewiet
This section of Valid Sources says:DWU characters owned by others
The wrinkle that is difficult to understand for those who are new to the world of Doctor Who is the phenomenon of the author-owned character. Copyright for individual stories of Doctor Who has long resided in the individual writer, unless the British Broadcasting Corporation made other arrangements. This meant that a lot of characters — particularly species — were owned by individuals, not the BBC. Clever publishers were therefore able to release stories connected to Doctor Who without having to ask for the BBC's permission.
Stories licensed by an individual author are generally allowed here. - OttselSpy25
Seems like a pass I guess. :)
- SOTO
I would say it's probably valid. I'm assuming it passes the other tests? Was it specifically not intended to be set in the DWU?
- SOTO
Is this related at all to Erimem (series)?
- Mewiet
SOTO wrote: Is this related at all to Erimem (series)?
It was released before the Erimem series, but is still a part of Erimem's collective backstory.
SOTO wrote: I would say it's probably valid. I'm assuming it passes the other tests? Was it specifically not intended to be set in the DWU?
Yes, it passes all four tests. The Amazon publisher's summary even specifically mentions that Erimem is from the DWU:
Egypt, 276BC Kerides, penniless young Greek student arrives in Alexandria, seeking to pursue his studies. With the help, occasional hindrance and regular insults of former slave, Adrea, Kerides finds that murders and mysteries have a regular habit of interrupting his studies. Together, they face merciless assassins, brutal ancient cults, betrayal, an attack on Egypt itself and a marketplace fortune teller claiming to be the reincarnation of an uncrowned pharaoh… and the strange thing is, she seems to be telling the truth… They even manage to find time for a trip to the fables Library of Alexandria, only to find that the librarian had been checked out for good. These scripts are episodes 1-8 of the popular Imagination Theater radio series, Kerides The Thinker, and each script is accompanied by notes by the writers. The double-length Episode 8, Return of the Queen, features the uncrowned Pharaoh Erimem, from the universe of Doctor Who.
- SOTO
I'm gonna say this passes, but I'll wait for another admin to come by just for a second opinion. :)
- 92.239.218.97
At some future point we will reference the events of Return of the Queen in the Erimem series. We know what we want to do with it, but it's just a matter of finding the right time to do it.
- MystExplorer
92.239.218.97 wrote: At some future point we will reference the events of Return of the Queen in the Erimem series. We know what we want to do with it, but it's just a matter of finding the right time to do it.
"We"? Are you one of the writers for the series?
- Bwburke94
MystExplorer wrote:
92.239.218.97 wrote: At some future point we will reference the events of Return of the Queen in the Erimem series. We know what we want to do with it, but it's just a matter of finding the right time to do it.
"We"? Are you one of the writers for the series?
I seriously doubt it, because the real writers wouldn't claim to be the writers on an IP.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:176459
As I expect most of you know, Doctor Who will be part of the upcoming Lego Dimensions video game. It includes the Twelfth Doctor, Clara, Missy, Daleks and Cybermen. Now, clearly, we can't consider this part of the DWU for obvious reasons. First and foremost, it's a crossover with other properties like Batman, Lord of the Rings and the Lego Movie. But should we have an article for it with the Invalid Source tag placed at the top?
- Shambala108
For anyone who would like to participate in this discussion, please make sure you are familiar with our inclusion policies, which you can find at Tardis:Valid sources#In-universe sources.
- PicassoAndPringles
The crossover aspect alone doesn't make it invalid. Assimilation² is a direct crossover with Star Trek and it's still counted.
- MystExplorer
Maybe not but I still find it hard to see how this could be considered part of the DWU.
- Mewiet
It's hard to say anything without knowing the full storyline. It might well be like Assimilation² where the Doctor's universe clashes with alternate universes which are normally fiction in his world.
- MystExplorer
According to this article, it sounds like all the Doctors will be playable: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/every-doctor-who-is-playable-in-lego-dimensions-bu/1100-6428732/ Whenever the Doctor you're playing dies, you regenerate into the next one. I think that alone would make it Non-DWU.
- Shambala108
Mewiet is right, if it hasn't been released yet, we can't say anything for sure.
MystExplorer, can you please specify which of the "four little rules" you think this game will violate? If you know anything about the licensing, that might help.
- MystExplorer
Well, I'm sure the BBC licensed it so I don't think that's the issue. I'm guessing Rule #4 would be violated in this case.
- SOTO
I think one of the biggest questions we'll be asking when it's actually out — and there's only so far this discussion could possibly go before any of us actually get to play the game — is what actually counts as story? It'll be hard to accept such a game as DWU if only certain parts of it can be considered story.
Is it just the cut scenes? Just the actual goals and the cut scenes? Like, the Doctor collected "this" and used it for "that". Obviously, alongside the storyline you'll have to go through to complete the level there'll be a lot of fluidity. If a player decides to kill himself a bunch of times and therefore regenerate to a different Doctor, or beat another character to death or something, we can't say it was the Xth Doctor or that he regenerated or that the Doctor beat the other character to death but they came back to live, obviously. So where is the line drawn?
Moreover, even when it comes to the set actions you're supposed to do, you can do them with any of the characters you've got, for the most part. So how would we write that into articles, based on a highly changable narrative? "Someone pulled a lever." "Either the Doctor or Clara pulled a lever." Heck, "Either the Doctor, Batman, Gandalf or Wyldstyle pulled a lever." "One of the gang pulled a lever." Seeing the problem here?
What I do want to stress the most here, though, is that we really can't make any true judgment calls before the game comes out and we get to play it to find out. After all, it is a different kind of game, and maybe the gameplay is really different from previous LEGO games. We can't really know anything for sure yet.
One thing we can look out for in the meantime are official statements from the makers that might make it clear whether or not it's intended to be part of the overall Doctor Who universe. If it's clearly not, it breaks rule 4. (MystExplorer, it would break rule 2 if it wasn't fully licensed.)
- JagoAndLitefoot
Even if it's not considered part of the DWU, as a licensed property it should be included on the wiki, with a "not DWU" box on top.
- MystExplorer
It means we can create pages for some big name actors that are in it. Elizabeth Banks, Christopher Lloyd, etc.
- PicassoAndPringles
No one is disputing that there will be an article, just whether or not we'll include the story on in-universe pages. I think that question can't be answered until the game comes out.
- SOTO
Oh yeah, there's no question that there should be a page on it. As for a page on Christopher Lloyd, though, I'm fairly sure you can only play as Doc if you have the BTTF pack specifically. It's all very confusing at the moment, at least to me, especially since we see Hill Valley briefly in the trailer—is that from the BTTF pack, but included because Doctor Who audiences would find it exciting?
Anyhow, we can have this discussion but it almost certainly won't actually bring about any conclusions until the game is out. The truth is, we don't really have enough information yet to make a final judgment call.
- SOTO
I also want to point out that, as Lego Dimensions isn't out yet, whether or not it turns out to be a valid source in the end, T:SPOIL still applies.
- Bwburke94
Can we just disqualify this the same way we disqualified the "plot" of Doctor Who: Legacy and the various choose-your-own-adventure styled books?
- 67589589o4
will the Dalek's be playable?
- CLTwins15
the game will be so awesome!
- 67589589o4
oh yes!
- Shambala108
I just want to add that any attempt at creating a page for this game before its official release will be deleted as violating Tardis:Spoiler policy, regardless of whether we decide it counts as a valid source or not.
- 67589589o4
good point
- OttselSpy25
If it's the sort of game where it can only be valid if certain parts are played with certain characters, then it's pretty much invalid. Worlds in Time was pretty straightforward, the only choices you could make were the orders of planets that you played and the name of the Doctor's companion. But even that was deemed by us to be too much and we marked it as invalid role playing game.
- MystExplorer
Now that the game has been released, we should decide what to include and what to exclude. Has anyone had a chance to play it yet?
- Bwburke94
Haven't played it, but I seriously doubt any of it qualifies as within the DWU per the arguments made above.
- MystExplorer
Probably not but we should still have an article about it.
- Thefartydoctor
I don't think we've properly discussed the issue of the regeneration part of the game. If you die, you regenerate. So imagine two of us are playing simultaneously as Hartnell but during level one, one of us dies and regenerates into Troughton. So one of us remains as Hartnell and the other continues as Troughton...
There's no fixed Doctor for these adventures if they're so easily changed. You'd be surely accepting rewritten regeneration scenes? In my own opinion, if we are to accept this as a true series of events, we either accept that it happened to "a unspecified Doctor" and thus is being retold through other Doctors (such as the Twelfth Doctor and the Vampire Monkeys in The Witch's Familiar), or it's not an acceptable source due to it reestablishing regeneration scenes.
Am I also right in thinking that there are also crossovers? Where does Batman fit into this? haha.
- OttselSpy25
The only way that we could possibly consider this valid is if another source later on went on to say "Oh, uhhh... That was an alternate universe. Yeah." Of coarse, that explanation almost doesn't make sense as this is a game dealing with dimensions...
- Bwburke94
There's no way this can fit into narrative, from what I've seen of it.
- MystExplorer
Bwburke94 wrote: There's no way this can fit into narrative, from what I've seen of it.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But since Doctor Who is part of the game, that means it should get its own page here. The question is home much of the game do we cover. Which characters, actors, etc. get their own pages? They'll all get the Invalid tag placed on them. I don't think that's in dispute anymore. But if someone here has played the game, I think they should chime in so we'll know how much of it is Doctor Who-related.
- OttselSpy25
I suppose that it is an issue whether we place info on the game in the behind the scenes section of the various Doctor pages or if we have the in-game character have his own page. Something like The Doctor (Lego Dimensions). If the latter, we'd treat the story like it were an invalid Doctor page (Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), The Doctor (Auld Mortality), etc), writing narrative, in-universe info whilst still doubting its validity. The former would just be noting the existence of the story in a brief section on each Doctor page, most notably Twelfth Doctor.
- OttselSpy25
Then you have to debate if we have pages on Shaggy Rogers and Doc Brown. What will most likely happen, by my guessing, is that we will go down the same route that we did with Worlds in Time. We'll go "Lego Dimensions has its own wikia, write about it there and now here."
- MystExplorer
Well, they'll be using Doctors from the TV series so I don't think it's necessary to create a page for The Doctor (Lego Dimensions). We don't have a page for The Doctor (Death Comes to Time), for instance, and I think this is a similar situation.
- Bwburke94
DCTT isn't in all similar, because at the time it was written it may have been intended to be (pseudo-)canonical events that happened to the Seventh Doctor within what the creator saw as the DWU - it's only later that this wiki judged it to be outside the DWU, because it was not intended to be set within what the actual DWU of the time was.
Meanwhile, Lego Dimensions and its regeneration mechanic are likely not intended to be set within the DWU, and even if it is, we've disqualified these kinds of things before because they're such a headache to keep track of.
I do not speak for the Tardis Data Core as a whole, only for myself, but I think Lego Dimensions is its own thing entirely similar to Worlds in Time.
- OttselSpy25
I would say that Lego Dimensions is more of its own thing. Worlds in Time is a very straight-forward game, with the only thing you can change being the name of the companion and what order you play the planets in. (I should be using past tense there I guess since the game is sadly dead now...) Meanwhile, this game looks a lot more uneasy to match. If you can regenerate into different incarnations who still all likely sound like Peter Capaldi, then I would have a trouble writing about it...
- MystExplorer
OttselSpy25 wrote: If you can regenerate into different incarnations who still all likely sound like Peter Capaldi, then I would have a trouble writing about it...
They don't all sound like Peter Capaldi. The game uses audio from the TV series for all the other Doctors. Anyway, I think we've pretty well established that the game is not a valid source. The question is should we create pages for the characters (at least the ones the Doctor interacts with) or should we go the easy route and have one page that directs people to the Lego Dimensions wiki?
- OttselSpy25
I would love to have a page on Doc Brown and how he met the Doctor, but I have a feeling that by that logic we would need to write pages on every character in the series. Seems like something that we just wouldn't want to do at all.
- OttselSpy25
Just looked it up -- there are 113 non-DWU characters in the game. I doubt we want to have pages on all of those...
- MystExplorer
OttselSpy25 wrote: Just looked it up -- there are 113 non-DWU characters in the game. I doubt we want to have pages on all of those...
We won't. I was proposing just having pages on the ones the Doctor meets. But if even that is too much work, we can go with the simpler option.
- OttselSpy25
I was under the impression that you could choose who was on your team, but I could live with pages on the characters who meet with the Doctor narratively. I think that it's pretty clear from the ads that Doc and the Doctor are meant to cross paths, for instance. I guess I'll have to see some of the finished game first.
- Shambala108
For anyone reading through this post, none of these suggested pages are to be created until/unless an admin rules that it's ok. Any pages created beyond the game itself will be deleted while this discussion is still under way.
- MystExplorer
- OttselSpy25
I'd hate to back-track the conversation... But... I just watched all the clips in the game that feature the Doctor and I'm actually not totally convinced that the game is invalid
I mean, if this had a different artistic style (aka, looked like an adventure game or something) then none of us would question if it was valid or not -- we'd just treat it as a crossover like we did with Star Trek... The game certainly seems to take itself seriously, and works really hard to make both the Back to the Future and Doctor Who games fit into continuity... They even get the wording right (the Doctor calls it "Rift technology...") I'd say that what we have so far isn't quite enough to put the game out.
Of coarse the main game didn't even feature the Doctor outside of cut scenes, so we didn't get to encounter the "multi-Doctor" problem discussed above or any other key issues mentioned above. All I'm saying is that we should wait for the Doctor Who pack to come out to judge if the whole thing breaks our policies. But right now we don't have much to eliminate it besides "it looks like lego."
- OttselSpy25
I would say that obviously if we do cover it, it would just be the Who level...
- OttselSpy25
The problem with saying "well, we'll just make pages for characters who meet Doctor Who characters" is that what qualifies as that is really up to debate. The Daleks can be seen sweeping in multiple shots, for instance...
I have this odd feeling that it might be best to put this conversation to rest until the separate Who story packs are released.
- SOTO
Can someone who's played the game pleased confirm any of these characters might meet DWU characters, or if it's only a select few? If the former I would say that character pages should not be created, but the information should certainly be added to pages such as Gandalf and Back to the Future (in behind the scenes, of course). I might even argue for the creation of franchise pages for those topics not at all already covered, bringing up the series' involvement in the LEGO game and interactions with DWU characters, elements and/or settings. But if there are truly as many characters in the game as OS said, I do not personally think new pages for all would be wise.
- OttselSpy25
I haven't played it, but I have watched a bunch of playthroughs. Basically, the Doctor, the Cybermen, the Daleks, and the Weeping Angels are mostly limited to the Doctor Who levels. In fact, if that was all that there was in the story, I would say that there would be no trouble with making the story valid. However, there are cameos for different aspects of the franchise throughout the game. In the DC level, for instance, you can spot Daleks sweeping behind the Joker and friends. Then there's the Valiant...
And of coarse, this will technically change once the Doctor Who figures are out. At that point, you will be able to play as any Doctor who character at any time, although they will still not appear in the game.
And of coarse the separate level pack is still on hold for a month or so. That will add a lot of stuff to it likely...
- OttselSpy25
Technically you can have anyone on your team in the various levels, but if you're going by cut scenes (which don't seem to change) then it's just Wildstyle, Batman, and Gandolf in the main Who level right now.
- OttselSpy25
Now that the game has been released, does someone wanna go through the difficult task of creating the story page for the game?
Also I presume that adding info to the behind-the-scenes and appearances lists are okay right now.
- MystExplorer
If the game is ruled invalid, then there won't be any mention of it on appearances lists. Invalid sources are NOT listed there.
- OttselSpy25
What an absolutely preposterous rule. Something being invalid qualifies only to if we should write about it in-universe sections of articles. It does not mean that we should pretend that it doesn't exist. If characters appear in the game and the level packs, those should be listed in the appearances section regardless of how we see them.
- 76.165.200.95
You may not like the rules of this wiki but you do have to abide by them.
- MystExplorer
76.165.200.95 wrote: You may not like the rules of this wiki but you do have to abide by them.
Sorry, that was me. Forgot to sign in.
- OttselSpy25
Yes, but that doesn't mean that I can't question them.
What a silly, silly rule. Why is it that our policy on making stories invalid or valid strives so hard to not be connected with concepts of "canon" yet is clearly based around those thoughts and no their own principals? With removing continuity sections from these pages, openly trying to act like these stories don't exist and attempting to remove them from non-narrative pages, and suggesting that editors avoid dedicating themselves to invalid stories and sections at all, it's pretty clear that we don't practice what we preach at all.
- OttselSpy25
Can someone actually point my to the point in da rule book where it is stated that invalid stories should be removed from sections and pages dedicated to list appearances?
- MystExplorer
OttselSpy25 wrote: Can someone actually point my to the point in da rule book where it is stated that invalid stories should be removed from sections and pages dedicated to list appearances?
If you want to contest that rule, I'd suggest creating a thread about it in the appropriate forum. This thread is about Lego Dimensions. Nothing else.
- Danniesen
What if we created one single page apart from "LEGO Dimensions" that is about all the different characters in the game, with sections for each character (but each section would look like a complete article)?
- MystExplorer
Danniesen wrote: What if we created one single page apart from "LEGO Dimensions" that is about all the different characters in the game, with sections for each character (but each section would look like a complete article)?
I think such an article would risk becoming too lengthy, considering the number of characters in the game.
- Danniesen
Should we take it up for consideration on how long an article can be? Creating one single article would certainly save us time from creating multiple articles, which we do not strive to do either.
Additionally we could create one such article too for objects seen in "LEGO Dimensions" that we consider appropriate for an article.
- OttselSpy25
Danniesen wrote: Should we take it up for consideration on how long an article can be? Creating one single article would certainly save us time from creating multiple articles, which we do not strive to do either.
I suppose it should be brought into consideration how we write the behind-the-scenes and the invalid pages if we make them. There are two kinds -- where we write it from an out-of-universe perspective about the story's character (ex. Gareth Jenkins, Ozmo) or if we write it as if were a valid article but put the invalid tag on and explain why it is invalid in the "behind the scenes" section (ex. The Valeyard (He Jests at Scars...), Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), and most invalid character articles)
- Danniesen
A "LEGO Dimensions (video game)" page have now been created. Perhaps it would be a good idea to gain some control of the page to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. :)
- OttselSpy25
I've gone on ahead and removed the accusation that that the game can't be set in the DWU because it crosses overs with products that are fiction in the DWU, and that this suggestedly is why it's invalid. This is not true.
The main reason that most people here want the story to be invalid is that it's a lego game and thus can't be set within our Doctor Who Universe. In reality, however, all characters in the game being lego could just be interpreted as nothing more than an artistic decision on part of the creators. In fact, I would argue that the style isn't too far removed from that of Neil Slorance. Story wise, the game is clearly trying to capture the universe for the Doctor Who levels and actually seems to try and fit the story as another "adventure" for the Doctor, which is somewhat unlike other worlds and packs which try and give the characters a "Lego reboot," such as the Back to the Future world. If the game were nothing more than the simple narrative represented in the story, then you could easy place the game within the Twelfth Doctor's timeline and write about this as one of his pre-Series 9 travels.
The issue for this wikia comes only at the gameplay that comes in between story and cut scenes. Here, you're left on a world with a simple mission to complete, be it 'connect these wires' or 'go to point b.' To do this, you have an infinite amount of choices in terms of characters and actions to choose from. There are tunnels that only Scooby Doo can reach, and entire sections of the level that you can only get to by use of Cybermat. This makes for fun and loose game-play but it makes it hard to write about the events with complete certainty. On this site we're used to games like The Adventure Games, where the story and levels are simple and there aren't many ways to go off track or to use different paths. So we don't know when the Doctor is a part of the team, what levels he's a part of, or what he does at all because it's all up to the player. Further confusing is the soon-to-be-gained Doctor and TARDIS figures, where if your character dies, you regenerate into the next incarnation. This seems to separate it from all in-universe logic entirely.
On the other hand, the in-game scenes consistently show only Wildstyle, Gandolf, and Batman. So no matter who you're playing, those three are who are having "the adventure" and those three are who are traveling through the dimensions. Furthermore, in game continuity seems to openly contradict the additional players you can have. Even if you have the Doctor and TARDIS figures in level one, Batman, Wildstyle, and Gandolf still have no idea who the Doctor is in the Doctor Who levels. And by my guesses, which are that and nothing more, the cutscenes in the Doctor Who extra levels will always have the Twelfth Doctor, Clara Oswald, Missy and Doc Brown no matter who you have on your team or how many times the Doctor has "regenerated." This means that the game itself has a plot which is entirely disconnected from the game play, as if the creators of the game wanted to have both be exceedingly fun and amazing without really working together.
Basically this is one of those video games where the underlining story and the actual literal gameplay don't actually mix at all. One solution to this problem would be to count the narrative with Gandolf, Wildstyle and Batman to be the only one we accept as valid as it's the only one that the game really accepts. However, I think that it's unlikely that we'd make such an extreme exception for any game, let alone this one. I'd say that we will most likely deem it a role-playing story due to its vast customization choices in each world, and then push all info to behind-the-scenes sections and put links to the LEGO Dimensions wikia where ever we can.
I've also removed all references to K9, Clara, the first 11.5 Doctors and Missy being in the game since they didn't appear in the main game and the Doctor Who figures and pack haven't been released yet. Thus inclusion of this info is against our spoiler policy.
- OttselSpy25
Do we include categories like Category:Second Doctor video games on invalid pages? I feel like we should but I feel like we don't, and the cats are included on the page.
- OttselSpy25
Actually, looking over the various cats, I guess that we do.
- OttselSpy25
If we do decide, as DCLM has suggested on the talk page, only accept the main plot in descriptions of the game while not including details of exploration of the worlds, then I see absolutely no reason to make it invalid.
It's sort of like how you never see in-universe pages detailing the easter eggs that you can find in The Adventure Games. Amy finding a card with Tom Baker on it on some planet is meant to be an out-of-universe easter egg, and not an in-universe narrative feature.
- Danniesen
It's a simple suggestion. :) that way we can also add a appropriate and valid description of the gameplay. :)
- OttselSpy25
Here's how I see it: Lego Dimensions is a game where the three main characters -- Batman, Wildstyle and Gandalf -- have to cross between the many different dimensions in order to [whatever]. In each level, they fall into a different franchise's universe (which are sometimes a "Lego reboot" and are other times meant to be the literal original version that just looks like LEGO -- Doctor Who is the later) and meet a different cast of characters each time. Sometimes they cross paths with those characters later, but there is still a strict narrative for most of them (there's a bit about Robin and the Wizard of Oz cast being locked up), and the main story is about those three alone.
The addition of being able to play as other characters and use those to "explore" is entirely separated from the narrative, and in some ways doesn't make any sense what-so-ever to the plot. It's basically a way to make the game more profitable while also making it a bit more diverse and fun for the fans -- but the narrative (what we care about) has nothing to do with that customization.
Thus, while it's odd, I see no problem in us deciding to only accept the narrative meant to be accepted -- of Batman, Wildstyle and Gandalf crossing into these universes. This also solves the "multiple regenerations" problem as that's also a "custom cast" thing, and also eliminates the "role playing game?" issue.
We would cover the Dalektable Adventure level and the Doctor Who level pack, as well as including light plot elements of other levels and cameos just for consistency, and nothing else. It might seem radical, but I think that it will work. Under this logic, the only pages we would have on this site are Batman, Gandalf, (which would contain info on them as fiction and as "real" similar to Spock) Lord Vortec, and Doc Brown according to what I can tell from preview images of the Who pack.
- MystExplorer
OttselSpy25 wrote: Under this logic, the only pages we would have on this site are Batman, Gandalf, (which would contain info on them as fiction and as "real" similar to Spock) Lord Vortec, and Doc Brown according to what I can tell from preview images of the Who pack.
What about Wildstyle? Shouldn't we include her too? If so, we should also create pages for the actors.
- OttselSpy25
MystExplorer wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: Under this logic, the only pages we would have on this site are Batman, Gandalf, (which would contain info on them as fiction and as "real" similar to Spock) Lord Vortec, and Doc Brown according to what I can tell from preview images of the Who pack.
What about Wildstyle? Shouldn't we include her too? If so, we should also create pages for the actors.
Oh duh, not sure why I didn't add her. I would also agree that pages on the voice actors for those characters should be added.
- Shambala108
Just pointing out that no admin has ruled on this question yet. I personally need a lot more information before I could say whether this game is valid or not and whether it should be covered on this wiki or not.
- OttselSpy25
Absolutely in agreement on that Shamabala. This is also why I've removed the invalid tag -- it's not in our wikia' precedent to have the page be invalid when the discussion is still going on. If I were you, I'd check out various play throughs. I think that my analysis stands.
- Danniesen
What about the rest of the appearing characters? Are they to be forgotten about. And what about the appearance of two different versions of Batman?
- OttselSpy25
Well, that's not really part of the Doctor Who levels so I don't think that we should cover it.
- Danniesen
Which brings me back to my question on whether we should or should not have a single page that covers all the additional characters in the game.
- OttselSpy25
We could do that, although simply linking to the Lego Dimensions wikia could also work...
- Danniesen
Yeah, well... both could work, but I don't think we should do anything before we have everyone take a vote in the decision, if you know what I mean. :)
- OttselSpy25
Of coarse, of coarse. It would just take some other input...
The reasoning behind only wanting to cover Who levels is that the game is similar to the Death's Hand crossover, where the character crossed into most mediums owned by Marvel comics. We only cover the Who stories there to avoid insanity.
- Danniesen
Is this topic still going on, or should it be closed off?
- OttselSpy25
It's still going on because only four people are actually posting to it. Without any other imput or discussion the issue is unresolved, so until more people take part we're in limbo here.
Which perhaps is for the best, since half of the Doctor Who levels for the game have yet to be released. Once that happens, we'll likely have to review the consensus anyhow...
- OttselSpy25
The main problem is that many people in the discussion came to a consensus on the game's validity before it was released, so now they've abandoned the discussion despite it being live.
- OttselSpy25
What the spin off level is like will be a huge contender in if the game is valid or not. If it's like the Back to the Future level, where the story is a reboot of the first film, then I'd say the game is invalid. But if it's not, then again we have limited reasons to disqualify the adventure.
- Danniesen
But if the Doctor comes across some path that is not Doctor Who-level, but still required to go through in the game, as well as the characters present in that level, wouldn't that technically be valid to this Wiki?
- OttselSpy25
Yeah, if 12 makes an appearance in the story line of a level (as in it's in the cut scene and you can't choose to do it or not) then that would something we cover. However, for the most part, Doctor Who characters in non-DW levels just get quick background cameos.
- Bwburke94
Given that the game (or rather the part of the game relevant to this wiki) is not released in its entirety, we still have a lot of time to cover this.
- Shambala108
To save everyone, including admins, a lot of work, there shouldn't be any pages created for this game (aside from the article on the game itself) until we know more about it. It's not like we don't have other projects on the wiki to do while we wait.
This situation may end up being similar to Decalog 5: Wonders, which has only one story that we cover on the wiki and we don't create articles for the other stories.
My concerns about this game have nothing to do with the crossover aspect or the Lego aspect. It's the narrative aspect that concerns me. It sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the main players are Batman, Wildstyle and Gandalf. Does that mean a player can choose any of the three to play as? And if so, what happens when one player uses Batman to perform a task and another player uses Gandalf to perform the same task? We would have different narrative descriptions of the event. Something like this might fall under the Decide Your Destiny or stage plays type of narrative, which this wiki doesn't consider valid for in-universe pages.
- 110.175.3.245
From what I understand (and seen) of the game, whether Batman or Gandalf pulls the same switch depending on the player is a minor consequence to the overall narrative. If we use that as a justification to discount LEGO Dimensions as a valid source, then we would have to discount all and every DW video game ever made, unless they follow a rigid and strict game plan that forces every player to perform the same tasks in the exact same way with little to no freedom of choice.
Don't forget that video games are a completely different format to the TV episodes, comic stories, novels and audio stories we are used to, and should be treated as such, instead of automatically branding them all as non-canon due to their interactivity. I propose that if we do consider this game as a valid source, to get around the issue mentioned by Shambala, we use group-neutral nouns when describing gameplay relevant to the plot. I doubt a play-by-play of every action is necessary (since that would make the narrative section very tedious), but if a character chosen at the player's discretion did an important action such as pulling a lever to defeat the Cyber-King or building a phone to call the Doctor to escape the Daleks, then we should use phrases such as "a member of the group" or "one of the trio", or just "they", etc. Things such as Daleks appearing in Gotham could be considered a simple cameo, and this wikia doesn't go into extensive detail into every show an element of Doctor Who appears in for a split second, such as the Fourth Doctor's brief appearances in Futurama.
- OttselSpy25
I agree with the above notes. I would, however, suggest that we do cover the cameos in other levels, but not cover the other levels themselves. The reason I also suggested we briefly cover other levels for some level of conclusion on some articles. Like if we add info about the Valiant being pulled into Hill Valley, then I would also want an explanation of how it was put back (which I presume they touch upon in the final level)
On the topic of who you play as being a huge contendor on if the game is valid or not, the analysis that you can say that for most Doctor Who games is accurate. Couldn't you switch between Amy and Rory in The Gunpowder Plot? Yet we never needed a reason to have a detailed moment-by-moment plot there. In fact, I'm fairy sure that The Eternity Clock is that way -- you switch between 11 and River to do certain tasks, or you can play them both in multi-player mode. There are certainly parts of the level where we can definitively say who-does-what, but it would still be insane to call it invalid.
- OttselSpy25
I'd say that listing the game under 'role playing' because of this simple element goes a bit far. If the decide your fate books only let you choose if the Doctor or Peri pulled a lever, I feel like they wouldn't be as doubted on this site.
I feel like the problem that we're encountering here is that we're used to dealing with simple, boring games on this site; so a game which has such detailed alternate paths as which of the three characters presses a button makes our heads want to explode.
- Danniesen
A "Batman (LEGO Dimensions)" and "Wyldstyle" and "Gandalf (LEGO Dimensions)" page exists now. Is it agreed to that we create any pages for the game, or should this be deleted?
- Danniesen
Never mind. They were removed again.
- SOTO
Those pages have been deleted. As has been said, no further pages (beyond LEGO Dimensions (video game)) can be created until consensus here is reached.
I think "group-neutral nouns", as it was put above, makes sense within its context. Which is to say I can see that working, not that I'm saying the game is a valid source. This is a new case, something we haven't encountered before. Our job here is not to create exceptions to established rules, but to see if the game fits into our standards. We cannot allow for any inconsistencies in the way we judge stories.
So the question becomes: does it follow our four little rules? Two and three, definitely. Four? No (serious) official statement has been made about the game's inclusion in the Doctor Who universe. So it really comes to rule #1: is it truly a story? Is excluding certain elements to make it a story a valid way of taking this? Would just the cut scenes count as story, or would the gameplay (with ambiguity on who did what) be included in the plot as well? Is it stretching it to include certain bits but not others, or is it representative of how it was intended to be experienced, with cut scenes as story, interactive bits as simply gameplay in between?
There are many questions we need to ask ourselves before we create any more pages on this topic. Don't forget, while a discussion is ongoing, no one can act on it.
- OttselSpy25
One thing that I am sure of is that I don't think that separate pages will need to be made for the characters and the in-universe fictional characters. We didn't do that with Spock, after all.
- OttselSpy25
I recently read up on some of the easter eggs that you can find in The Eternity Clock. You can find different Doctor hats, including The Valeyard's, in different hidden locations throughout the levels. Despite this, I have never seen info on the eggs added to any pages, nor have I ever seen someone insist on listing the action of finding the item on narrative recaps. In other words, you'd never see this:
The Doctor landed on [planet], where he went around a corner, hopped on a roof after climbing a poll and climbed through a ventilation system. There he found a hat. He climbed out of the ventilation system, went back down the poll, and went back around the corner. Afterwards, he walked ten feet, turned at a right angle, and stood still for ten minutes. He then snuck across a wall, past a Dalek, and back to the [wormhole thing].
You're a lot more likely to see this:
The Doctor landed on [planet], He then snuck across a wall, past a Dalek, and was able to [plot thingy for level], where he then worked his way back to the [wormhole thing].
Because that out-of game ability to customize your hidden things, that's not part of the in-game narrative. It's totally irrelevant to writing about the story of the game. Go watch some of LEGO Dimensions, it's the same way with the customization of characters, trust me. Or, just watch all the cut scenes in the game, which don't change no matter who or what you have on your team. The narrative is concrete -- this business about adding portal characters or Scooby Doo to your team not only had no bearing on the over all narrative, it's contradiction more than not. If it was a role playing game, this change would effect some of the narrative at the very least. But it changes nothing. It's basically like being able to make your character's head small, or buying a skin that makes them look like Adam West, or if you leave the controller sitting and the main character scratches his nose. It's a cool thing to have for a video game and will surely exponentially rise the amount that the game makers will profit from the adventure, but it's totally and completely irrelevant to the over all story.
- 110.175.3.245
Judging by the "four little rules" mentioned above, it would qualify as being a story. Unlike Legacy, Dimensions has a rigid storyline involving three characters finding the macguffins to defeat Vortech, while requiring the Doctor's help on occasion, as well as a standalone story level solely focused on Lego 12th Doctor & Clara vs Lego Missy. Legacy had an overall plot, but its focus on storytelling was too loose, as well as the inclusion of too many RPG and changeable elements, to be considered canon/ a valid source.
Other elements such as the Dimensions game being made of LEGO is purely a stylistic choice, and the regenerating minifigure is an Easter egg similar to the Eternity Clock's hats and is irrelevant to the plot.
However, we'll have to wait until the Doctor Who Level pack is out. Although I don't see any major concerns in the game so far, if the level pack outright disregards continuity (i.e Clara is permanently killed off, there's a new companion inexplicably retconned into the TARDIS, etc) then it's save to slap on the "non-canon" tag.
- Imamadmad
110.175.3.245 wrote: ...Unlike Legacy, Dimensions has a rigid storyline [...] Legacy had an overall plot, but its focus on storytelling was too loose, as well as the inclusion of too many RPG and changeable elements, to be considered canon/ a valid source...
'Scuse me for interrupting here and going off on a different yet deeply related topic to this discussion, but in what way is Doctor Who: Legacy lacking a rigid story line? Where are the RPG elements? And when it comes to the story, where on Gallifrey is the changeability?
If you've ever played the game to any extent, you would have realised that the story line is incredibly rigid. It doesn't change at all depending on who is on your team, or how many times you'd played it; the story elements never change, not a single word, or the character saying them. Even in the less narrative game parts, the enemies still stay the same. The only thing that changes is who happens to be shooting at the enemies at any particular time, and how long it takes to bring down the enemies.
Maybe the story line isn't so strong in the early parts of the game, because the creators were still trying to figure out the structure and form of the game, but in later levels, especially late Chapter 3, you even have levels which are all story with no game play in the middle. It gets incredibly plot-heavy at some points. And importantly, that plot never changes. From what I've read here, DW: Legacy is even more valid than Lego Dimensions. It definitely has a storyline. Who's on your team when you play makes absolutely no difference to the story. Who kills an enemy doesn't matter, because it's always the team that destroys it, and the team implicitly contains all characters in the game from the story's perspective, as the same characters will appear in the story regardless of who is on your team.
For example, I can play the Level "The Girl Who Waited: Apalapucia", whos story contains conversation between Eleven, Rory, and a cameo from Eight, and with handbots as enemies, with a team made up of, say, Two, Cinder, Gabby Gonzalez, an Adipose, a Silent, and a random UNIT medic. The fact that none of the team members appear in the cut-scene, nor have anything to do with the cut scene, nor bear any relation to each other, should be enough proof that the one changeable element of the game is completely irrelevant to the story. I would provide more examples, but I'm having troubles with getting the app to load properly so any examples given while I get that fixed up will be from memory.
Legacy has a story. It's licensed. It has been officially released. It has definitely been written as a part of the Doctor Who multiverse. I mean, it's undoubtedly alternate time-line, but it seems to very clearly be trying to be an actual, serious Doctor Who story told between blocks of not very plot heavy game-play. I fail to see why Legacy is excluded. Certainly, if it is decided that Lego Dimensions is valid, then Legacy should most certainly be considered valid. Plot line and game play can most certainly be separated, as long as the plot line is not influenced by game play options. That is most certainly the case with Legacy, and it seems to be the case with Dimensions too. I cannot see a reason why Legacy should be excluded on this wiki, and as long as Dimensions holds a plot-line in its cut-scenes which runs independently of the gameplay in between, then I see no reason why it should also be excluded. None of your four little rules have been broken, whether you like it or not.
- OttselSpy25
It's best if we stay on topic. If you wish to debate Legacy, I would suggest opening another forum. However, you do raise some good points. I'm actually not sure if we've ever even had a discussion about the game.
- SOTO
You raise some compelling points Imamdmad, but perhaps take it to a new thread? I haven't played very much of the game myself. Early levels didn't seem to storied to me, but maybe this new information that a firmer storyline arises later on is enough to merit a follow-up discussion.
- Danniesen
Please do refrain from mocking each other. I see all your points SOTO and personally I think that's enough, but this thread still is and will be about LEGO Dimension. Legacy should in my opinion be valid, but this thread is about Dimensions and should stay that way.
- SOTO
That's exactly what I was saying. I'm a bit confused because I'm sure no mocking going on, but I'm sorry if I was coming across that way. :)
The only purpose of that message was to, as an admin, suggest that they start a new thread on that subject, because it's a different topic entirely. That last message was meant to be directed at me, right? I didn't even make any points. Let me know on my talk page if there's something I didn't understand.
So, back to the issue at hand, please. (If you want to continue the discussion on Legacy, again, please start a new thread.)
- Danniesen
Perhaps you should start the thread about Doctor Who: Legacy since it was you who started talking about it. :)
- OttselSpy25
Actually we might want to wait on the Legacy debate. The reason being that a lot of the arguments for that being valid are based off precidents suggested here but not a concrete part of our policy. So the decisions made here (if counting only the plot as suggested by the cutscenes) will be huge on deciding if Legacy and other games are here to stay or out to boot. In that sense, a good point was raised on how allowing this one game through could change many things on this site.
- SOTO
This is true. Again, though, Legacy is not the topic of this thread. I'm not sure why they think I brought it up, but can we please focus on Lego Dimensions here? This discussion is starting to derail.
So (I have not played the game yet) I think I can agree that there is a plot to these stories, and that Easter Egg-type things are not part of that narrative. Video games are, of course, a different format, and by definition a bit interactive with shifting details. The LEGO format is just a stylistic choice, just like drawing style in a comic story. The interaction is simply the framework for the story; it's what moves the plot forward. Speech bubbles in comics are a representation of dialogue, or perhaps also thought. Controlled actions, along a mostly set path, towards a set goal, are a representation of action within a plot-driven video game. It's just a part of the medium, really.
I don't believe this game breaks any of our four rules, even if it is using the video game medium in a mostly new way to before. Cut scenes are absolute narratives; an overview of the actions in between, while not specific on which character did what, is part of that story as well, I think.
- OttselSpy25
We're reaching a point in the conversation that seems to be at a good point. Either now or when the second half is released in a couple weeks, I'd suggest highlighting this to try and find a final consensus with a wider group.
Also, happy Back to the Future day everyone! Check out when I'm posting this! ;)
- OttselSpy25
It is now a day before the first level pack is meant to be released. Despite the fact that this is apparently so, some stores had the game in stock as early as a week ago, so I think that the spoilers policy is out at least on the pack that has been released.
There apparently is also some confusion upon what this first pack entails. For months it had been said that the level included would be An Adventure in Space and Time and would feature Missy. This game instead includes Davros and is entitled The Dalek Extermination of Earth.
Clara and Captain Jack have still have not appeared in any released levels (as far as I could tell, they could totes be hidden somewhere I haven't seen yet), so including them on the page is still against our spoiler policy.
Based on what I've seen of the game, the stipulations of the game working as a valid source are the same within TDEoE as it was within A Dalektable Adventure. The cutscenes suggest one narrative and cast and do not support the possible inclusions of other characters, so it makes sense for us to do the same. The only playable character who appears in the cutscenes is the Twelfth Doctor, thus all other companions and cast members to add to the game are not valid story elements. This includes the game's version of K9.
As I analyzed above, the game is still trying to stick to the lore and canon of the Doctor Who universe, and has made no attempt to retcon a new version of the series or to even have the Lego element have more than a vision impact on that game. One notable element that many editors will object to is the silly humor applied to the Daleks -- who are seen bumbling about, doing human activities, and annoying the hell out of their creator. But, as we all experienced in Thread:177099, sillyness of content or minor continuity qualms (The Doctor and Davros knowing each other yet the Doctor still having his sonic) does not disqualify a story from being valid on the site.
Interesting to note that you can't unlock the other regenerations of the Doctor until after you finish the level.
- OttselSpy25
We should also consider making the pack levels their own pages as they are essentially entirely separate episodes.
- Digifiend
OttselSpy25 wrote: It is now a day before the first level pack is meant to be released. Despite the fact that this is apparently so, some stores had the game in stock as early as a week ago, so I think that the spoilers policy is out at least on the pack that has been released.
T:OFF REL says otherwise. If shops ship early, tough luck. You wait for the official release.
- OttselSpy25
Alright then, although in between me saying that and now it's now become the day that it's meant to be released on in the UK.
And actually the scenario I described there is not covered on that page, and in fact the only thing covered in therms of games there is not to post about beta versions. If anything, what I described is the closest to the rules for comics.
- OttselSpy25
I've looked into it a bit more, and I am now thoroughly convinced that The Dalek Extermination of Earth and the supposed An Adventure in Time & Space level are one-in-the-same, only with the later being a speculated version before the official release created by fans guessing the plot from various elements. Missy is not in the level, but instead can be found on the Who world. There is a slight chance we might see some of these characters again -- not a huge one, but slight enough.
Never the less, I think that this half of the game is enough to judge the validity of all Who levels, and I can pretty strongly say that I think that all of our group decisions up to this point still stand tall and undefeated.
- OttselSpy25
Now the big issue that still hasn't been touched upon is what do we do with the world's? They do seem to have things to do in them, but you can do them with anyone and thus are not as simple to figure out narratively as the concrete levels (as far as I can tell anyways). Right now I have come acrss a bit where Missy introduces you to Rusty to help battle the "bad Daleks." However, I don't know if the level has much of a narrative or if it's just some random stuff to do.
- OttselSpy25
According to what I can tell, the "worlds" do have a loose plot and cast (Missy, Rusty, and Vastra are characters I automatically can identify) but are built so that any character can take part in the levels (they don't have pre rendered cut scenes, but rather the camera will swing into a certain position and the character will talk). They also seem to be amazingly basic.
Thus I'm not sure if the different non-level parts of the Doctor Who hub world could be valid sources.
- MystExplorer
For those of you who are playing the game, be sure and specify which characters have new dialogue that is unique to the game. That way, we know which actors should have the "Video game actors" category added to their pages.
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: Also, happy Back to the Future day everyone! Check out when I'm posting this! ;)
You were nineteen hours early, by the way. Oh, am I getting off topic again?
- OttselSpy25
MystExplorer wrote: For those of you who are playing the game, be sure and specify which characters have new dialogue that is unique to the game. That way, we know which actors should have the "Video game actors" category added to their pages.
100% sure that K9 is stock audio. "Danger Doctor! Danger!"
- OttselSpy25
The Doctor is in the final level / boss, so I guess we cover that too. This also means that we have a lot more characters to cover -- Shaggy and the Scoob gang, the Ghost Busters, GLADOS, etc...
- ErinKenobi2893
Maybe it should be just given its own category page, if it's decided that we include references to it at all?
I think that, if it is decided to include it, whenever it's cited, it should specify that this doesn't necessarily take place in the main continuity of Doctor Who.
- OttselSpy25
ErinKenobi2893 wrote: I think that, if it is decided to include it, whenever it's cited, it should specify that this doesn't necessarily take place in the main continuity of Doctor Who.
That's not really a thing that we do. At most we'll say According to one source. Unless you mean adding a behind-the-scenes note on it, in which case that could be fine, but certainly not going as far as blatantly saying that.
On the topic of including categories for characters who appear on the game, I don't think that an category called LEGO Dimensions characters really fits with our policies. There's a reason you never see "Characters introduced in comics" and stuff like that.
- ErinKenobi2893
OttselSpy25 wrote:
ErinKenobi2893 wrote: I think that, if it is decided to include it, whenever it's cited, it should specify that this doesn't necessarily take place in the main continuity of Doctor Who.
That's not really a thing that we do. At most we'll say According to one source. Unless you mean adding a behind-the-scenes note on it, in which case that could be fine, but certainly not going as far as blatantly saying that.
On the topic of including categories for characters who appear on the game, I don't think that an category called LEGO Dimensions characters really fits with our policies. There's a reason you never see "Characters introduced in comics" and stuff like that.
Adding a behind-the-scenes note sounds like the best way of dealing with this sort of material. I think it might work best to create one page dealing with the game and then leave it at that, with a partial list of characters and missions. But I'm kind of new to this, so I'm looking forward to learning from everyone else. :-)
- OttselSpy25
What we're at right now is info from the game only being added from Doctor-central levels or levels with the Doctor as a main cast member -- this includes the Who level, the final boss, and the level pack level. We would also include cameos in other levels, but not cover the levels themselves.
We would then feature pages on the characters within those three levels, but not on any others.
- LuigiHann
Just a couple of articles regarding some of the other franchises in this game, to give some context:
http://www.polygon.com/2015/9/29/9413805/lego-dimensions-portal-isnt-canon
"As with the other IPs, I think it might be better categorized as 'inspired by' the original IP (or in the same vein as) instead of 'being canonical,'" a Valve spokesperson told Polygon.
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/lego-dimensions-2/
What’s the secret to the franchise’s appeal? Look at Lego Gandalf. He has maize-yellow skin, a squat squared-off torso, and a ridiculous waddling gate. “But he truly believes that he is the Gandalf, just like Buzz Lightyear believes that he’s an actual a Space Ranger,” says Burton.
Neither of these is in direct reference to Doctor Who, but they both suggest that, in the minds of the people licensing and writing the game, these are little living Lego characters who think they're the real people, going on adventures inspired by franchises rather than being part of them.
Just thought you might find it interesting.
- OttselSpy25
Never the less, the Doctor Who levels do attempt to get much closer to the heart of the show, and suggest direct continuity to the program's events. In the Doctor mentioning Weng-Chiang, Time Scoops, and the Gelth, it's essentially written like any other Doctor Who story created for fans. Also noteworthy is one particular line certainly suggesting that this is meant to be the DWU, which goes something along the lines of
- Jack Harkness: "Is it just me, or does everyone look pretty shiny today? And I don't think that it's any moisturizer."
Other franchises certainly do not follow the trend given to the Doctor in the game (many games, including Back to the Future, have the story of the original film retold in the level pack), but it's certain that the Who levels are unique there. Batman in the game is Batman from the Lego Movie. Gandolf in the game is Gandolf as seen in the Lego movie. The DC universe is meant to be the version seen in the LEGO Batman games. The Doctor is just meant to be the Doctor -- they just try and capture the show perfectly without concentrating at all on the aspect of remaking it as a "LEGO world!" Thus there's no reason that it has to be invalid.
- MystExplorer
Here's something that's ever so slightly off topic but we may want to keep it in mind: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2015/11/04/the-lego-movie-sequel-hopes-to-add-doctor-who-to-cast/
- OttselSpy25
We should keep that in mind, but without further info that basically means nothing to our assessment. In the same way that we said at the begging of this discussion It's a LEGO crossover video game, of coarse it isn't valid, we can't say It's a LEGO crossover movie, of coarse it isn't valid. So we won't be able to assess that film until 2018/2019, when it's released.
And I don't think it's viable for us to put off this debate and editing of the articles around the game for four years.
- 0551E80Y
hmm since this game is crossing over franchises would it be wise to see how wikis of other franchises would cover this game e.g. the simpsons wiki
- OttselSpy25
Perhaps, but it would also not mean a lot. Different wikias have different policies and different franchises are treated differently within the game. It think that this is something that we can figure out for ourselves.
I want to make it clear that the main issue at hand in terms of it being valid isn't that it's a Lego game with Lego-looking stuff, or that it's a crossover between mediums which exist in the Doctor Who universe as TV shows, but rather the question at hand is if we can find a clear narrative within the game, basing cut scenes and constructs to discover who's actually in the narrative in the level and who you are allowed to play as simply as an Easter egg.
- OttselSpy25
The rule of thumb I've discovered is that if a character has any unique lines for the level, he's meant to be there. The Twelfth Doctor saying "Scaro... Home planet of the Daleks..." for instance. The twelve Doctors before him (confusing, isn't it?) don't have any unique dialogue not taken from the show, nor does K9. In the main game, meanwhile, only Wildstyle, Batman, and Gandolf have anything unique to say in the Who level -- which they of course also star in the cut scenes in.
The biggest problem with the theory of using only characters which the game and narrative suggests are in the level on the wikia is that there are certain parts of the game which can only be accessed by other characters. In The Dalek Extermination of Earth, for instance, there are portals to unlock secret parts of the level which many editors will be quick to write on. One of these has huge metal chunks and Clara fly out of the portal, the metal chunks forming K1 and attacking Clara. This is basically Clara's only the role in the game, and thus will be a hot spot for editors, even if technically you can't get to it according to our supposed policies.
Then there's the Black Archives level, which you can get to with 12 I think, but you can't unlock many things there with only him. With Batman and the split personalities cop you can find Cyber-Brig, who will give you a level bonus, Missy hiding in the room, and the Masters clock TARDIS, which dematerializes. If you bring down two boxes and open a door (all of which take multiple characters) you'll get pieces to Bessie. When the car is assembled, the Third Doctor will arrive via a portal, chased by a Time Scoop, and will take off in the car. Also Osgood and Kate Stewart are running around the room through all of this, very calmly. Missy is also there, and kind of just taunts you vaguely. She calls her device her "vaporizer," so there's a thing.
The instinct of the writers on the wiki will be to write about how, according to this game, the TARDIS could land in the Black Archives at a later point, how the Master's TARDIS was kept there, how the Brigadier hid in a room there, and how the dissembled parts of Bessie, Omega's Mask, and various other things were also stored there in crates. However, according to this discussions supposed rules, all of these things would be noting but an over-glorified Easter egg -- nothing more than the Valeyard's cap in The Eternity Clock. The same for the K1 scene. Do we stand by this? Or do we think that there's a fault here?
- ErinKenobi2893
Wow... Having no experience with games, I just realized that I probably don't even understand this discussion... sorry for muddying the waters :-S
- LuigiHann
I vote that most of the things you can find in the game are easter eggs.
The game's cutscenes make it clear which characters are experiencing the story at any given time, so I'd say anything that involves characters outside of that is just a gameplay-based easter egg. Previous LEGO games made this a bit more straightforward by separating "Story Mode" from "Free Play mode," so while this game is a bit more open-ended, it seems like the same philosophy is in place
- OttselSpy25
Does anyone want to do a vote since we've reached a sort-of consensus but it's certainly not unanimous?
- Shambala108
Actually, User:CzechOut is the most knowledgeable person on this wiki regarding Tardis:Valid sources. I think he needs to make some kind of pronouncement on this issue before any vote is taken.
- OttselSpy25
I agree, although he sadly isn't as around as often as he once was. I was shocked that he hasn't chimed in to the discussion yet... I'm sure he'll really pull apart my assessments, hahaha...
- Shambala108
Mine too hehe.
Anyway, I try to pick and choose the decisions I think he needs to help make, and this would definitely be one of them.
- OttselSpy25
I agree. Looking over the discussion, we've made whole lot of precedents based around gaming for our supposed "fix", which could effect most every game ever released around Doctor Who, and while that might be a good thing rather than a bad, we'd better get Czech in on this. Have left a message on his wall.
LEGO Dimensions is not a valid source. As has been discussed numerous times this decade, any game which has multiple outcomes depending on how the player chooses to play isn't an actual narrative. It's a "choose your own adventure", which aren't allowed. Full stop. The presence or absence of cut scenes is irrelevant. This has long been stated at Tardis:Valid sources#When the licensor is the BBC.
Fortunately Wikia has a place for you to contribute about LEGO Dimensions. If you'd like to write articles about LD characters, please proceed to w:c:legodimensions. Here, it's an invalid source which should only really spawn the NOTDWU article, LEGO Dimensions (video game).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:177099
Hello, everybody, I am starting to doubt that the backup comic stories in the Titan series Doctor Who: The Eleventh Doctor are an in-universe valid source for us; according to our guidelines, they should be treated like a parody.
In the We love Titans, the characters are portrayed by real world deformed action figures, moreover photographed; for example, in Service with a Shhhh, the Doctor speaks to the readers about the (funny) Bank of Silence.
In the other series written and drawn by Marc Ellerby, his drawings are't realistic, and general tones are not serious. In Pond Life, it is depicted River Song living with her parents; Amy and Rory don't ant her to date the Doctor (even referred as "Who"), in "that death machine of his". In Timeliney Wimey, the Doctor connects to his profile on "Bookface" through his screwdriver; Strax, Leela and Polly Wright are among his contacts and comment on their posts, River Song tags pictures of them... even Judoons (one of them named Steve) follow their profiles on this social network.
I could quote other examples, but mere reading should suggest they are not intended to be take them seriously as we are doing. Any opinions?
- Mewiet
HarveyWallbanger wrote: In the other series written and drawn by Marc Ellerby, his drawings are't realistic
First of all, just because you deem the artistic style as unrealistic does not in any way disqualify them from the wiki. I have a hard time taking Simon Fraser's and a lot of DWA art seriously because they're so simplistic, but that's not a legitimate reason to disqualify them. That's the equivalent of picking up a prose story and arguing you personally didn't like the writer's style or characterization, so the story should be stricken from the wiki.
HarveyWallbanger wrote: and general tones are not serious. In Pond Life, it is depicted River Song living with her parents; Amy and Rory don't ant her to date the Doctor (even referred as "Who"), in "that death machine of his". In Timeliney Wimey, the Doctor connects to his profile on "Bookface" through his screwdriver; Strax, Leela and Polly Wright are among his contacts and comment on their posts, River Song tags pictures of them... even Judoons (one of them named Steve) follow their profiles on this social network.
Second of all, there's nothing to suggest River is living with her parents in Pond Life. We know from The Wedding of River Song she visits them at their home without the Doctor. We also know from stories such as First Night, The Angels Take Manhattan, and The Angel's Kiss River has her own experiences when the Doctor isn't around, meaning it's absolutely plausible she could have alien friends such as Steve the Judoon.
Moreover, even if those points were contradictory, Tardis:Valid sources states:
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction. We specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story.
- Digifiend
The backups in the other Titan comics are also lighthearted. It's not just Eleven's.
- HarveyWallbanger
@Digifiend: I guess so, you're right! I just haven't read them.
@Mewiet: I was not talking about a matter of tastes. I do like those stories, they make me laugh. My point is that their setting-out (both in script and art) is "parodistic", meaning that the stories don't expect to be taken seriously.
Another example? In Bow-ties for Goal Posts the Doctor uses his sonic screwdriver on the eyes of a soccer referee and gives him the the ability to watch every football game in the galaxy and shoot optic rays. Should we really add this among the features of the Eleventh Doctor's screwdriver? DW belongs to soft science fiction but there are limits to our suspension of disbelief.
I wouldn't be comfortable in creating the page of "Bookface", a social network supposed to connect Doctor's companions across time and space in real time. (But I will create it if we end up considering these stories valid sources).
Nor it's a matter of contradiction with other stories, we are plenty of "According to one account...".
- Mewiet
No they're not. Ellerby creates all his comics in the same artistic style, he is not singling out his DW backups as parodic, which they aren't. The show and extended universe are utterly ridiculous, often crossing the line from even soft sci-fi into straight up fantasy. Now I love that the show is sci-fantasy, but are we supposed to disqualify In the Forest of the Night because a lot of people had trouble suspending their disbelief in magic trees? No.
As for the sonic screwdriver: it's been shown to detect and block telepathic signals in Rose, turn ordinary cell phones into super phones that can contact anyone across time and space in multiple stories starting such as The End of the World (so it's pretty silly to argue that that's perfectly acceptable but having Bookface to network companions across time and space is not), deactivate living drawings in Fear Her, increase radiation output in Smith and Jones, make Rose glow in Warfreekz!, increase mesh density in Silence in the Library, tint sunglasses in Planet of the Dead, increase the frequencies of a living creature to the point of human hearing in The Beast Below, force a living creature to vomit in The Beast Below, blow up a Weeping Angel in Good as Gold, send the Boneless back to their own dimension in Flatline, and literally heal human flesh in The Vampires of Venice.
And the Doctor has stated he can add new settings.
So I do not see why we shouldn't add that to the list of things the sonic screwdriver can do.
- PicassoAndPringles
I think you are confusing humor with parody. A story can be humourous without being parodic; just look at anything by Gareth Roberts. In The One Doctor, for example, there is a port-a-potty version of the TARDIS that makes flushing noises when it materialises. Despite obviously comical elements, the story is still intended to be a part of the Doctor Who universe. The Titan humour strips are no different. They are not overtly parodies in the same way The Web of Caves or The Curse of Fatal Death are. A humourous tone is not enough to disqualify them.
- Shambala108
We need to use the "four little rules" located at Tardis:Valid sources to determine any story's validity.
- Are these stories? I'm not at all familiar with these but it sounds like there's no argument here (please correct me if I'm wrong).
- Is it commercially licensed by all relevant copyright holders? That would have to be answered by someone familiar with the stories.
- Have these stories been officially released? Once again, it seems like there's no argument here.
- Is it intended to be set outside the DWU? This seems like the question that will generate the most debate on this issue.
I suggest anyone who hasn't read the guidelines for valid sources please do so. There is a longer description of each point than what I posted here.
- HarveyWallbanger
I know the "four little rules" and in my humble opinion those stories are not intended to be set inside the DWU.
Even if I haven't changed my mind, I've surrended to the "consensus" and I've been editing pages related to these stories like any other DWU story.
- Shambala108
Consensus isn't what makes these decisions, policy is. If these stories violate #2 or #4, then they're not valid.
HarveyWallbanger, you think they're not intended to be set in the DWU. Is that the author's intent?
- HarveyWallbanger
Consensus is about how each of us interpret the author's intent and if #4 is relevant.
About the comic strips WeLoveTITANS, "created by photographing a story out of Titan vinyl figurines" (quoting from our series page), the intent of the author AJ is more evident in my eyes.
About the cartoonish strips that we call "backup stories", I think their authors wouldn't have sorted out their ideas that way if they were supposed to feature in a traditional story of Doctor Who (video, audio, prose or main story of the comic book), nor they would have been accepted that way.
Both series are plenty of references to traditional adventures.
I have to admit there can't be a neat line.
- Bwburke94
Since the only one of our four rules up for grabs is #4, here's the text of the rule, more or less:
"If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination... Extraordinary non-narrative evidence must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4."
So the question becomes, is there any "non-narrative evidence" that these backup stories are set outside the DWU?
- CzechOut
Earlier the following snippet was quoted from T:VS
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction. We specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story.
This was never intended to be a loophole through which to allow in parodic stories. This passage is only meant to allow in stories which conflict, and to not use apparent quality of story to be a determiner of validity. To give a specific example, The End of the World, The Ark in Space and The Ark all give different stories about the end of the Earth. What you can't do is say that because The End of the World has higher production values than The Ark, it must therefore be considered the final word on the destruction of the Earth.
By contrast, Doctor Who is not Doctor Who?. The former is the thing which is the major creator of the DWU, and therefore the main topic of this wiki. Episodes which belong to it are explicitly valid on this wiki. The latter is a parodic comic strip, which the authors and publishers have called parodic, and its individual strips have no validity when writing of articles here.
We absolutely can and will kick parodies to the curb with extreme prejudice. Please note that Tardis:Valid sources#What doesn't count specifically outlaws parodies.
Having said all that, I personally have no position on these stories. I'm just pointing out that if they are parodic, T:VS does give us the power to red flag them.
But you would have to do a bit more than say that they are drawn in a whimsical style, as we don't disqualify comics solely on the basis of their artistic style. Several mainstream DWM stories are drawn with a lighter or more representational style, and we're fine with them.
So disqualification would come either with a) a statement by the publisher or author that they were intending a parody or b) consensus of Tardis editors in a discussion like this one.
Interestingly, consensus can indeed vote a story "off the island" because Rule 4 specifically says it can, stating that "a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination".
- CzechOut
By the way, there is precedent for "photographed comics" to be treated as valid sources. Way back in The Dalek Book — the first annual from the DWU — there was a fumetti comic strip called The Message of Mystery. And it's absolutely valid — even though we know that 100% of the pictures have been repurposed for this new story. That, to me, is possible precedent for allowing in a story told with photographs of action figures.
But if Robot Chicken were to do their take on Doctor Who using action figures, that would instantly be disallowed, because RC are, by their very mission statement, parodic.
It just all depends on the artist's known intent.
Where we have problems as a group is when the authorial intent is unknown — or, in one case, where the author has given multiple, conflicting accounts of their intent.
- Notsimonpegg
On The Tenth Doctor strips (A Rose By Any Other Name):
The story features the Doctor speed dating a Weeping Angel (that is able to talk), Cyberman and a Blowfish, somehow I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously.
And that's beyond just stuff like say the Doctor and an anthropomorphic cat watching Friends, dressing as a ballerina and Where's Wally, the cat dating a Sister of Plenitude, the return of K9 out of nowhere and the Doctor setting up a shrine of pictures of Rose in the TARDIS and many other elements that take a serious jump of logic to accept as canon.
If you want official confirmation on the Eleventh Doctor series you can probably drop a message to: http://marcellerby.tumblr.com/
But in the very least, the 10th Doctor strip cannot fit into any sort of continuity. The 11th Doctor and 12th Doctor strips can be forced in if one so chooses. Personally I don't count them as canon but obviously policy is down to consensus not one person.
- Bwburke94
This isn't about canon, it's about whether they were intended to be part of the DWU when they were released.
- Notsimonpegg
The DWU depends on canon, surely? When it is NOTDWU it is outside of the canon. Simple. Out of interest, how many of the people within this thread have actually read the strips? Because those who have read the strips will plainly see they are not intended to be canon out of common sense. I included Marc Ellerby's link in the above post for those who wish to contact him (i.e. the cartoonist/author) to see if they are meant to be within the DWU. And the inevitable answer will be no, they are not supposed to count.
- 173.209.211.242
thanks notsimonpegg for providing marc's tumblr. he's confirmed all his comics are written as dwu and not parody: http://marcellerby.tumblr.com/post/126277522913/hi-marc-were-making-edits-at-the-dw-wiki-need#notes
- PicassoAndPringles
Colin Bell, writer of the Twelfth Doctor backups, said this on twitter:
I don't write them to be parody, but if you're after clarification as to the canonicity of them, that's above my pay grade : )
- Mewiet
Well, our Tardis:Canon policy is that there is no canon, but now we know from both Ellerby and Bell that their stories are definitely not intended as parodies. Presumably the same is true of Smith's, especially given Ellerby's comment:
My DW comics are indeed within the universe and are not parody, the BBC are actually quite tough with anything that is too meta or self referential (not that I’ve had to change anything but the warning’s been in place since the get-go).
Titan Comics editor Andrew James also gave his approval of Ellerby's reply in the form of a like of the post via his own Tumblr account, so I see no reason to believe the Tenth Doctor backups would be any different to Eleven's and Twelve's in terms of the license guidelines.
- PicassoAndPringles
Rachael Smith, writer for the Tenth Doctor backups, said on Twitter:
to be honest I've no idea. I think some of Marc Ellerby's back ups are considered canon. I just got asked to do something funny
So now we have statements from all the backup writers.
- BananaClownMan
I think the real question on our minds should be this; should we add these stories to the character pages' biography?
- Bwburke94
BananaClownMan wrote: I think the real question on our minds should be this; should we add these stories to the character pages' biography?
I suppose so, now that we have author confirmation it was written as part of the DWU.
- Shambala108
We still have two users on this thread who dispute the nature of these stories. No decision has been made yet. Until a decision has been reached, I suggest that there should be no adding of new information from these stories to articles, but also no removing of what's already on the pages.
If anyone who has read the stories still wants to dispute the nature of these stories (not the canonicity - we aren't concerned with that here, see Tardis:Canon policy), please make your arguments here, without getting into canonicity or continuity problems.
- Mewiet
I have read all of Marc Ellerby's backups and my position has not changed: they do not violate any of our Four Little Rules. They are valid.
- Notsimonpegg
If it's allowed I can post scans, but even though the 11th and 12th Doctor strips can be valid, the 10th Doctor strips still feature the Doctor speed dating a Weeping Angel (that is able to talk), Cyberman and a Blowfish. Plus Rachael Smith seems pretty unsure and says she was just told to write humour.
I'm sure there's a story out there to be told about anthropomorphic Weeping Angels, Cybermen alone in the universe that don't murder the Doctor at first sight and romantic Blowfish, but ultimately rule #4 comes into question as Rachael isn't sure herself.
- Mewiet
I don't agree. Smith seems to be confusing are your stories parody? with are your stories canon? Hence her comment about Ellerby's strips. Canon and previous continuity (such as a talking Weeping Angel - incidentally, something we have seen with Angel Bob) are, of course, non-relevant to whether something is valid or not.
Furthermore, why should Smith's backups have any different licensing guidelines than Ellerby's or Bell's? If Smith was crossing the line with her stories, it stands to reason she and/or her editor, Andrew James, would have been forced to redo the strips since the warning against parody was in place since the beginning.
- PicassoAndPringles
I think the most damning evidence in favor of the backups comes from Four Doctors. In part one, Eleven leaves for a bit to buy some French comics. The backup in that issue, The Doctor Shops for Comics, shows him going to a Parisian newsstand to do just that, with some direct references to what's going on in the main story. Then, in part two, Eleven runs past and remarks on the very same newsstand. I think this shows very clear intent for the backups to be "in-universe".
- OttselSpy25
Been reading and looking at a bunch of these, and I have a strong take on these.
The back-up comics within the Eleventh Doctor comics are often meant to be comedic -- but for the most part, they do stick to the Doctor-Who-Universe. Sonic Sleuth, for instance, is highly comedic but still sticks to the characters and settings to some end. They're not stretching the characters or setting to make the story more comedic, they're letting the Doctor's zaniness do that. The Doctor Shops for Comics is a more clear example, as mentioned above. Despite being a highly stylized art style and having the Doctor talk in a way he wouldn't on screen, it's referenced in the main series and actually ties in directly. It appears that these stories are meant to be valid, weather they're goofy or not.
The WeLoveTITANS comics are a lot easier to interpret as non-valid, because they break the rules a lot more. When Temporal Loops Attack, for instance, is a direct parody of a scene in Weapons of Past Destruction. In multiple stories, the Doctor talks to the reader, Relaxing in the Void, for instance. Other stories, such as To Heck and Back's main joke is that the characters are not acting as they should be. 10 and The Beast are having tea, and the Beast talks about the Internet connecting in the black hole that he is trapped in. Friendly conversation. That's the sort of comedy that really falls into the not-valid sort I think, although I don't know if all #WeLoveTITANS stories are non-valid. Hot Springs Eternal, for instance, is pretty straight forward as a mini-strip. If it was illustrated, we wouldn't consider it a contender for booting. So maybe we should think of this on a case-by-case basis?
The back-up stories in The Tenth Doctor are a little more vague; a little bit of both of the above. In some ways the humour comes entirely from the interactions of the cast, and in some ways they do exaggerate things a tiiny bit. That is, 10's emotions over the loss of Rose are played kinda like he's a 22 year old who just had his first break up. But (and I hope I'm not stepping boundaries here) I kinda feel like the show did the same thing. Most of the comedy does spring from the fact that Rose-the-Cat is a cat, and usually doesn't seem to break outside of that. Even Garfield is more crazy than this comic, breaking huge leaps in reality to make a joke. A Rose just has the cat sharpening its claws and dragging in carcasses. You know. Cat stuff.
What I'm sure of is that Rose the Cat and the Eleventh Doctor comics are clearly meant to fit somewhere and stick to their characters for humour, not breaking outside of the line most of the time. Most importantly though, I'm pretty sure that they're meant to be valid. That's the big difference here -- WeLoveTITANS is clearly an ironic strip with no basis in the universe (usually) while the other strips are set within the universe and are just funny -- like The Horns of Nimon.
- OttselSpy25
While some of those elements in Rose the Car certainly aren't with what most of us accept within our heads, I don't think that should effect the voting.
I want to point out that in this thread we are not concerned with if you think it is canon or not. If that were true Lungbarrow and TVC would be gone long ago.
- OttselSpy25
I'm going to rattle off some story-by story notes here on the WeLoveTITANS comics so we can start to knock those out at least. I'm just gonna go down what I've seen and what I think.
- Hot Springs Eternal (comic story) - The Doctor finds a hot spring. Rose points out it might be deadly. The Doctor agrees. Overtly funny, but if it was an illustrated strip we wouldn't care.
- When Temporal Loops Attack (comic story) - Spoof of scene in Weapons of Past Destruction. Thus a parody.
- Relaxing in the Void (comic story) - Spoof of scene in Weapons of Past Destruction. Nine talks to audience. Thus a parody.
- In the Dog House (comic story) - War Doctor talks to 11 and 10 like he's a grampa and their teenagers. Parody.
- Wardrobe Malfunction (comic story) - The Doctor tries on different clothes, and in doing so turns into the Fifth Doctor for one panel. Fairly certain parody.
- To Heck and Back (comic story) - The Doctor and The Beast talk outside where he was trapped before. They have tea (The Beast gets this cute giant cup) and discuss the Beast's life. The Beast gets poor internet in the Void, which 10 feels bad about. I'm gonna go with parody.
- Me Time (comic story) - The Doctor has just dropped off Clara and considers what to do in the coming weeks. He decides to watch Soaps in the end. Silly, but not remotely in the category of spoof I'd say.
- Dark Water (comic story) - Ad for drink that removes emotions and humanity from broken Cybermen named "Dark Water." 12 appears in the ad and quotes a line from the episode, which leads into the slogan of the drink. Overtly parody I think...
- Ebbing Tide (comic story) - The Doctor and Clara are riding waves in the TARDIS, and 12 is worrying about his watch getting wet (I think? I'm having trouble figuring this one out). Again, silly, but if it were an illustrated comic no one would blink an eye. Not parody.
- Notsimonpegg
WeLoveTITANS is obviously not meant to count; it's an advertisement. It would be like saying the PRIME computer adverts are valid sources, or that the Doctor has a TARDIS tuner.
- OttselSpy25
Notsimonpegg wrote: WeLoveTITANS is obviously not meant to count; it's an advertisement. It would be like saying the PRIME computer adverts are valid sources, or that the Doctor has a TARDIS tuner.
Okay, so before we going about deciding if the entire series as a concept is valid, can we at least agree, on an individual basis, that some of them are blatant spoofs? That way we can get one thing out of the way at a time.
- Notsimonpegg
I don't really read them and find them humourless, so I can't comment besides the fact I agree some of the ones I read are spoofs.
- Shambala108
From an admin viewpoint, I'd rather call them all valid or invalid, not pick and choose. It's much easier to enforce.
- OttselSpy25
While labeling them all as non-valid may be the most simple approach, it may boil down to the fact that, like any comic series, it is a case of individual strips. What's I'm fairly certain isn't an option is to have them all be valid.
- OttselSpy25
Notsimonpegg wrote: WeLoveTITANS is obviously not meant to count; it's an advertisement. It would be like saying the PRIME computer adverts are valid sources, or that the Doctor has a TARDIS tuner.
According to what I can tell, actually, we have precedent for including stories released as advertisements. Look at Doctor Who and the Daleks.
- Notsimonpegg
Is DW&TD an advertisement, though, or more a promotional item in the same vain as the Big Finish promo CDs? It is not explicitly promoting a product through the story; although please correct me if the premise of the story is "the Doctor eats some sweet cigarettes."
- OttselSpy25
Notsimonpegg wrote: Is DW&TD an advertisement, though, or more a promotional item in the same vain as the Big Finish promo CDs? It is not explicitly promoting a product through the story; although please correct me if the premise of the story is "the Doctor eats some sweet cigarettes."
There's another example tho, we allow the use of DWM previews (advertisements) for Big Finish audios and books on pages because they often show a visual representation of non-visual stories. So there we're counting an ad as valid. Also, I've looked over Dr Who and the Turgids, and while it is goofy, it's certainly not far worse off from any TV Action comic, and it clearly is telling a competent story. So I don't even know if your example is showing a precedent for us counting ads as invalid. Tardis:Valid sources certainly doesn't point to any idea of the sort. If an ad is trying to tell a real story, isn't trying to spoof the show, and is licensed, then I don't see an issue with including it as Valid.
- CzechOut
Please don't derail this thread by talking about advertisements and Doctor Who. Keep your eyes on the prize. :)
(But before we leave the subject, it should be pointed out that Doctor Who and the Daleks is a pure story, as the reasonably complete page makes clear. It in no way tries to sell you sweet cigs. The only way in which it sold candy was that you had to buy a lot of the stuff in order to complete the story. It certainly doesn't posit that the First Doctor was using sweet cigs or anything of the kind.)
- OttselSpy25
CzechOut wrote: ... It certainly doesn't posit that the First Doctor was using sweet cigs or anything of the kind.)
An Unearthly Child did that just fine.
In all seriousness, I think the issue here was weather or not the TITANS series being an advertisement (which is pretty much is) is enough for it to be non-valid. I don't think so.
- CzechOut
Well, it is, because advertisements fail rule 1. They aren't stories; they merely use the trappings of storytelling to get you to buy something which exists in the real world.
But again, if you feel it's really important to debate that point, please do so in another thread.
Let's bring this back to the items we're actually considering. And I've got to say that I agree with Shambala. As a matter of administrative practicality, it makes the most sense to me to just vote them all off the ranch, rather than having a thread which is perpetually open to decide the fate of each one of these as new issues are published.
They're clearly borderline, and it's doubtful that too much information from them would go onto in-universe pages. Let's just push them off the cliff, like we do with Doctor Who?. Or, to pull from another universe, like DC fans do with those Silver Age one-page public service "story" pages, or like Marvel fans do with the Spiderman sketches on The Electric Company.
- OttselSpy25
CzechOut wrote: Well, it is, because advertisements fail rule 1. They aren't stories; they merely use the trappings of storytelling to get you to buy something which exists in the real world.
But again, if you feel it's really important to debate that point, please do so in another thread.
Let's bring this back to the items we're actually considering. And I've got to say that I agree with Shambala. As a matter of administrative practicality, it makes the most sense to me to just vote them all off the ranch, rather than having a thread which is perpetually open to decide the fate of each one of these as new issues are published.
They're clearly borderline, and it's doubtful that too much information from them would go onto in-universe pages. Let's just push them off the cliff, like we do with Doctor Who?. Or, to pull from another universe, like DC fans do with those Silver Age one-page public service "story" pages, or like Marvel fans do with the Spiderman sketches on The Electric Company.
Just to be clear, I don't have any side really to have on the issue, I was just unclear on if the points being brought have a standing. If they do, then I say get rid of them.
- OttselSpy25
So to bump this conversation up, can we start to work on the beginning of touching on wrapping up this issue by deciding as a group if the #WeLoveTITANS comics are valid. From there we can identify if Tenth Doctor, Eleventh Doctor, and Twelfth Doctor comics are each individually valid. But for now I think we should knock one out at a time as to not keep swinging in these loops. Are there any nay-sayers to the concept of the WeLoveTITANS series being parody advertisements and nothing more?
- Shambala108
I think the posters in this thread need to make clear (for those of us who know nothing about these comics) which stories are being suggested as nonvalid.
From what I can tell, looking at the articles in question, in this line are three types of stories: Main, Backup, and WeLoveTitans. Which of these groups are up for debate here? Backup, Titans, or both?
- OttselSpy25
We're discussing the back-up comics from the three series as well as the WeLoveTITANS comics. I meant to suggest a rename to make that more clear, but I totally forgot.
- Mewiet
Shambala108 wrote: I think the posters in this thread need to make clear (for those of us who know nothing about these comics) which stories are being suggested as nonvalid.
From what I can tell, looking at the articles in question, in this line are three types of stories: Main, Backup, and WeLoveTitans. Which of these groups are up for debate here? Backup, Titans, or both?
This thread started out about the Eleventh Doctor backups, but seems to have merged to include all Backups and all WeLoveTITANS.
- HarveyWallbanger
I've updated the title.
P.S. Do you still think that stories such as The Meeting are a valid source, don't you?
- OttselSpy25
Harvey, could you change the thread's name to something like "Are Titan Back-up and WeLoveTITANS comics Valid?"
- OttselSpy25
It doesn't make sense, so I don't personally think that it's canon but that doesn't effect my sight in terms of if it is valid or not. That's an important detail that a lot of people over look; the TVC comics are in a setting where most would easily say it's too far from the show to be canon, but it still passes our rules.
So are comics like that one valid? It really depends if you think it's a parody or not. Which is somewhat debatable. It does seem to be borderline spoof. By the sounds of things, though, the people who loomed over the creation of these back-up strips would fight you over saying that. I will say that The Daft Dimension makes the back-up strips look like Genesis of the Daleks.
- Notsimonpegg
The best analogy for We Love Titans is to the Hostess Cake ads from the Silver Age, really. Heightened reality and implausible situations.
The Daft Dimension/Doctor Whoah and all of that are in a different league because they are explicit parody and satire of things relating to Doctor Who, i.e. just a bit more meta. Whereas rather than meta, some of the stories (especially Rachael Smith) are more awkward than anything else.
- OttselSpy25
Good point.
- CzechOut
Guys, lemme clarify our four little rules here. Rule 4 allows us to simply say — about any story — that we don't think it's valid. Seriously, just a show of hands will do at this point, because we've talked a lot about them.
You don't need to restate your opinion unless you're changing it from what you've said upthread.
Simple "yes" or "no" time. Give a vote for both the following:
- Are Titan Publishing's backup comic strips valid sources for the writing of in-universe articles?
- Are Titan Publishing's WeLoveTitans comic strips valid sources for the writing of in-universe articles?
Voting ends two weeks from today. Go.
- Revanvolatrelundar
1 - yes
2 - not at all
- OttselSpy25
1 - Yes
2 - No
Also, since we're at a voting stage here, could I suggest a highlight?
- HarveyWallbanger
1 - No
2 - No
- TARDIS2468
1 - Yes
2 - No
- Notsimonpegg
1 - No
2 - No
- Michael McQuaig
1 - No
2 - No
- SteamMoose
I've been following this conversation from the beginning and I'm gonna go with
1 - No
2 - No
- OttselSpy25
Hope I'm not being obnoxious here by stating one last piece of evidence (which was briefly mentioned above but never really acknowledged as important as a group). On the question of "are the back-up comics valid and do they connect to the story, Four Doctors tries really hard to make us think so.
Throughout the entire series, 11 constantly references "the comics" he picked up from the stand, even when the comic is totally inconsistent on weather we has the bundle or not. Even when they land out of the Continuity trap he still mentions that he has them still, even when he clearly doesn't (unless the huge pox is in the liner of his coat). Here you can note the news stand being exactly the same sans artistic style and 11 noting in really forced dialogue that the stand is where he bought the comics. Also note the bundle held by both Doctors.
- BananaClownMan
But, the background is different? Any way, thanks for the heads up, User:OttselSpy25.
I'm gonna go with 1: No 2: Oh, Hells Naw!!!
- OttselSpy25
But, the background is different?
Are you serious?
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Okay, back to voting now...
- BananaClownMan
OttselSpy25 wrote:
But, the background is different?
Are you serious?
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Okay, back to voting now...
It sounded funny when I read it in my head in Ben Stein's voice
- Shambala108
Keep on topic, guys.
- RogerAckroydLives
1. No.
2. No.
- Bwburke94
To clarify my lack of a response, I'll be looking further at the comics before I determine whether they are valid sources.
- PicassoAndPringles
- Yes
- No
- Mcj545
1. Yes, several of the authors have stated they were written with the intention of being part of the DWU.
2. No, they're just silly promos for the Titan figures. - Bwburke94
After my review of the comics:
1. Yes, they are part of the DWU. We cannot disqualify them on the grounds of Rule 4 because they were written as part of the DWU.
2. No, they are not part of the DWU. While there is no evidence that they are intended to be set outside the DWU, they are intended to be parodic. Our community discussion has determined that even with no explicit statement of authorial intent, we can still invoke Rule 4. - Mewiet
I wanted to review the WLTs before I voted and now that I have, I'm going to say:
1. Yes 2. No
- OttselSpy25
If I'm not mistaken, the two week period has just ended.
- Shambala108
It's been a general practice of this wiki to not adhere too strictly to time constraints, especially if there are other users who wish to contribute. Most likely, CzechOut will make his way to this post when he gets a chance, and will rule on the issue at that time.
My votes are:
- No
- No
- Bold Clone
1. Yes
2. Gonna go with "no" for now...
- JagoAndLitefoot
1. Yes
2. No
Clearly the backup strips are the more contentious area, with those wishing to include them being matched by the number of people on the opposite side.
However, if you dig beyond the vote and look at rationale, those in favour of including the backup strips make a better case. At least some of the backup strip creators have unambiguously stated they believed they were writing DWU stories. And as has been pointed out by both OS25 and PicassoAndPringles, the main strip does at least once refer to incidents that occurred in the backup strip.
Conversely, arguments against the backup strip rest mainly on artistic style or absurdity of content. I haven't actually read any argument that could disallow these strips while still allowing us to include Polystyle strips. Absurdity in the 2010s is not somehow more disallowable than absurdity from the 1960s. Newfound settings on a sonic screwdriver to allow someone at a football match to see every game ever played are no more offensive than the Second Doctor being a celebrity panelist on a game show — or being a candidate for President of the United States!
Indeed, PicassoAndPringles' comments from July get directly at the heart of the matter:
I think you are confusing humor with parody. A story can be humourous without being parodic; just look at anything by Gareth Roberts. In The One Doctor, for example, there is a port-a-potty version of the TARDIS that makes flushing noises when it materialises. Despite obviously comical elements, the story is still intended to be a part of the Doctor Who universe.
Therefore, the backup strips are in.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:177311
I have noticed that the Audio Visuals page doesn't have any invalid source templates for some reason. It fails rule 2 of our four little rules in my opinion, but I want to officially wait for a ruling on the Audio Visuals' validity before jumping the gun.
- CzechOut
Audio Visuals are disallowed because they all do indeed fail rule 2. Rule 2 disqualifications are easy to spot and non-controversial. There's no reason to wait for a ruling, as T:VS spells things out quite clearly. The only titles which spawn debate are those involving rule 4, but of course rule 4 inherently allows for such debates.
Once upon a time we maintained a list of things that were disallowed, but that became laborious, especially because people would sometimes say of things that were clearly invalid, "Well, you didn't specifically disallow it, so it must be okay."
By switching to a rules-with-examples-based system, we have greatly reduced the number of questions.
That said, it's a borderline case whether a {{notdwu}} tag is really necessary, and whether it would be confusing. There's a case for a {{real world}} tag, because the linked stories on the page are actually valid stories, and some readers might think we were saying those stories, like Cuddlesome, were invalid. Moreover, the article says within the first sentence that the AV stories were unlicensed, so the point of invalidity is immediately made.
Finally, {{notdwu}} is typically used for individual story pages, not articles about ranges.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:177339
Can we add a NOTDWU label to this page? When the story features the Doctor speed dating a Weeping Angel (that is able to talk), Cyberman and a Blowfish, somehow I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously.
And that's beyond just stuff like say the Doctor and an anthropomorphic cat watching Friends, dressing as a ballerina and Where's Wally, the cat dating a Sister of Plenitude, the return of K9 out of nowhere and the Doctor setting up a shrine of pictures of Rose in the TARDIS and many other elements that take a serious jump of logic to accept as canon. Notsimonpegg ☎ 19:23, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
- PicassoAndPringles
The inclusion of the Titan backup comics is currently being discussed at Thread:177099. It's probably best to keep it all in one thread, so you should bring up your points there.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:178627
Someone has removed the Invalid Source tag from the article for The Daft Dimension. I'm pretty sure that strip is meant to be a straight-up parody so shouldn't the tag be there?
- OttselSpy25
I agree. Blatant spoof, breaks fourth wall commonly. Furthermore, it's an extended sequel to Doctor Who?, which has been one of the examples brought up by our head admin more than any other of invalid parody sources. I don't really think that a discussion is needed for this one.
- OttselSpy25
Yeah, this one isn't really debatable. Many of the strips are set in the real world, so they already discount rule #4. If they were all separate strips with separate names, you could argue for each one. But as they're all one large collection, they're invalid.
- Digifiend
I've reverted the edit that removed the invalid source tag, and renamed the page to remove the (comic story) disambiguation, since nothing has the same name and it is NOT a story, but an umbrella title for a series of gag strips. Doctor Who? and Doctor Whoah! don't have that dab, neither should this.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:179220
I don't think that Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time is a valid source. If you haven't read it, it's about writer and artist Sean Longcroft's relationship with the show, having grown up with it and always wishing for the chance to write his own episode. It's a pretty fun comic about the effect that the show had on children, but it clearly doesn't fit our four little rules, mainly in that it certainly isn't meant to be set within the DWU.
- SOTO
Can we be sure that was the intention? I haven't read it, myself, but remember that two other (valid) comics feature Doctor Who as a television series which exists, so that alone should not invalidate the story. Those comics, by the way, are TV Action! and The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who.
- SOTO
In both those cases, the Doctor visits an alternate universe (called the "real world" in Girl) in which his life is a TV programme called Doctor Who. I don't see why Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time could not be the same thing. Do you have evidence which states that it was never intended to be set in the DWU? It seems to me like just another "the Doctor visits the 'real world'" valid story.
- OttselSpy25
SOTO wrote: In both those cases, the Doctor visits an alternate universe (called the "real world" in Girl) in which his life is a TV programme called Doctor Who. I don't see why Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time could not be the same thing. Do you have evidence which states that it was never intended to be set in the DWU? It seems to me like just another "the Doctor visits the 'real world'" valid story.
It's really the opposite to me. A story where the Doctor is on 'our Earth' interacting with fans of Doctor Who would need proof that it was meant to be an alternate universe -- not the other way 'round. In that sense, this is no different from Davros popping up at the Proms or the Fourth Doctor visiting schools!
It's just hard to see how this story was intended to be set inside the "DWU."
Indeed, the narrative explicitly says that the Doctor is made up, and really the point of the whole story is to show a writer creating the stories of Doctor Who.
It's definitely meta-fiction about Doctor Who the television show, not a narrative featuring the Fourth Doctor. Though the page on the story is skimpy, it should be tweaked to reflect this conversation.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:179548
I question our decision upon making the short story piece Rescue an invalid source. Now, thinking back to the drunken haze that was my teen years on this site I might have had a part in making stories like this invalid, or maybe not. Either way, I think that there is a distinct difference between Rescue and other short stories like it which have been labeled invalid. The main reason (that I can surmise) that this story has been marked as invalid is that it serves as a sort of prequel to Dimensions in Time. We have thus eliminated it by its connection to the invalid TV story. However, while it has been decided that DiT was sadly meant to be nothing more than "a bit of fun" with its creators, I don't know that the same novelty detachment was centered upon the prequel here. It seems, as far as I can tell, that it was written by someone trying to introduce these two characters meeting without worrying about the other story. Unless there's a quote from the creator saying that it was meant as a gag or otherwise, I don't see a reason to keep it isolated.
- Bwburke94
It branches from an invalid source, similar to the various things spawned by Death Comes to Time which are also non-DWU.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Well, it uses a character that originate from an invalid source, but I'm not sure if it necessarily means it is invalid in itself. See for example Zog, who also originated in an invalid source, but ended up in valid ones.
- Bwburke94
Rule 4 of our four little rules comes into play here.
Because this story is currently considered invalid, can we hold a community discussion in order to decide whether it is valid?
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'd say that while it uses a character from "Dimensions in Time", it doesn't actually rely on continuity with it. That is, it can still work as a standalone story even if "Dimensions" didn't exist.
- Scrooge MacDuck
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: I'd say that while it uses a character from "Dimensions in Time", it doesn't actually rely on continuity with it. That is, it can still work as a standalone story even if "Dimensions" didn't exist.
Isn't that kind of besides the point, anyway? Invalid doesn't mean non-canonical. It means that the "story" isn't for our purposes a story; that it may be a licensed Doctor Who product, but holds as much weight as if the writer had just pontificated in an interview to the effect of "the Rani once took a bunch of Doctors out of their timeline and the EastEnders crew got involved".
The key thing is that we do not deny that the events of Dimensions in Time might well have happened, for all we know; we just don't have any narrative evidence to say that they did, but merely an "out-of-universe source", e.g. Dimensions in Time.
What I'm saying is that following the spirit of Tardis's policy, info from DiT is equivalent to info Steven Moffat might have given in an interview, or something that might have appeared The Brilliant Book. It's not presented in a story, and therefore we are not going to use it per se; but we shouldn't even bat an eyelid if that information is later referenced in supplementary works that are in fact narrative.
Bwburke94 wrote: It branches from an invalid source, similar to the various things spawned by Death Comes to Time which are also non-DWU.
Not entirely sure what you're referring to. The Minister of Chance solo-series is indeed non-DWU, but that's because its creators actually went on record stressing that it was no longer connected to Doctor Who, even in DCtT’s funny, “maybe this happened in an alternate timeline, or it might just not have happened at all” kind of way. The decision had, as far as I know, very little to do with Death’s own status.
Again, all "invalid" means is that it's not considered actual narrative information for us, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Maybe the Doctor did indeed fight off an evil Time Lord called Tannis with the Minister of Chance while Ace was trained by Casmus — DCtT isn't telling us that for sure, because as a non-story it doesn't have the authority to tell us that for sure; but for non-Wiki-matters it makes us strongly aware of the possibility, just like the writers telling us so should make us strongly aware of the possibility that Jack Harkness became the Face of Boe — and we shouldn't be surprised if a valid source later references, and thereby "officializes", these facts.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:179549
According to what I can tell, all stories in Short Trips and Side Steps which are not set within the DWU are not meant to be invalid, but rather are set in alternate dimensions. It's in the descripton and even in the title -- "side steps" is how we knew the universes in Inferno worked. What this means, by extension, is that the book is retconning Dr. Who and the Daleks, Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., Dimensions in Time and Search Out Space as not being a non-legitimate take alone, but rather taking place in an alternate dimension (another popular fan theory). While the last two I still doubt in terms of if they are 'stories' at all (a huge part of them being valid) this might have a huge impact on how we decide to see the two Dalek films. Or maybe it wont. Any thoughts?
- Bwburke94
The Dalek films fail Rule 4 as they were not intended to take place in what we now recognise as the DWU.
Dimensions in Time has been repeatedly determined to fail Rule 4 every time we've brought it to discussion, under the rationale that First Frontier implies it to be a nightmare of the Seventh Doctor. Also, DiT as originally broadcast featured a form of interactivity, which we have disqualified the Decide Your Destiny range under... and why am I even bothering to repeat all this?
Search Out Space is the hardest to place, but it is bridged to DiT through Storm in a Tikka, providing a clear reason to exclude it. In addition, SOS is an episode of Search Out Science rather than of a DWU programme, similar to how A Fix with Sontarans is an episode of that programme I'd rather not name.
- OttselSpy25
I, uh, I do comprehend why they weren't valid before...
- OttselSpy25
Here's the thing.
If this book featured brand-new creations of "what-if" Doctors, the description would be enough for us to accept the stories as alternate dimension Doctors.
But the "alternate Doctors" featured in this book are of Doctors which had already existed. All of these are either accepted as valid on this site now (Ultimate Adventure, TVC comics) or are considered invalid (A Fix with Sontarans, Dimensions in Time). Most of those stories we consider invalid because they weren't meant to be serious or broke the fourth wall. However, one story has remained in that category because it was clearly not meant to take place in the DWU, but it was never made absolutely clear if if was an alternate universe story. This book is the only story set featuring the "Dr. Who" and "Suzy" characters to make it clear that they exist in an alternate dimension. So this could elivate both movies, the comic featuring them, and any future stories out of their invalid classification. Even if we decide that this collection does not contain enough info to complete this classification, it's only a matter of time before a comic or short story makes the same idea more clear.
- OttselSpy25
Anyone have a take on this?
- MystExplorer
I have no problem with them being invalid. I think if we were to make them valid, we might set a bad precedent. It could open up the proverbial can of worms with people saying, "Well, if those stories are valid, why not these?" etc.
- OttselSpy25
Well, if we get a story that suggests them to be in an alternate dimension, then many of the "invalid" Doctors on our pages would be lifted out of their collapsed continuity. It's nearly been done before with the Unbound Doctors and the Curse of Fatal Death Doctors. I question if this collection is enough to suggest that the Cushing Doctor is an alternate dimension Doctor or not.
- MystExplorer
Personally, I don't think it is. Each story in this collection is a narrative unto itself. Unlike some other Short Trips collections there is no common story element that links them all together.
- Bwburke94
As I said, the Cushing films, at the time of their creation, were not intended to take place within the DWU. I doubt a later collection would be able to retroactively give it DWU status, but it's not my call in the end.
- OttselSpy25
MystExplorer wrote: Personally, I don't think it is. Each story in this collection is a narrative unto itself. Unlike some other Short Trips collections there is no common story element that links them all together.
Well systematically, it's the theme of Side Steps that ties the stories together. All stories set with normal Doctors and companions are meant to be the main DWU and all stories with odd Doctors often ignored by fans from continuity are "side steps," or "alternate dimension adventures." Arguably, this does have holes tho...
- Shambala108
Seems to me this falls into the same situation as Fixing a Hole. In fact, in Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?, CzechOut even says, "There are sequels to the Dalek movies of the 1960s in prose and in comics, but this wiki doesn't consider any of it a part of the Doctor Who universe." (emphasis mine)
- OttselSpy25
'Fix with Sontarans' and the Dr. Who films are notably different in terms of why they are invalid. AFwS ends with a fourth wall break, with the Doctor meeting with Saville and the cast reverting back to actors. If that scene wasn't there, I have no doubt we'd consider the story valid -- but that story removes any chances of such a take. The Dalek Films are invalid simply because they are not meant to match with the Doctor Who continuum, but aren't made clear as to if the story is an alternate reality, timeline, or just not a story that's 'within the bounds.' The films are a full narrative which stays to being a story without breaking the bounds. Basically we're one template and a few changed categories from the films being valid.
Even if we don't decide to elevate Dr Who out of the invalid cat, I would say that the collection is enough to expand his page to note his "alternate dimension" status.
- OttselSpy25
I don't really think that matters. It is an official take on the character, and the character is used in the book, suggesting that people using the cast for a story had a contrete decision on what he was meant to be.
Bwburke94 wrote: As I said, the Cushing films, at the time of their creation, were not intended to take place within the DWU. I doubt a later collection would be able to retroactively give it DWU status, but it's not my call in the end.
The only reason I could think of this not being absolute proof is that it's not quite concrete enough. Although I suppose it's only a matter of time before Titan comics does something with this...
- OttselSpy25
To wrap up the discussion, I believe that while the description of the book noting stories set in "alternate dimensions," this is not enough to remove the characters and movies from their invalid placement. If a later story with them made it more clear within the story, then I believe it would work this way.
- SOTO
Those stories were not intended to be set within the DWU, so they can't just be retconned into it. Even if later stories, supposedly taking place in those universes, are deemed valid, information from the invalid source could only be placed in behind the scenes sections, where we can say the character originated in an invalid source.
- Pluto2
I think it'd make sense to change our treatment of the four works featuring the Dr. Who character from "invalid source" to "alternate universe", given that The House on Oldark Moor says it's an alternate universe. This is similar to how we treat the Sympathy for the Devil Doctor - he's an alternate universe Doctor, but still canon. In both cases, evidence exists that the respective Doctors aren't non-canon, but are from universes other than the main one.
- SOTO
We treat the Warner Doctor as an alternate universe Doctor quite specifically because he later appears in the Bernice Summerfield series The Unbound Universe, set in an alternate universe. Like, regular-universe Benny travels to a different universe and meets this Doctor.
I should also note that our only stance on canon is that it does not exist. Instead, we have T:VALID to determine what is considered valid here. And something is valid if it passes our four little rules.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: We treat the Warner Doctor as an alternate universe Doctor quite specifically because he later appears in the Bernice Summerfield series The Unbound Universe, set in an alternate universe. Like, regular-universe Benny travels to a different universe and meets this Doctor.
I should also note that our only stance on canon is that it does not exist. Instead, we have T:VALID to determine what is considered valid here. And something is valid if it passes our four little rules.
I apologize.
What I'm saying is that a work in continuity with the Dalek films states the works are in an alternate universe. Likewise, The Unbound Universe treats the Sympathy for the Devil Doctor as one from an alternate universe, and thus stories featuring him are considered valid.
In both cases, it's stated that there is a universe where X happened. Sympathy for the Devil et al. are valid for THEIR universe. Thus, I would think we would treat the works featuring the Cushing "Dr. Who" character as valid for their universe. Does this make sense?
- Bwburke94
Unlike with the David Warner Doctor's universe, there is no connection between the Cushing Dr Who universe and the "main" universe. I think that's where the problem is.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: Unlike with the David Warner Doctor's universe, there is no connection between the Cushing Dr Who universe and the "main" universe. I think that's where the problem is.
I would say if related works set in the same universe state it's an alternate universe, that's satisfactory.
We have The House on Oldark Moor, set in the Cushing universe, and it states that it's set in a parallel universe. Thus, I see no reason why the four works set in that universe shouldn't be considered valid sources. They're irrelevant to the "main" universe as is.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I think parallel universe would work as, not a major reason, other than it is stated to be set in a parallel universe.
Warner was not intended to be so called canon, but BF retconned that later - same with Cushing. It seems it's rules for one and one for the other.
- Shambala108
Let's make something perfectly clear here. We do not re-open inclusion debates every time someone disagrees with an original decision or every time a new user joins and wants to know why something has been ruled invalid.
Furthermore, per Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point, and I quote: "Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic."
The Cushing films have long been considered invalid on this wiki. If that's all this thread has become, then it will be closed.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: Let's make something perfectly clear here. We do not re-open inclusion debates every time someone disagrees with an original decision or every time a new user joins and wants to know why something has been ruled invalid.
Furthermore, per Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point, and I quote: "Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic."
The Cushing films have long been considered invalid on this wiki. If that's all this thread has become, then it will be closed.
However, if we apply the retroactivity clause for First Frontier to deem Dimensions in Time invalid, by that same logic, the Cushing movies ARE valid because a later work says they are.
- Shambala108
Pluto2 wrote: However, if we apply the retroactivity clause for First Frontier to deem Dimensions in Time invalid, by that same logic, the Cushing movies ARE valid because a later work says they are.
That is incorrect. You are quoting a non-admin's opinion on why DIT was declared invalid. Read admin comments (specifically User:CzechOut's) in Forum:Is Dimensions in Time canon and the two discussions linked from there to find out why DIT is not valid.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: However, if we apply the retroactivity clause for First Frontier to deem Dimensions in Time invalid, by that same logic, the Cushing movies ARE valid because a later work says they are.
That is incorrect. You are quoting a non-admin's opinion on why DIT was declared invalid. Read admin comments (specifically User:CzechOut's) in Forum:Is Dimensions in Time canon and the two discussions linked from there to find out why DIT is not valid.
Fair enough, but we have a short story set in the Cushing universe stating the other works set there take place in an alternate universe. While at the time, the films weren't intended to be part of the DWU, retroactively, The House on Oldark Moor establishes it as a different universe - but still valid. Didn't we use retroactivity to deem Sympathy for the Devil valid due to The Unbound Universe establishing it as an alternate universe? How are the Dalek movies different?
That does not apply here. We don't, as a general practice, apply validity retroactively. Upthread I already gave an example of a supposed sequel to a nonvalid source being also considered invalid, at Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon? (keep in mind while reading this thread that we used to use the word "canonicity" to mean what we now call "validity"). This situation is not similar to the Warner case; therefore there will be no change in the nonvalidity of the Cushing movies.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:179991
This was previously brought up on the Seven Keys to Doomsday talk page by Czech, but why do we count that page as invalid? I understand why what it is based off of is invalid, as it's a play which had no home video releases (I'm of the opinion that if a Who play ever gets an official homevideo release like plays sometimes do, the video itself might be valid). I suppose the logical is that as it features a Doctor who many consider "alternate" that is is thus invalid. However, also adapted from a play and featuring a cast often interpreted to be "alternate" by fans is The Ultimate Adventure, which is marked as valid on this site. Seven Keys is taken on this wikia to be in the same light as Doctor Who Unbound when according to what I can find, it's more like novel adaptations. Can anyone get any info from the crew of the audio drama or even the cast if it comes to it on how they took the project to be?
- JagoAndLitefoot
"The Ultimate Adventure" can be fit into the Sixth Doctor continuity, while "Seven Keys" has an entirely alternate Fourth Doctor.
- OttselSpy25
But is there any proof within the story that he is a fourth Doctor? Or is that just fan lore
- PicassoAndPringles
Also, we specifically don't consider how it fits into continuity when considering them for inclusion. The Doctor (Good Companions) doesn't fit, and we have an article about him. I've listened to the story, and there is nothing in it that numbers the incarnation anyway.
- Bwburke94
Seven Keys to Doomsday has its roots in a stage play from before Tom Baker was cast as the Fourth Doctor. However, we cannot take the original stage play as a valid source per T:VS, so the only potentially valid version of Seven Keys is the Big Finish version. We have determined that the Big Finish version fails rule 4 of our four little rules because it was not intended to take place in the DWU as it existed in 2008.
- OttselSpy25
I do comprehend the releasing behind our current decisions and the history of the audio. I am questioning that assessment of it as invalid and I am looking for direct quotes from Big Finish on their take on the project. If they say "alternate timeline," we'll put it under that. If they've said "alternate dimension," it's that. And if they said "not canon in any way" (yes, I know we don't say 'canon' but everyone else does) then it's invalid. Keep in mind that "alternate timeline" is also how they have rationalized the differences between their main range and the novel adaptation with Ace, so they'd have to be pretty clear on it being not legit for it to be invalid. "It's popular to make it 'invalid'" simply isn't a good rationale because the same can be said for the original 'Ultimate Adventure,' Lungbarrow, and any comic printed before DWM took over.
- Bwburke94
We treat Seven Keys similar to the Unbound stories, correct?
- OttselSpy25
Yes, and I'm questioning that. It's far closer to the other Big Finish adaptations.
- JagoAndLitefoot
"But is there any proof within the story that he is a fourth Doctor? Or is that just fan lore"
Hmm, actually, I don't think there is, at least not in the audio version.
- OttselSpy25
This apparently was already active at Thread:141232 sorry for that, we should likely close this now!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:180369
Are the winners of Mission Dalek valid sources? (here) My guess is no, but I wanted to check in first. I figure that they deserve pages at least.
- Shambala108
CzechOut addressed this at Thread:177985, basically considering the project to be fan fiction.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:181884
I've been looking over the old video game pages for the original bunch, and I was a little baffled by how incosistent our decisions based off of them were. Some stories, such as The First Adventure and Doctor Who and the Warlord, are listed as valid sources for pages, whilst others (such as Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror) are invalid for seemingly inconsistent reasons.
I've looked for discussions on the topic, but the best I could find are so archaic that Czech uses the term "canon" to describe our validity policy.
With the arrival of Doctor Who: The Adventure Games comes a problem that's been bubbling around unresolved for a very long time on the wiki. Are games actually canon?
According to what I understand, the logic in making the MoT invalid was that it had too little narrative information within the game to write stories on... Yet I can find information about that game's story easily, whilst the other two games are much more vague. In the case of TFA, I can't find much info on what the in-universe story for all the levels are, besides "save the companion." It's a little hard to place at any point or to fully justify any of the levels -- who are you playing as? Are you the Doctor in all levels, or a friend, or yourself as another companion? It's entirely clear. A bigger issue is DWatWl, which (according to what I can tell) is a story where your character doesn't have a name, and which I can't find much info on narratively. If the game has different path ways or is even a slight role playing game, we have decided on the site to remove them from the pool of valid stories.
Anyone have any takes on these three stories based on our modern policies?
- Shambala108
I'm not sure if this is the same thing you mean, but a few months ago we had a bunch of new games added to the site, and I have no clue if they're narrative or not. The page creators added the "real world" tag, but there's been no discussion on whether they're valid or not. It might take going through every video game that has not already had its own discussion to determine which games are valid and which are not. I think we're hindered by the fact that not enough of our active editors play some of these games, and some of the older games just aren't available any more.
- Bwburke94
Regarding Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror, the Splinx article might need to be looked at if the game is declared a valid source.
- OttselSpy25
I just feel like we need to put all games, new or old, to the same tests that we did others. If Worlds in Time is a role-playing game for instance, then I'm certain Dalek Attack is just as narratively unclear. In fact, I would compare DA to Legacy, except that story has a more clear narrative.
I'm looking over the newer Video Games added, and they are strange ones, aren't they? TARDIS Tennis, where the Doctor's companions John Lennon, William Shakespeare, and Queen Victoria have to compete against each other in tennis in order to play Winston Churchill... The type of game that makes you go 'whaaaah' because it sounds too crazy to be real. But I can't find too much on that one to make in invalid.
Monster Match is straight out because it's not a story at all -- just a game of candy crush played with Who monsters. Fun tho, I visit it a lot to remember nostalgic days. Same for Cosmic Collider, Cyber Quiz, Sonic De-Cloaker, SuDocWho, Defend This, Secret Santa, Santa Shooter,
Clockwork Quest is a game where you don't even know who you're playing as, suggestively yourself. Games like this are usually the sort to be invalid in my eyes. Same for The Wire and Cybus Spy.
If you could win Black Hole, I'd say it was enough of a story to be valid. However, according to what I can tell, the only way to end the game is to loose. So, I doubt it again. If Dalek Break-out has an ending, I suppose it could be valid.
K9: Deja Who is a "what-if" game illustrating K9 taking part in different New Series adventures, similar to The Last Dalek. Same for Slitheen Surfer and The Waters of Mars.
Defeat Deffry has different endings to choose, which we had previously used to rule out stories as invalid.
Satellites is weird cause I guess it makes sense as a point in the DWU, but I would still say invalid because it's a bit unclear who you are... But I could see this one going either way.
Art Attack, Amy's History Hunt, Save Paris, Doctor In A Dash, The Doctor and the Dalek, Eye of the TARDIS, Ghostwatch, Ood Escape, Security Bot and Jobsworth Judoon all seem to be pretty solid narratives according to what I can tell, but I might be wrong.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: I just feel like we need to put all games, new or old, to the same tests that we did others.
I agree 100%. I've been wanting to do this for some time now. The problem is that this will be a lot of work, and we're in the middle of a new series, which is itself a lot of cleanup work.
- OttselSpy25
Would it be controversial to move the puzzle games to invalid with little discussion? Things like Monster Match seem like a no-brainier...
- Hotdog56
Not all puzzle games are invalid, it depends on the story. Evacuation Earth is also a puzzle game, contains lot's of stories and narratives and as far as I am concerned it perfectly fits to the valid sources. Monster Match, SuDocWho, Cosmic Collider and Secret Santa seem to contain no narrative at all, so I guess they can be considered invalid. I am not sure about the others though. You propably need to take a close look at each game.
- OttselSpy25
Well, yes, I meant BBC-website games that are just matching images and pressing keys and nothing else
- SOTO
If they have no narrative, they do not follow the first of our 4 lil rules. Easy.
- Bwburke94
Per our rules, a narrative must be contained within the work... but how do we define "within the work" in this case?
- OttselSpy25
I don't quite see what you mean. Could you elaborate?
- Dynara
I have already added an invalid tag to a lot of the SJA games. These games contain no narrative. There aren't any video games for the K9 TV series and just one Torchwood game (Torchwood Mission). So this leaves the Doctor Who video games.
My list:
DWU:
- The Mazes of Time
- The Christmas Trap
- Angels in the Shadows
- Evacuation Earth
- Return to Earth
- The Eternity Clock
- City of the Daleks
- Blood of the Cybermen
- TARDIS
- Shadows of the Vashta Nerada
- The Gunpowder Plot
- Dalek Supremacy
- Escape the Silence
- Vortex Run
- The Keys of Time
- Maze of the Dead
- Amy's History Hunt
- Art Attack
- Cyber Assault
- Save Paris
- Doctor In A Dash
- The Doctor and the Dalek
- Eye of the TARDIS
- Ghostwatch
- Ood Escape
- Security Bot
- Jobsworth Judoon
NDWU No narrative
- Ultimate Match-up
- Who Trumps
- Monster Match
- Cosmic Collider
- Cyber Quiz
- SuDocWho
- Secret Santa
- Santa Shooter
Very little narrative
- Black Hole (+ there seems to be no end to the game)
- Sonic De-Cloaker (+ there seems to be no end to the game)
- The Wire
- Defend This
- Into the Vortex
- Satellites
Contradicting Stories:
- Dalek Attack: The second, fourth and seventh Doctor all experience the same adventure as they are all playable. However if you start the game it starts with the seventh Doctor, the second and fourth doctors might just be considered as extras as they need to be chosen if s.o wants to play the game.
- The Last Dalek: The Ninth Doctor dies
- Daleks v Cybermen
- K9: Deja Who
- Slitheen Surfer
- Worlds in Time
Different Endings:
- Doctor Who and the Warlord this has a thousend different endings not one single step is the same as in another game.
- Attack of the Graske
- Defeat Deffry (two different endings)
- TARDIS Tennis (sometimes John Lennon wins the game, sometimes Queen Victoria...)
Not sure:
- The First Adventure
- Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror
- Destiny of the Doctors
- Top Trumps: Doctor Who
- Clockwork Quest
- Dalek Break-out (btw. there is an end to the game)
- The Waters of Mars
- Cybus Spy
- OttselSpy25
I think that our video game policy is inherently mishapen, and needs some reworking. Because of this, we might want to move this to the Panopticon sub forum.
EDIT: Ignore this. Signed, 2017 Me.
- Bwburke94
^ Panopticon. It's not that hard to spell.
- OttselSpy25
It seems to me that this forum was abandoned early. Is re-opening the discussion out-of-line?
- Bwburke94
It was never truly closed.
- Shambala108
This is a pretty important issue, so I'm posting here to bring attention back to it.
The way I see it is this: do video games have a narrative (as defined by this wiki)? Some video games have been ruled "not valid" because their narratives vary among different players. Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? established that this kind of story is "not valid" (don't be fooled by the title). Also, it was established in Lego Dimensions that cut scenes cannot be separated from gameplay for the purpose of determining narrative.
All video games need to be examined this way.
I think we're faced with a difficult choice: open an inclusion debate for every currently-labeled "valid" game, or try to cover all of them in one thread (which could get pretty long).
The other option is to go with User:CzechOut's closing argument in the Lego Dimensions thread: "This wiki long ago determined that most video games weren't allowed because there are multiple pathways that players can take, ensuring that there would be dispute over which is the 'correct' way to play."
I'd like to hear if anyone has any suggestions on how to handle this question.
- Pluto2
The idea that cutscenes and gameplay are separate is a fundamental point of video games. It's practically universally accepted that gameplay and story segregation is a thing. Wookieepedia does not consider random gameplay stuff like powerups to be canon, so we should not consider random bonus stuff to be part of the story.
- Shambala108
"The idea that cutscenes and gameplay are separate is a fundamental point of video games."
Not on this wiki. That was established at Thread:176459.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: "The idea that cutscenes and gameplay are separate is a fundamental point of video games."
Not on this wiki. That was established at Thread:176459.
Well, this wiki is wrong, then. This is a universally accepted principle.
- Shambala108
That's your opinion, but think about it from an administrative point of view.
If we allowed cut scenes (which don't vary by game player) but kept out gameplay (which can vary by game player) then we would have to police every possible page on the wiki for uninformed users who think that by allowing cut scenes we also allow gameplay. It's easy for those of us who edit a lot and use the forums frequently to forget that new and/or occasional users don't know our rules. That's why admins try to make policies as simple as possible.
From your point of view it might be wrong, but from the point of view of someone who has to maintain the wiki's policies, it's the simpler solution.
However, since it is policy, there will be no further discussion on this thread about separating cut scenes from gameplay. It's already been established, and any decisions made here should reflect the fact.
- Bwburke94
The Lego Dimensions thread set an unusual precedent, but it's too soon to overturn it. Gameplay and story should be integrated for now; let's look at that part again a few years down the line.
I'll rephrase my "within the work" question to make it clearer what my intent was: Are video game instruction manuals valid? They're clearly not stories by themselves, so the only way to consider them valid is if they are treated as part of their respective games.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: That's your opinion, but think about it from an administrative point of view.
If we allowed cut scenes (which don't vary by game player) but kept out gameplay (which can vary by game player) then we would have to police every possible page on the wiki for uninformed users who think that by allowing cut scenes we also allow gameplay. It's easy for those of us who edit a lot and use the forums frequently to forget that new and/or occasional users don't know our rules. That's why admins try to make policies as simple as possible.
From your point of view it might be wrong, but from the point of view of someone who has to maintain the wiki's policies, it's the simpler solution.
However, since it is policy, there will be no further discussion on this thread about separating cut scenes from gameplay. It's already been established, and any decisions made here should reflect the fact.
You seem to be under the impression that users are morons.
- 2003:4D:EA3B:4201:88A:3DC1:D155:5C6E
- 2003:4D:EA3B:4201:88A:3DC1:D155:5C6E
- Bwburke94
2003:4D:EA3B:4201:88A:3DC1:D155:5C6E wrote: How about making one specific rule page just for video games, due to their specific nature? One rule could be to only add things that are the same for every player, that is playing the game. Another rule could be to not add things that contradict with the information given in the series.
This violates our principle that all media are equal.
2003:4D:EA3B:4201:88A:3DC1:D155:5C6E wrote: For me personally, there are some video games where I would not even a single doubt that they are canon.
These are: (snip)
We don't deal with canon here. We deal with validity, which is a separate but related subject.
- Shambala108
To give the above comment more context and detail, we on this wiki are not concerned with "canon". This is explained at Tardis:Canon policy and Canon.
We are, however, concerned with what we call "validity". This applies to stories that we are allowed to use to write in universe articles. We have a set of guidelines to determine validity which can be found at Tardis:Valid sources.
And for the sake of this particular discussion, it is an established policy that any story that varies for different users, such as stage plays and many if not most video games, are not considered valid. I've already posted it above, but the reasoning for that policy is found at Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do?.
It's important to be aware of these policies for this discussion.
- Shambala108
Given that any "story" that doesn't have a consistent narrative among all users is considered not valid, it seems to me the easiest solution at this point is to make each video game not valid, and individual cases for inclusion could be argued at Board:Inclusion debates.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: Given that any "story" that doesn't have a consistent narrative among all users is considered not valid, it seems to me the easiest solution at this point is to make each video game not valid, and individual cases for inclusion could be argued at Board:Inclusion debates.
It is basically universally accepted that in video games, the gameplay doesn't count. Only the story does. You'd be hard-pressed to find a wiki with licensed games that doesn't have that policy.
- Shambala108
I've already addressed this when you made the same comment above: Thread:176459 establishes that we don't separate cut scenes from gameplay in video games. On this wiki, we are concerned with making a narrative of the DWU including events from all valid stories. We are under no obligation to follow the same rules that other wikis do.
As a matter of fact, at Thread:176459, User:CzechOut absolutely stated on closing the thread:
"This wiki long ago determined that most video games weren't allowed because there are multiple pathways that players can take, ensuring that there would be dispute over which is the "correct" way to play. Since we have no mechanism for determining "correctness" (unlike the Star Wars franchise, for instance), we can only really write an article about the game as a product on the market, and not as a valid source for articles here."
and:
"As has been discussed numerous times this decade, any game which has multiple outcomes depending on how the player chooses to play isn't an actual narrative. It's a "choose your own adventure", which aren't allowed. Full stop. The presence or absence of cut scenes is irrelevant. This has long been stated at Tardis:Valid sources#When the licensor is the BBC."
- Pluto2
There is no consensus for this, just CzechOut's decisions.
- Shambala108
The consensus was established long ago at Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? and Forum:Decide Your Destiny and Find Your Fate are NOTDWU from here on out, where it was decided that any story that doesn't have a consistent narrative for all users is not valid. User:CzechOut was merely enforcing an existing policy.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: The consensus was established long ago at Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? and Forum:Decide Your Destiny and Find Your Fate are NOTDWU from here on out, where it was decided that any story that doesn't have a consistent narrative for all users is not valid. User:CzechOut was merely enforcing an existing policy.
Reread the second thread. The decision was made by two users offsite, and thus it was never actually formally debated. The thread is "hey, we're doing this now" with literally no consideration to what others might think.
- Bwburke94
There's one other factor to consider.
Any story that doesn't have a consistent narrative for all users is not valid. In some cases, the gameplay and the narrative are entirely separate parts of the game, so the narrative never branches.
Per this policy, if there is no narrative or a branching narrative, it's invalid and we don't need to discuss it. Yet in the rare cases of a non-branching narrative, discussion is necessary, which is why each game needs to be discussed individually.
- Amorkuz
Pluto2 wrote: Reread the second thread. The decision was made by two users offsite, and thus it was never actually formally debated. The thread is "hey, we're doing this now" with literally no consideration to what others might think.
A couple of procedural comments to prevent the discussion from veering off course:
- Tardis:Who writes policy explicitly states: "As a matter of practicality, administrators write policy, but your input is welcome. Indeed, you retain the power to veto and specifically change policy at any time, provided you can convince a consensus of other users that change is required."
- Tardis:Forum_policy adds: "Complaining about the way a forum thread was closed or otherwise handled by an admin may be a violation of T:ATTACKS, T:POINT or T:BOUND, depending on the language you employ..."
In short, the current policies will remain in place until the community is convinced it is beneficial to change or clarify them. Arguing against a forum closure five years ago will not achieve this goal. It would be more productive to read through the discussion Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time, which is linked to in this 5-year-old forum and where most of the relevant discussion took place.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Reread the second thread. The decision was made by two users offsite, and thus it was never actually formally debated. The thread is "hey, we're doing this now" with literally no consideration to what others might think.
A couple of procedural comments to prevent the discussion from veering off course:
- Tardis:Who writes policy explicitly states: "As a matter of practicality, administrators write policy, but your input is welcome. Indeed, you retain the power to veto and specifically change policy at any time, provided you can convince a consensus of other users that change is required."
- Tardis:Forum_policy adds: "Complaining about the way a forum thread was closed or otherwise handled by an admin may be a violation of T:ATTACKS, T:POINT or T:BOUND, depending on the language you employ..."
In short, the current policies will remain in place until the community is convinced it is beneficial to change or clarify them. Arguing against a forum closure five years ago will not achieve this goal. It would be more productive to read through the discussion Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time, which is linked to in this 5-year-old forum and where most of the relevant discussion took place.
How is this a personal attack? I was under the impression that administrators only act when there's a consensus.
- Shambala108
Pluto2, please read Thread:223085 and/or Tardis:Forum policy#Things to avoid before you make any more forum posts. Thanks.
- Shambala108
I don't want to derail the thread by harping on an old policy decision, but I have to clarify the old forum decision that was subject to Pluto2's accusations.
A forum post (Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time) helped to establish the idea that narratives must be consistent across users in order to be considered valid sources. Based on that forum post, two admins, not just "users" as stated by Pluto2, applied that decision to two novel formats where you get to choose your ending. Far from Pluto2's accusation that the thread allowed "no consideration to what others might think", User:Imamadmad, who is not an admin, posted agreement with the thread. No other users expressed interest in the matter.
I would suggest that all users, when participating in the forums, read any suggested policies/articles for themselves. This will allow the user to have all the information that applies to any forum thread in question.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: I don't want to derail the thread by harping on an old policy decision, but I have to clarify the old forum decision that was subject to Pluto2's accusations.
A forum post (Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time) helped to establish the idea that narratives must be consistent across users in order to be considered valid sources. Based on that forum post, two admins, not just "users" as stated by Pluto2, applied that decision to two novel formats where you get to choose your ending. Far from Pluto2's accusation that the thread allowed "no consideration to what others might think", User:Imamadmad, who is not an admin, posted agreement with the thread. No other users expressed interest in the matter.
I would suggest that all users, when participating in the forums, read any suggested policies/articles for themselves. This will allow the user to have all the information that applies to any forum thread in question.
I was talking about the DYD thread. And Worlds in Time isn't really a big deal. It's the same story, but some people might get the pieces in a different order. It's still the same planets visited for everyone. What difference does it make since it's the same narrative, but parts are in a different order?
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote: I was talking about the DYD thread. And Worlds in Time isn't really a big deal. It's the same story, but some people might get the pieces in a different order. It's still the same planets visited for everyone. What difference does it make since it's the same narrative, but parts are in a different order?
Chronology is enough of a mess already. Allowing WIT would be more trouble than it's worth.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: I was talking about the DYD thread. And Worlds in Time isn't really a big deal. It's the same story, but some people might get the pieces in a different order. It's still the same planets visited for everyone. What difference does it make since it's the same narrative, but parts are in a different order?
Chronology is enough of a mess already. Allowing WIT would be more trouble than it's worth.
Yeah, that's where I disagree with you. "Not worth it", in my opinion, is not a good argument. There are plenty of people, myself and OS25 included, who would be willing to help maintain articles.
- Shambala108
Please read Thread:223085 as I have now asked you to do three times.
I know you were talking about the DYD thread. So was I. That's the thread where User:CzechOut and User:Tangerineduel applied the decision at the Worlds in Time thread to the DYD and FYF ranges and User:Imamadmad (the only non-admin who was interested enough to post) posted her agreement.
I think the big difference here is that you don't think small changes in narratives for different people is worth declaring something not valid, but it is considered that way on this wiki. Same parts "in a different order" is still a different narrative.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote:
I think the big difference here is that you don't think small changes in narratives for different people is worth declaring something not valid, but it is considered that way on this wiki. Same parts "in a different order" is still a different narrative.
I guess this is just a case where we have to agree to disagree. For me, the differences are minor enough I don't consider it significant to the extent it renders the story invalid. But oh well. I've stated my opinion on this topic. If everyone else is fine with the current DYD policy, then I'll concede.
- Imamadmad
Shambala108 wrote: ... User:Imamadmad, who is not an admin, posted agreement with the thread. No other users expressed interest in the matter...
No I did not. In fact, I argued rather strongly that Doctor Who: Legacy (a game) should be included as the story line doesn't change in any way, shape, or form, based on what the user does. See also Thread:186659. And by the way, I still stand by the opinion that Legacy should be a valid source for the reasons I have written about many times before, especially at Thread:186659#23.
If it makes any difference, we consider it valid at DWA, as there are things which are definitely true about the story on every playing which can be cited.
- Bwburke94
As mentioned in the last thread, Legacy also has the unusual situation of being continually altered after its release, something nearly impossible in non-game media. This means that even though the storyline is linear, it is subject to frequent retcons.
- Amorkuz
Imamadmad wrote:
Shambala108 wrote: ... User:Imamadmad [...] posted agreement with the thread. No other users expressed interest in the matter...
No I did not.
And that is exactly the kind of confusion I meant. Shambala108 referred to Forum:Decide Your Destiny and Find Your Fate are NOTDWU from here on out concluded long before Legacy was ever released, where Imamadmad voiced an unequivocal agreement.
But the truth is, it doesn't really matter what somebody thought 5 years ago or 3 years ago. Editors' views evolve. New situations and stories arise. The policy is what it is for the reasons provided in those old forum threads. But even an editor who agreed with them then is free to voice an alternative opinion now. Please, let us concentrate on the content matter (which most of the last two posts indeed do).
- Bwburke94
So, let's get to the point of the matter, then!
In the Legacy thread, the eventual decision hinged on the impossibility of separating the narrative from the gameplay. If the narrative of Legacy were to be examined without its gameplay, it was determined there would be too many missing pieces to the plot for it to be considered a story.
I do not believe there is any way to rationalise the gameplay of Legacy as valid. However, many of the points made in #23 of the Legacy thread support the game's narrative as valid, if we were to somehow separate the two.
- Imamadmad
Bwburke94 wrote: If the narrative of Legacy were to be examined without its gameplay, it was determined there would be too many missing pieces to the plot for it to be considered a story.
I very much disagree with this statement. You can replace all gameplay in Legacy with "<blank> appeared, fought, and the Doctors + his allies prevailed", and the story would make just as much sense.
- Bwburke94
The missing point is not who won. It's how the Doctors won.
- Imamadmad
Really, the how is the least important factor for the story. You can tell the narrative without saying who struck the final blow. I mean, honestly, "The monster got defeated when the dots lined up in a T formation" makes no sense, and doesn't make sense within the story either. The gameplay is certainly meta to the narrative. Therefore, the narrative can be told without the gameplay.
- Bwburke94
That is exactly what I wanted you to say.
If we conclude that the narrative of Legacy can be told without the gameplay, Legacy is a potential valid source. I say "potential" because we haven't proven its validity; we will only have disproven one of the many arguments against it.
And yet there's one thing that hasn't been considered in the past few posts: this isn't a Legacy thread! Shambala's proposal in #23 of this thread was to discuss each game separately, so we should leave Legacy be until we determine the status of the medium as a whole.
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: this isn't a Legacy thread!
And this is exactly what I wanted to point out. This thread is about reexamining the general rules applied to games. It would be counterproductive to turn it into yet another discussion about the validity of Legacy.
- Bwburke94
As for determining the status of video games as a medium, we need to ask ourselves something.
How do we deal with instruction manuals? For physically-released video games, the manual often contains important information relevant to the story, but its purpose is usually to break the fourth wall in a non-intrusive manner.
The trouble, of course, comes in cases where characters/concepts are named only by the manual. This was often the case in video games before c. 1995, though I'm unaware of this ever happening within a potentially-valid Doctor Who video game.
- OttselSpy25
I know that everyone is asking a question every three posts, but here's mine: when does "alternate paths" in a game mean that we can no longer cover it?
For instance, many of the Eleventh Doctor games that have straight-forward narratives still have alternate dialogue paths that you can come across. Characters will say different things to you if you have various items, for instance. Is that enough to call the game invalid? If not, how much has to be variable for it to be uncoverable?
- Imamadmad
Amorkuz wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: this isn't a Legacy thread!
And this is exactly what I wanted to point out. This thread is about reexamining the general rules applied to games. It would be counterproductive to turn it into yet another discussion about the validity of Legacy.
While this isn’t a Legacy thread, it is a good case study of a game that doesn’t diverge, therefore meaning that games in general can’t all be ruled out for that reason.
Re: OS25’s question, I would say that if the story isn’t changed by the differences, then it can be counted as not diverging. Minor dialog changes which still maintain the same story progression shouldn’t matter, as we don’t generally quote dialog on articles anyway.
- Shambala108
Just a reminder for everyone to make sure they've read Thread:223085.
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: I know that everyone is asking a question every three posts, but here's mine: when does "alternate paths" in a game mean that we can no longer cover it?
For instance, many of the Eleventh Doctor games that have straight-forward narratives still have alternate dialogue paths that you can come across. Characters will say different things to you if you have various items, for instance. Is that enough to call the game invalid? If not, how much has to be variable for it to be uncoverable?
I don't believe this affects the narrative in any way.
- Shambala108
After reading through all this discussion and looking through several pages for video games, my suggestion is as follows:
- Declare all video games invalid for now.
- If a user wants to bring up a specific game for validity, that game would get its own validity thread on this board. Most games are/should be invalid, so this isn't really as big a task as it sounds.
I think it's important that we don't ignore or overlook a very important part of existing policy: if a narrative is different for different users (stage plays, decide your destiny books, video games), then it can't be considered valid. Video games by their very nature give each user a different narrative.
- OttselSpy25
Frankly Shambala108, under the current conditions and standards of the inclusion debates I have to refuse your compromise. We haven't seen a thread closed in favour of validity in a very long time, (I believe the last case was the Dr. Men series) and any forum that moves even a step closer towards changing policy is left to rot. I'm not criticising past closings by any means, but until I see even a hint that a story being turned from invalid to valid is realistic with our current system I will not, by any means, support a "temporary" purge of content.
Declaring that all videos games must now be invalid to be litigated over later is sentencing them to a slow, painful death.
- Shambala108
Just making clear to any new users who might be reading/participating in this thread, User:OttselSpy25 is not an admin and therefore does not have a final say in closing any threads. His use of the word "refuse" is just his opinion and is not meant to be taken as a decision, one way or the other, in the thread.
- OttselSpy25
I didn't mean to imply that, although I do recognise that I speak with some authority, even if I have none.
My point was simply that I can not agree with that compromise, even if I honestly think that it makes some sense, simply because I do not believe that the gears of the inclusion debates are currently turning as they should.
Really, what we should do is try to discover from scratch in this debate what qualities a video game needs to have to be valid, and in doing so I agree that it's important to throw away any pre-existing ideas about what games are and aren't valid (but mainly the ones that are). That way we can agree here and now the difference between (say) The Adventure Games and something closer to Legacy.
- Shambala108
I think it's pretty clear that the qualities needed by a video game to be valid are that it should have the same narrative for every user, just as other stories in all other media do. Since my original suggestion has been rather strongly opposed, my new suggestion is this:
Declare all video games invalid. The whole point of video games is to immerse oneself in the story. That means every user can play however he/she wants. This includes choosing characters, choosing paths, choosing what tasks to do or not do, choosing what order to do the tasks in, choosing who to kill, etc. etc. etc. etc. This means that video games intrinsically don't have one narrative for all users and that they therefore fail Tardis:Valid sources for the same reasons that stage plays and "choose your ending" stories fail.
Many of the arguments listed above (and in other threads) for keeping certain video games valid tend to ignore the issue of having the same narrative for all users. But like it or not, it is one of the rules for determining valid sources.
- Bwburke94
Shambala108 wrote: Many of the arguments listed above (and in other threads) for keeping certain video games valid tend to ignore the issue of having the same narrative for all users. But like it or not, it is one of the rules for determining valid sources.
Let's take a look at this passage of the rules again, shall we? These are the three reasons why stage plays are invalid - which I believe to be the closest case we have to video games.
- You may see something in the evening performance [of a stage play] that wasn't there during the matinée. Or by the time it comes to your town, an entire section might have been removed from the performance. An actor that was at the Glasgow run may have given a line-reading that was meaningfully different to the guy playing the same part in London.
Only one of these three sentences is relevant to what we understand a video game to be. Video games are not ephemeral: the same content exists for any user of the game.
To bring the analogy full circle, the difference is in how video games are played: a user who was playing the game in Glasgow would have experienced the same content as the user who was playing the game in London. However, they are likely to have experienced this content, the "line-reading" so to speak, with variances in order and/or context.
Does this mean that this hypothetical video game would not have the same narrative for all users? That remains to be seen, but I believe that given our current understanding of the four validity rules alone, we need not discuss the nature of a narrative at this time.
Under the rules as they currently exist, there is not yet a reason to declare all video games invalid. Declaring that "variable narratives are invalid" is the easiest way out, but we should ask ourselves why variable narratives are invalid before trying to define what a variable narrative is or isn't.
- OttselSpy25
I don't want to presume poor faith, but the fact that the rejection of the pitch to "temporarily make these games invalid" has lead to a pitch to "permanently make all games invalid" makes me believe that the entire point was to do that in the first place.
Here's my stance: there are plenty of wikis that competently cover video game narratives of varying complexities. I understand to some extent that we can not cover games with plots so complex that it is essentially an RPG, but when it comes to a game where the layout of every mission is "Do this one thing, then you go to the next part," then that itself is a coherent enough narrative to cover on the site. I can't see us denying coverage of a video game because we can't agree on if the Eleventh Doctor walked in a straight line to an object" or if he "sort of wobbled around from left to right until reaching the object." If the Eleventh Doctor always completed X mission with Y object for Z reason, then that's consistent enough for our pages.
My point in starting this debate was to bring to attention the inconsistent stance when it came to older games, and indeed how our wiki's policy on video games is so hard to piece together that it can be hard to classify games brought to debate. But frankly to say that "all games must be invalid" is too far for me. Think of it this way -- if we banned all of these games right now, what would probably happen would be that someone would start another wiki just for games where they would cover them exactly as we would, and indeed exactly as we can. I don't see the point in forcing our readers to spread to other markets like that or to lose our readership to other splinters. We should at least give an effort to discussing the nature of a narrative, and where the "rift" towards being an RPG occurs by our policies.
- Bwburke94
The reason I stated we need not discuss the nature of a narrative at this time is rather simple: something else needs to be discussed first.
At no point does T:VS mention variable narratives. The stage-plays ruling discusses ephemeral media, which is quite different. Given the above objection to the "all variable narratives are invalid" stance, and the existing case of the variable narrative Flip-Flop being valid, it would be premature to shut down that part of the discussion early.
In fact, Flip-Flop is similar to these video games for another reason: it is fixed media which can be experienced in multiple orders.
- OttselSpy25
I just don't see how something like The Eternity Clock is in any way variable.
- Bwburke94
...Which is exactly why the "all video games are invalid because they are variable" stance is doomed to failure.
I suppose, if we do need to discuss variability, then The Eternity Clock is a good way to start off the discussion.
Opening a new discussion on this topic will not violate Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. However, it has become very clear that while there are probably many mislabeled video games currently on the wiki, this issue is probably best handled on a case by case basis.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:182667
In the entire first scene of The Girl Who Died it shows Clara in space wearing the Doctor's red spacesuit, looking for stars and a Nebula. She screams that something is lurking inside the spacesuit, trying to attack her, to which the Doctor replies that she did (too) wander around in a "spider nest" for a long time. Is that a reference to Kill the Moon?
It should be noted that Kill the Moon dealt with spider-germs in nests on a Moon that was about to be hatched, and was also the last time the spacesuit was seen.
- CzechOut
Seems unlikely to me, because, as you pointed out, those were germs, not actual spiders in KTM. Here, he says that she was "too long in the spider mines", which doesn't happen in KTM at all. He then theorises it's a "love sprite", which "sucks your brain out through mouth, hence the name".
That's not really consistent with the creatures in KTM.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:184057
Should we continue to include the sonic sunglasses as part of the continuity? They seem to appear in every story since The Magician's Apprentice.
This has never been done with the sonic screwdriver, unless there have been a significant absence of it.
- Bwburke94
If it's a series-wide thing, I don't see why it should be included in every story's article.
- OttselSpy25
Also, I don't think that posts like this and a few of your others are meant to go in 'Inclusion Debates.' This forum is for discussions on the validity of stories only -- you're looking for the forum that starts with a 'P' I believe.
- Shambala108
No problem, I've moved this thread to the Panopticon.
- OttselSpy25
Yea, I knew it was called that just didn't feel like looking up the spelling.
- Shambala108
Per Sonic sunglasses - list of appearances, the thing has appeared in a dozen stories now. It doesn't need to be added to the continuity section of every/any story it appears in, now that it seems to be a regular item of the Doctor's.
- OttselSpy25
Eh, I don't know. I'd say if the device outlives this season that will apply.
- Danniesen
I'd say the Series 9 page and the The Magician's Apprentice page should mention the sunglasses only. And the story that becomes their last use should also have a mention of this. But every story in-between, because they seem to appear in all of them, should have their mention removed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:184238
Can we really say that the Doctor's real name is Basil? I mean, he tells it to Osgood who in turn reveals her first name, but can that really be right? I would expect the revelation of the Doctor's real name to be something huge and unforgettable, and probably at the actual ending of the sci-fi series itself, not some throwaway-line in a simple conversation.
Can this really be the reveal of the Doctor's true name, or was it just a way to make Osgood tell her own name?
- Digifiend
He was just making one up to get Osgood to spill the beans. Notice the tone of voice she used at the end of the episode - she never really believed it!
- Bwburke94
It is clearly sarcastic or an alias, which also calls into question the validity of "Petronella" as Osgood's first name.
We have a designated Osgood discussion, anything related to the validity of "Petronella" should go there.
- Anamantiumninja
Rule number 1: The Doctor always lies.
- Danniesen
Anamantiumninja wrote: Rule number 1: The Doctor always lies.
I'm aware of this, but we can't always use this as an excuse for why we have reason to distrust something.
- Danniesen
Bwburke94 wrote: We have a designated Osgood discussion, anything related to the validity of "Petronella" should go there.
Yes, thanks. I'm aware of the discussion. :) I just mentioned Osgood for the sake of making a point to why the Doctor used a name.
- OttselSpy25
Almost certainly not. Can you imagine the War Doctor going around like that?
- The Time War. Daleks fly in the sky overhead. All is dark, all is lost. Buildings burn and lives end, revert, end, and revert. A mother and a child cower in a corner, surrounded by flames. The flames part, and a man approaches them. Tall, strapped in weathering clothing, and with a strong brown beard, he looks down at them with a slightest worry that the age of eyes suggests should be impossible.
- The man pauses, and briefly states: "come with me."
- The mother rises, still scared of the mysterious man. "Who are you?"
- The man pauses. "I have many names. These days I'm known by the first."
- * Close up shot *
- "Basil."
My point is that it was clearly a joke.
- Shambala108
Yeah, the Doctor has called himself a lot of things over the course of hundreds of stories.
At any rate, Tardis:Character names says "the titles of articles about individual characters should be the name by which the character was most commonly known in the Doctor Who universe." He is most commonly known as "the Doctor", so any attempt at creating a page for the Doctor at "Basil" will be deleted (like I've already done once).
- OttselSpy25
This one also needs moved. But yes, I think that we can agree that this was likely a joke. At most we could add
- The Twelfth Doctor once joked that his original name was 'Basil.'
- Danniesen
I did actually think so too, but I had to bring up the topic because, knowing Whovian tendencies of generally some of the Whovians in the fandom, they would be very quick to change the whole identity of "The Doctor" into "Basil". Even more so because this case of "name-throwing" seemed to be a little different from all the others.
- 172.90.119.154
It may be a joke, but it may be Basil is technically his name in the sense that it's shortened, like Jim is short for James or Bill is short for William.
- Skittles the hog
Basil and tomato soup, maybe.
- Bwburke94
172.90.119.154 wrote: It may be a joke, but it may be Basil is technically his name in the sense that it's shortened, like Jim is short for James or Bill is short for William.
Or Romana is short for Romanadvoratrelundar.
- OttselSpy25
Basil Brush Doctor What and Doctor Why both now canon
- 85.151.212.46
The doctors real name is without a doubt (seen in tv series (the five doctors) as well as in the making of doctor who book from the seventies):
δ³∑x²
(you could read this as mathematical symbols, stating something like delta cubed sigma x squared, or the 3rd order derivative of the sum of x squared (summing over the entire domain?))
- Bwburke94
We don't consider The Making of Doctor Who a valid source.
- OttselSpy25
I feel like this debate has long gone off coarse of debating writing on the wikia.
- 85.151.212.46
Why isn't it considered a valid source?
the book was written by malcolm hulke and terrence dicks, who wrote many of the first seasons. But even if you don't consider it, the name is also displayed in the episode "the five doctors" at the end of the episode on a pillar in the room where rasilons tomb was located.
The name is witten in old high gallifreyan, which, as I said in my earlier post here above, resembles mathematical symbols, and that's how I pronounce it, probably, it has a own distinct pronounciation.
- OttselSpy25
Because it's a non-narrative reference book. We're dealing with validity for writing, not canonicity.
- Quest?on
I think this discussion is already over. Isn't there already consensus that "Basil" was a joke?
- OttselSpy25
Oh yea, this forum's been dead for a while.
- Danniesen
Yeah, I think the discussion is already done. We're moving off course.
- OttselSpy25
Of course.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:184791
This is a bit of an odd one for the forum, as I am not going to be arguing if the fan film Devious is a valid source or not. I am instead going to be questioning which version of the film we should cover. We currently write the article as if we are covering the entire film, even though it is not completed and this is thus against our spoiler policy. More importantly tho, the entire film is not sanctioned by the BBC and thus should not be covered by us -- even if it is released to the public. Instead we should cover the DVD mini-feature version which was released by the BBC and is a complete narrative. I have restructured the article to be more prone to our standards and this idea.
- Bwburke94
I have no clue what to do here. Can we disqualify it as an unfinished work, similar to the TV version of Shada?
- OttselSpy25
Well the main issue with Shada is that the linking narration is Tom Baker doing it as Tom Baker. Devious' recap doesn't break the fourth wall. Another main difference is that while the TV story and the Homevideo Shada are both sanctioned by the BBC, the bonus feature is the only version that we will ever write a page on or should. If the fan film is completed and released on Youtube tomorrow, we still should only write about the BBC-approved currently completed bonus feature.
- Pluto2
Why exactly is the version released on DVD with The War Games considered invalid? Surely if the BBC included this, that means they take it seriously, right? Why can't we consider the licensed version valid? That version DOES pass the four little rules.
- OttselSpy25
Nah, I don't think we can really go that far.
- AeD
Yeah, even if it passes -- by a smidge -- the letter of the four little rules, it certainly doesn't pass the spirit of them.
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: Yeah, even if it passes -- by a smidge -- the letter of the four little rules, it certainly doesn't pass the spirit of them.
So? It's still a licensed and officially released story.
- SeaniesBeanies
Is it even finished?
And yeah, cover the DVD feature but put all the information on the original in the BTS section.
- Pluto2
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Is it even finished?
And yeah, cover the DVD feature but put all the information on the original in the BTS section.
The DVD feature is a complete narrative. The parts that weren't made at the time were covered with a recap, but it's still a complete story in itself.
- SeaniesBeanies
Wouldn't this put us back in Shada territory?
- Pluto2
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Wouldn't this put us back in Shada territory?
No, because in this case, it's just a montage of what happens, then it continues on.
- Pluto2
Essentially, the version on the DVD is complete in itself.
- SOTO
Regardless, it was and is not licensed. BBC Worldwide may have chosen to promote it in some way, and in so doing perhaps endorse it, but neither at the time of its initial production nor even now in 2017 is Devious a BBC-licensed production.
- OttselSpy25
I want to remind everyone that this thread was not opened to decide if it is valid or invalid. Instead the purpose was to decide if we should cover the DVD version is a "completed story" or just a trailer for a yet-to-be-finished product -- as the difference is very important to how we cover the special feature on this website (an example of the former is P.S. while the later would be closer to Dr. Who and the Daleks). I think we should wrap up the later discussion and move any other quandaries to a new thread.
- SeaniesBeanies
I think we should cover the DVD release on the wiki, but if there's any other information about the fan release then i think that should be noted in the behind the scenes section.
The preview -- as opposed to film itself -- can be noted as a DVD extra feature, but it's not a story of any kind, completed or otherwise. Pluto2's recent move of the page to Devious (home video) has been reverted, and much of the lead re-written.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:185810
The Myspace entries by Martha Jones were marked out years ago as being a non-narrative website, and thus against our (freshly revised) validity policies. However, looking over the texts myself I have found myself disagreeing in this one case -- if anything the texts posted by Martha are more like a mini-diary, and thus a narrative source for information. The best comparison is Time and Relative, a diary from the point of view of Susan Foreman. Thus I believe that it is a valid acceptation from our rules.
- OttselSpy25
To be clear, the entries are not just one sentence notes per post, but long analytical stories about Martha's travels. They're essentially a series of chapters in her life, and are thus a mini-booklet.
Sorry if no one cares about this.
- OttselSpy25
Even I forgot about this. But I think that there's a strong case for it still.
- OttselSpy25
Talk about a one-sided conversation!
*sitcom laughter*
Does anyone know the precedent for creating pages like this? I would like to make one (with an invalid tag, since I'm trying to reverse a decision not make one) so I can take down some notes somewhere. But I don't know what to call it!
Martha Jones' Myspace Blog (short story)? :\
Seems to be the precedent with stories like The Longely Computer.
- Thefartydoctor
What's the medium? Is it online or a physical book(let)? I'd love to read them. The only issue we've had is that in a diary-style entry, the truth might be extenuated or bits may have been omitted... for example, the Doctor might have asked Martha not to mention certain parts... but apart from that, it sounds really interesting.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: What's the medium? Is it online or a physical book(let)? I'd love to read them. The only issue we've had is that in a diary-style entry, the truth might be extenuated or bits may have been omitted... for example, the Doctor might have asked Martha not to mention certain parts... but apart from that, it sounds really interesting.
Well, logic of the story aside, it was a blog published one chapter at a time. It's kind of like a short story or a novelette. As I mentioned years ago, it's a lot like Time and Relative.
- Thefartydoctor
Does any of it still exist? I don't mind giving it a read tomorrow, if you want me to. Then I can give you a second opinion.
- OttselSpy25
That's the weird part. Because of the MySpace purge, it's no longer on MySpace. But there are backed-up versions across various places on the internet. It seems the account was either cancelled or deleted.
Again, her blogs exist because of fan copies and back-ups. I won't link to those, but they're pretty easy to find.
- OttselSpy25
If there's no direct objections, I'm going to make the page under the aforementioned red hyper-link, with an invalid link for now as per community guidelines.
- AeD
It's not quite a short story, is it. If it's anything, it's an anthology, but that's not quite right, either. Surely (blog) would suffice? Or just going sans suffix?
- OttselSpy25
Ehh, I just don't think we can make up prefixes all willy nilly.
Short Story is the thing that it's closest to I think...
- AeD
In that case, I'd go sans suffix, like for the UNIT website, and whoisdoctorwho.co.uk, so either Martha Jones' MySpace or Martha Jones' MySpace blog.
- OttselSpy25
Those two websites are presented like that because:
A) They appear in-universe.
and
B) They are non-narrative sources.
I'm making the case that this blog is a narrative.
- AeD
Well, (short story) doesn't work, either.
- AeD
Though we don't at this time cover it in any meaningful sense, probably the closest equivalent is the Torchwood website?
- OttselSpy25
My problem with that is that it's not a story. I think the Martha blog is a story.
- OttselSpy25
Here's a thought, the PREFIX for Webcast describes one of the options as "text stories or comics published exclusively online." Perhaps the best compromise is to call the page Marthas Jones' Myspace Blog (webcast)?
- AeD
That feels better suited to the format than (short story) does, yeah.
- OttselSpy25
If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'm going to create the page under (webcast).
- OncomingStorm12th
Look, I'm afraid that's not how thing works around (and that's not me saying it; it's the admins). On a past thread I created (although I can't remember which, exactly) a very similar thing happened: I proposed a change, or to include something, everyone who replied agreed, but it wasn't closed. Then I said something very similar to "If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'm going to..." and either User:SOTO or User:Shambala108 warned me that, until a thread was closed, the changes/pages should not be made.
However, by the looks of what you said, the content seems to deserve pages here.
- SOTO
Quite right, too. No action is to be taken until the actual conclusion of this thread.
- OttselSpy25
Alright, I just figured that since the debate is over if the story is valid and not if it exists, there would be no problem with making it a page.
Can anyone else read through it? I think it'd be helpful to have more than one person who knows that much about it (no personal attacks, it'd just be helpful).
- Thefartydoctor
I found a reprint of some of the entries on Tumblr. Don't know if I'm allowed to post the link here so I won't. If I am, let me know and I will. Anyway, to me it seems all in-universe. I'd go as far as to say this stuff is gold dust. There are things mentioned there which are fantastic, like the Terrible Zodin. That would really enhance his page if we were able to say that the Tenth Doctor and Martha Jones once met him. I'm interested to see if any of the other mentions refer to book adventures.
I see nothing there that poses a threat to any established continuity, and even if it did, so what? I'm all for these to be made valid here on the Wiki. If an admin were to read these, I'm sure they'd agree with myself and OttselSpy25. :)
- OttselSpy25
I think the question is much more on if the story is a narrative or not. People sort of presumed that it wasn't a "story" because most online Doctor Who pages were not stories. They were more like reference books but online.
Would you agree that the blog is a story?
- Thefartydoctor
There's no doubt in my mind it would pass "rule one". In one post, she's basically explaining The Sound of Drums. It's a story of her, Jack and the Doctor hiding to survive from the Master. She also lists things that she's done. No doubt in my mind that it's a story.
- Bwburke94
I fail to see how this is presented as a story.
- Thefartydoctor
A series of events in chronological order, portrayed by a narrator. That's a story. And that's what Martha does, especially in the example given.
- OttselSpy25
Compare the blog to 'Time and Relative.' They're pretty much the exact same style of writing.
- AeD
A journal is surely a narrative, even if it's also a website.
- OttselSpy25
Bwburke94 wrote: I fail to see how this is presented as a story.
What's your take on it then? Honestly curious. Dissenting opinions are the best way to move a forum along.
- Bwburke94
Before I give my take, I need access to the full work to determine whether it's a story.
- OttselSpy25
There's fan back-ups online of the text. I feel like linking to it would technically be the equivalent of linking you to the Pirate Bay, and I worry that it would be against policy. But it's pretty easy to find.
- OttselSpy25
Is it strongly against precedent to use "(prose story)" as a suffix? So Martha Jones' Blog (prose story). That would be the most logical expansion away from short story or novel and stuch.
I'm afraid this entire discussion was based on a fallacy. The myspace blogs were never "marked out" by this wiki. Instead they were confirmed to be a narrative extension of The Pirate Loop, where they are specifically mentioned. So they're fine. They're pretty impossible to find, and I might distrust "fan backups". But, conceptually at least, they definitely are a part of the DWU.
What you call these things isn't really a matter for the inclusion debates board to settle. But (prose story) is right out. I don't think it actually needs a parenthetical, because it's a fairly unique situation. Let's just put them at Martha Jones' MySpace blog, as user:AeD suggested, and be done with it. What it is is a blog, so that's what it should be called.
Other matters[[edit] | [edit source]]
I do want to address a couple of disturbing notions in this thread, though.
First, as explained at T:BOUND, users are bound to abide by policy until it is changed. And once a discussion's been started, you can't act on it while it's still in progress. While admin can indeed set time limits on threads -- it's sometimes vital on major notions like admin nominations -- they're typically in the range of a week or a month.
Users, on the other hand, can't say things like, "Unless somene makes a move here in 24 hours, I'm going to go ahead and act on my own proposal." All admin here are volunteers (as pertains work at Tardis) and in fairness, we were bombarded with a lot of threads here in the forums in the past few months. And expecting a 24-hour turnaround is unreasonable.
Second, you absolutely can't say, "I think it would be against policy to link you to an illegal site, but I'm gonna specifically name it and then tell you that it's 'pretty easy to find'". C'mon. If I'd have seen this when originally posted, a ban would absoltuely have happened. Don't dance around the rules, please. Piracy is never, ever, ever to be even hinted at.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:185914
I've been wondering, when the Master turned every Human being on Earth, except Donna, Wilfred and Luke Smith into duplicates of himself, did that also turn Humanity into Time Lords? Did the transforming into clones of the Master, merely make everyone on Earth look, act and think like the Master but still be technically "Human", or did it actually turn them from "Humans" to "Time Lords", complete with two hearts, quadruple helix DNA, sensitivity to Time, ect. The Master Race all had the Master's cannibalistic hunger after his failed Resurrection, the drumming in their minds, and possibly the power of telepathy, as each Master on Earth was able to concentrate on the drumming all at the same time. It makes me wonder if the Master had copied himself, even if his resurrection hadn't been interrupted by Lucy Saxon, could any of the Masters have possibly be able to regenerate, and if so, could they regenerate independently, or would they all be connected, so if one were to regenerate, would they all regenerate? (On that note, which would be worse, a planet full of Masters, or a planet full of Missy's?)
- Bwburke94
Where is it confirmed Luke Smith was unaffected? All he mentioned is that Mr Smith created a cover story, not that he himself was unaffected.
I speculate that if any member of the Master Race regenerated, it would be reverted and would not count as a regeneration for the Master. Then again, this is speculation...
- OttselSpy25
The Master says in the episode that he wants to do the Master Race thing again but with the Time Lords. This basically suggests that the Master Race duplicates are still human.
- 71.234.31.74
I would love a planet of Missy's
- Bwburke94
71.234.31.74 wrote: I would love a planet of Missy's
Perhaps the proper pluralisation is "Missies" instead? It clearly does not have an apostrophe.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:185980
I figure we should have a page on the 'Sprout Boy' short, and it's obligatory that we debate it's validity. So let's mark down the four little rules...
1. Is it a story? Clearly has a narrative.
2. It is licensed by the copyright holders of all characters included? Uh, yeah I think so. Also, this is the closest we're gonna get to that Sherlock crossover everyone keeps asking for.
3. Was it officially released? ... Yes.
4. Was is intended to be set inside the Doctor Who universe? This one is obviously why we're having the debate. One one hand, it is a bit vague whether our narrator is Peter Capaldi or the Doctor himself. However, he is dressed as the Doctor so I think that it's safe to say that he is intended to be the Twelfth Doctor indeed. The obvious issue after that is if the short is a bit off to be DWU material. We've seen silly on this site be valid, but is this too silly? It does feature a sprout that grows sentience and a snowman briefly moving, but one could argue that those two elements could be thrown away as not disallowing it from being valid on the site or set within the Doctor Who universe. It's clear from the response to the video that people are taking it to be inside the DWU, and so I'm sure that's how it was meant to be taken.
One argument would be that it's along the lines of Red Nose Day crossovers and comic spoofs, which often crossover shows as seen here and are rarely meant to be taken seriously. Another argument, which I'm leaning towards, is that the special doesn't go nearly as far into a delusional state as those and (as a one minute story) is fairly harmless to including on the site. But it's a debate that's pretty easy to see either side of so I guess we should just start chatting about it.
- MystExplorer
I confess I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Can you provide a link to it please?
- OttselSpy25
Sorry, against our policies. Search "BBC One Sprout Boy" on Youtube or Google.
- MystExplorer
Ok, just watched it. The general rule is we don't allow advertisements here. This certainly counts as one, given the BBC One logo at the end and the fact that the narrator says "This Christmas on BBC One". So based on that alone, I don't think it should be included.
- OttselSpy25
That's a fair analysis, although I feel like that's a rule that need revising.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree with Mystexplorer. Adverts are (obviously) written to entice you to do something and it will manipulate characters somewhat to make you do whatever that is, whether it be buy a branded cereal or simply watch a TV channel. That means that characters of the show are purposefully written out of character. I'm not saying that's what happened here, I'm saying I don't think that any form of advertisement, no matter how light, is a fair enough use of a character or franchise.
The same goes for a comedy sketches and spoofs. The characters are altered to suit a different genre of television. That's my two pence worth. Hope it helped.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I agree with Mystexplorer. Adverts are (obviously) written to entice you to do something and it will manipulate characters somewhat to make you do whatever that is, whether it be buy a branded cereal or simply watch a TV channel. That means that characters of the show are purposefully written out of character. I'm not saying that's what happened here, I'm saying I don't think that any form of advertisement, no matter how light, is a fair enough use of a character or franchise.
The same goes for a comedy sketches and spoofs. The characters are altered to suit a different genre of television. That's my two pence worth. Hope it helped.
I disagree. I think that just because a story is meant to advertise something doesn't mean that it isn't a narrative or story. Despite this, as this is established policy there is little debate to be had here.
- Thefartydoctor
I know we have to debate and I'm eager to see what other people say. :D
- 76.181.71.64
Devil's Advocate for a moment: let's assume that this whole thing is in universe. That means that it is, in fact, the Doctor narrating as well as doing an advert for the BBC. Regardless of the fact that it is an advert, the fact that it's the Doctor narrating makes it canon.
Also, I do believe that it is the Doctor narrating. Listen to the story. Close your eyes, don't watch, just listen. That's the Doctor's cadence, speech pattern, and vocal inflection more than Capaldi's, which I think gives credence to the narrator being the Doctor.
- OttselSpy25
I agree, but our policies are to make all stories which are actually advertisements invalid. It doesn't come up a lot, but one example is Dr Who and the Turgids.
- Bwburke94
So the question becomes: does the fact that it is primarily an advert disqualify it from being a "story" or not?
- OttselSpy25
I do not think so. I think that a story having an origin as an advert does not make it a non-narrative. The question to me at this point is if we will be allowed to debate "established policy" in this discussion.
- 115.188.61.225
It goes in. Absolutely. Do it.
- OttselSpy25
There are many problems with making this a valid source on a wikia scale. If we decide here that this is a valid source, then so are most advertisements which feature stories within them. Not only does this include DWatT, but also the 2009 Christmas Advert with David Tennant and the reindeer, as well as many others. Now I argue that there is no sharp problem in doing this, but it is still worth noting the issue.
Also technically we'd have to have in-universe pages on all characters featured in the short. This includes, to many fans' delight I'm sure, a page on the BBC Sherlock.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
What about including it in the parodies section along with Superannuation Adverts featuring Tom Baker.
- Bwburke94
The 2009 Christmas idents are currently shoehorned into invalid status as "trailers" under rules 1/3, but could also fail rule 4 as they were clearly not intended as part of the DWU due to their nature.
The other adverts mentioned in this discussion are more up for grabs.
- OttselSpy25
I disagree (and hope I'm not being obnoxious in doing so, I often contribute far too often to convos like this) unless we have a direct quote from the creators of the ad saying "yea, that's not a legit thing" then the fourth rule isn't violated by it being silly. The Doctor attaching reindeer to his TARDIS and then flying about like that isn't nearly as crazy as most Doctor Who Christmas publications -- in fact it's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in any Titan back up comic.
I quote:
CzechOut wrote: There is such a thing as being in-character but non-narrative. In-character advertisement is a common ploy of marketing, as I've demonstrated above with a number of industry and academic reports.
What you haven't explained is how we can allow this, but disallow the dozens of in-character advertisements otherwise associated with Doctor Who. You're arguing for this one thing and I'm worried about the precedent that this is setting. It's better to get rid of one thing that may be marginal, if it helps us weed out things that are clearly over the line, than it is to keep the thing that's debatable and thereby cast doubt on things that should be easily eliminated.
This discussion brings nothing new to the table. It's already established, from that 2013/2014 discussion, that in-character advertisements are distinct from narrative stories. We have policy from that which dictates that all such advertisements are not valid sources, because a clear-cut rule was deemed necessary. This reasoning is in fact woven into the text of T:VS itself.
I am hence closing this thread, on the basis that this has been shown to be an advertisement, and advertisements are not valid as sources on this wiki. Thank you, everyone, for participating.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:186530
This isn't much of a debate, but I assume Big Finish's Sherlock Holmes series is still outside our doors? We should still have a brief discussion to clarify this, even though the outcome is fairly obvious.
The newly released audio All-Consuming Fire is an adaptation of a novel (also titled All-Consuming Fire) that already featured the characters of Holmes and Watson. It is my understanding that nothing in the audio version indicates Holmes' own series was intended to take place in the DWU, but I may be wrong.
As a sidenote, a bit of T:VS needs to be rewritten because Big Finish's Holmes has now appeared in a valid source.
- JagoAndLitefoot
It's a crossover, it doesn't mean the whole Sherlock range is part of the DWU.
Not only is Bernice Summerfield series regular Miles Richardson back as Irving Braxiatel, the releases also bring together Big Finish’s own Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson pairing of Nicholas Briggs and Richard Earl into the Doctor Who universe.
If these characters are brought into the Doctor Who universe, ergo they were not in the Doctor Who universe before.
Thus, the consensus on this thread is affirmed. Big Finish Sherlock Holmes series remains invalid as per Big Finish own statement.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:189497
Hello, i started a talk on the page Stage Play but this board seems more appropriate, so i'll just rephrase why i think this stage play is valid or at least should get a page (which i can't dobecause of an admin's delete action for this page name).
We don't have a page dedicated to the Trial of Davros, which i guess is because it was described as unlicensed by the BBC. It is true for the 1993 performance. However, the 2005 one was performed with the permission of the BBC and Terry Nation estate which i believe makes this stage play at least "semi-canon".
All in all, am i right to think that this particular stage play should have its own page? Should we just keep updating its section of the Stage play page?
- SOTO
"Canon" is not an issue here because it does not exist. (T:CANON)
I can't say much for the stage play's validity as a story, but if it was licensed in its 2005 incarnation, it likely merits inclusion as a page, though it would have to be about the 2005 production specifically, as that is the only licensed one.
Even if this play is deemed properly valid—and I can't think of any stage plays we currently deem valid—the 1993 performance most definitely would not be.
Now, I'm just going to guess that no stage plays have ever been deemed valid because they're not going to be exactly the same every night, and they also cannot be revisited. In this case, there was only one performance, which at this point was 11 years ago, and at best all we'd have to go on are some secondary recordings of the show, if those exist at all.
Are you actually suggesting that this stage play should be reconsidered as a valid source, or are we just talking about coverage?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I don't want to sound rude SOTO but when I and Ringoroadagain say non canon or canon we mean what you mean to be Invalid and Valid. I feel like what the BBC establish as non-canon is invalid and what's left is canon which is valid. I hope we don't fall out over this. But we mean no harm.
- RingoRoadagain
I'm mostly talking about covering this stage play, every information i could get about it is put into the Stage play page and indeed i think it deserves to be covered in its own page.
I'm fairly new to this wiki, when i said valid i was saying that it was licensed by the BBC. I now understands that it's a bit trickier than that for this wiki.
I just checked the page T:VS defining what is valid, and the argument about stage play points out that they are not valid because of ther uncertainty. However, some filmed sequences used on stage during the 2005 performance are posted on youtube by Hyde Fundraisers, which makes part of this stage play available on video (links to thses videos are included in the Stage play's page).
So, i was talking about coverage and i now argue that part of it is valid if we consider these youtube videos as official video capture (although not by the BBC).
- DENCH-and-PALMER
All stage plays are fortunately invalid, The Trial of Davros (2005) definitely deserves it's own page. Though it would have to be invalid.
- RingoRoadagain
In a nutshell, that's what i'm thinking too.
Now we need someone with the administrative rights to recreate the Trial of Davros page which currently has a lock preventing common contributors from doing so, this delete lock was put because the administrator thought that all performances were unlicensed.
What i also wonder is if the youtube videos i mentioned before, which were part of the BBC approved performance, would be as invalid as the performance itself or could be considered as some official webcasts. I don't know if the BBC made any statement on the "canonicity" (for the lack a better term) of this stage play, and since i myself have not seen this performance i don't know if it fits with the DWU. If it clearly doesn't fit then it obviously would be as invalid as Big Finish's Unbound stories.
I'm getting a bit off topic now but if a one time performance is considered uncertain, are the wiped images of missing TV episodes also considered uncertain?
For example, i've read from those who remember vividly seeing them that at the end of the Massacre when Steven leaves the First Doctor's TARDIS that there was a clear shot of him going through the inside door. It showed that it lead to the inside of a police box with the exterior door looking like an emergency exit door from the inside.
Could we add it as a valid source of this wiki or is it also too uncertain? (maybe i should make another topic for this matter)
- SOTO
Invalidity has nothing to do with discontinuity. There are loads of contradictions across valid stories, and that doesn't invalidate any of them.
Are the videos officially released by the makers of the play? Take a look at T:VID and see if they can be uploaded. But no, they cannot be considered "webcasts". They're recordings of the original performance.
But just to have it here:
- Because of the uncertainty of content only Big Finish audios of these stage plays are valid sources. If in future some sort of official home video capture of a play is made, then that, too, shall be deemed a valid source by this wiki.
If it was truly BBC-licensed (a source would be nice), it may have a page, but it will be NOTVALID.
- PicassoAndPringles
Do you have a source for the BBC/Terry Nation estate approval of the 2005 version?
- RingoRoadagain
it was advertised by the bbc website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2005/03/18/160705_trial_davros_event_feature.shtml
The trailer for the stage play, put on Hyde Fundraiser's, the makers of the play, youtube channel also claims so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMlG83jYyt4
And finally there is the performance poster, shown on Hyde Fundraiser's website:
http://www.hydefundraisers.com/davros.htm http://www.hydefundraisers.com/images/trial/trial1.jpg
Furthermore, profits were given to BBC Children in Need.
The "evidence sequence" videos which were used on stage as a part of the performance are released on the charity group's official youtube channel.
(except for the Dalek Invasion's one, and a compilation of the 1993 performance's one which i reckon were also used for 2005, also i think there is some other sequences with the Ice Warriors which are not currently available anywhere).
I'm not sure they legally are entitled to release these films, unless we see details about the permission I suppose it's a gray area.
But details of the stage play are published in Doctor Who Essential #6 (which I don't own), maybe it has more informations.
- PicassoAndPringles
"With kind permission of the BBC" (from that trailer) is not the same thing as being licensed by the BBC. From Tardis:Valid sources:
Note that the BBC do sometimes issue what they call "creative licenses", which allow fans to make things that have the "approval" of the BBC, but which cannot be sold. Such things are not covered by this wiki in any way.
This is exactly that kind of situation. If this were licensed, it would have an article with the NOTVALID tag, but it's not licensed. It's a charity show that the copyright holders gave their approval to, but didn't license. It no more deserves a page than any other charity publications. We could probably put up a redirect at The Trial of Davros to stage play for searchability though.
- SOTO
Given the evidence, I agree.
- RingoRoadagain
I must agree with picassoandpringles.
- RingoRoadagain
TEDW 6 is advertised as having information about this stage play, could anyone please check it out for details about the BBC permission of 2005?
- RingoRoadagain
It's me again, i have checked the DWM Essential about Davros: there is nothing more stated about the stage play's validity other than being a permissioned charity one.
picassoandpringles's opinion is still the one this wiki should follow imo.
- 68.99.7.64
In June of 2017 after 12 years of owning the Davros Mask and Hand used in the 2005 production, at Britishfest Convention in Omaha Nebraska USA Terry Molloy handed them off to the convention to use with the Davros Chariot that is there for future events. www.Britishfest.com |url=http://www.britishfest.com
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:189997
Hello,
I noticed that this wiki has some pages about unproduced stories/spin-off. (for exemple, Doctor Who meets Scratchman)
They have a category but could we create a page to list all those we know about (like the BBV page)?
I don't think we can make an individual page for each of them since they were abandoned very quickly, and I think this page would make it easier to find them and navigate through their pages.
- 2.28.220.166
I don't know About others but I know I whoud find such a list very useful
- Dynara
I don't know what the admins say, but I think it's a nice idea. Somebody has just to do all the work. If not there is at least a page like this on Wikipedia.
- PicassoAndPringles
It's not on the wiki, but Shannon Sullivan has a pretty comprehensive list: http://www.shannonsullivan.com/doctorwho/lost.html
- 95.147.32.223
A list of unproduced stories is getting more useful as the number of thes stories covered by this wiki increase and it whoud make finding and navigating the pages eseare
- Borisashton
Well I've been going through them all, and will continue to do so if everyone's happy with it.
- Shambala108
Most of the pages for these stories are orphaned, so a list of them would take care of that problem.
- Borisashton
I would be happy to spend the time creating that list.
- RingoRoadagain
started a page here:List of unproduced stories
- Shambala108
Looks good but all the stories need to be italicized.
- Shambala108
Just saw your edit summary. There's no need to add details; those are on the individual pages. All we need is a list of them in one place.
- OttselSpy25
I disagree on one fine element: I think it would be fine to briefly discuss the main reasons these stories went unproduced. A brief summary of the attempts in 1993 to create an anniversary special, for instance.
- Shambala108
The point of this page is to make a list of unproduced stories. The articles themselves will have all the necessary info; anyone who wants details can click on the links.
- RingoRoadagain
I tried to order them by how they would have been released when possible. Mostly by precising which stories eventually took their place in such cases.
But maybe we should add to that who are the companions or Doctor when helpful for a new reader to understand where that story would fit. (especially for season 4 since some of these stories were pitched for Hartnell and the others for Troughton)
- Shambala108
That's what the individual story pages are for. This is just a list for the purposes of gathering all unproduced stories in one place for ease of searching (and un-orphan those individual pages).
- OttselSpy25
I think he's saying that we should add better methods of sorting.
I agree, actually.
There are many stories that we know were supposed to be made, but we don't know the exact season. And there are some stories that we know had several shots at getting made under several Doctors.
So something like:
Fifth Doctor[[edit] | [edit source]]
Season 19[[edit] | [edit source]]
bla bla bla
Unknown[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Borisashton
I notice that on the list for the stories that aren't on the wiki yet they do not have red links on. Are we committing to attempt to cover every unproduced story (as I had before this thread was brought to my attention)?
Also, what would be the naming conventions for all the untitled stories that weren't produced?
- RingoRoadagain
there was no special reason for me not to put red links.
For untitled stories, maybe we could create a new page with detailed informations about all of them?
- OttselSpy25
I don't know about every story, but probably a lot more of them.
As for what we call the untitled stories, in Thread:213849 it's currently being discussed what we call untitled stories in general. As I suggested there, we should go for a consistency with how we cover things like comics.
In other words, it's always going to be Untitled (___ TV story). What we put in the blank is the problem. One idea is the season and episode listing, which could basically only work with stories where we know where they would have ended up. The difference between season 1 and series 1 is also a problem.
Perhaps the writer would be a good choice. Perhaps both, if that situation is ever needed.
So the infamous series 1 script written by Paul Abbott would become either Untitled (S1E11 TV story), Untitled (S1E11 unproduced TV story), Untitled (Abbott unproduced TV story), or Untitled Abbott S1E11 TV story.
- RingoRoadagain
Well, for example we have 2 disctinct season 3 untitled episodes by Lucarotti so sadly your solution can not work all the time.
- OttselSpy25
Actually, doing basic research has revealed to me that one of those stories is already listed on the page under "Who discovered America?"
- OttselSpy25
Here's a good example from the page:
- untitled episode by Gould
- untitled episode like The Day of the Triffids by Gould
We would remove the "Day of the Triffids" part from the second bullet, and we would title the pages as so:
- Untitled (S1E4 TV story) / Untitled (S1E4 unproduced TV story)
- Untitled (S1 Gould TV story)/ Untitled (S1 Gould unproduced TV story)
Or something like that.
- Borisashton
OttselSpy25 wrote:
- Untitled (S1 Gould TV story)
Looking at a list of untitled, unproduced stories this format would work for the vast majority of stories. I think the only stories that can't be sorted are the two Season 3 Lucarotti stories mentioned earlier.
- Borisashton
In addition, the Amblin reboot stories that have the same name of the story they're adapting can just have the dab term (unproduced TV story).
- RingoRoadagain
not in the page but we also have 4 untitled stories by Mills & Wagner for season 17 (which were adapted into the 4 first comics of DWM)
there also are many untitled Roberts scripts for Sarah Jane Adventures series 4.
But I think that your solution is currently the best one. I don't think we need the "unproduced" part in the title since there would not be any confusion and existing pages of unproduced episodes don't have it
Another question I have is what should we do with the pages in the "unaired episodes" category? Especially Shada? To me it should be on the list but I know that some don't consider it an unproduced story although its production was never actually finished.
- Borisashton
I think we can leave the unaired stories as they are but maybe link to the unaired stories category at the top of the page to avoid confusion?
- Shambala108
Borisashton wrote: I think we can leave the unaired stories as they are but maybe link to the unaired stories category at the top of the page to avoid confusion?
Actually, it is against policy to link to categories in the body of an article.
- Shambala108
RingoRoadagain wrote: Another question I have is what should we do with the pages in the "unaired episodes" category? Especially Shada? To me it should be on the list but I know that some don't consider it an unproduced story although its production was never actually finished.
Some may not consider it an unproduced story, but on this wiki, the television version with Tom Baker is definitely not a produced story. I don't see a problem with putting it on the list, though someone else may bring up a good reason why not.
- Borisashton
Oh, OK then. Maybe we could mention the difference between unaired and unproduced and then give Shada as an example for further reading?
- RingoRoadagain
Shambala108 wrote:
RingoRoadagain wrote: Another question I have is what should we do with the pages in the "unaired episodes" category? Especially Shada? To me it should be on the list but I know that some don't consider it an unproduced story although its production was never actually finished.
Some may not consider it an unproduced story, but on this wiki, the television version with Tom Baker is definitely not a produced story. I don't see a problem with putting it on the list, though someone else may bring up a good reason why not.
Well I remember that I once put the Tom Baker's Shada in the unproduced TV category but it apparently was undone at some point, that's why I wanted to ask about it.
Except for the Pilot episode, I don't see any story from this category that should not be in the unproduced one (especially since the actualty of Monsters of the Ness and its sequel is very dubious to say the least).
- Borisashton
Fair enough. Parts of Shada were unproduced and the David Burton stories may or may not have been produced. I agree with you that the Pilot Episode should not be included as for what it was it was produced.
- OttselSpy25
If we were going to do that, we would honestly need to split some stories up.
P.S. (webcast), for instance, would need a version called P.S. (homevid). That, or we'd need to rename it.
- Borisashton
Well in the case of P.S. it is effectively a deleted scene from The Angels Take Manhattan so P.S. (webcast) should probably be renamed P.S. (home video) any way (as it covers the release on the DVD) and the original scene be mentioned on the page for TATM. But I see your point.
- OttselSpy25
No, it's not.
P.S. was a planned DVD-only minisode. But they couldn't get the actor who plays Rory's Dad, so it was released online as it was.
Thus, the "unproduced story" is P.S. (homevid).
If it were up to me, I'd also split Shada into Shada (TV story) and Shada (homevid).
- RingoRoadagain
I agree. It would make sence to separate the original TV story and the eventual homevid release
- Borisashton
OttselSpy25 wrote: No, it's not.
P.S. was a planned DVD-only minisode. But they couldn't get the actor who plays Rory's Dad, so it was released online as it was.
Thus, the "unproduced story" is P.S. (homevid).
If it were up to me, I'd also split Shada into Shada (TV story) and Shada (homevid).
Oh yeah, you're right. I didn't entirely understand what you're saying. And I also agree that it would be wise to separate the homevid release and the potential TV story as they are clearly different things.
- Borisashton
RingoRoadagain wrote: I don't think we need the "unproduced" part in the title since there would not be any confusion and existing pages of unproduced episodes don't have it
I only just saw this part of your comment but what I actually meant is have the 'unproduced' part of the title only when the story is literally of the same name like most of the Amblin stories are. Here's an example from the page:
- The Talons of Weng-Chiang (an adaptation of the previously aired story by the same name)
- Earthshock (an adaptation of the previously aired story by the same name)
Since these stories were of the same name as the stories they were adapting I actually proposed for only stories in the same situation as this to have the extra dab of 'unproduced', like this:
- The Talons of Weng-Chiang (unproduced TV story)
- Earthshock (unproduced TV story)
Hope, this clears things up.
Moreover, they likely shouldn't be re-built on this wiki cause they're not actually stories. They're pitches. You can't really call something "lost" or "unproduced" if it wasn't genuinely commissioned. At the point prior to commissioning, a script can't be meaningfully distinguished from fan fiction. So they don't deserve their own page. Coverage at Leekley Bible, perhaps. But that's it.
Additionally, the list of unproduced stories has grown out of control, again because there has been no attempt to distinguish between the unsold and the unproduced.
In effect, we agree with the original poster who said that he didn't feel that many of these "stories" deserved their own pages.
Having now dispensed with individual pages, the bulk of this discussion is about the page list of unproduced stories, which is where the discussion about how to better edit that page belongs.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:190950
Hello, I know that this Piscon series keeps being deleted for being fan fiction, I don't think it is, it's licensed by Nev Fountain, indeed the copyright holder. I strongly feel it should be included. Like BBV, they got their licensing from individuals who own the rights and the Piscons has been licensed by the copyright holder, Nev Fountain and it even states so at the start of the book.
What do youou guys think?
- 90.204.64.148
It had been listed as featuring the First Doctor; is it a First Doctor book licenced by the BBC?
I can't find any information about it online. Perhaps it would be better to leave out until it has been released, as we can then form a fuller picture.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It has been released, it only features the Piscons, which have been licensed.
- SOTO
I would hardly call it a book. In any case, it is self-published fan fiction, and I have not seen any actual proof that this thing is licenced by Nev Fountain at all. No statements from Fountain to be found at all online.
And even if this licensing deal has any truth to it, the all caps collection of paragraphs in question featured Doctor Who elements other than the Piscons, which are themselves owned by the BBC or whatever writer created them/their estate.
T:NO FANFIC applies.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
You could ask him? >also only the Piscons have been used. :/
- OhReeeealy?
Am I not right in thinking you're the chief writer of this series, Dench-and-Palmer?
- This situation is not like BBV at all. BBV felt secure enough in their legal position to actually assert copyright. That's not the case here.
- BBV was a publisher of other peoples' scripts. This is merely self-published, a clear tip-off that it's just fan fic.
- Its status as a self-published work is evident by the text itself. No professional publisher would allow something so replete with grammatical errors and typos make it to published form. Not to mention the fact that it's in all caps.
- The description of a character clearly meant to be the Doctor has enough specificity that it would actually take a lawyer to parse whether it's meant to be the Doctor. We're not gettin' near that mess — for exactly the same reasons we banished some parts of Faction Paradox from the wiki.
- Legal use of BBC-owned characters in BBV productions, like Liz Shaw, can be verified through third parties, not merely a hastily-typed note at the top of the story.
- The note doesn't actually cover the Piscons, so it doesn't work, legally. The Time of the Piscons asserts that Nev Fountain gave his permission to use the Pisons, not the Piscons. I'm afraid that copyright status is very specific. This typo isn't just a typo: it flatly doesn't count.
For these reasons, and probably several others, this is just fan fic.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:191473
The Confessions of Dorian Gray and the Big Finish Sherlock Holmes series should be considered valid sources. There's never been a discussion about Sherlock Holmes besides CzechOut's baseless dislike of it, and The Confessions of Dorian Gray can't really be discussed separately — the two are inextricably linked.
Do the series meet the four little rules? The first three are obviously yes. The fourth should be considered a yes as well.
Dorian Gray may be a public domain character, but there's one particular version of him used by Big Finish. He's played by Alexander Vlahos, and differs from the book version in that he A) didn't die at the end, and B) has black hair, not blond. That's the version who appears in Shades of Gray, The Confessions of Dorian Gray, The Ghosts of Christmas, and The Worlds of Big Finish.
There's only one of this Dorian. Big Finish did not intend for the Dorian in Shades of Gray and The Worlds of Big Finish to be a different version from the one in The Confessions of Dorian Gray. The Confessions of Dorian Gray hasn't contradicted Shades of Gray, which shows him living into the 27th century at least. The Worlds of Big Finish continues the Holmes/Dorian relationship from Ghosts of Christmas Past and The Fallen King of Britain. Trying to divide his appearances into two characters would mean that the DWU version has The Worlds of Big Finish (because of the other DWU characters, and referencing Holmes and Dorian's friendship), Ghosts of Christmas Past and The Fallen King of Britain (because of Holmes, and the latter introduces Simon Darlow), Confessions Series 3 and The Spirits of Christmas (because of Simon, and both involve Tobias Matthews), The Heart That Lives Alone (because of Toby), etc. There's no clean line where you can divide Dorian's appearances in two, because they're intended to be the same character. Admittedly this wiki has mutilated characters' histories beyond all recognition before, banishing half of Sutekh's appearances to the Faction Paradox ghetto.
Simon Handcock says Confessions isn't a spin-off. But Big Finish doesn't have the same meaning for "spin-off" as a lot of people on this wiki. To Big Finish, the line between Doctor Who and non-Doctor Who series is whether they require licensing from the BBC. That's what separates the characters in The Worlds of Doctor Who from The Worlds of Big Finish. A "spin-off" is to Big Finish a series written about another series's character(s). Jago & Litefoot is about the characters from The Talons of Weng-Chiang. Bernice Summerfield is about the character from the New Adventures. The Confessions of Dorian Gray is about a new character, who also happens to be in the same universe as Benny and Holmes and Iris and Vienna and Graceless.
The Nicholas Briggs Sherlock Holmes is also set in the same universe as Doctor Who. The Worlds of Big Finish references Ghosts of Christmas Past, which is part of the ongoing Big Finish arc about Holmes returning from his beekeeping in Sussex (seen in The Adventure of the Perfidious Mariner and both of their box sets so far). The Worlds of Big Finish has Mycroft played by David Warner specifically because of The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel. The Big Finish adaptation of All-Consuming Fire is as much part of their Sherlock Holmes series as it is Doctor Who: It has Briggs and Earl as Holmes and Watson, the same narration style with Watson as their own series, and begins with their Sherlock Holmes theme. Someone said of All-Consuming Fire that "It's a crossover, it doesn't mean the whole Sherlock range is part of the DWU," but what does that mean? If it's intended to be the same character as in their Sherlock Holmes series, and it's set in the same universe as Doctor Who, then that series is also set in the same universe as Doctor Who.
CzechOut says that "The DWU situation regarding Holmes is already far too complicated without that hassle" of Big Finish Holmes, but since when is that a valid argument? "It's complicated, so let's ignore it"? And Big Finish Sherlock Holmes doesn't make it any more complicated. I don't think it's actually possible to come up with a view of Holmes's existence that isn't already in the DWU. All-Consuming Fire says "Holmes" and "Watson" are fictional names for real people who were began to respond to those names later in their careers, and that Doyle co-wrote the stories with "Watson." Evolution, released only three months later, treats them as fictional. The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel is a sequel to All-Consuming Fire, but unequivocally supports Holmes and Watson as their real names. The Big Finish series, on the other hand, is based on the premise that these are dramatisations of previously unknown Holmes stories. They could be co-written with Doyle, and Holmes and Watson could be pseudonyms. "Holmes" has only been treated as a real name at the end of his career, which also tallies with All-Consuming Fire.
These two aren't like The Minister of Chance, which is a continuation from a NOTVALID story and so would contribute nothing by being on this wiki. Without Sherlock Holmes or Confessions, we have multiple characters' histories being diced for no legitimate reason. Is there any harm to considering them valid sources?
If they're not allowed on this wiki, there at least needs to be some kind of policy for connections with other wikis about DWU stuff, to avoid the current fragmented nightmare.
- PicassoAndPringles
For our own sanity, we can't have every crossover make two worlds into one. Assimilation² doesn't mean the Star Trek and Doctor Who wikis merge. The TARDIS visiting the Baxter Building in Death's Head doesn't mean we include the Fantastic Four here.
You have to really stretch to apply rule four to this situation. BF's marketing language in general is inconsistent, but in this case it's pretty clear that in no way are Dorian Gray or Sherlock Holmes related to Doctor Who. Given that these two are public domain, we should be extra careful to only include what's relevant to Who. One (or two) crossovers isn't enough to merit wholesale inclusion.
Sometimes, a crossover is just a crossover.
- TheChampionOfTime
Fwhiffahder wrote: The Confessions of Dorian Gray hasn't contradicted Shades of Gray, which shows him living into the 27th century at least.
While I agree that The Worlds of Big Finish definitely places the Confessions series in the Doctor Who Universe, it has been made very clear that the Dorian Gray series will come to it's "grim conclusion" this October. I'd wait till the end to see if it contradicts Shades of Gray.
SOURCE: http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/the-confessions-of-dorian-gray-series-5
- WJDTwGL
PicassoAndPringles wrote: For our own sanity, we can't have every crossover make two worlds into one. Assimilation² doesn't mean the Star Trek and Doctor Who wikis merge. The TARDIS visiting the Baxter Building in Death's Head doesn't mean we include the Fantastic Four here.
The Confessions of Dorian Gray isn't another world. It's very clear that the same character appears in The Worlds of Big Finish, Shades of Gray, and The Confessions of Dorian Gray. Not in some sort of inter-dimensional crossover. Dorian's universe is the same one as Benny lives in, and consequently that of Doctor Who.
PicassoAndPringles wrote: You have to really stretch to apply rule four to this situation. BF's marketing language in general is inconsistent, but in this case it's pretty clear that in no way are Dorian Gray or Sherlock Holmes related to Doctor Who. Given that these two are public domain, we should be extra careful to only include what's relevant to Who. One (or two) crossovers isn't enough to merit wholesale inclusion.
On the contrary. It's pretty clear that Dorian Gray and Sherlock Holmes ARE related to Doctor Who, because they appear in the context of other characters in the same universe as Doctor Who. Where this wiki's Dorian Gray page says "However, that series is not considered by Big Finish to be in the Doctor Who universe," it's factually wrong. Maybe "Doctor Who universe" is a misnomer — it's the same universe as Doctor Who, but it's not directly connected. The Sherlock Holmes page happily uses information about Briggs's version of the character, but gives an arbitrarily limited view.
PicassoAndPringles wrote: Sometimes, a crossover is just a crossover.
What does that even mean? A crossover isn't a meaningful concept from an in-universe point of view.
- Bwburke94
I believe we sort-of discussed this already. BF's Dorian Gray and Sherlock Holmes are completely independent series that happen to have crossed over with part of the DWU.
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: I believe we sort-of discussed this already. BF's Dorian Gray and Sherlock Holmes are completely independent series that happen to have crossed over with part of the DWU.
What does that mean from an in-universe point of view? I think I've shown that as far as the narrative itself is concerned they all exist in the same universe and that as far as Big Finish is concerned crossovers between the three are no different than having the Doctor appear in Jago & Litefoot. As far as I know this wiki has no policy for things that are in the same universe as all valid sources but aren't allowed to be mentioned.
- JagoAndLitefoot
It means that only the stories from "Worlds..." are set in both continuities, but otherwise they are separate.
- WJDTwGL
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: It means that only the stories from "Worlds..." are set in both continuities, but otherwise they are separate.
That doesn't make any sense from an in-universe POV. When you listen to it, you're necessarily listening to part of a fictional universe which contains all the previous releases in the ranges involved. Are you trying to say that there's a Doctor Who universe that exists only as a subset of the greater Doctor Who/Dorian/Holmes universe? That's just canonism, and is still nonsense in-universe.
- Pluto2
I would say the Big Finish Gray and Holmes series ARE valid sources.
It's clear that the characters from the respective ranges are in the same universe as the main DWU. There's nothing indicating the two are set in their own little universes, separate from the DWU.
- Shambala108
Let's make something perfectly clear here. We do not re-open inclusion debates every time someone disagrees with an original decision or every time a new user joins and wants to know why something has been ruled invalid.
Furthermore, per Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point, and I quote: "Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic."
Thread:118228 ruled this series invalid. This was based largely on the comments made by Scott Handcock. I see no new arguments in its favor, and unless there are any forthcoming, this discussion will be closed in approximately a week.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:191574
I believe a slight mistake was made when several BBV stories were removed from this wiki. The audio story "Infidel's Comet" was quickly written off as "original science fiction with no connection to the DWU".
CzechOut wrote: Infidel's Comet is definitely original SF. Nothing to do with DW. Closest connection is that its writers, Colin Hill and Simon Gerard, also wrote Old Soldiers. But the story definitely has nothing to do with Sontarans or anything DW-related.
It's clear from that last sentence that CzechOut forgot that there's a Sontaran, a Zygon and a Nestene in this story and Krynoids are mentioned. If you don't believe me just listen at about 13 minutes into the story. In my opinion these brief cameos should be enough to warrant validity
- Bwburke94
I don't actually see a Rule 2 violation here, but I can't fault CzechOut for declaring it invalid.
- Dmitriy Volfson
There's also a cameo of K9 and "the Mistress".
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Well, they had the license to use them.
- OttselSpy25
Well, technically they had the license to use K9, but not the Mistress...
but yea, sounds to me like the story should indeed be valid. Czech has clearly made a mistake here.
- NateBumber
Adventures in a Pocket Universe is valid, and this seems to have all the same and more claims to validity.
- Pluto2
Okay, can an admin please look at this discussion?
- Shambala108
It was CzechOut's decision; if you want his input, leave a message on User talk:CzechOut.
- Pluto2
Looks fairly open-and-shut to me.
- Amorkuz
Looks like one should wait for CzechOut's input. He may disagree that he's made a mistake.
- OttselSpy25
In this instance it's pretty clear that CzechOut has made a mistake. Czech is pretty open about the fact that secondary-story stuff doesn't interest him, and he's often discouraged people from writing about these stories when there are bigger fish to fry.
He's absolutely right about that -- but it's still absolutely reasonable to believe that he would not have listened to this story -- and I think it would be equally reasonable to change this story's status since it matches the criteria for a 'valid story' from that very thread.
- Amorkuz
Well, I can certainly agree with his sentiment: with half of BF being bare bones, Titan comics barely having plots, a gigantic list of missing pages for BBC book range characters, there is bigger fish to fry. Or let's say not bigger, but you know, there is unfinished business before new business is to be started. What I see is people trying to add more and more valid stories. But after that's done, they go and want to add even more stories. So the question I have is: who's gonna edit this stuff? Especially given that in the heat of the argument some go overboard and get themselves blocked and others insist on "cleverly" (as they think) insulting everyone who opposes them until they are blocked too. And those are some of the most experienced editors among the invalid story crusaders. I mean, jeez, isn't there work enough on FP, work that is hard and subtle, that CzechOut thought was technically challenging? One of the rules of the forums is that if something is proposed, the proponents have to provide the man/woman/entity-power to implement the decision. It was mentioned at some point that there are barely 2-3 editors working on FP. And one of them is simultaneously arguing for at least four more things to be inducted. I just don't see this ending in quality material being put up when resources are spread this thin.
As for CzechOut clearly making a mistake. He's been very open in the past about making mistakes on inclusion debates. In fact, he's just reverted his own closure of FP as invalid and was very gracious about it (which is more than can be said about some of his opponents). So why don't you give him the courtesy of actually waiting for his opinion, or maybe asking again more politely, instead of judging him in his absence. (Just for the record, I'm not sure "See Thread ### again", which was the original wording, is really a question. It provides zero information about the specifics of the topic and sounds like an order. At any rate, there have been so many major events since then, that asking again might not be remiss.)
- OttselSpy25
I don't think "who will have interest in this?" is really relevant to if it's valid or not. If that were the case nothing from the Short Trips books would be valid.
I'm not saying Czech is wrong about BBV being an unimportant topic, I'm saying it's absolutely within logic to presume that he could make such an oversight in this specific case. It seems to me that this is a case of previous mis-information.
Czech's stance was that any BBV story that has licensed stories was valid on this wiki, and he believed that this story did not have any instances of this. But he was wrong -- and understandably so, since this story is so damn obscure. I would love to hear his take on the topic, but I truly believe that this is fairly open-and-closed. I just feel like it's been open long enough.
- Amorkuz
I'm not sure what your quote "who will have interest in this" refers to.
I'm pretty sure CzechOut could not have said that some valid story is unimportant.
And he could certainly have made a mistake as he is human (I think). There were plenty of times where I was unhappy about his decisions too and thought in my heart of hearts that he was wrong. But I think he's earned the right to be taken seriously, at the very very least. So prove to him that he's made a mistake.
- OttselSpy25
I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
The original thread was about BBV products. The decision was that all stories that had licensed Doctor Who monsters or characters were valid. All stories with BBV-only story-lines and characters were not.
It was believed that the story mentioned here did not have any non-BBV characters. But now we've pretty strongly debunked that. This is an extremely minor thing to fix -- it's an incredibly easy over sight to make that doesn't need arguing outside of the fact that no one in the original thread knew this factor (none of them had likely listened to this story) and thus they discounted it. We are not breaking how the original discussion ended, we're correcting a minor error that came as a side-effect of the mass-sweep. This isn't a discussion that should have taken a year to sort out.
I think it's fine to invite him to hear his thoughts on where the mistake came about, but I don't think that it is essential that we keep this open for any longer then we have unless anyone has a dissenting opinion.
- Amorkuz
Could I ask: what is the rush? There are equally if not more lengthy debates on various topics, where you just sit and wait until an admin or the admin finds time to come and check on it. What makes it necessary to close this thread now?
I'll go as far as to say that the delays in decision making on forums underscore the fact that adding all things at once will just create a mess. I hope you agree that having 20 more stories with red links and no information/improperly presented information is worse than not having them at all.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: Could I ask: what is the rush? There are equally if not more lengthy debates on various topics, where you just sit and wait until an admin or the admin finds time to come and check on it. What makes it necessary to close this thread now?
I don't think it's necessary to close the thread now -- but I think it's silly to hold off judgement just for Czech's take on the issue. I respect Czech, but he's a very busy man.
Once again, if this story does feature a Sontaran and several other BBC baddies -- or even just K9 as someone else suggested -- then the discussion is pretty much closed at that. The findings of the original thread was that any story to feature licensed BBC characters was valid. We've proven that -- despite the beliefs of those present at the time -- this story does feature those elements. It's certainly not as complex as any thread that would need more input.
The thing is, Infedel's Comet doesn't feature any DWU elements. It has a cameo in which the Sontaran doesn't even quite identify himself fully. And that's a world of difference.
The analogue here is No Future for You, a Buffy comic strip that has a panel depicting the Tenth Doctor and Rose. Or, if you prefer, the episode of Young Justice that depicts a/the TARDIS.
I disagree that the findings of the original thread were that if a thing had licensed BBC characters, then that thing was itself a part of the DWU.
There's independent and contemporaneous evidence that:
- says the Sontaran appearance here is a "cameo"
- claims "The cast and characters have practically no direct link with Doctor Who -- bar a brief cameo by a Sontaran."
- calls it "BBV's attempt at original sf"
Even the BBV website as it existed upon the original release of this thing makes no attempt whatsoever to tie it into DW at all.
This was definitely produced and contemporaneously received as an original work. It was part of BBV's broader efforts -- after Big Finish emerged as the winner of the DW audio licence -- to find a new source of audio revenue.
So, no. This thing won't be coming back to the site. The rule is definitely not, "If <this DWU thing> makes even a cameo in a story, then the story in which it appears is in the DWU by implication."
Good lord! Do you have any idea how many costumes and set pieces were borrowed from other productions so that DW producers could save money? Just one example: the White Robots were borrowed from an instalment of Out of the Unknown called The Prophet. So does that mean The Prophet is in the DWU? Of course not.
Doctor Who is popular enough that it will occasionally show up in other works. And you don't even need to get permission for brief, oblique inclusions -- such as the one found in this story.
- Do we include all of Star Trek just because there are Metebelis crystals in the Star Trek novel Ishmael?
- Just because there's a TARDIS in Fallout 2, is the Fallout franchise a part of the DWU?
- The words Bad Wolf appear as graffiti in an issue of The Spectacular Spider-Man. Does that mean we believe the regular Marvel Universe is a part of the DWU?
No. If we start trying to validate every such instance, we'll bring in things that most of our readers will question as unreasonable inclusions. Indeed, this notion of one writer slyly referencing a whole different universe has been going on for decades if not centuries. It's just a thing writers do.
So validity on this wiki can't be a game of hopscotch. We don't just automatically say, "Because x, therefore y". There is a need, as users like AeD and Thefartydoctor have recently said in other threads, to use some common sense and get our arms around context and practicality.
And the weight of evidence in this case simply is not on the side of thinking Infidel's Comet is a part of the DWU.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:192298
Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective is a Bafflegab Productions audio about the character from Hang onto Yourself (short story). It's also got a cameo from Tolstoy, the bat puppet from The Delightful Bag (short story). It hasn't got a page here yet, but there's no reason it shouldn't.
http://shop.bafflegab.co.uk/album/vince-cosmos-glam-rock-detective
- Shambala108
Can you provide proof that it satisfies each of the valid source questions?
- WJDTwGL
Yeah, sure.
1. It's a story with a narrative, very similar to a Companion Chronicle.
2. It's written by Paul Magrs, creator of Vince Cosmos, Mr. Glister and Tolstoy. (He wrote both of the short stories I referenced.)
3. It was released 3 Feb 2013.
4. It tallies with the characters' other depictions, with nothing indicating it's not the same universe. This review certainly thinks it's the same character.
- WJDTwGL
I read Enter Wildthyme, Hang onto Yourself, and listened to Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective again. It's definitely the same set of characters. I'm going to go ahead and make a page for it.
- PicassoAndPringles
Fwhiffahder, please keep in mind T:BOUND. Wait until a discussion is concluded before acting upon it.
- PicassoAndPringles
Something relevant: there was previously a discussion about another Iris Wildthyme spin-off Señor 105, which was declared invalid.
- WJDTwGL
PicassoAndPringles wrote: Fwhiffahder, please keep in mind T:BOUND. Wait until a discussion is concluded before acting upon it.
I hadn't been able to find any explanation of how one of these threads concludes before, and no one had any objections. What do I need to do to get this wrapped up?
PicassoAndPringles wrote: Something relevant: there was previously a discussion about another Iris Wildthyme spin-off Señor 105, which was declared invalid.
None of the objections to Senor 105 apply to this. Those objections were that Cody Schell was personally writing about things related to him, that there was no proof of Paul Leonard's approval for By the Time I Get to Venus, and that no one but Schell himself actually cared about it.
- SOTO
So to be clear, this story was written by the creator of the characters it borrows, and, if all above comments are to be believed, seems to pass the other 3 rules, as well. Barring any evidence we haven't seen yet, seems like a pass to me, though I haven't personally given it a listen.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:192548
The Casebook of the Manleigh Halt Irregulars is a short story anthology from Obverse Books about the group of characters from The Delightful Bag (short story) and The Irredeemable Love (short story).
It follows the four little rules.
1. Short stories are stories.
2. It's published by the same company as the previous two appearances.
3. They're selling it. http://obversebooks.co.uk/product/2-3-the-casebook-of-the-manleigh-halt-irregulars/
4. Obverse says it's the same characters, who have been involved with Iris multiple times. http://obversebooks.co.uk/press-releases/press-release-obverse-quarterly-year-two/
- Bwburke94
Valid unless specifically proven otherwise.
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: Valid unless specifically proven otherwise.
You're just stating your opinion as fact, yes?
- Bwburke94
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Valid unless specifically proven otherwise.
You're just stating your opinion as fact, yes?
I tend to do that, but in this case the "fact" of the matter is that it passes our rules for valid sources.
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: it passes our rules for valid sources.
Yeah, it obviously passes the rules. As I understand it though, before anyone can actually write any articles, there has to be a drawn-out debate with CzechOut, whose unwillingness to consider a story a valid source appears to vary proportionally with how distant it is from televised Doctor Who.
- Shambala108
Fwhiffahder, watch the personal attacks. Please see Tardis:No personal attacks.
- WJDTwGL
Sorry. I edited my post, is that better?
- Shambala108
Fwhiffahder wrote: Sorry. I edited my post, is that better?
No.
While you did remove the name-calling, your post as it stands still contains a derogatory statement directed at "an admin or two", basically accusing (all or any?) of us of obstructing debate for personal reasons. That still constitutes a personal attack.
- SOTO
It does appear to pass the four little rules of source validity. T:BOUND does state that action should not be taken, once brought to the forums, until the conclusion of the discussion there.
- WJDTwGL
At what point is it concluded, though? So far nobody's objected to it at all, but it's still languished here for months.
- Shambala108
Fwhiffahder wrote: At what point is it concluded, though?
As always, when CzechOut makes a decision. As I have stated many times before, he helped write Tardis:Valid sources and understands the nuances better than anyone on the wiki, so his is usually the final word.
- Revanvolatrelundar
We're an active community on this Wiki, we as a community created the rules of the wiki, and we have debates as to whether we include certain ranges under our Valid sources, that being the reason why the Tardis:Valid sources article was written. Just to wait for CzechOut's final say on the matter isn't that of a community, otherwise there's no point in having a forum to debate these things in the first place.
If this range does fit within our Tardis:Valid sources, and the general consensus here is that it does, then we should move forward as a community to include it. Fwhiffahder proposed this inclusion months ago, and it just seems to have been swept under the carpet. That's not fair to Fwhiffahder, or the wiki community itself.
If, like in the case of Vienna, the range doesn't neatly fall under the Valid sources then I do believe that CzechOut's views are required to help us define our policy, but never once should it be only he that directs our rules. We can't be pestering the poor guy about every change that needs to be made around here!
- CzechOut
Fwhiffahder wrote: As I understand it though, before anyone can actually write any articles, there has to be a drawn-out debate with CzechOut, whose unwillingness to consider a story a valid source appears to vary proportionally with how distant it is from televised Doctor Who.
Equality of media is a bedrock principle of this wiki. It will never be otherwise, even though there are other users who, indeed, do call for Tardis to be solely about television.
Nobody comes to me and says, "Please, may I write an article?"
Still, it's important to note that this wiki at first struggled mightily with the question of what to include, and what not. For several of our early years, we were writing articles about things that were only very slightly related to the DWU — productions with shared stars and crews, but which were clearly not in the shared universe. Fan fiction was also an early concern. As time passed, we started down the path that led to our four little rules. And I do mean we. There were multiple participants in all these discussions.
Yet these rules are generally instinctual ones. Out of our total article count, easily less than .5% are ever even questioned in light of T:VS — and a smaller percentage even than that are controversial enough to require conversation.
That's why when a discussion does arise, it's important to have it. Knowing how to regard a certain property allows us to know what to do with it:
- If it's unlicensed by all the copyright holders, we don't cover it here in any way.
- If it's licensed, but either not a story or intended by the publisher to be parody or otherwise not a part of the DWU, then we can cover it in a limited way, but we need to make sure we clearly label it as NOTVALID.
- If it's licensed, and a non-parodic, occurs-within-the-DWU story, as is the case for the vast majority of things people want to write about here, then we just create articles normally.
Shambala108 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote: At what point is it concluded, though?
As always, when CzechOut makes a decision. As I have stated many times before, he helped write Tardis:Valid sources and understands the nuances better than anyone on the wiki, so his is usually the final word.
Just to make it clear, while I respect the implicit confidence Shambala's words place in me, I do not agree with her. As Revan has pointed out, this is very much a community, and there have been many discussions taken over the years which haven't involved me or which have gone contrary to my stated position.
As Revan also points out, the Vienna situation is unusual. Big Finish themselves have been ambivalent, and respondents to that thread have also been divided. As such, it doesn't seem to serve as a particular model for this case.
In fact, I have no opinion in this case and defer entirely to Revan, SOTO and everyone else in this thread. You all seem to have made a good faith effort to judge this case against T:VS, which is the point of every discussion in this part of the forum.
- TheChampionOfTime
It's been over a month and no progress had been made. Czechout saw saw no glaring problems with these short stories and Fwhiffahder, Bwburke94, and SOTO have all agreed that this passes the rules of validity. Would somebody please give their final say on the matter and close this thread.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I say yes - well my opinion doesn't matter but I'm here to say I'm all for it.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Yep, go for it. :-)
- WJDTwGL
I believe that's an official "yes." But I'm not allowed to start making pages until the thread is closed. Can someone do that?
This decision rests on the assumption none of the stories within contain any references to elements or characters to which Obverse Books do not hold copyright to. Thanks to everyone for participating, and for sticking closely to our four rules the whole time.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:192596
So, there is a new mobile app. I understand that it's most likely going to be considered a non-valid souce (because everyone can create it's own story), but there is also going to be an original story wich is going to be launched montly, called "A Stitch in Time". Is THIS story, and this story only, cosidered a valid source? If it is, I would apreciate if someone could create a page for it.
https://itunes.apple.com/app/doctor-who-comic-creator/id1083403621?ls=1%26mt=8
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bbc.doctorwhocomiccreator
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:193415
Just wondering if the shot Sean shown yesterday count as I've seen it described as a prequel on some websites
- DENCH-and-PALMER
What?
- AeD
This is from April 24, so IP is probably referring to "Friend from the Future."
- 31.84.72.138
Yes that is what I was talking about
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Then this discussion needs to end see Tardis:Spoiler policy.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:193416
Just wondering if the shot Sean shown yesterday count as I've seen it described as a prequel on some websites
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:193419
Just wondering if frend from the future is valid or not and if it is a trailer or story
- PicassoAndPringles
No. It is specifically listed as "An exclusive scene from a future episode of Doctor Who", which means it is a trailer, and a spoiler. (T:SPOIL DEF)
- 2.28.220.166
Just checking as I've seen it described as a prequel on some websites
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:193645
Is there a reason why there is no page for this book or is it just because nobody had time to make it?
- MystExplorer
Sometimes it takes a while for lesser known stories to get their own pages here. But once the page is made, it should be labeled Invalid since "choose your own adventure books" aren't considered valid sources.
- 85.135.252.20
Okay, I just wasn't sure if it is not licensed or something like that.
- MystExplorer
85.135.252.20 wrote: Okay, I just wasn't sure if it is not licensed or something like that.
It is licensed and appears to be the first of at least two in the Choose Your Future series,
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:197392
Just today, Big Finish have released the latest box set of the New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield. These four stories feature Benny travelling with the version of the Doctor seen in the currently NOTVALID Sympathy for the Devil and Masters of War. During their adventures they also meet The Master from Sympathy for the Devil.
I would propose that now that have interacted with the DWU these characters and their stories should be considered VALID. I also propose that, since at the time the wiki was biased towards keeping the Unbound stories out, we rethink a decision made a while back and decide that Evelyn and the Sixth Doctor do encounter the Sympathy for the Devil Doctor during the events of The 100 Days of the Doctor.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'm all for including them, at the end of the day this new audio is going out of its way to state that the Warner Doctor is from another universe. The 100 Days of the Doctor from memory did it by describing one of the Unbound Doctors, which I think was why it was decided he couldn't be included at the time.
- MystExplorer
He is from another universe but that's a separate issue from validity.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I haven't listened to the new boxset, but if there are references to Sympathy and Masters then it lends some credence to them being valid.
- AdricLovesNyssa
Going to listen to it at the weekend (currently on the Legion Boxset on my relisten) I'll see if there are some references to Sympathy and Masters, if there isn't there might be an in universe Warner Doctor and a Notvalid one
- Revanvolatrelundar
Without even knowing that I've read in Vortex and on the Big Finish website that the Warner Doctor is intended to be the same cautious Doctor as he was in the older plays, with Benny hoping to bring him out of that state of mind, so there is authorial intent that it is the same Doctor.
- SOTO
I've noticed that some people have gotten trigger-happy already with removing {{invalid}} tags, making new categories and such, so The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil) and The Master (Sympathy for the Devil) have been locked until it's decided at the conclusion of this thread what to do with them.
I would like to remind all not to act on their own opinions until consensus has been reached here, and the thread is closed.
- AdricLovesNyssa
That means I won't be able to add any information to those pages from those stories when I listen to them then?
- GusF
I likewise haven't listened to the next boxset yet but I agree that the earlier stories should now be considered valid sources for the same reasoning as Revanvolatrelundar.
- Bwburke94
This hasn't actually been addressed in the thread, but I assume the Unbound timelines will remain separate from the "mainstream" timeline per T:DAB OTHER?
- WJDTwGL
What's the point of the distinction between a NOTVALID universe and an alternate universe in the first place?
- Shambala108
An alternate universe story can be put on an in-universe page. A NOTVALID universe story cannot be put on an in-universe page except in the "Behind the scenes" section.
Also, NOTVALID stories are, on this wiki, not part of the DWU continuity, so they don't have continuity sections and are not allowed in the continuity sections of valid stories.
- WJDTwGL
I understand the rules. I just don't see why. They're functionally identical, as demonstrated by The Unbound Universe. The NOTVALID/alternate distinction means a connection to a different version of a character/concept has to be put in either the Continuity section or the Behind the Scenes section of a story, in a really opaque way.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The difference, from how I perceive it, is that an alternate universe is a universe specified to be different to our own within a licensed story, whereas a NOTVALID universe is just a story set in a universe with a completely different continuity with no explanation as to why the difference has occurred. Also authorial intent is a factor, as per the original Unbound stories were specified to be in a completely different continuity and separate to the main DWU.
Moving away from the semantics of canon here, I see the Warner universe as just another universe existing alongside the main DWU now that this new boxset has been released. The boxset has specified that Benny is travelling to another universe and is meeting this other Doctor, who has appeared in other stories beforehand. Basically this new boxset has legitimised the two Warner Unbound stories as existing within an overall continuity, just not in the same universe as most of the stories we experience.
- SOTO
Just to clarify, even in the event that the two Unbound stories implicated are retroactively made valid by these Benny audios in this discussion, there is no "Unbound universe". The Unbound series features many disparate and different universes, whose only connection is they're all asking "what if...?".
In regards to the distinction between a parallel/alternate universe and a NOTVALID reality: NOTVALID stories were not intended to take place at all within the timeline and continuity of the Doctor's universe, whereas parallel universes clearly exist within the same reality. NOTVALID stories may be licensed, but that doesn't mean they take place in the DWU.
- PicassoAndPringles
Alright, I've listened to the whole boxset. The Warner Doctor's universe is separate to the "prime" Doctor's universe, but there is travel between them. Benny is the real Benny. The Master is the same Master from Sympathy for the Devil. This is DWU plain and simple, and I would also advocate the two related Unbounds being reclassified as DWU as well.
One problem is what to call the world. "Alternate" and "parallel" are never used in the boxset, it's only described as a "universe" without a specific name. However, the conceit of the original story was to imagine a world in which the Third Doctor arrived in the 90s instead of the 70s, so "alternate" isn't entirely inaccurate. "Unbound universe" would make sense based on the boxset title, but it's out of universe and has the problems SOTO mentioned above.
In any case, I don't think this affects the status of the other Unbounds. Deadline and Full Fathom Five particularly sit beyond the bounds of the DWU.
- Shambala108
I should point out here that this situation has arisen on the wiki before, where a new story uses characters/situations from stories this wiki considers NOTVALID. In several cases, not only does the new story not make the old story valid, but the new story was also declared NOTVALID. A specific case in point: A Fix with Sontarans and Fixing a Hole.
I'm not saying that will necessarily apply here, but I suggest everyone interested in this thread take a look at the discussion for A Fix with Sontarans and Fixing a Hole at Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?.
- Bwburke94
This story directly states that the Warner Doctor's previous stories are not part of the same timeline as the mainstream DWU; rather, they are an offshoot "what if" scenario.
However, because mainstream Bernice Summerfield crosses into this timeline, it is now a timeline visited by a mainstream character. I see no reason to treat this timeline as any different from any other point-of-divergence timeline; therefore, I believe Sympathy for the Devil (et al) should be valid sources for this timeline.
(In other words: the question isn't whether The Unbound Universe is valid, because it most certainly passes our rules barring an overly strict definition of "DWU"; the real question is whether it changes the status of Sympathy and Masters retroactively.)
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: This story directly states that the Warner Doctor's previous stories are not part of the same timeline as the mainstream DWU; rather, they are an offshoot "what if" scenario.
That's not new information though. Big Finish has said that from the start. Their page for the Unbound series on their website says, "Doctor Who - Unbound poses the question: What if...?" and describes the Unbound universes as "alternative realities." So I don't see why they have ever been considered anything other than standard point-of-divergence timelines. The only one that's not so clear-cut is Deadline, because it's an alternate version of our timeline instead of an alternate version of the universe of Doctor Who.
- Revanvolatrelundar
We're not debating the status of the entire range here, though. A new story has been released which depicts just one of these realities as existing alongside and intertwines with the continuity we deem here as valid.
The new boxset isn't at all the problem here, but adding its content to our articles is, to a degree at least. Do we add the new boxset's information to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil) article, or do we create a new The Doctor (The Library In The Body) article and leave a BTS note?
I'd like to start moving this debate towards a close now. Its uncertain status is stunting the wiki from growing, which is a shame as we've already seen some new users wanting to add some information, only to be halted by our debate.
I am all for including The Warner Doctor, and his previously non-valid past to our articles, as an exception due to the circumstances of the new boxset rather than a general rule to the entire Unbound Series, which we can always debate in another thread. What does everyone else think?
- TheChampionOfTime
Looking back at everyone's posts, it seems that everyone who has stated their opinion agrees that the two Unbounds should be made VALID. If anyone thinks otherwise they should probably say so now.
- Bwburke94
Uh-oh. The Vienna discussion was just closed as non-valid, which could have major negative repercussions on the concept of "retroactive validity".
Vienna was a massive mess I don't want to repeat, but the ultimate closing decision was based on a vague pre-Worlds of Big Finish statement by the creator. How is this any different to the pre-Unbound Universe statements regarding Sympathy?
Ultimately, the basic positions being argued by Revanvolatrelundar and PicassoAndPringles, and several others, seem obviously true. This is the same Master and Doctor of Sympathy, and it's apparent within the first couple of tracks of The Library in the Body that Benny is her mainstream self -- the character who was a companion to the Seventh and Eighth Doctors of the prime universe.
There are no known statements from the producers that Doctor Who - The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield Volume 3 is meant to be regarded as parodic or otherwise outside the DWU. Her journey out of the prime universe seems completely analogous with the Eleventh Doctor's excursion to a pocket universe in The Doctor's Wife, a story of unquestioned validity.
Therefore, this boxset is completely valid under T:VS, and its narrative elements may be used on any appropriate in-universe page. Logically, Sympathy for the Devil and Masters of War are now also to be considered valid.
- Revan has brought up a secondary issue of what to call the Doctor being played by Warner. Logically, under T:ONE NAME, the character should simply retain the name of The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil). Under that same convention, I'd suggest that PicassoAndPringles' concern about what to call this universe be similarly resolved by appending (Sympathy for the Devil) to the universe described here. To me, "Unbound Universe" is a marketing term, and none of the characters use the term "unbound" to my knowledge -- making something like Parallel Earth (Who's Who?) a more appropriate model.
- But neither of these naming questions are the subjects of this discussion. I merely take note of them to say that, while current rules would seem to easily apply, they are both eligible for further discussion.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:197496
Hi guys, sorry to open up an old debate, but with the recent change to include the Warner Doctor's previous stories into what we consider valid, I think it's only fair that we take another look at this Doctor's supposed appearance in 100 Days of the Doctor.
The archived discussion is here: Forum:Is the Doctor in Sympathy of the Devil of mainstream continuity because he appeared in The 100 Days of The Doctor?
- GusF
I think that it should be included as it seems only logical since Sympathy for the Devil and Masters of War are now considered part of the mainstream universe and The 100 Days of the Doctor references the former.
- TheChampionOfTime
Sorry, I jumped the gun on this and added info to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil). While 100 Days does have an alternate Doctor that looks different than the normal Third Doctor, went to Hong Kong instead of England, and is involved with a new version of UNIT, it doesn't seem to have the exact same Doctor from Sympathy for the Devil. The exiled Doctor in 100 Days is happy with his exile on Earth and is brave enough to continue to defend Earth, unlike Warner's Doctor who fled his exile at the first chance.
Although, 100 Days was written before Masters of War was released and the ending of Sympathy gives room for the Doctor and Brigadier to return to Hong Kong at their exact moment of departure. Perhaps this was what Cornell intended...
Nonetheless, 100 Days is completely and utterly contradicted by both Masters of War and The Unbound Universe.
- Schreibenheimer
Is there anything more to add here? TheChampionOfTime is factually correct about the relevant discrepancies, and I'm not sure this is even an inclusion debate in the first place. Is there anyone who still wants to argue that it is the Warner Doctor who appears in 100 Days?
- GusF
It is worth mentioning that it is listed under "Other universes" on this Doctor's page, which I think is the best solution because of the discrepancies discussed above.
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, that makes sense to me. I can definitely get behind 100 Days intending this to be the Warner Doctor or at least a version of him. The parallels are too significant for him not to have been in mind.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think placing it in "Other universes" is needlessly speculative. Yes, there are discrepancies. But if we are all agreed that this is definitely intended to be the David Warner Doctor, then what do they matter? We should handle this the same way that we handle it when a 1960's short story is obviously intended to feature the First Doctor, but calls him "Dr Who" and states he is "an Earth man". Later stories contradicted both these things as the mainstream mythos continued to be built up, but so what?
- OttselSpy25
I agree both that this discrepancy can be documented on the page without speculating about "Canon" and "continuity" and all that, and that this thread really seems like it doesn't belong in the inclusions debate as we're talking about stories that are all generally "valid" by nature.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:197509
Just wondering if the entire doctor who unbound range is valid now that the David Warner doctor and all his storys have been declared valid at http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:197392 and wether Andy thing else is affected
- SOTO
Short answer: no. Only that one universe is affected.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:203861
The Seventh Doctor is taking part in a game show for television on Earth.
Why is it invalid?
- TheChampionOfTime
I'd imagine the fact that Storm in a Tikka (short story) directly connects Search Out Space with Dimensions in Time is among the reasons.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Well other invalid stories have connected valid stories, doesn't mean they deserve an invalid tag.
Anything that directly links to DIT should be labelled invalid but not everything DIT directly links should invalid.
Does this mean that First Frontier is invalid - I certainly hope not.
- Thefartydoctor
This is probably why:
"According to PROSE: First Frontier, the events of Dimensions in Time is a bad dream the Seventh Doctor is having. So it is likely that the events of Search Out Space is also a dream." - From article Search Out Space
Basically it's saying that because Dimensions in Time was apparently a nightmare the Doctor was having, and due to Storm in a Tikka bridging Search Out Space straight to Dimensions in Time, it seems logical that it's part of the same "nightmare".
Not my opinion, just a logical conclusion. :)
- Thefartydoctor
By this logic, First Frontier is certainly not Invalid, as it takes place within the Whoniverse and also to explain Dimensions in Time.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thefartydoctor wrote: By this logic, First Frontier is certainly not Invalid, as it takes place within the Whoniverse and also to explain Dimensions in Time.
I know but just because DIT is invalid and SIAT is invalid for trying to name DIT valid doesn't mean SOS should be invalid because it was trying to bring the two together.
That to me is unreasonable logic, I think anything that mentions Dimensions in Time directly, is invalid as they are but just because one of these has mentioned SOS doesn't mean they're invalid.
Does this mean The Name of the Doctor is invalid because She Said, He Said is? Surely not.
- Thefartydoctor
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Does this mean The Name of the Doctor is invalid because She Said, He Said is? Surely not.
It's nothing to do with what references what. I think that's where you're getting tangled up. Your conclusion is that the Wiki deems anything referencing an invalid source as invalid. This isn't the case. It's to do with the storyline and what's happening in-universe.
The Name of the Doctor would only be considered invalid if it ever went against the flow of events preceding it. It has nothing to do with She Said, He Said. You need to treat the Whoniverse as though it really happened. Only then will this issue become clear. I used to have a similar problem with defining "TV story" until I realised it had nothing to do with the medium by which you watched a story haha.
Hope this clears things up.
- Thefartydoctor
So using this logic, First Frontier states that Dimensions in Time was a nightmare had by the Doctor. Storm in a Tikka states that Search Out Space was an adventure that lead directly into that nightmare. It is, unfortunately, only logical to deem it therefore part of the same nightmare. When another source comes out contradicting Storm, then we can consider its validity once more.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Well if Storm is invalid nothing it says is valid thus an invalid story shouldn't get to decide the validity of another.
- Thefartydoctor
Wait I meant Frontier states it. Either way, it's invalid because a valid source states it is. That's how the Wiki works. :) But when you say that an invalid source shouldn't dictate validity, you're very right. Frontier however is valid. If another valid source is created (unlikely) and states otherwise, then the discussion can be opened again. I'd live SOS to be valid but we have to follow the laws of the Whovinerse haha.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I agree with you but here is my point. Frontier = valid so anything it says gos, it says DIT is a nightmare - true. Tikka is invalid, it ties the events together and the only thing doing so is an invalid source, so what it states therefore is invalid.
Meaning that the only way Search is invalid is because DIT is, doesn't to me make sense.
I ask if we can have a vote on validity, forget about DIT or SIAT, does it stand as invalid on its own without any of the other invalid stories? And when the latter conclusion is reached, that is when it's validity should be decided.
- Thefartydoctor
The reason it's considered invalid is due to Storm in a Tikka being published under an official license as part of an anthology. Most of the other stories are valid. That's what's standing in your way where getting this story considered valid is concerned. I personally would love to get Search Out Space validated but I also personally think that it isn't due to this fact. It was published in a Short Trips anthology by the BBC under the official Doctor Who license. That's what's standing in your way. With this piece of info in mind, I kinda agree with the ruling. If Storm in a Tikka had been published without a license, this would most definitely be considered valid. But it wasn't. :(
- Pluto2
I would say it is valid. Unless we have evidence otherwise from the work itself, this shouldn't be an issue.
Does the Doctor break the fourth wall? Even if he does, this has been done before. Namely, with The Feast of Steven. The First Doctor addresses the audience there, and we don't count it non-canon. I'm wondering what led to some works being thrown out - in some cases, this has done more harm than good. When Faction Paradox Wiki split, that wiki basically died. No activity in weeks. Essentially, that split was harmful. Meanwhile, stage plays are automatically thrown out due to varying from performance to performance, but in that case, why not use the script? Why is Attack of the Graske non-canon if it was produced as an episode like all the others? There are many, many inclusion debates that I think should be readdressed. Another big one is the non-narrative idea - if it's an official work, whether it's narrative or not is irrelevant. The fact is, information presented there, such as Rose Tyler's birthdate, was intended to be part of the show's continuity. It's trivia, but that does NOT mean it's non-canon!
- Thefartydoctor
I think we need to raise this with people who deal with this stuff a lot. Like I've said, I'm arguing both sides because, while I love the idea of the Doctor and Ace taking part in some game show... I also am stuck with a niggling in my head that maybe the decision was right. You're right to bring this up and your reasoning is sound, so let's hope someone sees this debate and reaches a proper conclusion. :)
- Shambala108
Stage plays are not valid and will not be ruled so. That discussion has long since concluded.
Please keep in mind that the only things that determine validity are the "four little rules" located at Tardis:Valid sources. If something fails one or more of these, that makes it non-valid.
Prove this story is valid by showing it passes all for rules. That's what it takes to make it valid.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: Stage plays are not valid and will not be ruled so. That discussion has long since concluded.
Please keep in mind that the only things that determine validity are the "four little rules" located at Tardis:Valid sources. If something fails one or more of these, that makes it non-valid.
Prove this story is valid by showing it passes all for rules. That's what it takes to make it valid.
It certainly passes rules 1-3.
So is the question "does it pass Rule 4?" If so, I think the answer is yes.
- Shambala108
Considering that this is an episode of a not-Doctor Who show that McCoy and Aldred appeared on in character, I need a bit more than "It certainly passes" for rule 2.
- Thefartydoctor
Rule 1: Since the actors remain in character all the way through (unlike A Fix with Sontarans) and that there's a basic narrative all the way through, it most certainly is a story.
Rule 2: I don't know is my honest answer. I can't imagine they'd have been able to use the characters without express permission from the copyright holders. This would have to be looked into by someone who'd know where to look.
Rule 3: If it's been broadcast, then it has most certainly been officially released.
Rule 4: This the biggest struggle. Is it meant to be set in the DWU? This can only be answered subjectively. Some will argue yes, as it doesn't interfere with other storylines and narratives. Others will argue no, for the simple reason that nothing specifically states it is. You can't state for a fact a 'yes' or 'no' unless you can find someone from the writing team to answer that for you. Therefore, we're left debating it and thus we don't reach an answer haha.
Our problems here are rules 2 and 4. If we can't solve those, then the page surely remains as it is until we can prove them? :)
- Thefartydoctor
Can we answer Rule 2 with the fact that it was released on the Survival boxset? Thus being officially recognised by the BBC and by Doctor Who? It's a bit of a long shot... because just because the BBC recognises it, it doesn't mean that it's recognised as an official story.
- SOTO
- Thefartydoctor
That's why I'm saying- I literally wouldn't know where to look for that information. And your point on Devious is a very fair one.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Search Out Space was licensed, it has been subject in many official DW reference guides.
- Shambala108
To quote User:Bwburke94 from Thread:179549: "Search Out Space is the hardest to place, but it is bridged to DiT through Storm in a Tikka, providing a clear reason to exclude it. In addition, SOS is an episode of Search Out Science rather than of a DWU programme, similar to how A Fix with Sontarans is an episode of that programme I'd rather not name."
This episode is not even Doctor Who or anything from the DWU. It's an educational program that features McCoy and Aldred playing their DW characters. That to me sounds a lot like advertisements where the DW actors play their DW characters, and there might even be a narrative, but we don't consider them valid sources. I see no new reasons to allow this as a valid source.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree totally with Shambala. It's extremely sad that it has to remain invalid but the truth of the matter is any programme that isn't Doctor Who does not have the right to set any story in the DWU regardless of which license(s) they hold. It's the same reason for why fanfics aren't valid. Any non-Who writer can manipulate these characters to fit their own agendas, whether it be for the greater good (i.e. education) or bad (i.e. to sell merchandise). :)
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: I agree totally with Shambala. It's extremely sad that it has to remain invalid but the truth of the matter is any programme that isn't Doctor Who does not have the right to set any story in the DWU regardless of which license(s) they hold. It's the same reason for why fanfics aren't valid. Any non-Who writer can manipulate these characters to fit their own agendas, whether it be for the greater good (i.e. education) or bad (i.e. to sell merchandise). :)
By that logic, we must discard the BBV spinoffs and their siblings - Shakedown, Downtime, Wartime, Zygon, the Auton trilogy, etc.. If the BBC licensed Search Out Science to make a DWU universe story, then the product is a DWU story.
- Thefartydoctor
What separates BBV and SOS is rule number four. Was it intended to be set within the continuity? While SOS may well have a license, and would therefore pass the second rule, the same cannot be stated for rule 4. The BBV products, no matter how terrible some of them were, pass all four rules. Let's not forget that's how we deem something valid. SOS does not.
This conversation is stale. It should never have been opened up as no new, contradictory sources have been provided.
And for the record, I have my own personal opinions on whether the BBV products are valid or invalid; but I go with the Wiki's ruling at the end of the day. :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:204731
I know this has been done to death.
However, I think the split into two wikis - one Faction Paradox, one for everything else, is extremely detrimental. Look at how often edits are made to the Faction Paradox Wiki in an average year:
I think it's more than apparent that this decision to shut that spinoff out of the main wiki was harmful, given that it's led to the Faction Paradox Wiki being edited about 30 times a year, on average.
So, here's a few different ideas:
1. We can treat it like we did Infinity Doctors - parallel universe.
2. We can reintegrate it entirely.
3. We can bring it back, but mark all of it NOTDWU.
As it stands, the Faction Paradox stuff being in an entirely different wiki, one that isn't even edited that often, is doing more harm than good. There has to be a better solution than what we have now.
- Shambala108
Per Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point, we will not re-open closed inclusion debates every time a new editor disagrees with current policy. This discussion could only be re-opened if there was new information to consider (as was the case with the Warner Doctor). The original discussion can be found at Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki?. Closing this thread.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:205534
It's a filmed mini-episode. Why is Music of the Spheres valid, but not this? It's not like it's a live venue like the rest of the Proms - this was a short mini-episode, so the argument that it could vary from performance to performance doesn't apply here.
Is there any real reason to consider this invalid, or was a mistake made?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
There is a visible Doctor Who poster and a few references to DW.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: There is a visible Doctor Who poster and a few references to DW.
But that doesn't really mean much.
On at least three occasions, the Doctor has visited parallel universes in which there is a TV series about his life.
In addition, as seen in In the Forest of the Night, there IS a TV show called Doctor Who in the main universe.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: There is a visible Doctor Who poster and a few references to DW.
But that doesn't really mean much.
On at least three occasions, the Doctor has visited parallel universes in which there is a TV series about his life.
In addition, as seen in In the Forest of the Night, there IS a TV show called Doctor Who in the main universe.
Fair enough, I myself created the page and added the invalid tags - I'll rewatch tomorrow and try to remember my exact original reasoning.
- SOTO
We need to think about intention, though. Rule 4. Is this really meant to be a story about the Doctor crossing over to our universe, or is it more self-aware than that? Is it the Doctor, or Matt Smith as the Doctor, who comes along and joins the Prom?
Note that with Music of the Spheres, everything involving David Tennant was prerecorded. He doesn't come out on stage and stick around. There is one brief skit that crosses over into the Royal Albert Hall. That's very much intended to be the Doctor, talking through some sort of portal between his TARDIS and the hall. At the Proms. Not "Doctor Who at the Proms", but just the Proms. Anything outside of that skit is not part of it.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: We need to think about intention, though. Rule 4. Is this really meant to be a story about the Doctor crossing over to our universe, or is it more self-aware than that? Is it the Doctor, or Matt Smith as the Doctor, who comes along and joins the Prom?
Note that with Music of the Spheres, everything involving David Tennant was prerecorded. He doesn't come out on stage and stick around. There is one brief skit that crosses over into the Royal Albert Hall. That's very much intended to be the Doctor, talking through some sort of portal between his TARDIS and the hall. At the Proms. Not "Doctor Who at the Proms", but just the Proms. Anything outside of that skit is not part of it.
I think it's the Doctor visiting the Proms, basically. And it doesn't have to be our universe - there is a show called Doctor Who in the Doctor's universe, so the Doctor Who at the Proms program could be about THAT series. We don't really know what that version of Who is - it could be a version where Peter Cushing plays the Doctor for a full series, it could be a sci-fi hospital drama, etc.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
To be honest, say we just included the filmed part (such as the non live version of Music of the Spheres where we do not see the Albert Hall) it could be valid I suppose.
- SOTO
On Music of the Spheres specifically, it actually breaks the fourth wall if you don't take it together with footage of the audience at the Royal Albert Hall. Because he's not talking to you, he's interacting with them.
I haven't seen enough of the 2013 skit to comment, but the impression I'm getting is that it's much more self aware, and I believe Matt Smith and Jenna Coleman stick around afterwards, yeah? As Smith and Coleman, or as the Doctor and Clara? Or are the lines blurry by that point?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
The article only includes the filmed minisode. Shall we evaluate it as if was on its own.
- 90.197.244.186
SOTO wrote: On Music of the Spheres specifically, it actually breaks the fourth wall if you don't take it together with footage of the audience at the Royal Albert Hall. Because he's not talking to you, he's interacting with them.
I haven't seen enough of the 2013 skit to comment, but the impression I'm getting is that it's much more self aware, and I believe Matt Smith and Jenna Coleman stick around afterwards, yeah? As Smith and Coleman, or as the Doctor and Clara? Or are the lines blurry by that point?
After the filmed minisode Matt and Jenna appear IN character as the Eleventh Doctor and Clara making no reference to Doctor Who itself. There is even an in-universe explanation of why the Doctor has no hair.
- Sabovia
It should be noted that in Dark Water, Clara has a Bodyswap Ticket on one of her shelves in her flat. Suggesting this event did happen in-universe.
- Bwburke94
Let's look at our four rules to see whether it qualifies.
- **Is it a story?** Reasonably speaking, yes, so it passes Rule 1.
- **Is it commercially licensed?** Yes. It passes Rule 2.
- **Is it officially released?** Partially. The filmed section was released at the Proms and passes Rule 3, but only the filmed section passes. The live-performed section is a stage play and is disqualified for that reason, even if we ignore the flagrant fourth-wall breaking.
- **At the time of its release, was it intended to be set within the DWU?** I don't personally believe it passes Rule 4, but Sabovia brings up a good point. Clara's bodyswap ticket exists in-universe, so this is up for debate.
- SOTO
Well, was the entire thing broadcast? This was a one-time performance. To quote from T:VALID: "If in future some sort of official home video capture of a play is made, then that, too, shall be deemed a valid source by this wiki." Stage plays are deemed invalid only because they change from performance to performance.
So that in itself won't necessarily disqualify the live bits, if indeed it's all part of the Proms as broadcast, rather an account of the audience's experience. I still think this likely breaks rule 4, though.
- Pluto2
I just watched the part (including the live bits).
It's not the Doctor Who Proms - they just say it's about the Doctor. It could be that they're simply hosting it in his honor, for example. Nothing besides posters on the wall indicate that it's acknowledging the existence of the television series, and for a viewer at home, the fourth wall isn't broken - because the Albert Hall and its audience are part of the story.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: I just watched the part (including the live bits).
It's not the Doctor Who Proms - they just say it's about the Doctor. It could be that they're simply hosting it in his honor, for example. Nothing besides posters on the wall indicate that it's acknowledging the existence of the television series, and for a viewer at home, the fourth wall isn't broken - because the Albert Hall and its audience are part of the story.
Remember the article doesn't include any of the live segments.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Well, was the entire thing broadcast? This was a one-time performance. To quote from T:VALID: "If in future some sort of official home video capture of a play is made, then that, too, shall be deemed a valid source by this wiki." Stage plays are deemed invalid only because they change from performance to performance.
So that in itself won't necessarily disqualify the live bits, if indeed it's all part of the Proms as broadcast, rather an account of the audience's experience. I still think this likely breaks rule 4, though.
I think it was released on DVD. I'd have to check.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
SOTO wrote: Well, was the entire thing broadcast? This was a one-time performance. To quote from T:VALID: "If in future some sort of official home video capture of a play is made, then that, too, shall be deemed a valid source by this wiki." Stage plays are deemed invalid only because they change from performance to performance.
So that in itself won't necessarily disqualify the live bits, if indeed it's all part of the Proms as broadcast, rather an account of the audience's experience. I still think this likely breaks rule 4, though.
I think it was released on DVD. I'd have to check.
It was yes in the 50th collector's box.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
SOTO wrote: Well, was the entire thing broadcast? This was a one-time performance. To quote from T:VALID: "If in future some sort of official home video capture of a play is made, then that, too, shall be deemed a valid source by this wiki." Stage plays are deemed invalid only because they change from performance to performance.
So that in itself won't necessarily disqualify the live bits, if indeed it's all part of the Proms as broadcast, rather an account of the audience's experience. I still think this likely breaks rule 4, though.
I think it was released on DVD. I'd have to check.
It was yes in the 50th collector's box.
Then the entirety of that version is valid, I suppose.
I've never seen such an assertion on a Tardis article before, and it seems to me a kind of "trick" to steer clear of a likely-losing inclusion debate on the "part 2" that happens at the Royal Albert Hall.
Either the story stands as a whole, or it fails.
And this fails. See, SOTO has the most compelling point here. There is a difference between the Eleventh Doctor -- and Matt Smith appearing as the Eleventh Doctor.
We have a number of visual records of an actor appearing as the Doctor at a live event, like the opening of a business, but we don't think of them as being the First Doctor opening a supermarket, for instance. We consider them to be "William Hartnell appearaing as the First Doctor". Or "Tom Baker and Lalla Ward as the Fourth Doctor and Romana II" appearing in a Prime Computer commercial.
Clearly what's going on here is that Moffat wrote a little pre-filmed bit to allow for Matt Smith and Jenna Coleman to *poof* onto the stage with a little bit of flare. But it's Smith-as-Doctor, not Doctor. Are we really to believe that the Eleventh Doctor knows who Ben Foster is? Should we now consider the conductor of all the music on Doctor Who as a character in the DWU? No, that's a fairly big stretch.
The clencher for me is that the actors aren't credited as the Eleventh Doctor and Clara in the broadcast version, which is where we're supposed to take credits from. It's just a "special appearance" by Matt Smitha and Jenna Coleman -- who, by the way, do return to the stage as unambiguously themselves later on.
And taken as a whole event, and not just the skit in isolation of the event, the thing we're calling Bodyswap at the Proms (for reasons not entirely clear to me, btw) immediately leads into a behind-the-scenes documentary about makeup and prosthetics for the characters of Strax and Madame Vastra, who then "appear" on stage. So why are we not calling that a story, too? Cause it's obviously not. It's just a little bit of fun using the characters, in support of a behind-the-scenes bit.
So, as Bwburke and SOTO have already pointed out, it's NOTVALID.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:206566
On our valid sources page, the Faction Paradox series is listed alongside categories like “charity publications” and “merchandise” as an invalid medium. I’ve read through the inclusion debates on this topic [5] [6], and I see three main reasons given for concluding that Faction Paradox is set in a different universe and should therefore be excluded: (A) it’s an explicit reaction against The Ancestor Cell; (B) the authorial intent was that it was in a separate universe; and (C) it only “approximates” Doctor Who. However, I have some new, not-previously-mentioned evidence that suggests that these justifications are severely lacking.
For instance, Lawrence Miles did once say something that could be understood to suggest that the Faction Paradox series is in its own universe from Doctor Who, but looking at the quote in context, such a literal interpretation seems silly:
“While I was writing INTERFERENCE, I think I started to realize that I didn't really want to write about the Doctor any more. I was more interested in the universe around him, and as it was my book that meant the little sub-bubble universe I'd built up since ALIEN BODIES. Which isn't really the Doctor Who universe at all, of course, although it does owe a huge debt to Robert Holmes.”
It’s clear that he was talking figuratively about how he felt about the worldbuilding he did in Alien Bodies and Interference, rather than some literal universe around The Book of the War. If we’re to take the word “universe” literally every time it’s used, we must also exclude Graceless, whose director Lisa Bowerman said it’s the characters’ “own universe”, and Jago & Litefoot, since in the S12 extras the cast says they’ve built up a separate universe from Doctor Who. (If made NOTVALID, these stories could still be given plenty of coverage: pages for NOTVALID series have many supplementary articles about each installment, complete with synopses and character descriptions. But even this isn’t good enough for Faction Paradox, which has a brief series page and otherwise gets no other mention.)
More importantly, in the same interview, Miles specifically said that he was already working on his Faction Paradox spinoff – ie, before the release of The Ancestor Cell. He started the project as a direct result of his resignation from BBC Books, which he did simply because, seeing the negative reviews of Interference, he didn’t want to keep inflicting his writing on fans. This was before he even learned the basic premise of TAC, and it seems from the interview that only upon its release did he discover exactly how thoroughly it nullified his Doctor Who work. Miles actually expresses an explicit willingness to match the EDA continuity should TAC incorporate Faction Paradox, saying “I did try asking Stephen what he was going to do, but he wouldn’t tell me.”
Furthermore, after the release of The Ancestor Cell and much closer to the launch of the FP series, Miles stated that his FP spinoff doesn’t take place in a separate universe from TAC, or even a parallel timeline where it didn’t happen (along the lines of Blood Heat and others). Instead, he goes even farther to assert:
... the destruction of Gallifrey [in The Ancestor Cell] is only caused by ‘late Faction’ agents from the future, changing the accepted version of history and preventing the War and such. Therefore, everything that happens in THE FACTION PARADOX PROTOCOLS... when they eventually turn up... is part of the ‘old’ order.
By specifying that his Faction Paradox series belongs in the “old order” of not an alternate or parallel but an aborted timeline, Miles classifies it in the same category as Alien Bodies, The Name of the Doctor, and Intervention Earth (all of which enjoy full integration into the wiki). In other words, it’s still the Doctor Who universe, just as it was before TAC happened.
Miles reinforced this idea in his Faction Paradox comics and audios, which act as direct prequels to his EDA The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. For instance, the audios are set during the War, but they feature the characters Sabbath and Mary Culver, who appeared or were referenced in Adventuress as well as the FP novel This Town Will Never Let Us Go. The comics form an even more direct link: they're explicitly set in the post-War universe after TAC, and they repeatedly reference Adventuress. For instance, they depict King George III’s woolly mammoth and again feature Sabbath as a secret service agent, in direct accord with his backstory in Adventuress. (There are even deliberate hints that the comics’ Isobel grew up to become Scarlette; this is confirmed in Lance Parkin’s Ahistory.) Altogether, this establishes that the comics, a part of the FP series, are explicitly set in the same post-Ancestor Cell universe as Adventuress and the other EDAs, showing that Miles believed the events of TAC affected both series, with no parallels or alternates involved. And this doesn’t just implicate the comics: many FP short stories don’t even make it clear whether the War is happening, is yet to happen, or is already over, and some (like Newtons Sleep) are explicitly set before the War, at least partially.
If we can declare that the FP series is an explicit reaction against The Ancestor Cell based solely on the unintentional, non-explicit, and completely superficial contradictions between the War in the former and its avoidance in the latter, many other stories must be reevaluated on similar criteria. For instance, Big Finish's Eighth Doctor stories react against the EDAs by completely ignoring them, to the point that Zagreus tries to consign them to an alternate universe; similarly, Ground Zero infamously reacts against the New Adventures. However, these stories are currently considered perfectly valid sources and the contradictions are just ignored.
---
It’s clear from this that the Faction Paradox series isn’t a reaction against the EDAs, but the matter of authorial intent remains. Miles’ quotes regarding FP being in an aborted timeline should already cast some doubt on whether he intended FP to exist outside the DWU, but, even if we stick with the original quote and conclude he deemed them separate, it’s important to remember that Miles isn’t the only writer in the FP series: in fact, he hasn’t been involved since the series changed hands to Obverse over half a decade ago. Meanwhile, the current writers, editors, and owners have repeatedly signaled that they view the universes as one and the same.
AHistory isn’t a valid source, but it is a reference guide to Lance Parkin’s opinions, and he includes the entire FP series — most notably including his own novel, Warlords of Utopia — in his timeline of the DWU.
Philip Purser-Hallard — contributor to The Book of the War, author of Of the City of the Saved…, and editor of the Obverse Books City of the Saved anthologies — has written multiple deliberate, fully-licensed crossovers between FP and the DWU. He first mentioned the character Krisztina-Judit Nemeth in his FP novel Of the City of the Saved… before she appeared in “Predating the Predators” from the Bernice Summerfield book The Vampire Curse. She then returned to FP in “A Hundred Words from a Civil War” and “Unification Theory;” Purser-Hallard has indicated on his website that he intended this as a deliberate link between the FP and BS ranges. He similarly linked FP with Iris Wildthyme through the character Rex Halidom from his Iris story “Battleship Anathema,” who appears (alongside Iris herself) in the FP story “A Hundred Words from a Civil War.” Blair Bidmead (author of the upcoming FP novel Weapons Grade Snake Oil) did something similar with his character Theo Possible, who appeared first in Tales of the City before showing up in a story featuring Iris Wildthyme spinoff characters. These crossovers between Faction Paradox and valid DWU series are fully licensed, and they indicate that the writers believe they take place in the same universe.
Similarly, Stuart Douglas, owner of Obverse Books (FP’s current publisher), wrote “Library Pictures” for FP anthology A Romance of Twelve Parts as a direct prequel to “Future Legend” from Iris Wildthyme anthology Iris Wildthyme and the Celestial Omnibus, and his Iris story “The Shape of Things” specifically references Faction Paradox.
Lawrence Burton has written about where his FP novel Against Nature fits into the DWU’s timeline.
Possibly most importantly of all: Stuart Douglas runs Obverse Books. He has explicitly confirmed that Faction Paradox is set in the DWU.
User: Obverse's Faction Paradox is set in the same universe as Doctor Who (before The Ancestor Cell), right? Not from a legal/aesthetic standpoint, but in the stories themselves. Obverse Books: Essentially, yes. Though the names have changed for obvious reasons :)
In the light of all this, it’s just incorrect to justify the FP ban by citing an authorial intent for the series being in separate universes.
---
The last justification for the different-universe conclusion is the way FP “approximates” the DWU. Current policy states, “Because writer Lawrence Miles does not have a license to DWU elements other than the Faction Paradox organisation itself, he must resort to using code names for Gallifrey, the Doctor, TARDISes, the Master and any number of the basic building blocks of the universe.”
However, this assumption is as incorrect as it is misguided. There are many non-subtextual references to the Doctor Who universe in FP that are fully licensed and completely non-oblique. This predictably includes Faction Paradox as well as Lawrence Miles’ other material: the Celestis, the Remote, the Shift, the Enemy, Laura Tobin / Compassion, Sabbath, and Mary Culver. There are also many DWU characters that don't belong to Miles but nonetheless have fully licensed FP appearances: Chris Cwej, Iris Wildthyme, Panda, Krisztina-Judit Nemeth, Rex Halidom, Sutekh, the Osirians in general, the Sontarans, and the Peking Homunculi all appear with those names. These are actual Doctor Who characters and concepts, not analogues or rebrandings.
Now, there are indeed some references that have been reworded for copyright issues, but (contrary to popular belief) there are only a few of those, and they’re far from obscure “code words.” None of them are “find and replace” renamings. Most of them are titles or descriptions rather than chosen names (like “the War King” instead of “the Master”), while others are simply English translations (like “homeworld” instead of “Gallifrey”) or more ambiguous forms of the words (like “time ship” instead of “TARDIS”). In fact, many of these phrases originated in Doctor Who stories: for instance, “Yssgaroth” was first used in The Pit as a scientific name for Great Vampires, and the term “Great House” was established in Lungbarrow to refer to not only physical homes but also family groups of Time Lords. (”Time Lords” refers to them as a group of individuals, whereas “Great Houses” refers to them as a group of collectives.) The commonly-cited description “evil renegade” for the Doctor appears only once, in the perfectly valid Dead Romance! Yes, these “renamings” are partly legally-motivated, but it’s also an important aesthetic element of the series, and is frequently done for fully-licensed characters. Christine Summerfield changes her name to “Cousin Eliza,” Chatelaine Thessalia calls herself “Larissa,” Isobel is “Scarlette,” House Lolita is referred to as “House Lucia.” The FP series uses different names as a way of focusing on different aspects of the same concept, not to indicate that they’re not set in the DWU.
It’s important to note that not all these connections are one-way. I’ve already explained how Lawrence Miles, Philip Purser-Hallard, Blair Bidmead, and Stuart Douglas have incorporated FP elements and references into their DWU works, but Big Finish brings us more examples. The Bernice Summerfield audio The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel includes not only references to the Faction but also the appearances of multiple Cwejen, who were introduced in The Book of the War and have featured in several FP stories. These Cwejen are identified as being related to the same DWU Cwej that Benny knows, and the Cwejen’s people (Great Houses) are equated with Straxus’s people (Time Lords) without naming either group. This is an explicitly-drawn in-text connection between DWU concepts and their FP designations. More recently, the Bernice Summerfield audio The Eye of Horus directly alluded to FP by naming Hatshepsut’s Osirian spaceship after “The Ship of a Billion Years” from the FP audios. The name is originally inspired by the “Boat of Millions of Years” from Egyptian mythology, but the specific phrase “Ship of a Billion Years” has only been used by Faction Paradox and The Eye of Horus.
Besides, if this were a true rule for validity, we would have to exclude many other series that refer to copyrighted DW concepts equally obliquely, while still featuring other licensed characters from DW stories. For instance, Telos’ Time Hunter series is only connected to Doctor Who through the two licensed main characters and the appearance of villains like the Fendahl. In the TH audiobook release of The Cabinet of Light, the name “the Doctor” is actually replaced with “Dr. Smith,” but TH has never been accused of being set in a separate fictional universe just because its Dr. Smith is unrelated to the Doctor.
Obverse’s Iris Wildthyme stories are similarly even less connected to Doctor Who than FP; not only did the Iris character not originate in Doctor Who, her stories have repeatedly written around copyright concerning the Time Lords (who are replaced with a new species, the “Clockworks”), the Doctor (“el Jefe”), and even the Time Vortex (“the Maelstrom”)! However, those stories are considered valid just because her character appeared in a few DWU stories and her current spinoff still has some licensed (non-BBC) connections to Who (e.g. the Forge and the Naxians). Of course, all those things can be said for Faction Paradox as well. At this point, under Obverse Books, Iris is connected more to FP than Doctor Who!
For another example, look at BBV’s short-lived Adventures in a Pocket Universe series. These stories feature “the Mistress” and “Ecto-Space” in lieu of Romana and E-Space, and their sole link to the DWU is that K9 is licensed (albeit in a different, never-elsewhere-seen incarnation). Faction Paradox features many more licensed DWU characters and renames concepts in ways that can be even more, but it’s still considered nonvalid while Adventures in a Pocket Universe is allowed.
The most comparable scenario is the Bernice Summerfield stories. After losing the Doctor Who license, Virgin Books’ Benny Summerfield novels use no BBC-copyrighted Doctor Who characters or concepts, and they dodge copyright in the exact same ways as FP. The BS novel Dead Romance was even republished as a Faction Paradox story. This FP-style code naming was continued in Big Finish’s BS audios and books. Whenever the Time Lords are mentioned, they’re only called “Cwej’s employers” or “Brax’s lot;” the Ice Warriors are renamed “Neo-Aretians;” Brax’s TARDIS is referred to as a “timeship,” “time machine,” or “time technology;” and the Doctor is referred to obliquely — “our mutual friend.” “Timeship” is the exact same “codename” for TARDIS used in Faction Paradox, yet Fear of Corners is a valid source and FP is not?
(BS’ copyright dodging continued for a decade and a half after Big Finish got the rights to the Doctor, suggesting that BF was deliberately trying to dissociate the BS universe from the DWU. This is supported by the fact that, since they brought Benny back to the Doctor in the 2014 “New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield” series, BFA has conspicuously avoided referencing characters and events from her standalone audios. Yet BS is an installed facet of the DWU, with unquestionable validity, and FP is exiled to its own Wiki.)
Just like in FP, there’s no BS decoder ring to tell us that Brax’s people are the Time Lords, and there’s no TH decoder ring to tell us that Dr. Smith is the Doctor, but there’s no confusion in the interpretation of these stories on the wiki, and it’s not classified as “speculation” to equate them. (Just look at this page, which equates Dr. Smith from The Child of Time with the Doctor who appears in the original, BBC licensed Cabinet of Light.) However, this privilege is denied from Faction Paradox: not only are explicit, in-text connections between the Great Houses and Time Lords completely ignored, so are the licensed appearances of characters like Cwej and Compassion!
---
I believe I’ve demonstrated that the previous discussion failed to consider a large amount of evidence, and that none of the reasons used for excluding the series are valid. The series is not a reaction against The Ancestor Cell, it’s worked hard to accommodate it. The authors do not think the series is set in an “FPU,” they agree that it is set in the DWU. The “code names” of concepts do not contradict previous stories, they’re a thematic reinterpretation and use of established alternative terms. I’d really appreciate it if the admins would read this post and address the new evidence brought up.
- WJDTwGL
I think it’s important to note that it is absolutely impossible to use The Book of the War as evidence that the FP series is set in a different universe. It is a completely unreliable narrator written from an in-universe perspective, and potentially propaganda. Many of the things it says are qualified as uncertain, it talks about Umbaste’s suicide when the reader knows there’s more to it than that, it completely fails to mention Of the City of the Saved... (the in-universe authors of the book couldn’t be aware of it), and the already unreliable text is rewritten as you read it by the Shift. There's precedent with All-Consuming Fire, which is largely an semi-reliable in-universe source but is integrated into the wiki anyway, as much as it can be.
- Pluto2
This has a lot of convincing arguments. I agree with everything you're saying.
- TheChampionOfTime
Personally, I agree that Faction Paradox and many other things were wrongfully considered invalid. The more and more I've interacted with fans online the more disgusting the word "canon" comes to be. But there's one major problem that no amount of debating can fix: this ship left port years ago. I'm drawn to a message that I've heard a number of times on this wiki:
The difficulty of the work involved isn't worth it.
- Pluto2
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Personally, I agree that Faction Paradox and many other things were wrongfully considered invalid. The more and more I've interacted with fans online the more disgusting the word "canon" comes to be. But there's one major problem that no amount of debating can fix: this ship left port years ago. I'm drawn to a message that I've heard a number of times on this wiki:
The difficulty of the work involved isn't worth it.
That's a cop-out, though. Much of FPW is bare-bones anyway, with few articles being complete.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
NateBumber wrote: On our valid sources page, the Faction Paradox series is listed alongside categories like “charity publications” and “merchandise” as an invalid medium. I’ve read through the inclusion debates on this topic [7] [8], and I see three main reasons given for concluding that Faction Paradox is set in a different universe and should therefore be excluded: (A) it’s an explicit reaction against The Ancestor Cell; (B) the authorial intent was that it was in a separate universe; and (C) it only “approximates” Doctor Who. However, I have some new, not-previously-mentioned evidence that suggests that these justifications are severely lacking.
For instance, Lawrence Miles did once say something that could be understood to suggest that the Faction Paradox series is in its own universe from Doctor Who, but looking at the quote in context, such a literal interpretation seems silly:
“While I was writing INTERFERENCE, I think I started to realize that I didn't really want to write about the Doctor any more. I was more interested in the universe around him, and as it was my book that meant the little sub-bubble universe I'd built up since ALIEN BODIES. Which isn't really the Doctor Who universe at all, of course, although it does owe a huge debt to Robert Holmes.”
It’s clear that he was talking figuratively about how he felt about the worldbuilding he did in Alien Bodies and Interference, rather than some literal universe around The Book of the War. If we’re to take the word “universe” literally every time it’s used, we must also exclude Graceless, whose director Lisa Bowerman said it’s the characters’ “own universe”, and Jago & Litefoot, since in the S12 extras the cast says they’ve built up a separate universe from Doctor Who. (If made NOTVALID, these stories could still be given plenty of coverage: pages for NOTVALID series have many supplementary articles about each installment, complete with synopses and character descriptions. But even this isn’t good enough for Faction Paradox, which has a brief series page and otherwise gets no other mention.)
More importantly, in the same interview, Miles specifically said that he was already working on his Faction Paradox spinoff – ie, before the release of The Ancestor Cell. He started the project as a direct result of his resignation from BBC Books, which he did simply because, seeing the negative reviews of Interference, he didn’t want to keep inflicting his writing on fans. This was before he even learned the basic premise of TAC, and it seems from the interview that only upon its release did he discover exactly how thoroughly it nullified his Doctor Who work. Miles actually expresses an explicit willingness to match the EDA continuity should TAC incorporate Faction Paradox, saying “I did try asking Stephen what he was going to do, but he wouldn’t tell me.”
Furthermore, after the release of The Ancestor Cell and much closer to the launch of the FP series, Miles stated that his FP spinoff doesn’t take place in a separate universe from TAC, or even a parallel timeline where it didn’t happen (along the lines of Blood Heat and others). Instead, he goes even farther to assert:
... the destruction of Gallifrey [in The Ancestor Cell] is only caused by ‘late Faction’ agents from the future, changing the accepted version of history and preventing the War and such. Therefore, everything that happens in THE FACTION PARADOX PROTOCOLS... when they eventually turn up... is part of the ‘old’ order.
By specifying that his Faction Paradox series belongs in the “old order” of not an alternate or parallel but an aborted timeline, Miles classifies it in the same category as Alien Bodies, The Name of the Doctor, and Intervention Earth (all of which enjoy full integration into the wiki). In other words, it’s still the Doctor Who universe, just as it was before TAC happened.
Miles reinforced this idea in his Faction Paradox comics and audios, which act as direct prequels to his EDA The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. For instance, the audios are set during the War, but they feature the characters Sabbath and Mary Culver, who appeared or were referenced in Adventuress as well as the FP novel This Town Will Never Let Us Go. The comics form an even more direct link: they're explicitly set in the post-War universe after TAC, and they repeatedly reference Adventuress. For instance, they depict King George III’s woolly mammoth and again feature Sabbath as a secret service agent, in direct accord with his backstory in Adventuress. (There are even deliberate hints that the comics’ Isobel grew up to become Scarlette; this is confirmed in Lance Parkin’s Ahistory.) Altogether, this establishes that the comics, a part of the FP series, are explicitly set in the same post-Ancestor Cell universe as Adventuress and the other EDAs, showing that Miles believed the events of TAC affected both series, with no parallels or alternates involved. And this doesn’t just implicate the comics: many FP short stories don’t even make it clear whether the War is happening, is yet to happen, or is already over, and some (like Newtons Sleep) are explicitly set before the War, at least partially.
If we can declare that the FP series is an explicit reaction against The Ancestor Cell based solely on the unintentional, non-explicit, and completely superficial contradictions between the War in the former and its avoidance in the latter, many other stories must be reevaluated on similar criteria. For instance, Big Finish's Eighth Doctor stories react against the EDAs by completely ignoring them, to the point that Zagreus tries to consign them to an alternate universe; similarly, Ground Zero infamously reacts against the New Adventures. However, these stories are currently considered perfectly valid sources and the contradictions are just ignored.
---
It’s clear from this that the Faction Paradox series isn’t a reaction against the EDAs, but the matter of authorial intent remains. Miles’ quotes regarding FP being in an aborted timeline should already cast some doubt on whether he intended FP to exist outside the DWU, but, even if we stick with the original quote and conclude he deemed them separate, it’s important to remember that Miles isn’t the only writer in the FP series: in fact, he hasn’t been involved since the series changed hands to Obverse over half a decade ago. Meanwhile, the current writers, editors, and owners have repeatedly signaled that they view the universes as one and the same.
AHistory isn’t a valid source, but it is a reference guide to Lance Parkin’s opinions, and he includes the entire FP series — most notably including his own novel, Warlords of Utopia — in his timeline of the DWU.
Philip Purser-Hallard — contributor to The Book of the War, author of Of the City of the Saved…, and editor of the Obverse Books City of the Saved anthologies — has written multiple deliberate, fully-licensed crossovers between FP and the DWU. He first mentioned the character Krisztina-Judit Nemeth in his FP novel Of the City of the Saved… before she appeared in “Predating the Predators” from the Bernice Summerfield book The Vampire Curse. She then returned to FP in “A Hundred Words from a Civil War” and “Unification Theory;” Purser-Hallard has indicated on his website that he intended this as a deliberate link between the FP and BS ranges. He similarly linked FP with Iris Wildthyme through the character Rex Halidom from his Iris story “Battleship Anathema,” who appears (alongside Iris herself) in the FP story “A Hundred Words from a Civil War.” Blair Bidmead (author of the upcoming FP novel Weapons Grade Snake Oil) did something similar with his character Theo Possible, who appeared first in Tales of the City before showing up in a story featuring Iris Wildthyme spinoff characters. These crossovers between Faction Paradox and valid DWU series are fully licensed, and they indicate that the writers believe they take place in the same universe.
Similarly, Stuart Douglas, owner of Obverse Books (FP’s current publisher), wrote “Library Pictures” for FP anthology A Romance of Twelve Parts as a direct prequel to “Future Legend” from Iris Wildthyme anthology Iris Wildthyme and the Celestial Omnibus, and his Iris story “The Shape of Things” specifically references Faction Paradox.
Lawrence Burton has written about where his FP novel Against Nature fits into the DWU’s timeline.
Possibly most importantly of all: Stuart Douglas runs Obverse Books. He has explicitly confirmed that Faction Paradox is set in the DWU.
User: Obverse's Faction Paradox is set in the same universe as Doctor Who (before The Ancestor Cell), right? Not from a legal/aesthetic standpoint, but in the stories themselves. Obverse Books: Essentially, yes. Though the names have changed for obvious reasons :)
In the light of all this, it’s just incorrect to justify the FP ban by citing an authorial intent for the series being in separate universes.
---
The last justification for the different-universe conclusion is the way FP “approximates” the DWU. Current policy states, “Because writer Lawrence Miles does not have a license to DWU elements other than the Faction Paradox organisation itself, he must resort to using code names for Gallifrey, the Doctor, TARDISes, the Master and any number of the basic building blocks of the universe.”
However, this assumption is as incorrect as it is misguided. There are many non-subtextual references to the Doctor Who universe in FP that are fully licensed and completely non-oblique. This predictably includes Faction Paradox as well as Lawrence Miles’ other material: the Celestis, the Remote, the Shift, the Enemy, Laura Tobin / Compassion, Sabbath, and Mary Culver. There are also many DWU characters that don't belong to Miles but nonetheless have fully licensed FP appearances: Chris Cwej, Iris Wildthyme, Panda, Krisztina-Judit Nemeth, Rex Halidom, Sutekh, the Osirians in general, the Sontarans, and the Peking Homunculi all appear with those names. These are actual Doctor Who characters and concepts, not analogues or rebrandings.
Now, there are indeed some references that have been reworded for copyright issues, but (contrary to popular belief) there are only a few of those, and they’re far from obscure “code words.” None of them are “find and replace” renamings. Most of them are titles or descriptions rather than chosen names (like “the War King” instead of “the Master”), while others are simply English translations (like “homeworld” instead of “Gallifrey”) or more ambiguous forms of the words (like “time ship” instead of “TARDIS”). In fact, many of these phrases originated in Doctor Who stories: for instance, “Yssgaroth” was first used in The Pit as a scientific name for Great Vampires, and the term “Great House” was established in Lungbarrow to refer to not only physical homes but also family groups of Time Lords. (”Time Lords” refers to them as a group of individuals, whereas “Great Houses” refers to them as a group of collectives.) The commonly-cited description “evil renegade” for the Doctor appears only once, in the perfectly valid Dead Romance! Yes, these “renamings” are partly legally-motivated, but it’s also an important aesthetic element of the series, and is frequently done for fully-licensed characters. Christine Summerfield changes her name to “Cousin Eliza,” Chatelaine Thessalia calls herself “Larissa,” Isobel is “Scarlette,” House Lolita is referred to as “House Lucia.” The FP series uses different names as a way of focusing on different aspects of the same concept, not to indicate that they’re not set in the DWU.
It’s important to note that not all these connections are one-way. I’ve already explained how Lawrence Miles, Philip Purser-Hallard, Blair Bidmead, and Stuart Douglas have incorporated FP elements and references into their DWU works, but Big Finish brings us more examples. The Bernice Summerfield audio The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel includes not only references to the Faction but also the appearances of multiple Cwejen, who were introduced in The Book of the War and have featured in several FP stories. These Cwejen are identified as being related to the same DWU Cwej that Benny knows, and the Cwejen’s people (Great Houses) are equated with Straxus’s people (Time Lords) without naming either group. This is an explicitly-drawn in-text connection between DWU concepts and their FP designations. More recently, the Bernice Summerfield audio The Eye of Horus directly alluded to FP by naming Hatshepsut’s Osirian spaceship after “The Ship of a Billion Years” from the FP audios. The name is originally inspired by the “Boat of Millions of Years” from Egyptian mythology, but the specific phrase “Ship of a Billion Years” has only been used by Faction Paradox and The Eye of Horus.
Besides, if this were a true rule for validity, we would have to exclude many other series that refer to copyrighted DW concepts equally obliquely, while still featuring other licensed characters from DW stories. For instance, Telos’ Time Hunter series is only connected to Doctor Who through the two licensed main characters and the appearance of villains like the Fendahl. In the TH audiobook release of The Cabinet of Light, the name “the Doctor” is actually replaced with “Dr. Smith,” but TH has never been accused of being set in a separate fictional universe just because its Dr. Smith is unrelated to the Doctor.
Obverse’s Iris Wildthyme stories are similarly even less connected to Doctor Who than FP; not only did the Iris character not originate in Doctor Who, her stories have repeatedly written around copyright concerning the Time Lords (who are replaced with a new species, the “Clockworks”), the Doctor (“el Jefe”), and even the Time Vortex (“the Maelstrom”)! However, those stories are considered valid just because her character appeared in a few DWU stories and her current spinoff still has some licensed (non-BBC) connections to Who (e.g. the Forge and the Naxians). Of course, all those things can be said for Faction Paradox as well. At this point, under Obverse Books, Iris is connected more to FP than Doctor Who!
For another example, look at BBV’s short-lived Adventures in a Pocket Universe series. These stories feature “the Mistress” and “Ecto-Space” in lieu of Romana and E-Space, and their sole link to the DWU is that K9 is licensed (albeit in a different, never-elsewhere-seen incarnation). Faction Paradox features many more licensed DWU characters and renames concepts in ways that can be even more, but it’s still considered nonvalid while Adventures in a Pocket Universe is allowed.
The most comparable scenario is the Bernice Summerfield stories. After losing the Doctor Who license, Virgin Books’ Benny Summerfield novels use no BBC-copyrighted Doctor Who characters or concepts, and they dodge copyright in the exact same ways as FP. The BS novel Dead Romance was even republished as a Faction Paradox story. This FP-style code naming was continued in Big Finish’s BS audios and books. Whenever the Time Lords are mentioned, they’re only called “Cwej’s employers” or “Brax’s lot;” the Ice Warriors are renamed “Neo-Aretians;” Brax’s TARDIS is referred to as a “timeship,” “time machine,” or “time technology;” and the Doctor is referred to obliquely — “our mutual friend.” “Timeship” is the exact same “codename” for TARDIS used in Faction Paradox, yet Fear of Corners is a valid source and FP is not?
(BS’ copyright dodging continued for a decade and a half after Big Finish got the rights to the Doctor, suggesting that BF was deliberately trying to dissociate the BS universe from the DWU. This is supported by the fact that, since they brought Benny back to the Doctor in the 2014 “New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield” series, BFA has conspicuously avoided referencing characters and events from her standalone audios. Yet BS is an installed facet of the DWU, with unquestionable validity, and FP is exiled to its own Wiki.)
Just like in FP, there’s no BS decoder ring to tell us that Brax’s people are the Time Lords, and there’s no TH decoder ring to tell us that Dr. Smith is the Doctor, but there’s no confusion in the interpretation of these stories on the wiki, and it’s not classified as “speculation” to equate them. (Just look at this page, which equates Dr. Smith from The Child of Time with the Doctor who appears in the original, BBC licensed Cabinet of Light.) However, this privilege is denied from Faction Paradox: not only are explicit, in-text connections between the Great Houses and Time Lords completely ignored, so are the licensed appearances of characters like Cwej and Compassion!
---
I believe I’ve demonstrated that the previous discussion failed to consider a large amount of evidence, and that none of the reasons used for excluding the series are valid. The series is not a reaction against The Ancestor Cell, it’s worked hard to accommodate it. The authors do not think the series is set in an “FPU,” they agree that it is set in the DWU. The “code names” of concepts do not contradict previous stories, they’re a thematic reinterpretation and use of established alternative terms. I’d really appreciate it if the admins would read this post and address the new evidence brought up.
I couldn't agree with you more.
- WJDTwGL
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Personally, I agree that Faction Paradox and many other things were wrongfully considered invalid. The more and more I've interacted with fans online the more disgusting the word "canon" comes to be. But there's one major problem that no amount of debating can fix: this ship left port years ago. I'm drawn to a message that I've heard a number of times on this wiki:
The difficulty of the work involved isn't worth it.
That's not a valid reason in any way, shape, or form. Nobody has to help integrate it if they don't want to. I, personally, would love to do it, and know for a fact that there are other people who feel the same.
BTW Dench-and-palmer, I don't know if you meant to but you quoted the entire original post.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Personally, I agree that Faction Paradox and many other things were wrongfully considered invalid. The more and more I've interacted with fans online the more disgusting the word "canon" comes to be. But there's one major problem that no amount of debating can fix: this ship left port years ago. I'm drawn to a message that I've heard a number of times on this wiki:
The difficulty of the work involved isn't worth it.
That's not a valid reason in any way, shape, or form. Nobody has to help integrate it if they don't want to. I, personally, would love to do it, and know for a fact that there are other people who feel the same.
I would happily help integrate. But the question is whether we put info about the War King on the page about the Master, given that we have no in-universe sources linking the two, or whether we can put Evil Renegade and the Doctor together, etc.
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote:
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Personally, I agree that Faction Paradox and many other things were wrongfully considered invalid. The more and more I've interacted with fans online the more disgusting the word "canon" comes to be. But there's one major problem that no amount of debating can fix: this ship left port years ago. I'm drawn to a message that I've heard a number of times on this wiki:
The difficulty of the work involved isn't worth it.
That's not a valid reason in any way, shape, or form. Nobody has to help integrate it if they don't want to. I, personally, would love to do it, and know for a fact that there are other people who feel the same.
I would happily help integrate. But the question is whether we put info about the War King on the page about the Master, given that we have no in-universe sources linking the two, or whether we can put Evil Renegade and the Doctor together, etc.
No, the policy is already established for those. War King would be a separate page because it's not explicit, just like Man with the Rosette. The only story where the Doctor is called an evil renegade is Dead Romance (novel), which is already on this wiki.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I'd love to help reintergrate it into the TARDIS, also I see your point COT but is that a reason?
A lot, I mean a lot of invalid stories had no attention so I took the role of father for invalid pages and made them either better or actually existing on the wiki in the first place. I'd be happy to do the same for FP if a decision was drawn towards inclusion which of course is entirely up to the admins. To be honest the original post has some very good points, so I don't see why inclusion would not be an option.
And sorry about quoting the whole post, not intentional. He he. 😊 - Pluto2
Does the other side wish to counter the arguments provided in this thread (i.e. the people who are opposed to integration)?
- Shambala108
To quote User:CzechOut from Forum:BBV and canon policy:
- Dig, for example, this quote from Miles himself:
- Q: So you don't feel that the Faction's too close to Doctor Who?
- A: No. I'm too much of a monomaniac, probably. While I was writing INTERFERENCE, I think I started to realize that I didn't really want to write about the Doctor any more. I was more interested in the universe around him, and as it was my book that meant the little sub-bubble universe I'd built up since ALIEN BODIES. Which isn't really the Doctor Who universe at all, of course, although it does owe a huge debt to Robert Holmes. So I feel very very comfortable writing stories set in that universe which don't, for example, contain the word TARDIS. Besides, I think Faction Paradox have done their bit in the novels. It would've been terrible, to keep inflicting them on people who just wanted a Doctor story rather than a time-travelling voodoo-cult story.[1]
- If the creator of the universe himself is saying, directly, it "isn't really the Dotor Who Universe at all", why are we arguing with him? It just seems easier to believe Miles and go with the BBC-approved timeline than to refer to things that are clearly set in at least an alternate DWU as if they were things that happened in the "real" DWU. It's awfully misleading to slip a FP ref into the middle of an article about a DWU topic, because it won't convey to the average reader the notion that this statement is true if and only if you deem the events of The Ancestor Cell non-canonical. The truth of the matter is that that FP at Mad Norwegian and other companies is absolutely not a part of BBC-approved continuity. It's quite different from the Benny stuff, I think, which is simply the further adventures of an ex-companion. It was Miles saying "screw you" to BBC Books. We can't treat it as just another corner of the DWU. In no way, should (Mad Norwegian and beyond) FP be referenced in DWU articles.
(end of CzechOut's quote from above stated policy)
We don't argue with author intent. In Thread:125464, while discussing the inclusion of the Vienna stories, we had some conflicting author/publisher comments, but ruled that the author's statement of the stories being separate from the DWU would determine our policy. The same thing would apply here. Lawrence Miles says it's not DWU, then it's not DWU.
I'm not going to quote the several statements defending our policy at Forum:BBV and canon policy and Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki?; anyone who hasn't read these policies thoroughly should do so (as the OP did).
- Dig, for example, this quote from Miles himself:
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: To quote User:CzechOut from Forum:BBV and canon policy:
- Dig, for example, this quote from Miles himself:
- Q: So you don't feel that the Faction's too close to Doctor Who?
- A: No. I'm too much of a monomaniac, probably. While I was writing INTERFERENCE, I think I started to realize that I didn't really want to write about the Doctor any more. I was more interested in the universe around him, and as it was my book that meant the little sub-bubble universe I'd built up since ALIEN BODIES. Which isn't really the Doctor Who universe at all, of course, although it does owe a huge debt to Robert Holmes. So I feel very very comfortable writing stories set in that universe which don't, for example, contain the word TARDIS. Besides, I think Faction Paradox have done their bit in the novels. It would've been terrible, to keep inflicting them on people who just wanted a Doctor story rather than a time-travelling voodoo-cult story.[1]
- If the creator of the universe himself is saying, directly, it "isn't really the Dotor Who Universe at all", why are we arguing with him? It just seems easier to believe Miles and go with the BBC-approved timeline than to refer to things that are clearly set in at least an alternate DWU as if they were things that happened in the "real" DWU. It's awfully misleading to slip a FP ref into the middle of an article about a DWU topic, because it won't convey to the average reader the notion that this statement is true if and only if you deem the events of The Ancestor Cell non-canonical. The truth of the matter is that that FP at Mad Norwegian and other companies is absolutely not a part of BBC-approved continuity. It's quite different from the Benny stuff, I think, which is simply the further adventures of an ex-companion. It was Miles saying "screw you" to BBC Books. We can't treat it as just another corner of the DWU. In no way, should (Mad Norwegian and beyond) FP be referenced in DWU articles.
(end of CzechOut's quote from above stated policy)
We don't argue with author intent. In Thread:125464, while discussing the inclusion of the Vienna stories, we had some conflicting author/publisher comments, but ruled that the author's statement of the stories being separate from the DWU would determine our policy. The same thing would apply here. Lawrence Miles says it's not DWU, then it's not DWU.
I'm not going to quote the several statements defending our policy at Forum:BBV and canon policy and Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki?; anyone who hasn't read these policies thoroughly should do so (as the OP did).
But Miles has changed his stance multiple times.
And no one's saying The Ancestor Cell is non-canonical. The Faction Paradox series's stance on Ancestor Cell is that all was not as it appeared - that the War wasn't prevented. And if FP contradicts something, how is that different from the wildly contradictory accounts of how the First Doctor left Gallifrey? We don't discard all of them because they don't mesh.
- Dig, for example, this quote from Miles himself:
- WJDTwGL
Shambala108 wrote: To quote User:CzechOut from Forum:BBV and canon policy:
- Dig, for example, this quote from Miles himself:
- Q: So you don't feel that the Faction's too close to Doctor Who?
- A: No. I'm too much of a monomaniac, probably. While I was writing INTERFERENCE, I think I started to realize that I didn't really want to write about the Doctor any more. I was more interested in the universe around him, and as it was my book that meant the little sub-bubble universe I'd built up since ALIEN BODIES. Which isn't really the Doctor Who universe at all, of course, although it does owe a huge debt to Robert Holmes. So I feel very very comfortable writing stories set in that universe which don't, for example, contain the word TARDIS. Besides, I think Faction Paradox have done their bit in the novels. It would've been terrible, to keep inflicting them on people who just wanted a Doctor story rather than a time-travelling voodoo-cult story.[1]
- If the creator of the universe himself is saying, directly, it "isn't really the Dotor Who Universe at all", why are we arguing with him? It just seems easier to believe Miles and go with the BBC-approved timeline than to refer to things that are clearly set in at least an alternate DWU as if they were things that happened in the "real" DWU. It's awfully misleading to slip a FP ref into the middle of an article about a DWU topic, because it won't convey to the average reader the notion that this statement is true if and only if you deem the events of The Ancestor Cell non-canonical. The truth of the matter is that that FP at Mad Norwegian and other companies is absolutely not a part of BBC-approved continuity. It's quite different from the Benny stuff, I think, which is simply the further adventures of an ex-companion. It was Miles saying "screw you" to BBC Books. We can't treat it as just another corner of the DWU. In no way, should (Mad Norwegian and beyond) FP be referenced in DWU articles.
(end of CzechOut's quote from above stated policy)
We don't argue with author intent. In Thread:125464, while discussing the inclusion of the Vienna stories, we had some conflicting author/publisher comments, but ruled that the author's statement of the stories being separate from the DWU would determine our policy. The same thing would apply here. Lawrence Miles says it's not DWU, then it's not DWU.
I'm not going to quote the several statements defending our policy at Forum:BBV and canon policy and Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki?; anyone who hasn't read these policies thoroughly should do so (as the OP did).
Saying that author intent is that it's set in a different universe is ignoring all the times when Lawrence Miles himself, and a number of other writers for the series say it's in the same literal, in-narrative universe, in favor of the one where it could be interpreted the other way. It means insisting that it necessarily means that in the narrative it is absolutely a separate and unrelated reality, without considering the idea of a metaphorical use of the term, as when Big Finish describes Graceless and Jago & Litefoot as having their own universes that aren't the same thing as Doctor Who anymore. Doctor Who has a set of recurring characters, general themes, and narrative conventions that can be referred to as a "universe," and differentiated from the differing recurring characters, general themes, and narrative conventions of another series. Have you actually read the original post in this thread, or is this a public policy announcement? Because the original post is obviously bringing up completely valid information on the intentions of the authors.
CzechOut said "this statement is true if and only if you deem the events of The Ancestor Cell non-canonical." A) There is no canon. B) That's absolutely false. This isn't my opinion, this is what the authors and the narrative indicate. The only way that The Ancestor Cell can be said to not have happened in the context of some Faction Paradox series stories is that it hasn't happened yet. Not that it's "non-canonical." Not that it's "an alternate universe." It's in the future. As elaborated in the original post, both Lawrence Miles in person and in his fictional writing has indicated an acceptance of the events of The Ancestor Cell. He has written stories explicitly set both before and after it happens.
- Dig, for example, this quote from Miles himself:
- WJDTwGL
The current tardis.wikia/factionparadox.wikia division is a "separate but equal" situation. The idea is supposedly that both cover their subject matter equally well, but that they have limited connections to each other. But that's obviously not the truth. The majority of stories and concepts in the DWU have nothing to do with Faction Paradox. So it's only the minority that are related that are damaged by the disconnect — pages like Justine (Alien Bodies) and Chris Cwej. But Faction Paradox depends on many other DWU concepts to make sense. The second series of FP audios are a prequel to Pyramids of Mars, but the rules imposed on the FP wiki by the tardis wiki administration mean it can't actually explain that except through out-of-universe notes at the bottoms of pages. Characters like the Shift and Justine can't have their origins described.
The obviously flawed solution is to allow the FP wiki to cite other DWU sources. Then characters end up with two pages: one that allows all of their history but has basically no activity, and one that allows only a subset, but has lots of editors interested in at least part of the content.
The only solution is to re-allow Faction Paradox-related sources on this wiki.
- WJDTwGL
Here's what I propose for integrating Faction Paradox concepts: don't try to make connections between things if they're only subtext. Which is what the policy is already.
- General consensus is that the War King is the Master/War Chief. But that's only ever implied, so he goes on a separate page, with a footnote mentioning the connection, just like Man with the Rosette.
- I really don't know where the idea that Faction Paradox calls the Doctor "The Evil Renegade" comes from. In the non-FP book Dead Romance, brainwashed Chris describes him as "an evil renegade" (no capitalization). He doesn't come up at all in the Faction Paradox series. He did die early in the War, you know.
- The only exception is Grandfather Halfling. He's a champion of half-human rights in the City of the Saved, and considering the Grandfather Paradox connection from The Ancestor Cell, he could be the Doctor. But again, that's basically only a theory, so separate page.
- There already is a Great House page, so information about them goes there. There's no denying that the Great Houses in FP are the Great Houses of the Time Lords, or that the Time Lords are the people who make up the Great Houses. The two are equated many times. Character pages should refer to things the way the text does, "member of one of the Great Houses" or "Time Lord" based on context.
- If something described as a timeship comes from the Great Houses, it should link to TARDIS, but if it's non-Gallifreyan, it should link to Space-time vessel. I.e. exactly what's done already.
- The name of the homeworld of the Great Houses of the Time Lords is Gallifrey. Sometimes they refer to it generically, some people don't know that name, and some people call it the "Houseworld" because it's not their home and it's where the Houses come from.
- Information about Compassion goes on Compassion, information about Yssgaroth goes on Yssgaroth, etc.
CzechOut complained about using the "wrong" terms, specifically, "Handramit was a Time Lord from House Mirraflex, who left Gallifrey when he was young. He settled on Onesia, becoming a naturalised subject of the Onesian Emirate. ( Of the City of the Saved...)" But there's no reason it has to be one or the other. It already isn't. The credits on pages for many TV episodes credit the Doctor as "Dr. Who," but it just links to First Doctor. "Handramit was a member of House Mirraflex, who left his Homeworld when he was young. He settled on Onesia, becoming a naturalised subject of the Onesian Emirate." That statement doesn't contradict the original, it just follows the conventions of the text — a house-based perspective on Time Lords, and a preference for the generic word for Gallifrey.
- NateBumber
Shambala108 wrote: We don't argue with author intent. … Lawrence Miles says it's not DWU, then it's not DWU.
Well the thing is that he doesn't. I make it clear in the post that the quote you referenced has multiple meanings; that Miles clearly never intended Faction Paradox to be a "fuck you" to Doctor Who; that quite literally everything else Lawrence Miles (and the other authors and publishers, for that matter) has said and or done gives the completely opposite message; and that Graceless and Jago & Litefoot would have to be reconsidered under the same guidelines. Tardis Wiki policy is to not argue with authorial intent, and authorial intent is that Faction Paradox is part of the Doctor Who universe.
I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing with the rules here. I'm not saying that a work being a reaction against Doctor Who should not be relevant to its validity, or that authorial intent doesn't matter. Regardless of my personal opinions about these rules, I respect them, and I'm pitching this argument on its terms: not "does authorial intent matter?" but "I don't think authorial intent is in the assumed direction." This isn't a disagreement with the rules; this is just a disagreement with the facts concerning how they apply to Faction Paradox.
- NateBumber
In regards to the Faction Paradox Wiki: I don't know if I've met a single FP fan who was involved with the franchise before Obverse got the rights. It used to be unknown on Reddit and Tumblr; now there's consistent, almost daily discussion between many users. So if the fanbase has grown so much, why have there been fewer than twenty-five edits on the Faction Paradox Wiki in the last year?!? Definitely not what you'd expect from a series whose first book is a literal encyclopedia!
I know why I don't use it more, and what I've heard from other fans backs me up: the wiki is fundamentally broken. It's filled with stubs and empty articles, and it's marred by vandalism that stays up for years. It's painfully obvious that many articles were (unnecessarily) lifted from the Tardis Wiki wholesale, leaving broken templates and formatting. And all this is introduced to the world by an uneditable graphic that's years out of date. Most of these things are fixable, but the fans I've talked to don't want to even try because they all agree that the very existence of a FP Wiki separate from the one that houses Doctor Who, Iris Wildthyme, and Bernice Summerfield is completely pointless. Here, the authors, fans, publishers, and stories themselves all agree: Faction Paradox is a part of the Doctor Who universe, and, as Fwhiffahder has pointed out, it suffers from the removal of that context.
(As does our wiki, I might add. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that our page for the War has survived this long without any link at all to the FP Wiki page about the Second War in Heaven?)
The fact is, in terms of sheer material, there aren't terribly many articles on the FP Wiki, and the vast majority are either integrable into existing Tardis Wiki articles or just completely unnecessary. Unlike the Sarah-Jane Adventures Wiki, the FP one is run by a Tardis admin, so it’d be super easy to transfer over the material (along the lines of what Fwhiffahder proposed) and shut it down. I myself would be more than willing to spearhead this effort, and I know several fans who have expressed willingness to help out, both in and out of this thread, so it's completely achievable. (This isn't just some hypothetical discussion that will end in no action; we're all waiting to write articles upon the admins' go-ahead.) If the rule change is approved soon, I expect the move will be completely finished well before the premiere of Series 10.
However, first we need to get to the bottom of whether Faction Paradox belongs. I think I've demonstrated pretty thoroughly in the OP how it doesn't violate the four little rules, but I'd be very curious to hear any new or unaddressed arguments against FP's membership in the DWU.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It'd be brilliant if FP was intergrated. It's such a wonderfully unappreciated series, that deserves our care and attention as they certainly haven't broken any rules.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It'd be brilliant if FP was intergrated. It's such a wonderfully unappreciated series, that deserves our care and attention as they certainly haven't broken any rules.
I don't know what the second part of your post means, but I have a question. If you enjoy FP so much, why haven't you contributed anything to the FP wiki?
- WJDTwGL
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It'd be brilliant if FP was intergrated. It's such a wonderfully unappreciated series, that deserves our care and attention as they certainly haven't broken any rules.
I don't know what the second part of your post means, but I have a question. If you enjoy FP so much, why haven't you contributed anything to the FP wiki?
I can't speak for Dench-and-palmer themself, of course. But I've explained perfectly clearly why the FP wiki's rules make it useless, and editing it pointless.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It'd be brilliant if FP was intergrated. It's such a wonderfully unappreciated series, that deserves our care and attention as they certainly haven't broken any rules.
I don't know what the second part of your post means, but I have a question. If you enjoy FP so much, why haven't you contributed anything to the FP wiki?
The wiki is a tip (no offence). It's not well enough protected for anyone to even bother editing pal.
- NateBumber
Shambala108 wrote: If you enjoy FP so much, why haven't you contributed anything to the FP wiki?
Fwhiffahder and I have both posted comments that thoroughly address the question of "Why do fans find the FP Wiki so unusable?".
- SOTO
Then I encourage you all to leave the passive role, and fix these issues on the FP Wiki. Add content. Expand articles. Gets others to join, and build a bit of a community. Only then will things get done.
We at Tardis have no reason to go back on our earlier decision to split that franchise off into its own wiki. This issue should not be brought up again unless there is new evidence that was not considered in previous discussions. We came to our conclusions from discussion in Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki? and Forum:BBV and canon policy. I would advise you all to read those to better understand our reasoning.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: Then I encourage you all to leave the passive role, and fix these issues on the FP Wiki. Add content. Expand articles. Gets others to join, and build a bit of a community. Only then will things get done.
We at Tardis have no reason to go back on our earlier decision to split that franchise off into its own wiki. This issue should not be brought up again unless there is new evidence that was not considered in previous discussions. We came to our conclusions from discussion in Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki? and Forum:BBV and canon policy. I would advise you all to read those to better understand our reasoning.
In fairness new evidence has been brought up.
- NateBumber
SOTO wrote: Then I encourage you all to leave the passive role, and fix these issues on the FP Wiki. Add content. Expand articles. Gets others to join, and build a bit of a community. Only then will things get done.
As we've said, the one biggest main issue with the FP Wiki is its separation from this one. A vast amount of Faction Paradox material and stories directly depends on context in Doctor Who, Bernice Summerfield, and Iris Wildthyme, and discussing Faction Paradox without a foundation in this context is simultaneously useless and impossible. The only solution is to bring it back in.
And I completely intend to abandon the passive role! I would love nothing more! Several others in this thread, as well as multiple people I've talked to outside of Wikia, have agreed with me that they would love to help contribute to Faction Paradox articles on this wiki, should the transfer be approved.
We at Tardis have no reason to go back on our earlier decision to split that franchise off into its own wiki. This issue should not be brought up again unless there is new evidence that was not considered in previous discussions. We came to our conclusions from discussion in Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki? and Forum:BBV and canon policy. I would advise you all to read those to better understand our reasoning.
I agree that everyone should read those threads, and I linked them in the very first paragraph of my post for that exact reason. However, as I also said in that paragraph, everything I cited in the OP specifically wasn't mentioned in those previous debates. With all due respect, I don't understand why new or not-previously-mentioned quotes from Lawrence Miles, other authors, and editors concerning Faction Paradox and the DWU wouldn't qualify as enough to bring up this topic again, and I don't think I'm disrupting this wiki by doing so. It certainly wasn't my intention! I'm not arguing with the rules or trying to prove a point; I'm just saying their correct application to Faction Paradox wouldn't result in a ban.
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: Then I encourage you all to leave the passive role, and fix these issues on the FP Wiki. Add content. Expand articles. Gets others to join, and build a bit of a community. Only then will things get done.
We at Tardis have no reason to go back on our earlier decision to split that franchise off into its own wiki. This issue should not be brought up again unless there is new evidence that was not considered in previous discussions. We came to our conclusions from discussion in Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki? and Forum:BBV and canon policy. I would advise you all to read those to better understand our reasoning.
As was already explained in this thread, the rules imposed on the FP wiki mean it's impossible for it to be useful, and if those rules were changed it would require endlessly duplicating information from this wiki. And yes, there is a reason to go back on that decision. The reason being the mountain of evidence that was not brought up in the original discussion, and which is listed in this thread. The original discussion is based on factually incorrect ideas, like that the Faction Paradox series is based on The Ancestor Cell being "non-canonical."
- SOTO
You bring up some good points and some good quotes. You are correct that you're bringing up things not brought up before, and I apologise for assuming otherwise.
But the fact remains that, legally, if we are to consider the elements in Faction Paradox to be the same as the equivalent elements in the DWU, then they do not have all the relevant copyrights. Everything they borrowed, they gave new names, to make sure they're their own property, their own independent universe at least from a legal standpoint, even if narratively, the intention is for them to fit into the DWU--if we try to consider them DWU, they fail rule 2.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: You bring up some good points and some good quotes. You are correct that you're bringing up things not brought up before, and I apologise for assuming otherwise.
But the fact remains that, legally, if we are to consider the elements in Faction Paradox to be the same as the equivalent elements in the DWU, then they do not have all the relevant copyrights. Everything they borrowed, they gave new names, to make sure they're their own property, their own independent universe at least from a legal standpoint, even if narratively, the intention is for them to fit into the DWU--if we try to consider them DWU, they fail rule 2.
But by that logic, Bernice Summerfield New Adventures must be thrown out. because they didn't legally have the rights to directly refer to Time Lords or the Doctor.
- OncomingStorm12th
SOTO wrote: But the fact remains that, legally, if we are to consider the elements in Faction Paradox to be the same as the equivalent elements in the DWU, then they do not have all the relevant copyrights. Everything they borrowed, they gave new names, to make sure they're their own property, their own independent universe at least from a legal standpoint, even if narratively, the intention is for them to fit into the DWU--if we try to consider them DWU, they fail rule 2.
But don't we do something similar for characters like The Mistress, K9 (The Choice) and a lot of other stuff from BBV? For what a different name is given, we create a different page, and for what the same name is given, we use the same page. Couldn't the same be done to Faction Paradox?
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: You bring up some good points and some good quotes. You are correct that you're bringing up things not brought up before, and I apologise for assuming otherwise.
But the fact remains that, legally, if we are to consider the elements in Faction Paradox to be the same as the equivalent elements in the DWU, then they do not have all the relevant copyrights. Everything they borrowed, they gave new names, to make sure they're their own property, their own independent universe at least from a legal standpoint, even if narratively, the intention is for them to fit into the DWU--if we try to consider them DWU, they fail rule 2.
I'm becoming really unsure whether you've actually read through this thread. It has explained how the "renamed" concepts are not, from an in-universe perspective, renamed, demonstrated how this is done by other series that are considered valid sources, and listed the many characters and concepts which are used under license with the exact same names. I have suggested that speculative connections between characters are not made, as is the case for other valid sources like Man with the Rosette and the Master, and The Mistress (The Choice) and Romana II.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Suggesting that war king is the Master and that time ship is the TARDIS is mere speculation. They would have to be covered separately otherwise we might as well make it up.
If FP was going to break licensing issues then they would have just said the Master and the TARDIS. It clearly tried not to, say these implications were correct, and they did mean them. Then by referencing them they were clearly trying to imply that the events were part of the DWU. Otherwise they wouldn't have even tried to mention them.
- Pluto2
Well, timeship wouldn't need separating. In other works, like the Bernice Summerfield novels, they called TARDISes timeships, didn't they? Isn't "timeship" just a general descriptor for time machine?
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
SOTO wrote: You bring up some good points and some good quotes. You are correct that you're bringing up things not brought up before, and I apologise for assuming otherwise.
But the fact remains that, legally, if we are to consider the elements in Faction Paradox to be the same as the equivalent elements in the DWU, then they do not have all the relevant copyrights. Everything they borrowed, they gave new names, to make sure they're their own property, their own independent universe at least from a legal standpoint, even if narratively, the intention is for them to fit into the DWU--if we try to consider them DWU, they fail rule 2.
I'm becoming really unsure whether you've actually read through this thread. It has explained how the "renamed" concepts are not, from an in-universe perspective, renamed, demonstrated how this is done by other series that are considered valid sources, and listed the many characters and concepts which are used under license with the exact same names. I have suggested that speculative connections between characters are not made, as is the case for other valid sources like Man with the Rosette and the Master, and The Mistress (The Choice) and Romana II.
I was starting to suspect the same thing...
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Suggesting that war king is the Master and that time ship is the TARDIS is mere speculation. They would have to be covered separately otherwise we might as well make it up.
If FP was going to break licensing issues then they would have just said the Master and the TARDIS. It clearly tried not to, say these implications were correct, and they did mean them. Then by referencing them they were clearly trying to imply that the events were part of the DWU. Otherwise they wouldn't have even tried to mention them.
Well, the War King being the Master is speculation. Timeship doesn't mean TARDIS, though. It just means space-time vessel. If the timeship belongs to a member of one of the Great Houses, then it's a TARDIS. Otherwise, it's just a space-time vessel. That's already what we do. When The Anachronauts talks about timeships, it links to space-time vessel, because it's made by humans. But for something like Fear of Corners, where it belongs to someone that we know (even though the text doesn't explicitly say it) is a Time Lord, we go with TARDIS.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Suggesting that war king is the Master and that time ship is the TARDIS is mere speculation. They would have to be covered separately otherwise we might as well make it up.
If FP was going to break licensing issues then they would have just said the Master and the TARDIS. It clearly tried not to, say these implications were correct, and they did mean them. Then by referencing them they were clearly trying to imply that the events were part of the DWU. Otherwise they wouldn't have even tried to mention them.
Well, the War King being the Master is speculation. Timeship doesn't mean TARDIS, though. It just means space-time vessel. If the timeship belongs to a member of one of the Great Houses, then it's a TARDIS. Otherwise, it's just a space-time vessel. That's already what we do. When The Anachronauts talks about timeships, it links to space-time vessel, because it's made by humans. But for something like Fear of Corners, where it belongs to someone that we know (even though the text doesn't explicitly say it) is a Time Lord, we go with TARDIS.
That's what I was saying pal, either way it works in the for side's favour.
- Pluto2
Just out of curiosity, would the Imperator be merged with Morbius?
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: Just out of curiosity, would the Imperator be merged with Morbius?
I don't think there's been any explicit confirmation, so it shouldn't be any more than a note in the "Behind the Scenes" section of each page.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: Just out of curiosity, would the Imperator be merged with Morbius?
That'd be speculation.
- NateBumber
SOTO wrote: You bring up some good points and some good quotes. You are correct that you're bringing up things not brought up before, and I apologise for assuming otherwise.
Thanks! :)
Everything they borrowed, they gave new names, to make sure they're their own property …
This just isn't true, though. The Peking Homunculi; the Sontarans; Cousin Justine; the Celestis; Chris Cwej; Iris Wildthyme; the Shift; Ordifica; Rex Halidom; Panda; the Remote; the Osirians; Krisztina-Judit Nemeth; Dronid; Laura Tobin and Compassion; Sabbath; Sutekh; Mary Culver. These are just a sampling of the DWU concepts and characters directly licensed by the FP range who appear using their original names.
Yes, there are some names that have been changed, but many of those names are established as alternate titles within the DWU itself, and there frankly aren't that many. Plus, as others have pointed out, many other series (Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme, Time Hunter, and Adventures in a Pocket Universe, just to name a few) have done the exact same thing. All of this was explicitly stated, almost word-for-word, in the OP.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
This just isn't true, though. The Peking Homunculi; the Sontarans; Cousin Justine; the Celestis; Chris Cwej; Iris Wildthyme; the Shift; Ordifica; Rex Halidom; Panda; the Remote; the Osirians; Krisztina-Judit Nemeth; Dronid; Laura Tobin and Compassion; Sabbath; Sutekh; Mary Culver. These are just a sampling of the DWU concepts and characters directly licensed by the FP range who appear using their original names.
Yes, there are some names that have been changed, but many of those names are established as alternate titles within the DWU itself, and there frankly aren't that many. Plus, as others have pointed out, many other series (Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme, Time Hunter, and Adventures in a Pocket Universe, just to name a few) have done the exact same thing. All of this was explicitly stated, almost word-for-word, in the OP.
You my dear friend have top notch debating skills.
I agree with everything you are saying. It does feel a bit like rules for one and not the other.
- WJDTwGL
A couple of licensed connections that the original post didn't mention: Daniel O'Mahony's Faction Paradox novel Newtons Sleep features the Inferno nightclub from his Telos novella, The Cabinet of Light. And the FP novel Against Nature contains the Drudges from Lungbarrow, courtesy of Marc Platt.
- 86.186.186.124
Fwhiffahder wrote:
A couple of licensed connections that the original post didn't mention: Daniel O'Mahony's Faction Paradox novel Newtons Sleep features the Inferno nightclub from his Telos novella, The Cabinet of Light.And 'The War Machines'.
- 86.4.239.22
Hi. Philip Purser-Hallard here, author of Of the City of the Saved, "A Hundred Words from a Civil War" (in A Romance in TWelve Parts) and "De Umbris Idearum" (in Burning with Optimism's Flames), and editor of four City of the Saved anthologies published to date, with another due early next year.
I couldn't swear to it, but I'm fairly sure that makes me responsible for more Faction Paradox material than anyone else except Lawrence Miles himself. I've also written and edited a bunch of stuff that unambiguously takes place in Doctor Who continuity, for the Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme and Time Hunter ranges, as well as two Doctor Who short stories for Big Finish.
It's certainly not been my authorial intention that these stories take place in separate continuities, which is why I reuse characters and other elements across these series all the time. Aside from KJ Nemeth and Rex Halidom, who the OP mentions, there's Imogen Tantry, who's introduced in Predating the Predators and subsequently reappears in "De Umbris Idearum" and, as Pope Beatrix II, in "A Hundred Words from a Civil War". "A Hundred Words" also includes descendants of the Quire from Collected Works and the Yesodites from "The Long Midwinter".
In all honesty, my Iris stories have more distance from the Doctor Who universe than the Faction ones: in "Green Mars Blues", for instance, the Ice Warriors appear among a roster of explicitly fictional Martians, but that's because it's well established -- and certainly a fundamental assumption of Iris Wildthyme of Mars -- that Iris exists in a metafictional multiverse of which Doctor Who is only a part.
Nor am I at all convinced that it was ever Lawrence Miles's real intention to separate the Faction and Who universes. The Book of the War works to establish a distinct identity for itself and its successors, of course, but as will be plain to everyone who's read it, the extent to which its subversive reinterpretation of Doctor Who history relies on there being an accepted Doctor Who history for it to subvert. The Magic Bullet Faction audios' treatment of the Osirians is similar -- it treats the public-domain idea of "ancient Egyptian deities as hugely powerful aliens" in a manner which is deeply consistent with that in Pyramids of Mars, though it also builds on it extensively. (The BBV Faction audios deal with the Peking Homunculus in much the same way, though their presentation of the Sontarans is more conventional.)
Essentially, the Faction material constantly questions Doctor Who orthodoxy, but this strand of its ethos only exists in the context of that orthodoxy. To treat Faction Paradox as an entity in its own right is nonsensical (which I suspect is why the Faction wiki has never thrived), and to exclude it from the Doctor Who expanded universe can only be a defensive political statement based on not wanting that orthodoxy challenged.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
86.4.239.22 wrote: Hi. Philip Purser-Hallard here, author of Of the City of the Saved, "A Hundred Words from a Civil War" (in A Romance in TWelve Parts) and "De Umbris Idearum" (in Burning with Optimism's Flames), and editor of four City of the Saved anthologies published to date, with another due early next year.
I couldn't swear to it, but I'm fairly sure that makes me responsible for more Faction Paradox material than anyone else except Lawrence Miles himself. I've also written and edited a bunch of stuff that unambiguously takes place in Doctor Who continuity, for the Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme and Time Hunter ranges, as well as two Doctor Who short stories for Big Finish.
It's certainly not been my authorial intention that these stories take place in separate continuities, which is why I reuse characters and other elements across these series all the time. Aside from KJ Nemeth and Rex Halidom, who the OP mentions, there's Imogen Tantry, who's introduced in Predating the Predators and subsequently reappears in "De Umbris Idearum" and, as Pope Beatrix II, in "A Hundred Words from a Civil War". "A Hundred Words" also includes descendants of the Quire from Collected Works and the Yesodites from "The Long Midwinter".
In all honesty, my Iris stories have more distance from the Doctor Who universe than the Faction ones: in "Green Mars Blues", for instance, the Ice Warriors appear among a roster of explicitly fictional Martians, but that's because it's well established -- and certainly a fundamental assumption of Iris Wildthyme of Mars -- that Iris exists in a metafictional multiverse of which Doctor Who is only a part.
Nor am I at all convinced that it was ever Lawrence Miles's real intention to separate the Faction and Who universes. The Book of the War works to establish a distinct identity for itself and its successors, of course, but as will be plain to everyone who's read it, the extent to which its subversive reinterpretation of Doctor Who history relies on there being an accepted Doctor Who history for it to subvert. The Magic Bullet Faction audios' treatment of the Osirians is similar -- it treats the public-domain idea of "ancient Egyptian deities as hugely powerful aliens" in a manner which is deeply consistent with that in Pyramids of Mars, though it also builds on it extensively. (The BBV Faction audios deal with the Peking Homunculus in much the same way, though their presentation of the Sontarans is more conventional.)
Essentially, the Faction material constantly questions Doctor Who orthodoxy, but this strand of its ethos only exists in the context of that orthodoxy. To treat Faction Paradox as an entity in its own right is nonsensical (which I suspect is why the Faction wiki has never thrived), and to exclude it from the Doctor Who expanded universe can only be a defensive political statement based on not wanting that orthodoxy challenged.
Pleasure to have you here...
I really do hope your comment is enough to settle this argument once and for all.
I love FP, I truly believe it should be covered here. Best wishes.
- NateBumber
I'd like to emphasize how this is nothing like the Vienna situation, where the creator repeatedly, directly, and unambiguously said "This is not a Doctor Who spinoff," and the only conflicting evidence was some ambiguity from the Big Finish website. In direct contrast, many FP authors have directly and unambiguously indicated that the Faction Paradox series is a part of the DWU, and the only quote that possibly suggests that Miles thinks otherwise (cited in the original thread) is completely ambiguous – not only using the word "universe" figuratively but also solely in reference to Alien Bodies and Interference – and contrary to the vast body of his other words and actions on this topic.
I've found comments in various inclusion debates that suggest there's a commonly accepted misconception that Miles created FP in some sort of "angry rebuke" of the EDAs. For instance, from Czechout's comments in Thread:125464:
And let's not forget that he (Miles) created the FP series because he was disgusted with the BBC. Although he might see the marketing need for licensing some DWU-originating characters from Holmes, he's not trying to build an adjunct to the DWU. He's trying to tell the story of The War the way he wanted to tell it. And he is trying to create something of his own. He is not playing in the DWU as it is. He's creating something he finds creatively more satisfying and interesting. He's creating something quite definitely apart from the DWU.
This is a completely unfounded interpretation of Miles' intentions with Faction Paradox. I'm not sure where on earth it comes from, but many have repeated it on this wiki over the last five years.
At risk of sounding like a broken record, Miles started the FP spinoff before the release of 'The Ancestor Cell'; even then, he went out of his way to reconcile TAC with his FP series by explicitly stating that FP is in the same aborted timeline as Alien Bodies, Interference, The Taking of Planet 5, and the rest of the EDA War arc, making it his explicit intent for FP to be as valid as those stories (or other aborted timelines, like the Doctor's tomb on Trenzalore in The Name of the Doctor); and Miles even went so far as to incorporate the effects of TAC into several FP stories, which are explicitly set in the same post-War universe as the post-TAC EDAs.
This is a complete repeat of what I said in the OP, where I sourced all of these claims, but I feel it's necessary to directly address this ludicrous misconception before it has the chance to be echoed again.
(Thanks Dench-and-Palmer!)
- AndrewHickey
OK, thought I'd pitch in here. My FP credentials aren't as great as Philip Purser-Hallard's, but I *have* written one Faction Paradox novel (Head of State) and one short story (The Adventure of the Piltdown Prelate, in Tales of the Great Detectives), so if my authorial intent makes a difference, take that into account.
I am *also* active in the Tumblr FP fandom, which NateBumber cited above.
And finally, I'm someone who *has* edited the FP wikia, which those who disagree with the "separate canons" thing are being accused of not doing. And I did so not because I agree with the canon policy, but because that wiki is *so* bad that I couldn't let it stand as a resource for others, so I updated a handful of pages.
I note that there is so little activity on that wiki that the page I added two years ago for my own novel still shows on the "new pages" list. The fact that I am ranked sixth in contributions on that Wikia despite not actually thinking it should exist in its current form should really speak for itself.
The front page of that Wikia still says " the odd novel or short story does occasionally surface, as most recently happened in 2011." Since 2011 Burning With Optimism's Flames, Against Nature, The Brakespeare Voyage, Tales Of The City, More Tales Of The City, Head Of State, Tales of the Great Detectives, Furthest Tales of the City, Liberating Earth, and Weapons-Grade Snake Oil have all come out. No-one except admins is allowed to change that page. The admins have shown no interest in doing so.
The reason for the lack of activity is that there is no sensible way to write encyclopaedically about the various FP works without referencing their "DWU" appearances.
Before I ever wrote a word of FP material, I wrote a blog post arguing -- vociferously -- against this split in canon policies ( https://andrewhickey.info/2012/09/07/i-blame-ronald-knox/ ). To quote from that:
"It may seem like I’m getting overly annoyed at what is, after all, a few geeks doing geek things, but it’s not the separation of these two wikis that annoys me in itself. Rather it’s that this is a symptom of a larger problem, a basic illiteracy which is spreading.
For example, there was a character called Chris Cwej in some of the Doctor Who books. He also appears in the book Dead Romance, which was originally published in the Bernice Summerfield series (counted as canon on the Doctor Who wiki) before being republished as a prequel to the Faction Paradox series. He then appears in The Book Of The War (a Faction Paradox book), where he’s cloned into a whole subspecies called the Cwejen. One of the Cwejen then appears in a Bernice Summerfield audio drama.
Makes sense, right? Simple enough.
Except that because of this enforced split, these people are insisting that one should instead read it as “there was a character called Chris Cwej in some of the Doctor Who books. Later a clone of him called a Cwejen appeared from nowhere” or “a character called Chris Cwej didn’t do very much, and he was cloned, and the clones did nothing of importance either”. The Chris Cwej in “the DWU” has to be different from the Chris Cwej in “the FPU”. The same goes for the Sontarans, Iris Wildthyme, the Peking Homunculus, Sutekh, even Faction Paradox themselves. Totally different, unconnected characters, in two different ‘franchises’.
The need for rules, for consistency, and for a ‘canon’ has overruled all intelligent reading of the texts, any engagement with them. Not only the author’s intention (and it’s *clearly* the intention that, say, the Sontarans in The Faction Paradox Protocols are the same species as in The Invasion Of Time — there’s a clear intertextuality going on there) but also any kind of sensible reading of the text at all. It’s like trying to read The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen while pretending that the Alan Quartermain or Mr Hyde in it are totally different to the ones who appear in Victorian fiction.
And this is a very, very dangerous idea. Texts should be read with as much context as possible, not as little. While authorial intention isn’t everything, it is *something*, and all works have inspirations from other texts.
Trying to look at texts completely in isolation from their context — and trying to pretend that it’s because of some great authority, even when no authority has spoken — is the mindset of fundamentalism. For anyone who doubts the importance of what I’m talking about, take a look at the way American politics is being distorted by people who insist on ‘literal’ readings of the Bible without paying attention to things like authorial voice or metaphor, without differentiating between recountings of myths and attempts at accurate history, within that very complex, difficult book.
There is a direct link between the mindset that says “Mary Christmas, Santa’s ex-wife who left him because she thought he had an affair with Iris Wildthyme, is ‘canon’, but the Iris Wildthyme who she thought was having an affair isn’t the same one who tried to visit the City Of The Saved. That would just be silly”, and the mindset that uses Scofield Reference Bibles to link completely unlinked pieces of text, written thousands of years apart by different people, into an incoherent but ‘literal’ whole."
That quote from Lawrence Miles that people reference as a claim that FP is not "the Doctor Who universe" is, by any sensible reading, a claim that *Alien Bodies and Interference* are not the Doctor Who universe.
My own Head of State explicitly takes place in the same world as Philip Purser-Hallard's Bernice Summerfield story "Predating the Predators" and references events in that story. It is absolutely my intention that, to the extent that there is a "Doctor Who universe", both my FP works take place in it (as will any future FP works I do). As far as I'm aware (and I've talked with the majority of them), that's true of everyone who's written for the FP range, and I know it's true of at least two of the publishers (I don't know about Random Static, but both Lars Pearson and Stuart Douglas have said similar things).
The split in "canons" has no justification in authorial intent, no justification in the texts, and does real damage to the possibility of the FP wikia ever making sense.
And nobody in the FP fandom as it exists thinks of the two as separate. The *only* people who think of them as separate are a handful of admins who are apparently more interested in taking sides in a nearly-twenty-year-old fandom dispute than in what makes sense.
There are only two solutions that can possibly ever make sense here:
1) By far my preferred solution -- bring the FP material back into TARDIS wikia, because it's clearly, obviously, relevant here, and would be here were it not for an unjustified decision to exclude it.
2) Much less preferable -- get rid of the "sister wikis" nonsense and stop holding the FP Wikia to a "canon" policy that makes it impossible to talk sensibly about the books and audios. Make the FP Wikia as independent as you claim the "two" "universes" to be, and allow FP fandom to do what it likes.
But the present situation is nothing more or less than TARDIS Wikia admins domain-squatting the FP Wikia, preventing even the possibility of anyone doing anything useful with it (whether the will to do that exists or not, I don't know, but it's not even a possibility at the moment), and in the process misrepresenting the work of dozens of authors, including myself, because someone decided a decade or more ago that Lawrence Miles is smelly and we don't want to be his friend anyway. It's childish and nonsensical.
- NateBumber
Oh, and then Philip Purser-Hallard and Andrew Hickey show up and definitively end the authorial intent and "same universe" debates. This is why I should refresh before replying! Thanks for stopping by, both of you; I'm a big fan of your works!
I'd like to note that reinterpretation of previous stories is nothing new to Doctor Who. In fact, since it's reinterpretation and not actual contradiction, it's significantly less problematic than properly subversive stories like Ground Zero. Stories that have tried reinterpretation of previous Doctor Who stories include War of the Daleks, Zagreus, Day of the Doctor, Time of the Doctor, Divided Loyalties, Millenial Rites, and The Sands of Time, just to name a few. And subverting audience expectations is similarly nothing new: just look at Midnight, Listen, Kill the Moon, and Night of the Doctor, to give four of the most recent and obvious televised examples.
As Fwiffahder noted earlier, using in-text evidence from The Book of the War to draw conclusions about the Faction Paradox series' relationship with the Doctor Who universe is a self-defeating idea, since it's deliberately written as a propaganda piece of the Great Houses, continually rewritten by the Shift. This gives it the same "unreliable narrator" status as All-Consuming Fire, which, despite being identified in-text as a misrepresentation of events, is treated as a valid source in this wiki. This precedent should also be applied to BotW and, if need be, the rest of the FP series.
- Pluto2
Holy crap, wow. Welcome, Faction Paradox authors.
It's really hard to say that "authorial intent is that Faction Paradox is a separate universe, in the literal sense", when two different authors of that series just showed up and basically said that's completely false.
- WJDTwGL
AndrewHickey wrote: 2) Much less preferable -- get rid of the "sister wikis" nonsense and stop holding the FP Wikia to a "canon" policy that makes it impossible to talk sensibly about the books and audios. Make the FP Wikia as independent as you claim the "two" "universes" to be, and allow FP fandom to do what it likes.
At one point, I did think that might be the best option, considering how intransigent this wiki's policies are. I even went as far as to start a separate wiki. But I then realized that I'd not only have to do the Faction Paradox-related work (which I absolutely want to do), I'd have to do upkeep for the plethora of tangentially-related articles that here on tardis.wikia are taken care of by the Greater Doctor Who Fan Community(TM).
Seems to me that it makes way more sense to combine efforts instead of imposing schisms where no one wants them.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
AndrewHickey wrote: 2) Much less preferable -- get rid of the "sister wikis" nonsense and stop holding the FP Wikia to a "canon" policy that makes it impossible to talk sensibly about the books and audios. Make the FP Wikia as independent as you claim the "two" "universes" to be, and allow FP fandom to do what it likes.
At one point, I did think that might be the best option, considering how intransigent this wiki's policies are. I even went as far as to start a separate wiki. But I then realized that I'd not only have to do the Faction Paradox-related work (which I absolutely want to do), I'd have to do upkeep for the plethora of tangentially-related articles that here on tardis.wikia are taken care of by the Greater Doctor Who Fan Community(TM).
Seems to me that it makes way more sense to combine efforts instead of imposing schisms where no one wants them.
Exactly. The only schism we want is the Untempered Schism. :P
- WJDTwGL
86.4.239.22 wrote:
Hi. Philip Purser-Hallard here, author of Of the City of the Saved, "A Hundred Words from a Civil War" (in A Romance in TWelve Parts) and "De Umbris Idearum" (in Burning with Optimism's Flames), and editor of four City of the Saved anthologies published to date, with another due early next year.Slightly derailing the thread here, but I wanted to say that I love your writing.
- 188.220.60.109
Just to confirm, as the delusional fool who publishes Faction Paradox, that so far as I'm concerned Faction Paradox stories take place in the Doctor Who Universe. And, from speaking to Lawrence and his agent when taking over the license, so do they :)
Stuart Douglas
- Pluto2
Admins, any thoughts?
- 31.48.185.212
Just to add as the author of the second largest amount of text to n the book of the war, after Lawrence, and as the co-writer of the taking of planet 5, and, the brakespeare voyage, and FP short stories, I agree with Phil, Andrew, and Stuart.
Simon Bucher-Jones www.simonbjones.blogspot.com
- SOTO
Hello, authors. Thank you for stating your intent. :P
- SOTO
Andrew, I thoroughly enjoyed your blog post, and I do agree with it from a philosophical and literary point of view. In case you haven't been updated, since then, we've asserted that there is no Doctor Who canon, for much the reasons you described.
So I do want to make it clear that, however we're read, we do not, at Tardis, assert rules for how things "should" be read, or how fans "should" define their own personal canons. But we do need some rules for us, as an encyclopedia, to make any sense. That's why we have T:VALID and our four little rules to determine what effectively "counts" in the writing of in-universe articles. In general, if something considered an invalid source is still properly licensed, it still gets its own page here, and often pages for its elements and characters as well, with a {{invalid}} tag at the top to mark them as separate.
Onto Faction Paradox specifically, I must admit that a lot seems to have happened since the initial decision. I should also state that I was not myself around for the initial decision. So I'm not specifically defending it. I was not part of it. Enough new evidence has certainly been brought up in this thread for this discussion to continue once more.
I would very much like some of the editors who participated in the initial discussions to come around here, and respond to these new points. I personally definitely sympathise with the view that the FP series and the DWU are deeply interconnected, now more than before, and hard to truly separate. I can see with my own eyes that the FP Wiki has been failing ever since it first set sail. I would like to know, however, what the real proposal is here. Is what's being put forward here that the entire Faction Paradox series be considered part of the "main" Doctor Who universe?
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Andrew, I thoroughly enjoyed your blog post, and I do agree with it from a philosophical and literary point of view. In case you haven't been updated, since then, we've asserted that there is no Doctor Who canon, for much the reasons you described.
So I do want to make it clear that, however we're read, we do not, at Tardis, assert rules for how things "should" be read, or how fans "should" define their own personal canons. But we do need some rules for us, as an encyclopedia, to make any sense. That's why we have T:VALID and our four little rules to determine what effectively "counts" in the writing of in-universe articles. In general, if something considered an invalid source is still properly licensed, it still gets its own page here, and often pages for its elements and characters as well, with a {{invalid}} tag at the top to mark them as separate.
Onto Faction Paradox specifically, I must admit that a lot seems to have happened since the initial decision. I should also state that I was not myself around for the initial decision. So I'm not specifically defending it. I was not part of it. Enough new evidence has certainly been brought up in this thread for this discussion to continue once more.
I would very much like some of the editors who participated in the initial discussions to come around here, and respond to these new points. I personally definitely sympathise with the view that the FP series and the DWU are deeply interconnected, now more than before, and hard to truly separate. I can see with my own eyes that the FP Wiki has been failing ever since it first set sail. I would like to know, however, what the real proposal is here. Is what's being put forward here that the entire Faction Paradox series be considered part of the "main" Doctor Who universe?
I think so, yes. This would mean merging the wikis, more than likely.
- SOTO
Thank you, Stuart, as well, for clarifying the views of the current rights holders and for the inside look into the original intent of its creator, Lawrence Miles. Simon, I've added your blog to your Tardis article. Thank you to all the authors who've swung by to clarify what seems to be the pervading point of view. I'm going to remain neutral on this thread, but it's great to have some solid ground to stand on.
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote:I would like to know, however, what the real proposal is here. Is what's being put forward here that the entire Faction Paradox series be considered part of the "main" Doctor Who universe?
I think that's obvious. The point is that trying to split them up is incorrect and doesn't work.
Differing terminology doesn't mean that articles have to be written based on speculation. For example:
The Celestis were conceptual entities. Originally, they were the Celestial Intervention Agency, an interventionist group among the Great Houses of the Time Lords.
Because of the nature of FP terminology — based on reinterpretation rather than renaming — it's easy to write articles that incorporate it, and not necessary to exclude the "orthodox" terminology.
- AndrewHickey
So I do want to make it clear that, however we're read, we do not, at Tardis, assert rules for how things "should" be read, or how fans "should" define their own personal canons.
The existence of the Faction Paradox Wikia as a "sister" wiki, with a total ban on mentioning anything which might allow anyone to read the FP stories in context, is precisely such an assertion. There are all sorts of statements on the front page of that site saying that Faction Paradox "is not a part of the DWU" and is "an intentional reaction against the use of Faction Paradox by the British Broadcasting Corporation." Those statements exist because the FP Wikia is a "sister site" to the TARDIS Wikia and run by a subset of the latter's admins.
But we do need some rules for us, as an encyclopedia, to make any sense. That's why we have T:VALID and our four little rules to determine what effectively "counts" in the writing of in-universe articles. In general,Yep, and by all four of those rules, Faction Paradox counts.
I personally definitely sympathise with the view that the FP series and the DWU are deeply interconnected, now more than before, and hard to truly separate.I disagree with the "now more than before". At no point was Faction Paradox ever separated from "the DWU" -- or at least, no more so than Time Hunter, Iris Wildthyme, Gallifrey, Dalek Empire, Kaldor City, Lethbridge-Stewart, or any other of dozens of spinoffs.
I would like to know, however, what the real proposal is here. Is what's being put forward here that the entire Faction Paradox series be considered part of the "main" Doctor Who universe?Yes. Because it is. But if TARDIS Wikia people really insist, despite all the evidence, that it isn't, then the second-best solution would be to stop applying those same rules to the FP Wikia. But it would be a very distant second.
(ETA: Just realised that this comes off as a little more confrontational than I intended, tone-wise. I'm not trying to have an argument, just put forward a point of view.)
- NateBumber
SOTO wrote: Is what's being put forward here that the entire Faction Paradox series be considered part of the "main" Doctor Who universe?
It should be included equally to stories like The Name of the Doctor. As we've discussed, integrating the FP wiki (which is mostly stubs or easily combined articles like "1752") into this one wouldn't be the most titanic project (certainly much easier than its creation was). Following the precedent of articles like "The Mistress", articles like "The Imperator" and "The War King" would stay separate from "Morbius" and "The Master", with only a mention in the behind-the-scenes portion of the article. However, FP information about licensed characters (like Cwej and Compassion) will appear on their regular character pages, just like how stuff from Name of the Doctor still appears on River Song's page. The only possible confusion would be concepts like the Cwejen and the Celestis which are clearly associated with both "Great Houses" and "Time Lords", but (particularly since it's already been repeatedly established in-universe that both names refer to the same group) all of these discrepancies can be completely fixed through Fwhiffahder's proposals here and here. I echo my earlier sentiments that, if the rule change was approved soon, the movement of FP info from its wiki to here could be completely finished before the S10 premiere.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Beautiful progress.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: Thank you, Stuart, as well, for clarifying the views of the current rights holders and for the inside look into the original intent of its creator, Lawrence Miles. Simon, I've added your blog to your Tardis article. Thank you to all the authors who've swung by to clarify what seems to be the pervading point of view. I'm going to remain neutral on this thread, but it's great to have some solid ground to stand on.
Why neutral SOTO pal? We should at least cover the stories even if they do get the old invalid tags or not.
- Pluto2
I take it that currently, the majority is in favor of deeming Faction Paradox valid again?
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: I take it that currently, the majority is in favor of deeming Faction Paradox valid again?
The majority — sure. But it seems unlikely that Shambala108 will be in favor under any circumstances, and CzechOut hasn't commented yet.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: I take it that currently, the majority is in favor of deeming Faction Paradox valid again?
The majority — sure. But it seems unlikely that Shambala108 will be in favor under any circumstances, and CzechOut hasn't commented yet.
I don't see what argument Shambala108 could possibly use, given that numerous people involved with the series have said "authorial intent is that it's the same universe".
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: I take it that currently, the majority is in favor of deeming Faction Paradox valid again?
The majority — sure. But it seems unlikely that Shambala108 will be in favor under any circumstances, and CzechOut hasn't commented yet.
My good pal Shambala108 will hopefully be onboard as with my good pal CzechOut. Especially with the new evidence.
- Pluto2
Perhaps after this, we should revisit Vienna to determine whether the intent is to literally say that series is set in a different universe, or if they were speaking figuratively...
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: Perhaps after this, we should revisit Vienna to determine whether the intent is to literally say that series is set in a different universe, or if they were speaking figuratively...
Please don't derail the thread.
- Pluto2
I'd like to hear the "opposition"'s opinions now, after several authors have joined the discussion.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Is anyone still opposed?
- NateBumber
I know Shambala108 is reading through the thread; in all fairness, there are quite a few very lengthy posts to catch up on. When they're done, I'd be super curious to see and address any of their lingering doubts. Fwhiffahder has been so kind as to leave a note on User_talk:CzechOut – before anyone suggested it, even – so I suppose now it's just a waiting game.
- Bwburke94
I'm not entirely in favour of validity, but FP should at least be covered here. If that means it's valid, then so be it.
- Swablueme
I'm also in favour of covering FP here.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Who's for and who's against then. For those who haven't already said?
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Who's for and who's against then. For those who haven't already said?
I don't think it's very nice to try and push people into commenting. There's no rush — these threads often take a long time.
- Shambala108
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Who's for and who's against then. For those who haven't already said?
I don't think it's very nice to try and push people into commenting. There's no rush — these threads often take a long time.
I'm going to second this. This is a very busy time of year for many people, and not everyone has a lot of extra time to spend on the wiki right now.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Who's for and who's against then. For those who haven't already said?
I don't think it's very nice to try and push people into commenting. There's no rush — these threads often take a long time.
I'm going to second this. This is a very busy time of year for many people, and not everyone has a lot of extra time to spend on the wiki right now.
Sorry bud. Wasn't trying to rush anyone.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Who's for and who's against then. For those who haven't already said?
I don't think it's very nice to try and push people into commenting. There's no rush — these threads often take a long time.
I'm going to second this. This is a very busy time of year for many people, and not everyone has a lot of extra time to spend on the wiki right now.
And for some it's a very hard time of year... *cries*
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
Shambala108 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Who's for and who's against then. For those who haven't already said?
I don't think it's very nice to try and push people into commenting. There's no rush — these threads often take a long time.
I'm going to second this. This is a very busy time of year for many people, and not everyone has a lot of extra time to spend on the wiki right now.
And for some it's a very hard time of year... *cries*
Though we can all look forward to something that we can't mention on this wiki... yet.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Judging by responses, users in favour of coverage are:
Natebumber, Fwhiffahder, Pluto2, OncomingStorm12th, 86.186.186.124, 86.4.236.22 (Philip Purser-Hallard), AndrewHickey, 188.220.60.109 (Stuart Douglas), 31.48.185.212 (Simon Bucher-Jones), BWBurke94, Swablueme, DENCH-and-PALMER
And neutral or undecided are:
Shambala108, SOTO, CoT
Quote and add names here for which side you're on. - Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Judging by responses, users in favour of coverage are:
Natebumber, Fwhiffahder, Pluto2, OncomingStorm12th, 86.186.186.124, 86.4.236.22 (Philip Purser-Hallard), AndrewHickey, 188.220.60.109 (Stuart Douglas), 31.48.185.212 (Simon Bucher-Jones), BWBurke94, Swablueme, DENCH-and-PALMER
And neutral or undecided are:
Shambala108, SOTO, CoT
Quote and add names here for which side you're on.That's enough of this. This is not a matter of voting, it's a matter of whether FP fails or satisfies policy, that is Tardis:Valid sources. No more asking people which side they're on, as this has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Present facts if you have them, quotes from those involved with production if you have them, but no more of this "which side are you on". This thread takes a long time to load, and we don't need any lists of who believes what.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Judging by responses, users in favour of coverage are:
Natebumber, Fwhiffahder, Pluto2, OncomingStorm12th, 86.186.186.124, 86.4.236.22 (Philip Purser-Hallard), AndrewHickey, 188.220.60.109 (Stuart Douglas), 31.48.185.212 (Simon Bucher-Jones), BWBurke94, Swablueme, DENCH-and-PALMER
And neutral or undecided are:
Shambala108, SOTO, CoT
Quote and add names here for which side you're on.That's enough of this. This is not a matter of voting, it's a matter of whether FP fails or satisfies policy, that is Tardis:Valid sources. No more asking people which side they're on, as this has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Present facts if you have them, quotes from those involved with production if you have them, but no more of this "which side are you on". This thread takes a long time to load, and we don't need any lists of who believes what.
Sorry pal
- Obverse
Just to say that, even if there were a voting system, I'd vote neither for nor against FP inclusion in the wiki. From my own outsider's perspective, it seems a little odd that it's not been part of any Who wiki which looks beyond the TV series, but at the same time I don't know much about how you choose to run your site and it's entirely possible that the Faction is not a valid source here. All I would say is that if the Faction is not valid here, would it be possible to unlock the FP Wiki and perhaps pass administration over to someone like Mr Dench and Palmer, thereby allowing that wiki to be utilised properly?
- WJDTwGL
Obverse wrote: Just to say that, even if there were a voting system, I'd vote neither for nor against FP inclusion in the wiki. From my own outsider's perspective, it seems a little odd that it's not been part of any Who wiki which looks beyond the TV series, but at the same time I don't know much about how you choose to run your site and it's entirely possible that the Faction is not a valid source here. All I would say is that if the Faction is not valid here, would it be possible to unlock the FP Wiki and perhaps pass administration over to someone like Mr Dench and Palmer, thereby allowing that wiki to be utilised properly?
Are you Cody Schell? Also, no offense meant to Dench-and-palmer, but I don't think they're terribly well-suited to wiki administration.
- Obverse
Ah, no. Cody is the good looking one. This is Stuart Douglas here.
And I don't really know anyone on here, so the name of any potential new FP Wiki admin isn't something I was seriously suggesting, simply that Mr Dench and Palmer seems keen.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Obverse wrote: Just to say that, even if there were a voting system, I'd vote neither for nor against FP inclusion in the wiki. From my own outsider's perspective, it seems a little odd that it's not been part of any Who wiki which looks beyond the TV series, but at the same time I don't know much about how you choose to run your site and it's entirely possible that the Faction is not a valid source here. All I would say is that if the Faction is not valid here, would it be possible to unlock the FP Wiki and perhaps pass administration over to someone like Mr Dench and Palmer, thereby allowing that wiki to be utilised properly?
Are you Cody Schell? Also, no offense meant to Dench-and-palmer, but I don't think they're terribly well-suited to wiki administration.
It'd be an honour to take over FP with you lot but unfortunately it's entirely hypothetical.
I'm the creator of the Last of the Summer Wine wiki (if you care to look) which is ran the same way as this wiki as this wiki's rules and foundations are brilliant. What would make me unsuitable in this hypothetical situation?
Staying on topic. We do have the quotes of 4 individuals involved that believe in inclusion. Is this enough to pass the authorial intent rule?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Obverse wrote: Ah, no. Cody is the good looking one. This is Stuart Douglas here.
And I don't really know anyone on here, so the name of any potential new FP Wiki admin isn't something I was seriously suggesting, simply that Mr Dench and Palmer seems keen.
Welcome to the wiki Stuart. It's actually quite fun isn't it?
Hopefully this wiki will consider inclusion whether it be valid or invalid.
- Obverse
lol -see that's why I wouldn't vote even if voting were a thing here! I don't even understand the difference between valid and included!
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Hopefully this wiki will consider inclusion whether it be valid or invalid.
I suppose calling it "NOTVALID" but still covering it would be slightly better than the current situation, but it would only be slight. It would still mean multiple pages for each character: there would be a Sutekh (Pyramids of Mars) separate from Sutekh (Coming to Dust), which would be just as silly as before.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Hopefully this wiki will consider inclusion whether it be valid or invalid.
I suppose calling it "NOTVALID" but still covering it would be slightly better than the current situation, but it would only be slight. It would still mean multiple pages for each character: there would be a Sutekh (Pyramids of Mars) separate from Sutekh (Coming to Dust), which would be just as silly as before.
Fair play, though why would I not be suited hypothetically?
- Obverse
Is that the issue (or part of it)? That the Sutekh of the FP audios and the Sutekh of Pyramids may not be the same person?
Because that's certainly not the case - there is, for instance, only one Sutekh. And in the future, were Obverse to feature the character again, he would certainly be the same character again. At a species level, too, this holds- the Sontarans who invade Gallifrey in 'Invasion of Time' are the same race as those who invade the Eleven Day Empire in the FP audios.
Similarly, the Naxians who feature in a Faction Paradox short story are the same race created by Mark Michalowski who first appeared in an Iris Wildthyme audio, and it's the same Forge who operate in both Obverse and Big Finish stories.
- NateBumber
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Fair play, though why would I not be suited hypothetically?
I don't see how this is remotely relevant to the thread. We've repeatedly agreed that the existence of a Faction Paradox Wiki independent from this one is ridiculous; even if the FP Wiki was "freed", there'd still be ridiculous and unnecessary copying of material from this one. It's not a good solution to this problem. Neither is making Faction Paradox "invalid", for reasons Fwhiffahder mentioned. Instead, we should be focused on the reasons Faction Paradox should be considered valid.
Given that (as has been repeatedly pointed out) this isn't down to a vote but instead the Four Little Rules, I think we should stay on-task and stop clogging this thread, unless anyone has any new evidence pertaining to the application of those Rules, like Obverse's references to the Naxians. (The reasons for FP's invalidity are listed in the OP and discussed here and here.) As Shambala108 pointed out, this is a busy time of year, so I think we should just be patient and wait for the admins to come around and judge the new evidence. Then the argument can begin again. Until then, let's leave this be.
- Shambala108
I do have to point out a couple of things most users may not be aware of:
- We supposedly have some of the writers of FP on this thread, mostly as anonymous IPs. Unfortunately, that isn't good enough. It's very easy for someone to create an account/post in a thread claiming to be someone they are not. I'm not saying that is happening here, but admins have to consider that possibility. Basically, users posting as DWU production are not a valid source of information.
- We have a very strict policy on sources. In particular, Tardis:Valid sources#Self-reference disallowed specifically states that we do not allow someone to be a source for a page about themselves. And Thread:117545 features User:CzechOut's explanation of why it is against wiki policy (including wikipedia's) for someone to source themselves.
Any comments from FP authors/production must come from a valid independent source. That's just basic editing to avoid any conflict of interest.
- Josiah Rowe
Admin here, albeit one who isn't really active any more. (In fact, I just noticed that I was still listed as a "Frequently active administrator" at Tardis:Administrators, and moved my name to the "Currently inactive administrators" part, as that's more accurate.) For what little it's worth (which is very little indeed) I'm also listed as a "helpful user" over at w:c:factionparadox:Paradox:Administrators, which more or less means that CzechOut asked me nearly 5 years ago whether I wanted to be an admin there and I said thanks, but I didn't have time.
Anyway, looking at this discussion and the Four Little Rules, I do think that the preponderance of evidence supports including FP here, and re-integrating the material from the FP wiki (which I agree is in an appalling state) back here, as suggested above.
The one remaining conflict I see is the section of T:VALID that talks about "analogous elements", which I think is still in conflict with FP. But that section seems, in retrospect, to be a somewhat clumsy kludge justifying the decision made at Forum:BBV and canon policy, which in turn is based on a misinterpretation of Faction Paradox and Lawrence Miles' intent. That discussion, although it tries to avoid basing decisions on the c-word (which we were still using at that point, IIRC), continually returns to questions of whether the FP material can be reconciled with Doctor Who material. For example, here's CzechOut:
Things happen to, for instance, the London of the FPU that don't happen to the London of the DWU. It's a different universe. .... FP is not a crossover; it's a totally different universe that derives from rights held by an author who once wrote in the DWU. It's confusing to us, because FP is a concept that exists in the DWU, but all of the FP-only books exist in explicit contradiction to events that occurred in BBC licensed fiction.
I think that NateBumber and the FP authors in this thread have shown that "explicit contradiction" is not correct — or, at least, that FP is not "contradicted" by Doctor Who material any more than The Next Doctor is contradicted by Flesh and Stone. But that's not even the point. If we're looking at whether there is a way to put FP material into The Complete Story of the Doctor Who Universe, we're asking the wrong question. As T:VALID's discussion of Rule 4 says, "a story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories."
I think we would do well to re-integrate Faction Paradox into the wiki, and remove the paragraph about "analogous elements" from T:VALID.
- NateBumber
Intended as a response to Thread:206566#95
Shambala108, I agree with your technical points: the presence of Simon Bucher-Jones and Philip Purser-Hallard is indeed potentially questionable in this thread. However, unless we're to suppose a multi-year conspiracy dating back to before either were particularly public figures, the posts by Stuart Douglas (who runs all Obverse social media accounts) and Andrew Hickey are undoubtable. And even then, Purser-Hallard's post cites several pieces of in-text supporting evidence that can be used to establish his opinions on this matter. While the PPHF and SBJ posts could possibly not be by who they claim to be, the facts they contain still constitute evidence for the purpose of this thread.
EDIT: Based on this post on Stuart Douglas' Facebook page, where all of the four authors comment, including Stuart and Simon both confirming the veracity of their comments while affirming that Philip and Andrew wrote the others, I think it's safe to assume that those anonymous posters are whom they claim to be. (It also features supporting comments by a preponderance of other FP writers, including Ian Potter, Sarah Hadley, Rachel Redhead, Jonathan Dennis, Blaid Bidmead, and Paul Hiscock. I think the authors have definitively spoken on this one.)
And while self-reference is reasonably disallowed for instances of autobiography or self-promotion, I think a more technical reading of the self-reference clause allows for these comments to be relevant:
David Tennant's opinion, given to Doctor Who Confidential, about the filming of 42 is perhaps of interest at the page 42 (TV story). However, Tennant's tweet of his age or hometown or other biographical information absolutely cannot be used at the page David Tennant.
Note that these authors are not trying to convey factual information about themselves, nor are they trying to edit the articles about their own work. And the argument isn't about whether the writers have licenses (for ideas originating in their own stories, nonetheless)! They are simply conveying their opinion about their stories, which is allowed under current rules, right alongside David Tennant's opinions about filming 42. This is especially relevant since, as you yourself cited earlier in the thread, the main reason for excluding Faction Paradox depends on the authors' opinions. For this reason, not only does self-reported authorial opinion fall under the "Tennant's opinions on 42" clause, any expression of intent confirmed to have originated from the author is directly relevant and key to the discussion at hand.
(If we're to start taking the veracity of the source into account, I think the entire discussion needs to be re-evaluated, since the interview from which CzechOut's only evidence comes gives no reputable source and is self-admittedly unverifiable.)
PS: Thanks for the input Josiah! :)
- SOTO
I suppose we do have to put his quote into context, regardless. This is the same man who was quite adamant that the BBC Books and Virgin ranges existed in separate bubble universes. As he expresses in that same interview, in fact. So you could certainly compare that sentiment to his statement that his Faction Paradox universe is also a "sub-bubble universe". But he does say "that's not the Doctor Who universe at all."
I would also like to note that The Kaldor City website uses the term "Faction Paradox universe" twice.
But as I'm sure has been brought up above, the word "universe" is sometimes used broadly and not-so-literally in the world of marketing. So it's all a matter of context and correct interpretation.
- NateBumber
SOTO wrote: So you could certainly compare that sentiment to his statement that his Faction Paradox universe is also a "sub-bubble universe". But he does say "that's not the Doctor Who universe at all."
But that's not what he says in that interview at all. As others have mentioned, in that quote Miles is explicitly just talking about Alien Bodies and Interference, not his Faction Paradox series (which hadn't even been released yet). If we exclude the Faction Paradox series based on this quote, we must remove those two EDAs as well. This isn't like his Virgin-BBC idea at all: while he deliberately tried in his books to hint that the Virgin and BBC universes were separate, he (as we've pointed out) does the exact opposite with FP and the EDAs.
In any case, per the other interview, which was given after the first interview but also before the first FP release, Miles clearly views the universe of The Anxestor Cell as the same as the one of The Faction Paradox Protocols. So I suppose, if we're to take him at his word, we should reverse the current situation and include the FP series but remove his EDAs. Go figure!
I would also like to note that The Kaldor City website uses the term "Faction Paradox universe" twice.
It does say that, just as Big Finish says Vienna is a Doctor Who spinoff on their website: purely for promotional purposes. Just as we established in the Vienna debate, the intent of the author always outweighs the intent of the publisher. The only reason Obverse's opinions are being given any merit is just that the person who runs the Obverse accounts, Stuart Douglas, has written for the FP range.
- AndrewHickey
Shambala108 wrote: I do have to point out a couple of things most users may not be aware of:
- We supposedly have some of the writers of FP on this thread, mostly as anonymous IPs. Unfortunately, that isn't good enough. It's very easy for someone to create an account/post in a thread claiming to be someone they are not. I'm not saying that is happening here, but admins have to consider that possibility. Basically, users posting as DWU production are not a valid source of information.
I was a registered user on the FP wiki before I ever wrote an FP book. Most of my argument is quoted from my blog post at andrewhickey.info, registered in 2008 and with eight years' of blog posting on it. If I'm trying to get TARDIS canon policy changed illegitimately for my own nefarious purposes, I'm playing a *really* long game...
Stuart confirms at https://www.facebook.com/stuartamdouglas/posts/10155614226059502 that it's him commenting here, and you can also see SBJ in the comments there confirming it's him. Other FP authors have commented in that thread.
- We have a very strict policy on sources. In particular, Tardis:Valid sources#Self-reference disallowed specifically states that we do not allow someone to be a source for a page about themselves. And Thread:117545 features User:CzechOut's explanation of why it is against wiki policy (including wikipedia's) for someone to source themselves.
Any comments from FP authors/production must come from a valid independent source. That's just basic editing to avoid any conflict of interest.
Given that the *only* argument that has been presented against is authorial intent, expressions of authorial intent are literally the only way to counter that argument.
- AndrewHickey
And I wrote that before seeing NateBumber's much better post expressing the same sentiments. Sorry.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AndrewHickey wrote:
Shambala108 wrote: I do have to point out a couple of things most users may not be aware of:
- We supposedly have some of the writers of FP on this thread, mostly as anonymous IPs. Unfortunately, that isn't good enough. It's very easy for someone to create an account/post in a thread claiming to be someone they are not. I'm not saying that is happening here, but admins have to consider that possibility. Basically, users posting as DWU production are not a valid source of information.
I was a registered user on the FP wiki before I ever wrote an FP book. Most of my argument is quoted from my blog post at andrewhickey.info, registered in 2008 and with eight years' of blog posting on it. If I'm trying to get TARDIS canon policy changed illegitimately for my own nefarious purposes, I'm playing a *really* long game...
Stuart confirms at https://www.facebook.com/stuartamdouglas/posts/10155614226059502 that it's him commenting here, and you can also see SBJ in the comments there confirming it's him. Other FP authors have commented in that thread.
- We have a very strict policy on sources. In particular, Tardis:Valid sources#Self-reference disallowed specifically states that we do not allow someone to be a source for a page about themselves. And Thread:117545 features User:CzechOut's explanation of why it is against wiki policy (including wikipedia's) for someone to source themselves.
Any comments from FP authors/production must come from a valid independent source. That's just basic editing to avoid any conflict of interest.
Given that the *only* argument that has been presented against is authorial intent, expressions of authorial intent are literally the only way to counter that argument.
Well that certainly proves identity... I never doubted it but rules be rules.
Authorial intent is that it's part of DW but is it a valid source?
Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.
And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Well that certainly proves identity... I never doubted it but rules be rules.
Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?
Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.
And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.
DWU and valid source are the same thing. Until comparatively recently, the prefix was "NOTDWU" rather than "NOTVALID." NOTVALID is for things that are deemed related enough to Doctor Who that they need pages, but not set in the "DWU."
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Well that certainly proves identity... I never doubted it but rules be rules.
Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?
Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.
And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.
DWU and valid source are the same thing. Until comparatively recently, the prefix was "NOTDWU" rather than "NOTVALID." NOTVALID is for things that are deemed related enough to Doctor Who that they need pages, but not set in the "DWU."
That's what I meant.
- AndrewHickey
Well that certainly proves identity... I never doubted it but rules be rules.
Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?
Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.
And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.
They're both invalid sources because the authors have explicitly stated they're not meant to be "canon" though. We're all stating the opposite. And certainly elements from FP stories have been used in Big Finish stories (Diogenes Damsel and the recentish BF Osirians story both explicitly reference things from FP stories).
As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference at all in type (as opposed to style, genre, and so on) between a Bernice Summerfield story, an Iris Wildthyme one, and a Faction Paradox story, and I think that's true for everyone else I know who has worked on any of those series.
If it helps clarify intent (though *obviously* this is not a valid source in any way) I've been meaning for about two years to pitch a Bernice Summerfield story to BF. That story would feature at least two characters from my FP works.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AndrewHickey wrote:
They're both invalid sources because the authors have explicitly stated they're not meant to be "canon" though. We're all stating the opposite. And certainly elements from FP stories have been used in Big Finish stories (Diogenes Damsel and the recentish BF Osirians story both explicitly reference things from FP stories).
As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference at all in type (as opposed to style, genre, and so on) between a Bernice Summerfield story, an Iris Wildthyme one, and a Faction Paradox story, and I think that's true for everyone else I know who has worked on any of those series.
If it helps clarify intent (though *obviously* this is not a valid source in any way) I've been meaning for about two years to pitch a Bernice Summerfield story to BF. That story would feature at least two characters from my FP works.
I want them to be valid... as they are. But I guess it's ultimately up to the admins pal.
- NateBumber
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?
Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.
And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.
Both of those stories are excluded because they're parodies; we have subzero reason to believe that Faction Paradox falls in that category. Since authorial intent is the last of the four little rules to be resolved, this would mean it's a valid source. Besides, Faction Paradox is already an invalid source. This thread is about why Faction Paradox should be considered valid, and any other discussion is off-topic.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
NateBumber wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?
Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.
And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.
Both of those stories are excluded because they're parodies; we have subzero reason to believe that Faction Paradox falls in that category. Since authorial intent is the last of the four little rules to be resolved, this would mean it's a valid source. Besides, Faction Paradox is already an invalid source. This thread is about why Faction Paradox should be considered valid, and any other discussion is off-topic.
I want it to be valid. Also DIT isn't a parody but that is off topic so I'm not going there. He he.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I want it to be valid. Also DIT isn't a parody but that is off topic so I'm not going there. He he.
You said "Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?"
That question doesn't mean anything. If it's in the DWU, it's a valid source. If it's a valid source, it's in the DWU.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I want it to be valid. Also DIT isn't a parody but that is off topic so I'm not going there. He he.
You said "Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?"
That question doesn't mean anything. If it's in the DWU, it's a valid source. If it's a valid source, it's in the DWU.
I changed it. I got jumbled up pal.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I changed it. I got jumbled up pal.
Alright sorry
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I changed it. I got jumbled up pal.
Alright sorry
No need to be sorry pal. It was my mistake. 😊😊
- Pluto2
So I take it this debate will probably continue past Christmas?
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote: So I take it this debate will probably continue past Christmas?
Yes, but I don't see how the holiday impacts the discussion.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
How many people are actually apposed FP's inclusion?
- SOTO
This thread is long enough, and it hasn't even been a week. Unless you have something to contribute, and this is a general you here, please don't clutter this discussion further.
As has been above, these discussions are not decided by vote or by counting supporters and detractors. Inclusion debates are argument-based, and should only be rooted in facts, and in our well-established four little rules.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. Facts...here we go. Let's break this discussion down.
We have a behind the scenes statement from Miles that states he believed it was in the DWU. That has been provided with proof.
We have three other FP writers and the publisher who state they believed it was in the DWU. We even have proof that it was them thanks to a FB status.
Rule 1 & 3, they've passed them.
Rule 1) It's a story [/]
Rule 2) Officially licensed.
Rule 3) It's been officially released. [/]
Rule 4) Authorial intent
The problem lies with Rules 2 & 4. Well since they've only used code names, then to say definitely that they are to whom they are referring to would be mere speculation.Authorial intent... we have major writers saying there intention was for it to be in the DWU with proof.
So now after that breakdown we need to study rules 2 & 4 and only then will a final decision be made.
- NateBumber
CMON GUYS
WHY IS ANYONE STILL POSTING IN THIS THREAD WITHOUT HAVING NEW INFORMATION TO SHARE
PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE
JUST WAIT FOR THE ADMINS, TEAM INCLUSION'S WORK HERE IS COMPLETELY 1000% DONE UNTIL ANYONE COMMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
DON'T ASK FOR DISAGREEMENT
DON'T PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
JUST LAY OFF
IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS COMMENT DONT REPLY
IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS POST WRITE ON MY USER PAGE
IF YOU WANT TO APOLOGIZE, DON'T, JUST CHANGE
KTHX
- AndrewHickey
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The problem lies with Rules 2 & 4. Well since they've only used code names, then to say definitely that they are to whom they are referring to would be mere speculation.
No, rule 2 is definitely passed. EVERYTHING explicitly mentioned in FP is legally licensed.
As for new information -- I've been rereading Dead Romance today, and noticed something in Miles' foreword to the Mad Norwegian edition that no-one's brought up:
I mean, make no mistake, I always wanted the New Adventures continuum and the Faction Paradox continuum to be "compatible". After all, I'm the type of person who thinks Quatermass takes place in the same universe as I, ClaudiusCase closed, I think.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I changed it. I got jumbled up pal.
Alright sorry
Though I will say calling us all "facist b******s" over at the Paul Magrs wiki isn't helping your case at all.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I changed it. I got jumbled up pal.
Alright sorry
Though I will say calling us all "facist b******s" over at the Paul Magrs wiki isn't helping your case at all.
That's him being ironic, you know that, right?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I changed it. I got jumbled up pal.
Alright sorry
Though I will say calling us all "facist b******s" over at the Paul Magrs wiki isn't helping your case at all.
That's him being ironic, you know that, right?
The admins here are my pals, and I felt a bit offended for them.
Let's end that comment here, but remember it was kind of a personal attack.
No hard feelings though?
- SimonBJ
Not sure if this constitutes an addition, but just - hopefully - this time to confirm both my bona fide and my intent. I am Simon Bucher-Jones and I have now registered via my facebook page on the laptop on which I am writing this. I maintain my position that my FP books take place in the DWU timeline, irrespective of whether post The Ancestor Cell they annulled, just as the Day of the Dalek's future does, and just as the adventures of Romana in E-space or of the Ninth Doctor in the Obverse do.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SimonBJ wrote: Not sure if this constitutes an addition, but just - hopefully - this time to confirm both my bona fide and my intent. I am Simon Bucher-Jones and I have now registered via my facebook page on the laptop on which I am writing this. I maintain my position that my FP books take place in the DWU timeline, irrespective of whether post The Ancestor Cell they annulled, just as the Day of the Dalek's future does, and just as the adventures of Romana in E-space or of the Ninth Doctor in the Obverse do.
It 100% constitutes an addition. Thanks for your time.
Hopefully not long now until a final decision is made, though there is no rush. Time is patient.
- Tangerineduel
I've gone back and re-read (most) of Miles' interview which is cited at the top of this mammoth post.
And as one of the original people involved in the cited previous discussions involved in this it seems I must come in again. During the original discussion I was willing to be swayed in either direction, as the facts presented themselves, and again here again now this is the case. (Also thank you to TheChampionOfTime for prodding my talk page bringing me here)
Observations which aren't totally relevant to this particular discussion
- The "too hard basket" argument for re-integration isn't a valid one, not for this discussion.
- The FP Wiki's state of disarray is not something that should affect this discussion here.
- As far as integration goes (which would be an entirely different discussion) although as Fwhiffahder points out early in the discussion, unless there is something narrative linking say the War King to the Master it would be treated as a separate page. (This, however would be a separate discussion)
It can be said that what Miles says isn't that much removed, (as others have said in this thread) from Graceless, Iris Wildthyme etc. Which all often seem to be a case of the 'separate but connected universes' concept.
One thing that I alluded to back then and is probably still valid is that LM's interview back then was seen as a negative reaction against DW fandom and the DW universe. It's this that possibly swayed how it was interpreted; selectively as it was.
NateBumber has made a lot of reasoned points throughout this discussion.
As this discussion has unfolded it certainly seems there is a greater weight of evidence towards re-inclusion. Or on the flip side if we were to argue again for it not to remain excluded it could also be argued more drastically (though not something I would support) to look again at cutting back on Iris, Time Hunter etc and other series' inclusion.
I would say that my post on this discussion isn't the end all, and I look forward to CzechOut's response, as he was one of the driving forces behind the original discussions.
I would also say there shouldn't be any urgency to get this sorted before the S10 premier as NateBumber asks. Compared to previous inclusion debates this has happened at light-speed. And this is one of the first times we've had to go back to previous discussions & rulings like this.
- NateBumber
Tangerineduel wrote:
During the original discussion I was willing to be swayed in either direction, as the facts presented themselves, and again here again now this is the case.
It can be said that what Miles says isn't that much removed, (as others have said in this thread) from Graceless, Iris Wildthyme etc ... LM's interview back then was seen as a negative reaction against DW fandom and the DW universe. It's this that possibly swayed how it was interpreted; selectively as it was.
As this discussion has unfolded it certainly seems there is a greater weight of evidence towards re-inclusion.
Thanks for replying with your support Tangerineduel! Great that we have the assenting opinion of one of the originally-involved higher-ups, although we're still waiting for CzechOut to wander through.
I agree that the viability (or lack thereof) of the FP Wikia is a non sequitur to this debate, albeit one reinforced by admin responses involving the topic. I also agree that integration is a completely different discussion, and we should worry about crossing that bridge when we get there, although within this thread we seem to have already reached a pretty resounding and rule-consistent consensus on the topic.
I accept your gentle chastising for patience - maybe S10 was overly optimistic, but I do think it's still achievable - though I struggle to conceive of dissenting arguments in the face of such overwhelming evidence about authorial intent. Regardless, we should still keep this page solely for contributions to the topic at hand. Anyone with more evidence should feel invited to come forward and share :)
- Pluto2
Exactly. What dissenting arguments are there, at this point? I feel one would be hard-pressed to come up with any, because the main ones have been countered rather conclusively in this thread.
Lemme start by saying that this thread is remarkable. It's been great seeing long-absent friends, which is an appropriate thing for the holidays. I have tried at several points to jump in; my reply has been growing locally on my computer for over a week. But we're getting close to the point where some people's computers will have problems loading the page, and lots of people have now had the opportunity to respond. So it's time to bite the bullet and close the thread.
Obviously I'm not going to be able to respond to every point made, no matter how brilliant many of them are. Most of what I'm going to talk about are, I'm afraid, those pesky old technical realities that usually are my playground.
Technical and legal issues[[edit] | [edit source]]
One of the things that's sometimes hard to grasp are the differences between a wiki — whose technicalities aren't that familiar to many of our users — and books, which we all pretty much understand. Because Doctor Who has so much printed material, we sometimes try to view the wiki as if it were a book, with all the limitations (and freedoms!) that this would allow. One of the most obvious involves the contraction or reduction of the number of pages within. If we want to lose chapter 7 of a book, fine, it's gone. If we decide years later we want to add it back in for the fifth edition, we dust off the old pages and ship 'em off to the publisher. No sweat.
And so some people think wikis are the same. Many wrongly believe that wikis are simply electronic books with linkable text. That belief engenders the the notion that we can just put Humpty Dumpty together again, and the Faction Paradox Wiki will again be one with Tardis. But that doesn't explain the situation in which we genuinely find ourselves.
Protecting your copyright[[edit] | [edit source]]
Once a decision has been taken to split off a wiki from another, re-merging — especially after all this time — presents daunting technical problems, as well as a clear opportunity:
- Wikis are published under licenses that have specific requirements
- The underpinning MediaWiki or Fandom code has limitations that sometimes get in the way of what you want to do
- At Fandom, the distinctions between individual wikis are not as great as between two separate books. It's all one network.
Though there are other differences, it's really the first two of these points that is a genuine barrier to the question of merging FP wiki content back into Tardis. The third explains why that's not such a horrible thing.
See, our copyright license requires that we have a clear list of contributors for each article. Right now, that list is very clear. When I moved the articles over there, I included full revision histories for every article. You don't have to follow a link. You don't have to go on some big hunt. it's just there under the History button.
Copying and pasting the articles back here would not bring with it the full revision history of each article.
More worrying, the use of MediaWiki's import feature is unpredictable when you're trying to re-merge into an article that already exists or was deleted. The results are often unsatisfactory, with some people's contributions getting conflated with others.
As should be recognised by the number of authors we have contributing to this thread, copyright is important. Everyone who contributes to a wiki deserves the right to easily demonstrate what, exactly, they wrote.
That's simple to do with the current split, and it outweighs any other consideration. We at Tardis really can't sanction a move that would muddy your ability to easily note those revisions which are, after all, your copyright.
More admin-y, more manual than you think[[edit] | [edit source]]
Several people upthread have offered to help with the re-merge, and I love the enthusiasm of that! I wish it were that simple.
- Users have limited ability to actually help with the merge, if the goal is to preserve copyright under our current license. Special:Import can only be used by admin.
- Image merging can't be done through Special:Import, so these would have to be done by hand.
- FP's templates, including some infoboxes, date from the time of the split, and — in some cases — the version used at FP is not compatible with the version now used here. This difference could cause display issues, and would be tedious to correct. (In fact, I've recently tried to simplify the CSS over there'll but there are still some CSS classes unique to FP that would land with a thud over here.)
- The same is true of the category structure. Some categories are unique to FP or Tardis, and it would require manual investigation to correct.
I'm sure there are others, but these are a few that spring easily to mind. The point I'm trying to make is that, though the wikis are similar in structure, they're not completely interoperable.
Why it's no big deal to remain apart[[edit] | [edit source]]
At Fandom, it's so easy to link from one wiki to another. And we've gone beyond the typical Fandom setup to make it even easier. Templates allow for prominent linking at the bottom of articles on both wikis. Inline links are also simple. If you're writing an article at FP and you want to mention something that's covered well over here, you just type [[tardis:articlename|]]. Easy.
[[w:c:bokunoheroacademia:Jump Ryu|Jump Ryu]]If that article were at Tardis, here's what it would be:
[[tardis:Jump Ryu|]]But we made it even easier to make a link to the FP Wiki. All you have to do is use {{fp|article name}}.
So while there are legitimate technical barriers to re-integration, there's no reason why you can't make a great, well-linked article over there. A re-merge isn't, in itself, a magic wand that's going to suddenly make the FP content grow.
Fact is, we do have experience with exactly the question of whether FP content attracts editors. And it wasn't a great one. Most of those articles were skimpy when they were here originally. So it's reasonable to rhetorically ask, “Why would we want these low quality articles back? What guarantee do we have that if we pull all this material back, people will edit it?” Judging by what's actually happened at FP, the answer isn't terribly encouraging.
Two for the road[[edit] | [edit source]]
While I think the technical points overwhelm other considerations, I don't want to leave before addressing a couple of other points.
The great balancing act[[edit] | [edit source]]
It has also postulated that we wish to create some sort of “canon”. Nothing could be further from the truth. T:CAN makes our canon-is-impossible position very clear, and it's been the gradual work of several admin from almost the dawn of this wiki. If you read back through the older forum discussions, you may see us using the word “canon”, but of course this wiki predates by several years the attempt of Paul Cornell, RTD and Steven Moffat to erase that from fans' vocabulary.
We don't create any sort of canon of here. But we do try to find the limits of what we will cover. I think most people would see the need to exclude, for instance, BBV's The Stranger and some other parts of the BBV catalogue. But is there a need to excise Iris Wildthyme material? I dunno, and that's why we try to look at things on a case-by-case basis.
It's tricky, and admin are sometimes caught in the middle of two compelling arguments. That's the case here, because there have been numerous other discussions over the years that have argued that we should be less inclusionary. And you hear it amongst fan leaders, like the boys at Radio Free Skaro, who regularly have a hard time accepting things like books, comics and some Big Finish material a part of the universe.
Like these guys, there are plenty who dislike the fact that we have gone beyond television — much less that we cover some BBV and FP stuff. As admin it's important to remember those arguments, as well as the compelling ones in this thread. If by keeping the FP stuff on another wiki it demonstrates to the more exclusionary amongst us that we are not just going to automatically include anything that has a whiff of Doctor Who about it — and doesn't stop those who like FP from contributing as a closely-related wiki, then that seems a reasonable threading of the needle. Particularly as there are genuine technical concerns afoot, as well.
If that means we are sometimes, in your view, inconsistent, it's not because of some nefarious desire to exclude your favourite stuff. It's because there's a long-established practice of taking each item individually and trying to do our best. In this case, unlike some other ranges that have been mentioned, that path had us making a decision that put some material on another wiki.
Authorial intent[[edit] | [edit source]]
Throughout this thread you hear this phrase “authorial intent”, something that has spread to other inclusion debates started this holiday season. And I'm afraid it's not really being used as intended. I think that what's happened is that people went to the Vienna thread, saw that we sent an email to Big Finish about Vienna, and decided to try to do something that was only similar.
So let me just clarify that what's happened with authors in this thread wasn't what was going on with the Vienna email to BF. See, we weren't talking to the author. We were never even trying to. We wanted clarification about their marketing, which was contradictory and confusing. In that thread, “authorial intent” referred to the author being Big Finish itself, as a company. We were primarily concerned with what Vienna's producer was saying, not its actual scribes. And we were using email, where we could be more assured that we were dealing with Big Finish due to email headers and the like. (That said, the answer clarified nothing, and so we never moved on to the question of what to do with the answer. In all likelihood, we wouldn't have been able to use it, anyway.)
In this thread, it has become fashionable to have authors come here to directly say whether their work was meant to be in the DWU or not.
In fact, direct statements by authors to Tardis are not to be used.
- It's hard, if not impossible, to absolutely verify identity, particularly if a person is using an IP address, which is all we really have to go on whether the person has registered an account or not.
- T:RW SOURCES clearly applies. Even if we absolutely determined identity, Tardis is not a source for itself. Things posted to our own forums, like these authors' statements, aren't valid real world sources. It's a bedrock principle of the wiki that “user-editable sources such as . . . this very wiki are to be avoided.”
Summing up[[edit] | [edit source]]
Now, of course, we want the FP content on Fandom in general to grow. It's important to cover it. But of the options provided by several people upthread, including the original poster, the most realistic is to build the FP Wiki. As has been pointed out, we need to try to get an active administrative staff in there. We've been waiting for years for someone else to notice that, too. So please feel free to contact me over at my FP message wall and tell me why you'd make a great admin.
Until then, thanks to everyone who participated in this thread — and I hope you've enjoyed the Doctor Who Christmas Special! :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:206638
This is a BBC Radio 4 story written by Paul Magrs, which was broadcast as part of the Afternoon Drama and starred a noveliser from planet Verbatim Six. The novelisers were created by Magrs for The Companion Chronicles range (Huxley, one of them, appeared in Ringpullworld and Find and Replace). Verbatim Six is mentioned in this audio, and the plot is centered around the fact that Lawrence is a noveliser. In other aspects it has nothing to do with the DWU. What do you think about this?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Seems legit.
- WJDTwGL
Looks like exactly the same situation as Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective to me: Paul Magrs writing DWU stories about his own characters. However, I'm not sure we can really evaluate this properly unless someone saved a copy of the audio before it went off iPlayer. What we could consider is the prose version published here — if anyone wants to buy it and post relevant excepts.
- Dmitriy Volfson
I have a copy of the audio (found it long time ago somewhere).
- WJDTwGL
In that case, you're the expert. And as a collector of all things Paul Magrs, I'd be very interested in getting a copy of that.
- WJDTwGL
I've listened to it now. It's definitely the same Novelisers from Verbatim 6 as in Ringpullworld and Find and Replace. It talks about how it used to be that Novelisers would burn out the brains of their subjects if separated, which is how it is in the previous stories.
- Amorkuz
Same objection as for Vince Cosmos. Not all Slarvian stories are part of DWU just because they feature Slarvians. Was this story intended to be part of DWU?
- Amorkuz
Same apology now as for Vince Cosmos. One needs an evidence to the contrary to exclude it from DWU. So same question. Did anyone try to check for such evidence?
- Amorkuz
So at the very least, Paul Magrs himself does not consider it part of his Doctor Who audio works: [9]
- Amorkuz
Secondly (I wonder if anyone was going to mention this), Magrs writes here
about his book The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict: "It's in the same world, and involving several of the same characters as my recent radio drama, 'Imaginary Boys.'"
So a) you can't induct "Imaginary Boys" without "The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict", and b) the title suggests that it is set outside DWU, looking in.
- Amorkuz
And it turns out Paul Magrs clearly separates his Doctor Who novels from non-Doctor Who ones. (This is in case somebody would claim that "Imaginary Boys" is not part of Doctor Who audios because it is not an audio book but a radio drama.) Here is the list of Magrs's Doctor Who novels, according to him [10]... and here is where "The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict" sits, among his young adult books [11]. Completely and utterly separated.
- NateBumber
Re:All your website investigation: You'll note that he doesn't include his Iris Wildthyme stories in those categories either, yet she's still very much a part of this wiki, is she not?
All that Magrs is saying in that classification is that those stories were produced with the Doctor Who license, which clearly isn't necessary to create Doctor Who universe material (per Bernice Summerfield, K9, Lethbridge-Stewart, etc etc etc). Are you arguing against this no-license policy?
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote: Re:All your website investigation: You'll note that he doesn't include his Iris Wildthyme stories in those categories either, yet she's still very much a part of this wiki, is she not?
All that Magrs is saying in that classification is that those stories were produced with the Doctor Who license, which clearly isn't necessary to create Doctor Who universe material (per Bernice Summerfield, K9, Lethbridge-Stewart, etc etc etc). Are you arguing against this no-license policy?
Checkmate!
- TheChampionOfTime
Out of all the recent inclusion debates, I believe this one has the most merit. It takes a recurring DWU species and tells a story with them. As for "Diary of a Dr Who Addict", if Rupert Von Thal from The Boy That Time Forgot (audio story) isn't the same character as Rupert Von Thal from the Brenda & Effie story The Bride That Time Forgot, why should this wiki care if Magrs reuses characters from Imaginary Boys in a different context? Just include it in the BHS.
- TheChampionOfTime
An example which is a bit closer to this wiki would be BBV's Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough (home video) and Cyberon (home video). Both are inarguably in the same world - the world of Lauren Anderson - but only one uses concepts from the DWU and therefore only one is covered on this wiki.
- Amorkuz
That's a good precedent.
Can somebody please create a page Novelisor and put their list of appearances on that page? It's a bit hard to search for evidence with only a fragmentary information available on the Wiki. Also in Find and Replace the term "narrator" is used [12], and in Ringpullworld, the spelling is "novelisor" [13], not "noveliser". Could somebody comment on these differences to make sure that it is indeed a recurring species rather than two different species. And since I could not find the spelling "noveliser" in DW-related works, could somebody explain where it comes from?
- TheChampionOfTime
I don't know why you feel the need to say "somebody". It's just us now. To answer your questions in reverse: "noveliser" probably came from our Cyrillic friend spelling it like he heard it, having just listened to both stories I can assure you that they both use the word "novelisor", I'm making the page now.
- CzechOut
Point of order, guys. Please do not create pages about things that are still under discussion.
- Amorkuz
Correction: novelisors appeared in two companion chronicles cited by the OP. To make an informed decision on validity and to allow all other editors to easily observe evidence, I think it is important to have pages for the already valid things, based on which validity is claimed.
- CzechOut
Okay :) That's fine by me, then. Just wanted to make sure we weren't creating pages about things in contention. Please be sure to not include information on this new page that comes from the contested sources that are the object of this thread.
- Amorkuz
TheChampionOfTime wrote: I don't know why you feel the need to say "somebody". It's just us now. To answer your questions in reverse: "noveliser" probably came from our Cyrillic friend spelling it like he heard it, having just listened to both stories I can assure you that they both use the word "novelisor", I'm making the page now.
Well, by "somebody" I meant the OP, whose name is just too much pain to type. Obviously I'd be happy if you do it. And since I don't expect this discussion to be closed overnight, I do strongly believe that this page would help potential other participants of the thread.
However, since novelisors appeared in two stories (stories released under Doctor Who license I might add), and I take it that they never appeared anywhere before, i.e., were created for Doctor Who, and if the plot indeed is centred around a novelisor, then I can see why it should be a valid story.
- TheChampionOfTime
To clarify, Novelisors were created for Doctor Who. One of the two main characters of Imaginary Boys is a Novelisor, something which the plot is centered around. The other main character is from another Magrs novel that is unrelated to the DWU, but that didn't stop Enter Wildthyme from being a valid source.
In my eyes, this situation is identical to the Iris Wildthyme series; Paul Magrs used a concept which was tied to the DWU in multiple stories in a story without the Doctor Who license.
- OttselSpy25
TheChampionOfTime wrote: An example which is a bit closer to this wiki would be BBV's Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough (home video) and Cyberon (home video). Both are inarguably in the same world - the world of Lauren Anderson - but only one uses concepts from the DWU and therefore only one is covered on this wiki.
I think this is totally different tho. If I understand this thread correctly (and I apologize if I don't) then there was a Short Trips story about a bunch of aliens and now there's a different audio series about those aliens and we're trying to decide if that makes the audio valid.
Cyberon isn't valid because the Cyberons are meant to be Cybermen. It doesn't even ever say "The metal suit guys are Cyberons." "Cyberon" is the name of the medicine in the story that slowly turns you into an unnamed-grey-suit-dude. Cybermen were not liscensed for this film, as the BBC had standards even back then.
If there had been a Short Trips story that introduced the Cyberon medicine and then the film had only featured the medicine and not the "almost Cybermen", then it would likely be valid.
- TheChampionOfTime
Not exactly, there were a couple Companion Chronicles stories about these aliens and there is now a single half-hour audio drama about one of these aliens. Just as Lauren Anderson first appeared in Cyberon, the main human character in this story is from a previous novel called "The Diary of a Dr Who Addict". Just as ""When Being You Just Isn't Enough" can be watched without any knowledge of "Cyberon", "Imaginary Boys" can be listened to without any knowledge of "Diary of a Dr Who Addict", in fact I wouldn't have known that this character appeared in one of Magrs' previous works if not for this discussion.
My point is, this story should be validated by itself regardless of previous works connected to it - just as we do with "When Being You Isn't Enough" or "Enter Wildthyme".
- OttselSpy25
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Not exactly, there were a couple Companion Chronicles stories about these aliens and there is now a single half-hour audio drama about one of these aliens. Just as Lauren Anderson first appeared in Cyberon, the main human character in this story is from a previous novel called "The Diary of a Dr Who Addict". Just as ""When Being You Just Isn't Enough" can be watched without any knowledge of "Cyberon", "Imaginary Boys" can be listened to without any knowledge of "Diary of a Dr Who Addict", in fact I wouldn't have known that this character appeared in one of Magrs' previous works if not for this discussion.
My point is, this story should be validated by itself regardless of previous works connected to it - just as we do with "When Being You Isn't Enough" or "Enter Wildthyme".
In that case, I totally agree. I would imagine that Diary of a Dr Who Addict would not be valid, but IB would be.
- TheChampionOfTime
Seeing as it's getting to be "closing threads" season, I thought I'd just mention a few valid stories that are in a similar situation to Imaginary Boys. If this story were to be declared invalid, I'd like to know why it's different from these ones.
At the time of The Root of All Evil's release, the Krynoids had only appeared in two Doctor Who stories. Same thing with the I in I Scream.
Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling!, The Quality of Mercy, Miranda, and The Winning Side all feature characters who had only appeared once in a Doctor Who story at the times when they were released.
- TheChampionOfTime
After another half-month of mulling it over, I've come to the opinion that Imaginary Boys is more deserving of coverage on this wiki than I Scream. The novelisors fully occupy both of their Dr Who appearances, while the I only appear in the last quarter of Seeing I and have a mere cameo in The Infinity Doctors.
For what it's worth, Lisa Bowerman expressed interest in Big Finish doing another Novelisor story in the extras for Find and Replace.
Also, while dredging through Paul Magrs' blog I found this: "Somehow I do see everything I write as happening within the same set of mashed-up universes." [14]
- OttselSpy25
So to me this seems like the Novelisers, as a species created for and under a Doctor Who title, are worthy of having the same treatment as such figures as the Sontarans, K9, and even Bernice Summerfield. While some of the debates started around this time are quite puzzling and known to cause a hefty headache, this one is pretty easy to figure out for me.
I thus agree fully that Imaginary Boys should have a role on this wiki. If other stories will follow due to connected elements should really be saved for another discussion -- I have not been convinced by the suggested addition of either I Scream or The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict should be the same.
While Margs has meant for most of his stories to be set in one multi-verse, that doesn't mean that each of the stories is valid on this site simply because one of those worlds is the DWU (sometimes). In the same sense that we don't cover every Big Finish series, even if they've had crossovers several times before.
As mentioned by CoT, the situation is very similar to the saga of BBV films starring Lauren Anderson. Sometimes those stories have licensed elements. Sometimes they have knock-off imitations of things that they don't have the rights to. Even though all of the stories are set in the same universe, Zygon is valid while Cyberon isn't.
So unless The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict secretly features the novelisers (the only thing currently making Imaginary Boys worth debating), it is by no means valid.
- TheChampionOfTime
OttselSpy25 wrote: I have not been convinced by the suggested addition of either I Scream or The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict should be the same.
I Scream is already a valid source.
While Margs has meant for most of his stories to be set in one multi-verse, that doesn't mean that each of the stories is valid on this site simply because one of those worlds is the DWU (sometimes). In the same sense that we don't cover every Big Finish series, even if they've had crossovers several times before.
I completely agree with you, if a story has no connection to Doctor Who we shouldn't cover it. The quote was just to give something from the writer about Imaginary Boys being in the same universe as Ringpullworld.
- OttselSpy25
I apologize, I figured it was another one of these lingering debates that seem to cross into each other.
Is there currently any sort of sentiment for this to be invalid?
- TheChampionOfTime
Not at all, it's an audio drama with the licensed use of a Dr Who species, I'd probably start an inclusion debate if it weren't already valid.
- OttselSpy25
No, I mean Imaginary Boys. Sorry for pulling us off-topic.
I was asking if anyone on the wiki is currently against IB being valid, and why.
- GusF
As already mentioned, the Novelisors were created for Doctor Who. As such, I am of the opinion that Imaginary Boys should be covered by this Wiki in the same manner as other works - several of which have already been cited by OttselSpy25 - that include only one DWU element and have no other connection to the wider DWU.
I agree with TheChampionOfTime that the situation is the same as exists vis a vis the Iris Wildthyme series.
- TheChampionOfTime
TheChampionOfTime wrote: If this story were to be declared invalid, I'd like to know why it's different from these ones.
At the time of The Root of All Evil's release, the Krynoids had only appeared in two Doctor Who stories. Same thing with the I in I Scream.
Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling!, The Quality of Mercy, Miranda, and The Winning Side all feature characters who had only appeared once in a Doctor Who story at the times when they were released.
Also, if this is written off as a "author uses his own character in a probably non-DWU story" case, I'd like to know why it's different from Enter Wildthyme, a novel by Paul Magrs which brings together many characters/locations/species from his fiction, many of them just happening to be from his Dr Who novels. If you were to do that, you'd probably need "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU".
- OttselSpy25
Indeed, it is impossible to claim that a story wasn't met to be DWU-bound without any evidence.
- AdricLovesNyssa
Since CoT wanted to get my involvement into this, seeing all the arguments I agree that Imaginary Boys should be a valid source. But I see this opening a can of worms, as if we allow Imaginary Boys because of an appearance of a Novelisor, then The Memory Box (a Vienna story) should be allowed due to the appearance of a Slithergee, as well as Vienna herself. (Though I always thought Vienna should be on this wiki) This may or may not help
- TheChampionOfTime
Thank you, every person that chimes in helps. The Vienna situation is what it is because of authorial intent. The creator of the Vienna series made comments that distanced it from Doctor Who, but that is not the case here.
Hearing no sustained objection, this thread is now closed for commenting, and Imaginary Boys (audio story) can now be covered on the wiki as a valid source.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:206804
Technically the discussion about The Casebook of the Manleigh Halt Irregulars was about the anthology only, not "Manleigh Halt Irregulars" series. I didn't think it mattered, because as far as I knew it was a series-of-one. Apparently I was wrong:
Storyteller is a charity anthology from Obverse books. The contents follow (I've only skimmed the book):
- Strangers from the Sea — George Mann (Part of his Newbury & Hobbes series, which is involved with Paradox Lost. But that's a conversation for another day, if ever.)
- Moon Eyes — Stuart Douglas (Featuring the Manleigh Halt Irregulars, and the reason for this post. Seems to obviously pass the four rules.)
- Grandad with Snails — Nick Campbell
- Seal Morning — Cody Quijano-Schell
- Doctor Syn — Ian Potter
- A Daughter of the Samurai — Andy Smillie
- The Hanging Tree (no relation) — Cavan Scott
- Honey in the Horn — Mark Manley
- The Unicorn Leacock — Orna Petit and Jacqueline Rayner
- Put Out More Flags — Sarah Hadley
- Black Mischief — Elizabeth Evershed
- Harlic – A Story of a Grey Seal — Simon Bucher-Jones
- The Devil’s Children — Richard Wright
I think Moon Eyes is the only one set in the DWU (ignoring Newbury & Hobbes for simplicity's sake). It's published by Obverse Books, like the Irregulars' previous appearances. I suggest that only Moon Eyes is considered valid, like with The Judgement of Solomon in Decalog 5: Wonders.
- WJDTwGL
I suppose it's worth having a more general ruling that the "Manleigh Halt Irregulars" series as a whole (not that we know it has a future) is valid, instead of doing each publication individually.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO made the original decision on the other anthology. I wonder if he includes this one.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: SOTO made the original decision on the other anthology. I wonder if he includes this one.
I've paged them, so I suppose we'll see.
- SOTO
The other short stories do not belong to that series?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: The other short stories do not belong to that series?
Fraid not.
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: The other short stories do not belong to that series?
That's correct. Only Moon Eyes does.
- SOTO
I'm sure you're all also aware that we tend to say no to all charity publications. This seems to be a charity publication by the rights holders of those characters, correct?
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: I'm sure you're all also aware that we tend to say no to all charity publications. This seems to be a charity publication by the rights holders of those characters, correct?
Yes, I'm aware of that. But this is published by Obverse, like all the previous stories.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Moon Eyes, if we add it, needs the dab term (short story) adding.
Slightly off topic but can we add dab terms to The Pitch of Fear, The Kidnappers, The Web of Caves, Search Out Space and Do You Have a License to Save this Planet?. Thanks SOTO pal. 😊
It should be easy as we can leave the title as redirects.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Moon Eyes, if we add it, needs the dab term (short story) adding.
Slightly off topic but can we add dab terms to The Pitch of Fear, The Kidnappers, The Web of Caves and Do You Have a License to Save this Planet?. Thanks SOTO pal. 😊
It should be easy as we can leave the title as redirects.
That's what Speedy Rename is for.
- SOTO
I've at least temporarily deleted the page, as this inclusion debate is ongoing. I should note that I would say that, yes, any future releases in the Manleigh Halt Irregular series would be considered valid, as extensions of the first one, unless there is a particular reason not to include them. This one is part of a charity publication, and that makes it a bit more questionable.
- SOTO
That is quite off-topic, yes. I'll have to review our reasoning for excluding all charity publications. I believe it's because they're almost always not licensed, and they don't have to be licensed, legally, because they're not for profit. I wonder if that still applies here.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: I've at least temporarily deleted the page, as this inclusion debate is ongoing. I should note that I would say that, yes, any future releases in the Manleigh Halt Irregular series would be considered valid, as extensions of the first one, unless there is a particular reason not to include them. This one is part of a charity publication, and that makes it a bit more questionable.
In this case, the charity publication is by the person who has a license.
In my opinion, we're not excluding charity publications simply because they're charity publications, but because they don't have a license!
In this case, Obverse was publishing an anthology featuring characters they had the rights to, with the proceeds going to charity.
- WJDTwGL
Any fiction, by any author, where the copyright holder hasn't given permission isn't allowed. And no, it doesn't matter that the story was written by someone who has otherwise written licensed fiction. Or that the publisher did a nice thing and gave his or her profits to charity. Or that the work was almost published by the BBC.
That's the official explanation. From skimming the book, it looks like none of the stories use unlicensed characters.
- SOTO
This is what T:VALID has to say about it:
- Any fiction, by any author, where the copyright holder hasn't given permission isn't allowed. And no, it doesn't matter that the story was written by someone who has otherwise written licensed fiction. Or that the publisher did a nice thing and gave his or her profits to charity. Or that the work was almost published by the BBC.
In this case, though, they would not require a BBC license for this charity publication, and as the publishers of the main series, at least in regards to that one short story, they themselves are the copyright holders who would validate it. It's quite unprecedented to accept a charity publication, but this one does not actually offend Rule 2.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Moon Eyes, if we add it, needs the dab term (short story) adding.
Slightly off topic but can we add dab terms to The Pitch of Fear, The Kidnappers, The Web of Caves and Do You Have a License to Save this Planet?. Thanks SOTO pal. 😊
It should be easy as we can leave the title as redirects.
That's what Speedy Rename is for.
They've been there for months now.
- SOTO
Well my post is now nearly redundant. I would agree, right now, that we don't necessarily have grounds to exclude it if it doesn't fail Rule 2 at all. But I am not willing to simply close this discussion just yet.
- SOTO
Also, I would like to emphasise that the book itself would not get a page, nor would any of the other short stories. It can be mentioned, of course, in the lead, where it was published and what other relevant stories were in there as well, but none of it will be covered by Tardis Wiki.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: Well my post is now nearly redundant. I would agree, right now, that we don't necessarily have grounds to exclude it if it doesn't fail Rule 2 at all. But I am not willing to simply close this discussion just yet.
Why is your post nearly redundant pal?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: Also, I would like to emphasise that the book itself would not get a page, nor would any of the other short stories. It can be mentioned, of course, in the lead, where it was published and what other relevant stories were in there as well, but none of it will be covered by Tardis Wiki.
Seems good.
P.S. The comments are swimming in He he.
- SOTO
The last two people said the same thing, as I discovered on refresh.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: The last two people said the same thing, as I discovered on refresh.
Ah ok. I keep refreshing and a new comment appears. Which is good because I call that "beautiful progress" in threads.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
SOTO wrote: The last two people said the same thing, as I discovered on refresh.
Ah ok. I keep refreshing and a new comment appears. Which is good because I call that "beautiful progress" in threads.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: This is what T:VALID has to say about it:
- Any fiction, by any author, where the copyright holder hasn't given permission isn't allowed. And no, it doesn't matter that the story was written by someone who has otherwise written licensed fiction. Or that the publisher did a nice thing and gave his or her profits to charity. Or that the work was almost published by the BBC.
In this case, though, they would not require a BBC license for this charity publication, and as the publishers of the main series, at least in regards to that one short story, they themselves are the copyright holders who would validate it. It's quite unprecedented to accept a charity publication, but this one does not actually offend Rule 2.
Why was the last clause of that rule (almost published) added? Was that to ensure Campaign couldn't be covered?
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: Also, I would like to emphasise that the book itself would not get a page, nor would any of the other short stories. It can be mentioned, of course, in the lead, where it was published and what other relevant stories were in there as well, but none of it will be covered by Tardis Wiki.
The other stories shouldn't have pages of course, but I think the anthology itself should, because of the precedent set by Decalog 5: Wonders.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
SOTO wrote: Also, I would like to emphasise that the book itself would not get a page, nor would any of the other short stories. It can be mentioned, of course, in the lead, where it was published and what other relevant stories were in there as well, but none of it will be covered by Tardis Wiki.
The other stories shouldn't have pages of course, but I think the anthology itself should, because of the precedent set by Decalog 5: Wonders.
Decalog 5 should probably just be deleted.
- SOTO
The example given is The Wings of a Butterfly, which was later adapted into an audio story which we do cover. I cannot speak for the original intent behind the clause. It does not mention the opposite, but I can't see any reason why we'd cover something as valid which the BBC pulled back on before its initial publication. In other words, even if it briefly passed Rule 4, it was never officially released in that capacity, so fails Rule 3, at the very least.
- Pluto2
So I take it this passes the four little rules?
- SOTO
SOTO wrote: In other words, even if it briefly passed Rule 4, it was never officially released in that capacity, so fails Rule 3, at the very least.
This was never going to pass the four little rules. If anything, it would be covered as a cancelled story, or an invalid source.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote:
SOTO wrote: In other words, even if it briefly passed Rule 4, it was never officially released in that capacity, so fails Rule 3, at the very least.
This was never going to pass the four little rules. If anything, it would be covered as a cancelled story, or an invalid source.
What would?
We're talking about Moon Eyes, which, while published in a charity anthology, was published in a charity anthology by the license holder. We typically exclude charity publications because they're basically fanfiction. In this case, Obverse published an anthology, but had the proceeds go to charity. It's licensed.
- SOTO
Sorry, I confused myself with my own post. This is why these discussions need to stick to one topic only. This does seem to have all the necessary licenses, but it is still a charity publication, so let's not get too hasty on this.
- Pluto2
I raise Skulduggery as an example of short stories in charity publications being valid if they're licensed.
Whether the rights holder chooses to look the other way as other writers use their characters, or the rights holder choses to write the work themselves and donate their profits to charity, it's still charity.
It's a long-standing rule of the wiki not to even have pages about charity works, much less consider them valid. Nevertheless, a few such pages still exist, and should be eliminated.
Neither Storyteller nor "Skullduggery" nor "Moon Eyes" should be given a page here.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207146
This is audio series about "Greek philosopher Kerides, the Thinker working in Ancient Egypt to bring the criminal to justice" written by Iain McLaughlin & Claire Bartlett. It featured Erimem in episode 8, but according to Kerides the Thinker: The Collected Scripts Volume One the authorial intent was that the whole series is set in the Doctor Who universe:
We often default to writing about Egypt. My first Doctor Who, The Eye of the Scorpion, was set in Egypt as was its prequel novel, The Coming of the Queen. Purely as a self-indulgent joke, I started dropping little things in between the Kerides series and the Doctor Who stories I had written in Egypt. Little things like throwing in minor plot points as a historical fact Kerides is investigating, or using a family name that was mentioned in the Doctor Who stories.
I've not yet listened to Kerides the Thinker, but I want to buy it.
Are these references and the return of Erimem enough to cover the whole series on this Wiki?
- Pluto2
I don't see why not.
- NateBumber
If the Erimem series is covered simply because of one licensed character, I see no reason why this series wouldn't be covered when it features the same licensed character. Looks like all four of the little rules are unambiguously satisfied; this should be an open-and-shut case. Admins?
- Pluto2
...I doubt there will be any opposition, really.
It has already been decided that someone who hasn't read/heard/watched a story shouldn't open an inclusion debate about it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207236
I think we need to readdress numerous stories in Category:Non-DWU material and Category:Non-DWU stories.
Take Global Conspiracy, for instance. It's not a parody, just tongue-in-cheek. A lot of the "parodies" are like this.
Others are claimed to be advertisements - but at least one is explicitly stated on its page to be a story, NOT an advert, and to have all the licenses!
So, here's my proposal:
One by one, we examine the invalid stories that have NOT already been discussed and deemed invalid (as the FP debate is ongoing, we're excluding that, too). This means all those little five-minute stories are readdressed, like The BAFTAs, the NTA 2011 sketch, etc.. Some will certainly be placed right back in the invalid bin - but how many of us have watched all of these stories, or read them, etc.?
- Pluto2
Firstly, Looking for Pudsey is just Eddie Redmayne calling the Twelfth Doctor asking if he's seen Pudsey. The Doctor confuses Pudsey with different individuals of the same name. He then correctly describes Pudsey, Eddie asks if he's seen him. The Doctor says no, then "Have a nice life", then hangs up, saying "What a strange man". That's literally the entire story. The fourth wall isn't even broken (although you can hear the studio audience laughing!). So, err, why was this considered invalid?
- SOTO
Please stop removing invalid tags according to your own whims while this discussion is ongoing, or risk a short block per Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
(Without responding to everything you have to say, Global Conspiracy?, I do agree, should be considered a valid source. As I said on the talk page. The invalid tag was added by someone who'd never seen it, because someone else added the parodies category. It will likely be switched over. But that's just it -- we deal with these on a case-by-case basis.)
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Please stop removing invalid tags according to your own whims while this discussion is ongoing, or risk a short block per Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
(Without responding to everything you have to say, Global Conspiracy?, I do agree, should be considered a valid source. As I said on the talk page. The invalid tag was added by someone who'd never seen it, because someone else added the parodies category. It will likely be switched over. But that's just it -- we deal with these on a case-by-case basis.)
I apologize.
Some of these are too short in length to merit individual discussions - in some cases, they're less than a minute long.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Being the person that makes most these pages, I just though they best suited the invalid tag.
The BAFTAs breaks the fourth wall severely. CIN 2011, I guess that should be readdressed at some point but he does address the viewers. Looking for Pudsey (again that should be readdressed). Bodyswap to the Proms (I'm easy with that one). NTA special is before my time but that needs a rename and should follow the other stories broadcast in other shows with out names. It should change from National Television Awards sketch 2011 to National Television Awards special to suit other naming conventions.
Also invalid articles aren't a "bin". They're not in a bin. Consider them like naughty guinea pigs, they are alright on there own but as soon as you put them with other guineas things start to get out of hand.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.
Check all stories against this.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Looking for Pudsey
Passes 1
Passes 2
Passes 3
As we only know that Moffat wrote the DW scene then I'm not sure on rule four.
- Thefartydoctor
You must bear in mind one simple thing: 'Call the Midwife is a part of Looking for Pudsey, through the inclusion of Sister Julienne. Redmayne himself phones the character and not the actor. You have to realise that if we include this as valid, then we have to consider the Call the Midwife Universe valid and part of the Whoniverse. As the two are highly incompatible, it's highly unlikely that Whovians will take this lightly haha.
The only thing that could save this story was if Moffat states that Mel and Sue manage to patch Redmayne through from his universe to the DWU... for a silly sketch that was for charity, it's too much hassle haha.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thefartydoctor wrote: You must bear in mind one simple thing: 'Call the Midwife is a part of Looking for Pudsey, through the inclusion of Sister Julienne. Redmayne himself phones the character and not the actor. You have to realise that if we include this as valid, then we have to consider the Call the Midwife Universe valid and part of the Whoniverse. As the two are highly incompatible, it's highly unlikely that Whovians will take this lightly haha.
The only thing that could save this story was if Moffat states that Mel and Sue manage to patch Redmayne through from his universe to the DWU... for a silly sketch that was for charity, it's too much hassle haha.
We don't have to consider all of CTM, just what we see in the DWU as with Death's Head.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2, examine this and state which ones you believe should be valid and which ones you believe should remain invalid.
- Thefartydoctor
You say that but it wasn't that long ago that we were forced to make a Marvel crossover invalid (after a long discussion) because it would mean us accepting and including the whole Marvel Universe into our collective continuity. Same goes with Assimilated, which sees the Eleventh Doctor, Amy and Rory meet up with the Enterprise crew. Whether or not it was intended to be set either in the Prime Universe or the DWU, both Wikis consider it invalid as it would mean both universes combining. This is a serious point that has been raised in the past. Certain things can overrule the four golden rules, such as "Do we want every superhero and villain from Marvel to be valid?" or "Do we want the Borg officially recognised as a DW monster because of one insignificant crossover?"
I think we keep this invalid, not only because there are no updates as to author's intention, but also because it opens up further discussions that are too ridiculous to have haha. We should wait for someone like Moffat to speak up and then- if he does- we reopen the discussion.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Why would we include the whole other series? Just include the glimpse from the DWU. We don't include all of Sherlock Holmes because Nick Briggs appeared in DW. We merely except the part seen in the DWU as we do with anything from the DWU.
The discussion is far from over as the OP wants to examine all that have been labelled invalid recently.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Invalid stories
On screen BBC The Pilot Episode • DT special • Merry Christmas Doctor Who • AM special • A Fix with Sontarans • RR:TS special • Search Out Space • Daleks v Vodafone • NHP special • Dimensions in Time • RD special • The Curse of Fatal Death • Introduction to the Night • Death Comes to Time • Master of the Universe • CIN 2003 • Scream of the Shalka • K9 presents • BP 05 • Attack of the Graske • CR 2007 • CIN 2011 • Eleventh Doctor Interactive Story • From Script to Screen • BP 2012 • P.S. • Songtaran Carols • K9's Question Time • One Born Every Minute • The BAFTAs • Bodyswap to the Proms • She Said, He Said • Cinema Introduction • Twelfth Doctor Interactive Story • Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars • Looking for PudseyNon BBC Other Spin Off Do these pass these?
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. - Thefartydoctor
You're not understanding my point. The Sherlock Holmes Universe is different to the DWU. Fact. If they were to make a crossover.... then what? There's my point. If the Brigg's Sherlock popped into TARDIS and shook hands with Twelve, it can't possibly be valid, right?
Well it's a story, so it passes rule 1. If it's licensed by the BBC, it passes rule 2. When it's released, it passes rule 3. It's intended to be set in both universes, so it passes rule 4. Now d'you see my point? When two incompatible universes combine yet pass the four rules, as may Looking for Pudsey, then we have to maybe bend or ignore the four rules.
My point makes perfect sense and is totally connected to this discussion. I gave further examples, such as Assimilated and the Marvel story, whose name escapes me. This seems to fall into that category of stories that can't follow the four rules. We need an admin to input their take on this.
- Thefartydoctor
And no, it doesn't pass rule 4. We don't know where Moffat stands on the issue. If you have a source, feel free to post it. Until then, it doesn't pass rule 4 and thus isn't valid haha.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
We take what we see from a valid crossover story, that is all. Only the elements seen in the DWU crossover story should be included.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thefartydoctor wrote: And no, it doesn't pass rule 4. We don't know where Moffat stands on the issue. If you have a source, feel free to post it. Until then, it doesn't pass rule 4 and thus isn't valid haha.
Usually when it's on the BBC and nothing has been stated otherwise and it breaks no other rule it's then considered a valid source.
- Thefartydoctor
Sorry but DWU and CTMU are not compatible. Neither are the DWU and the Prime Universe. And so on and so forth. When you state that this Wiki shouldn't cover the things that happen in Call the Midwife, I naturally agree with you. But it would be illogical, nay ridiculous, to even consider them compatible. And that's my point. Whether Moffat intended them to co-exist and whether or not the writing staff behind CTM allow it, rule 4 still doesn't apply. It's overridden by such a big incompatibility. The laws of the universe are different. That was my point. Nothing to do with whether or not we include CTM here at TARDIS Data Core.
When Looking for Pudsey gets a source that lets us tick rule 4, we take the discussion from there. Up until then, we can't take any action haha.
- Thefartydoctor
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: And no, it doesn't pass rule 4. We don't know where Moffat stands on the issue. If you have a source, feel free to post it. Until then, it doesn't pass rule 4 and thus isn't valid haha.
Usually when it's on the BBC and nothing has been stated otherwise and it breaks no other rule it's then considered a valid source.
Only if it's part of an official series with an official license. There's a difference. That's why conversations like these pop up. Born Again was set in a continuous narrative and thus ticks rule 4 regarding intention. Doctor Who's various appearances at the Proms are generally not considered part of the narrative and thus don't tick rule 4.
- WJDTwGL
There are lots of series that actually are set in the same universe as Doctor Who, like Nicholas Briggs's Sherlock Holmes or the entire Marvel multiverse, which aren't covered here anyway.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
We cover them as much as they are seen in a DWU story.
- AeD
Yeah, I'd imagine this site would cover characters from Call the Midwife that appear in Doctor Who by way of a comedy skit in exactly the same way it does characters from EastEnders who appeared in Dimensions of Time, i.e. [[Gita Kapoor]], [[Big Ron]]
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AeD wrote: Yeah, I'd imagine this site would cover characters from Call the Midwife that appear in Doctor Who by way of a comedy skit in exactly the same way it does characters from EastEnders who appeared in Dimensions of Time, i.e. [[Gita Kapoor]], [[Big Ron]]
Yup, we would cover them to the extent to that they were seen in the DWU as if they were original DWU characters.
- WJDTwGL
AeD wrote: Yeah, I'd imagine this site would cover characters from Call the Midwife that appear in Doctor Who by way of a comedy skit in exactly the same way it does characters from EastEnders who appeared in Dimensions of Time, i.e. [[Gita Kapoor]], [[Big Ron]]
That seems really dumb to me. What is the possible use in pages about characters from another series, if the way they cover the characters is based on the idea that the characters only exist in that one cross-over story? It's just not true that these characters exist outside the context of their home series. If a cross-over episode is covered, but the other series is not, then the characters that originated in that series shouldn't have pages.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
AeD wrote: Yeah, I'd imagine this site would cover characters from Call the Midwife that appear in Doctor Who by way of a comedy skit in exactly the same way it does characters from EastEnders who appeared in Dimensions of Time, i.e. [[Gita Kapoor]], [[Big Ron]]
That seems really dumb to me. What is the possible use in pages about characters from another series, if the way they cover the characters is based on the idea that the characters only exist in that one cross-over story? It's just not true that these characters exist outside the context of their home series. If a cross-over episode is covered, but the other series is not, then the characters that originated in that series shouldn't have pages.
That's untrue pal. It's like with "Coffee". We'd cover it as much as we've seen in the DWU. We wouldn't start writing about how it was seen in an episode of Home and Away. We just wouldn't.
- 31.84.72.138
Random stories in not valid
Why that’s how this wiki treats captain Picard and all other star trek characters and concepts from assimilation hers some of the pagers http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Wolf_359 http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Borg
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: That's untrue pal. It's like with "Coffee". We'd cover it as much as we've seen in the DWU. We wouldn't start writing about how it was seen in an episode of Home and Away. We just wouldn't.
That's not what I said. I'm saying you can't have a tiny piece of a character and act like it's the whole thing. If the character's from another show, and we aren't going to cover the entire show, then let actual fans of that show do it. Link to another wiki, or just don't link anywhere and leave a footnote explaining how the character's not covered.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: That's untrue pal. It's like with "Coffee". We'd cover it as much as we've seen in the DWU. We wouldn't start writing about how it was seen in an episode of Home and Away. We just wouldn't.
That's not what I said. I'm saying you can't have a tiny piece of a character and act like it's the whole thing. If the character's from another show, and we aren't going to cover the entire show, then let actual fans of that show do it. Link to another wiki, or just don't link anywhere and leave a footnote explaining how the character's not covered.
It works better how it is.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
31.84.72.138 wrote: Random stories in not valid Why that’s how this wiki treats captain Picard and all other star trek characters and concepts from assimilation hers some of the pagers http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Wolf_359 http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Borg
Cover them the same way these ST characters are covered.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree with Ffwhiffahder. There's nothing wrong with having these characters in the cast list of the story page but I don't see the point in having pages for EastEnders and Call the Midwife characters, simply because they once appeared in a skit that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, which I believe relates somewhat to rule 4. DiT was never meant to be taken seriously, and quite rightly the Wiki treats it as invalid. Yet the Wiki is happy to give each EastEnders characters unnecessary articles. If this story is invalid, then so are its characters.
It has to be said that a Wiki isn't great just because it has more pages. A Wiki is only great when the rules are solid and when its team knows what it's doing haha.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thefartydoctor wrote: I agree with Ffwhiffahder. There's nothing wrong with having these characters in the cast list of the story page but I don't see the point in having pages for EastEnders and Call the Midwife characters, simply because they once appeared in a skit that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, which I believe relates somewhat to rule 4. DiT was never meant to be taken seriously, and quite rightly the Wiki treats it as invalid. Yet the Wiki is happy to give each EastEnders characters unnecessary articles. If this story is invalid, then so are its characters.
It has to be said that a Wiki isn't great just because it has more pages. A Wiki is only great when the rules are solid and when its team knows what it's doing haha.
It's nice to know which characters appeared and what they did. It's important. DIT isn't a skit, it's not a parody just a story that's so tounge-in-cheek that it can't be taken seriously.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Back to Pluto2's original idea. Which stories do you think should be reexamined then Pluto2?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. All invalid stories pass rule 1-3.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It's nice to know which characters appeared and what they did. It's important. DIT isn't a skit, it's not a parody just a story that's so tounge-in-cheek that it can't be taken seriously.
You can see which characters appeared from the list on the page for the story. But if you want to know what characters who are part of a show that has been deem completely unrelated to Doctor Who did, go to a wiki for that show. If we decide that in spite of a crossover, a show isn't going to be covered in its entirety, we shouldn't make useless half-assed articles about any of its characters.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It's nice to know which characters appeared and what they did. It's important. DIT isn't a skit, it's not a parody just a story that's so tounge-in-cheek that it can't be taken seriously.
You can see which characters appeared from the list on the page for the story. But if you want to know what characters who are part of a show that has been deem completely unrelated to Doctor Who did, go to a wiki for that show. If we decide that in spite of a crossover, a show isn't going to be covered in its entirety, we shouldn't make useless half-assed articles about any of its characters.
One, that'd be pointless and the existing articles are very helpful and two, please can we get back to the original point of this thread?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
- AeD
I feel like "how does this site cover characters from EastEnders or Call The Midwife" could probably stand to be its own thread.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Fine by me. Valid.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AeD wrote: I feel like "how does this site cover characters from EastEnders or Call The Midwife" could probably stand to be its own thread.
But there is no problem with it. Anyway back to the OP.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Fine by me. Valid.
I like to think so too. Authorial intent is that it's the DWU. Which others do you believe should be valid?
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Fine by me. Valid.
I like to think so too. Authorial intent is that it's the DWU. Which others do you believe should be valid?
Among all of them? Rescue (short story), Bodyswap to the Proms, and Daleks v Vodafone (the creators even said it was a story, not an advert!). I also feel the Unbounds and Shalka should be valid, but Shalka is a discussion for another time.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Fine by me. Valid.
I like to think so too. Authorial intent is that it's the DWU. Which others do you believe should be valid?
Among all of them? Rescue (short story), Bodyswap to the Proms, and Daleks v Vodafone (the creators even said it was a story, not an advert!). I also feel the Unbounds and Shalka should be valid, but Shalka is a discussion for another time.
Daleks v Vodafone breaks into real world every so often.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Fine by me. Valid.
I like to think so too. Authorial intent is that it's the DWU. Which others do you believe should be valid?
Among all of them? Rescue (short story), Bodyswap to the Proms, and Daleks v Vodafone (the creators even said it was a story, not an advert!). I also feel the Unbounds and Shalka should be valid, but Shalka is a discussion for another time.
Daleks v Vodafone breaks into real world every so often.
How so?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story?
NOTE: After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Fine by me. Valid.
I like to think so too. Authorial intent is that it's the DWU. Which others do you believe should be valid?
Among all of them? Rescue (short story), Bodyswap to the Proms, and Daleks v Vodafone (the creators even said it was a story, not an advert!). I also feel the Unbounds and Shalka should be valid, but Shalka is a discussion for another time.
Daleks v Vodafone breaks into real world every so often.
How so?
Talking to the audience, Pertwee looking at his script every five minutes.
- Pluto2
Minor request, but can someone split the replies focusing on The Web of Caves off into a separate thread?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
We have The Web of Caves which is invalid yet the BBC Writer's comics are valid.
I do honestly believe that the BBC Writer's comics should be invalid.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I agree with making Bodyswap to the Proms valid, as long as it's just the minisode, non of the live segments. In the minisode, the Doctor never mentions Who, other than a poster with a picture of the TARDIS, that is all.
I've seen just about every discussion this wiki has ever held.
So I feel qualified to say that they only really work when people are genuinely interested in doing research and factfinding to underpin the arguments. After seeing it seriously alleged that an obvious parody like Web of Caves is a valid source by DENCH-and-PALMER, and then having that assertion instantly and uncritically seconded by Pluto2 -- the two users that are primary to this one as well -- it's clear to me that factfinding isn't a massive part of this thread.
In that related debate, there are claims that DWM 285 says Caves is not a spoof. Those claims are then seconded with a single word. Yet when you actually look at the magazine, it does nothing to deter the notion of Caves as a parody. And Gatiss himself only confirms that Caves is a parody.
So if an offshoot of this conversation can so easily be demonstrated to be false, how can we trust anything here? Moreover there's just too much going on in this thread from which to draw conclusions that could actually be turned into something that could be administered. This isn't a practical thread.
It's mostly people saying,
- "I think this should be valid, do you?"
- "Sure, why not."
with some
- "I don't understand why this thing is the way it is."
thrown in for additional confusion.
Beyond that, what you're doing by starting so many of these threads so closely together is creating a lot of work for admin over a short period of time.
I think I can speak for all admin when I say that what we thought we were going to get for Christmas was, finally, another episode of Doctor Who. Instead, we've gotten that -- and a ton of forum threads to read. And those threads are about relatively minor things, with which we may have already dealt in the past. Worse, we can't even trust that the "new" pitch for inclusion will be based on any solid facts.
Our priority as a community should be entirely elsewhere.
See, we've got to look at things mainly through the lens of the average reader of the site. What they care about right now is The Return of Doctor Mysterio. These inclusion debates about these "random stories" are not only exhausting our administrative staff, they're distracting us from doing work on the wiki that would attract and retain our first bunch of new users in a year.
So I hope you will understand I'm not being mean, but looking out for the bigger interests of the wiki, when I say that I'm closing this thread and denying any motions made within it. I'm also asking Pluto2 and DENCH-and-PALMER specifically and publicly -- to please stop creating inclusion threads.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207240
We've never had a formal discussion about Doctor Who Unbound releases' validity as a whole. Given that the Warner incarnation has already been deemed valid but from a different universe, it's not part of this discussion.
I have a slightly different proposal:
He Jests at Scars..., Sustainable Energy/Full Fathom Five, Auld Mortality/The Innocents/A Storm of Angels, Exile, and Deadline are each set in alternate universes. They're not invalid, they are treated the same as the Unbound stories featuring David Warner. The whole point of Doctor Who Unbound is what-ifs, similar to DC's Elseworlds. It's not this didn't happen in any universe. It's that the installments depict various parallel universes detached from N-Space, a la The Unbound Universe says for Sympathy for the Devil/Masters of War.
Essentially, this is just one change: The whole of Doctor Who Unbound would be considered alternate universes, rather than wholly invalid.
Any thoughts on this proposal?
- Pluto2
In fact - BF themselves referred to the series as a whole as alternative realities:
"Doctor Who - Unbound poses the question: What if...?
A fascinating view of how the series and the character of the Doctor might have developed in eight different scenarios.
Featuring six different actors in the central role of the Doctor including Sir Derek Jacobi and David Warner, Doctor Who Unbound offers us a tantalising glimpse of alternative realities!"
- Thefartydoctor
Well, if you look at it this way- the timelines up until those stories are not stated to differ from the established timeline in the Whoniverse. The Warner Doctor is an alternate Third Doctor (for example), but he was still Hartnell and Troughton and did all of the stuff that they did. Nothing suggests otherwise.
The story featuring the Doctor and Susan (who never left Gallifrey)... well their lives were exactly the same up until the moment they decided to not leave rather than leave... if you see my thought process.
Now, this differs from Dr. Who from the two movies as Dr. Who shares no relation to the Doctor, it does not come under the franchise of Doctor Who, whereas the others do (via Big Finish). Is it fair to raise at least two main criteria: 1. Must be the same timeline as the original Doctor but with a deviation at some point. 2. Must be incorporated into the main franchise umbrella of Doctor Who.
For me, the different versions of the Ninth Doctor shown in The Tomorrow Windows are all official alternate versions because up until the War Doctor's regeneration, they were all essentially the same men... just parallel to one-another in space-time. Whereas, the Mark Gatiss version of the Doctor in The Web of Caves can only be invalid because it breaks at least the first criterium (as well as other validity rules on the Wiki). At no point are we told his relation to the main Doctor.
Just some ideas to throw into the pot. I'd like to think that I'm just playing devil's advocate and stoking the fires a little for this conversation but this is genuinely how I see alternate Doctors. The Atkinson Ninth Doctor (and all those who succeed him) break at least one of the criteria. Their backstories are also not specified, whereas, as you say, Big Finish state that their Unbound range adds a small change to the Doctor's original (unaltered) timeline and sees where it leads.
Anyway, I'm interested to see where this goes.
- Pluto2
So you're saying that alternate Doctors currently deemed invalid could be deemed valid if they have an established "point of divergence" in which they become distinguishable from N-Space's Doctor?
- Thefartydoctor
The whole valid/invalid thing seems to tangle a lot of people up, myself included. I'd like to state, for the sake of this particular thread only, that where Doctors from the Unbound Series are concerned, I am of the opinion that they're valid due to the simple reason that there is, as you phrased it, a "point of divergence". It goes hand-in-hand with the fourth rule: is it intended to be set in the DWU? Or in this case- a split DWU?
Where I'm concerned, that has to be the basic foundation for whether a Doctor is a valid alternate Doctor. Atkinson's Ninth Doctor does not follow this criteria, as there is no available backstory to his Doctor, nor is this sketch intended to be set in the DWU. We are not given any indication as to whether any of the previous adventures took place and whether they unfolded with the same outcomes. Big Finish is very clear that their alternate Doctors' timestreams only change during the story.
Admins will also state that each case is unique. I feel it right to group the Unbound Doctors, as they are a series of Doctors with the same aim/cause. However, any other Doctor stated, such as the Infinity Doctors Doctor, must be discussed individually. I can't make a sweeping statement. But I do think that the idea of divergency is key when discussing the four important rules to validity regarding Doctors and characters.
That's all I have to say on this matter. :)
- Thefartydoctor
I suppose you could edit the fourth rule for alternate Doctors/characters:
"Was the story/Doctor/character intended to be set in a split-DWU?"
- DENCH-and-PALMER
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. - DENCH-and-PALMER
It passes 1, it passes 2, it passes 3, BF says it's a parallel universe so it passes 4.
- Thefartydoctor
We weren't doubting that. :) The conversation deviated to all alternate Doctors. My suggestion was to take the admin route and to treat every alternate Doctor with his/her own individual discussion.
- Pluto2
Would Scream of the Shalka be affected by this?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: Would Scream of the Shalka be affected by this?
Probably not but it was intended to be valid and no comment has ever stated otherwise other than the fact they later cast Eccleston.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Personally, I am in agreement with this. Back in the day I actually opposed the bid to invalidate the Unbounds. I think that articles relating to the story should have an alternate universe section for the Unbound stuff (like "The Master" does now with the Warner stories).
Shalka is more of a grey area though, and to be honest I'm on the side of keeping it invalid. It has virtually no link to any other story anyway, unlike the Unbounds.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: Personally, I am in agreement with this. Back in the day I actually opposed the bid to invalidate the Unbounds. I think that articles relating to the story should have an alternate universe section for the Unbound stuff (like "The Master" does now with the Warner stories).
Shalka is more of a grey area though, and to be honest I'm on the side of keeping it invalid. It has virtually no link to any other story anyway, unlike the Unbounds.
They do however have a Master played by Derek Jacobi. It'd be speculation to say they were the same incarnation, it would also be speculation to say it's not the alternate version of Yana (remember they are from about the same point) but it'd also be speculation to say that they weren't.
- Pluto2
So, it looks liks these pass the four little rules (though for Rule 4, they are all parallel universes, rather than the main one), right? The intent here was parallel universe Doctors.
- SOTO
Doctor Who Unbound was about hypotheticals. Asking, "What if?" What if this had happened? What if this was like that? It was not suggesting that these were actual alternate universes that we're exploring. And let's not forget Deadline, of course.
- SOTO
Pluto2 wrote: In fact - BF themselves referred to the series as a whole as alternative realities
Alternative reality ≠ parallel universe
Yes, there are alternative realities. Each "what if?" question is explored in a hypothetical reality, which is alternative to how things really played out.
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: Doctor Who Unbound was about hypotheticals. Asking, "What if?" What if this had happened? What if this was like that? It was not suggesting that these were actual alternate universes that we're exploring. And let's not forget Deadline, of course.
Rule 4 can go either way as applied to "what if" cases - this whole thing started when the Sympathy for the Devil Doctor met a mainstream DWU character.
- SOTO
Yes, and that particular universe is now considered DWU. That is not precedent to just open the floodgates and let anything and everything else in. To me, and to most everyone else before this discussion, the very fact that these are all based on "what if?" means that they were absolutely intended to be set outside the DWU.
- SOTO
In fact, just that is written in the text of T:VALID itself:
- Class of story
- Non-parodic "what if?" stories
- Explanation
- Some completely serious stories have been explicitly tagged by the publisher or author as being outside the DWU
- Examples
- Rule offended
- 4
- Class of story
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: In fact - BF themselves referred to the series as a whole as alternative realities
Alternative reality ≠ parallel universe
Yes, there are alternative realities. Each "what if?" question is explored in a hypothetical reality, which is alternative to how things really played out.
Where is it stated reality ≠ universe?
- Josiah Rowe
Just as a point of complication: although most of the Unbound stories can be conceived of as "alternative realities" for the character of the Doctor, in the style of Marvel's old What If? comic, Deadline is... an entirely different beast. It's an examination of creativity and mortality that uses Doctor Who as a springboard. It doesn't operate in terms of "universes" at all. Asking whether Deadline is part of the "Doctor Who universe" is like asking whether the play Shadowlands is part of the "Narnia universe", or whether A Midsummer Night's Dream is part of the "Pyramus and Thisbe universe". Deadline is just a play that takes the narrative and iconography of Doctor Who as part of its source material. It takes the "what if?" question in a completely different sense than the other "Unbound" stories do.
- Pluto2
Josiah Rowe wrote: Just as a point of complication: although most of the Unbound stories can be conceived of as "alternative realities" for the character of the Doctor, in the style of Marvel's old What If? comic, Deadline is... an entirely different beast. It's an examination of creativity and mortality that uses Doctor Who as a springboard. It doesn't operate in terms of "universes" at all. Asking whether Deadline is part of the "Doctor Who universe" is like asking whether the play Shadowlands is part of the "Narnia universe", or whether A Midsummer Night's Dream is part of the "Pyramus and Thisbe universe". Deadline is just a play that takes the narrative and iconography of Doctor Who as part of its source material. It takes the "what if?" question in a completely different sense than the other "Unbound" stories do.
So we would consider Deadline separately from the others?
Incidentally, are you in favor of the proposal outlined in the first post?
- Josiah Rowe
Honestly, I'm not sure. (Which is why I didn't comment directly on the proposal.)
As a matter of narrative logic, some of the "Unbound" stories seem to act like What If? stories — that is, taking the narrative of the Doctor's life to a certain point, and then turning right instead of turning left. But others are a bit less literal. Full Fathom Five isn't based on the question of "what if this had happened instead of that?" but on "what if the Doctor had a different moral code?" And Exile is largely a comedy. I'm not sure whether treating those stories as "alternate timelines" akin to Turn Left or Silurian Earth is a good idea, or whether it's entirely supported by the stories themselves or Big Finish's statements of intention.
- 31.84.150.30
What the problem with having exsile as there's lots of comedy episodes like the one doctor and robots of sherwood. Plus the comic the girl who loved doctor who fetters a alternative universe where the doctor who tv show exist. Wats moor there is no difference between how big finish treats the valid unbouns and the ones currently invalid
- DENCH-and-PALMER
31.84.150.30 wrote: What's the problem with having Exile, as there are lots of comedy stories like The One Doctor and Robot of Sherwood. Plus the comic story, The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who features an alternate universe where Doctor Who the TV series exists in the DWU. What's more there is no difference between how big finish treats the valid unbounds and the ones currently invalid.
Just making it readable.
- 86.166.43.178
31.84.150.30 wrote: What the problem with having exsile as there's lots of comedy episodes like the one doctor and robots of sherwood. Plus the comic the girl who loved doctor who fetters a alternative universe where the doctor who tv show exist. Wats moor there is no difference between how big finish treats the valid unbouns and the ones currently invalid
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem is that the mainstream incarnations of the Doctor have interacted with those universes and other universes like Exile haven't.
- Pluto2
To summarize, here is my proposal:
1. Auld Mortality/The Innocents/A Storm of Angels, Exile, and Sustainable Energy/Full Fathom Five will be considered valid sources, covering universes parallel to the one "our" Doctor calls home. Essentially, they get the same treatment as the David Warner ones.
2. As Deadline, as stated above, is less a what-if and more an audio play with Doctor Who as a part of the story, it shall remain invalid.
Any thoughts?
- Josiah Rowe
I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, the David Warner stories are now, thanks to Bernice Summerfield, clearly an alternate universe. And conceptually, it's certainly possible to see and treat the others (excepting Deadline) as alternate universes.
But as far as I know, we don't have any statements from Big Finish saying that the Unbound stories are alternate universes. Instead, we have (I believe) statements strongly indicating that the Unbound plays were intended to be outside of the Doctor Who universe.
Now, there may be an argument to be made that every Doctor Who story, even those deliberately set outside of the Doctor's usual narrative universe, takes place in what we might call "the Doctor Who omniverse", as depicted in stories such as The Glorious Dead and Zagreus. But to me, that argument has a whiff of what they call "original research" on Wikipedia.
In short, I think that somebody needs to find some quotes from Big Finish production personnel talking about the original Unbound stories before we can go any further with this discussion.
- Pluto2
Josiah Rowe wrote: I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, the David Warner stories are now, thanks to Bernice Summerfield, clearly an alternate universe. And conceptually, it's certainly possible to see and treat the others (excepting Deadline) as alternate universes.
But as far as I know, we don't have any statements from Big Finish saying that the Unbound stories are alternate universes. Instead, we have (I believe) statements strongly indicating that the Unbound plays were intended to be outside of the Doctor Who universe.
Now, there may be an argument to be made that every Doctor Who story, even those deliberately set outside of the Doctor's usual narrative universe, takes place in what we might call "the Doctor Who omniverse", as depicted in stories such as The Glorious Dead and Zagreus. But to me, that argument has a whiff of what they call "original research" on Wikipedia.
In short, I think that somebody needs to find some quotes from Big Finish production personnel talking about the original Unbound stories before we can go any further with this discussion.
BF advertises the series as "alternative realities" .
- Dmitriy Volfson
Josiah Rowe wrote: But as far as I know, we don't have any statements from Big Finish saying that the Unbound stories are alternate universes. Instead, we have (I believe) statements strongly indicating that the Unbound plays were intended to be outside of the Doctor Who universe.
https://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/doctor-who-happy-birthday-david-tennant
He then switched universes to play Colonel Brimmicombe-Wood against David Warner's Unbound Doctor in Doctor Who Unbound: Sympathy for the Devil; before switching again to appear as a Time Lord pursuing Arabella Weir's renegade incarnation in Doctor Who Unbound: Exile. Both of these alternative-reality treats can be enjoyed for the reduced price of £2.99…
https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/released/doctor-who---unbound
Featuring six different actors in the central role of the Doctor including Sir Derek Jacobi and David Warner, Doctor Who Unbound offers us a tantalising glimpse of alternative realities!
- Pluto2
I suppose that settles that - Doctor Who Unbound stories should be considered parallel universes, based on the above, right?
- SeaniesBeanies
Yes from my point of view, but marking them as valid changes nothing. You still can't reference them in other articles based in the mainline DWU as they're completely separate entities. You wouldn't, for example, be able to reference David Warner's Doctor when writing about David Tennant's, as they are not narratively continuous with each other.
- 5.2.105.85
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Yes from my point of view, but marking them as valid changes nothing. You still can't reference them in other articles based in the mainline DWU as they're completely separate entities. You wouldn't, for example, be able to reference David Warner's Doctor when writing about David Tennant's, as they are not narratively continuous with each other.
You could, however, when would writing about an unbound Doctor ever need to occur in an article about the Tenth?
- SeaniesBeanies
5.2.105.85 wrote: when would writing about an unbound Doctor ever need to occur in an article about the Tenth?
I don't know, you'd be surprised about what some people write on the internet.
Can you explain to me why you would be able to reference an alternate reality in the mainline one? Surely it would need to be in a BTS section at the bottom anyway?
- 5.2.105.85
SeaniesBeanies wrote:
5.2.105.85 wrote: when would writing about an unbound Doctor ever need to occur in an article about the Tenth?
I don't know, you'd be surprised about what some people write on the internet.
Can you explain to me why you would be able to reference an alternate reality in the mainline one? Surely it would need to be in a BTS section at the bottom anyway?
Not usually, it's just under a section or header title "In another timeline"...
- Thefartydoctor
Can I just add a very simple and obvious point? If you make a "What if?" story invalid for that reason alone... then what makes it different than The Story of Martha? That takes place during The Year That Never Was, which is a negated timeline- "What if the Master used humans from the future to slay the present day humans?"
The only thing holding that together is the fact that the main character of the main story (Martha) originates from the original reality. But then again... so do the Unbound Doctors. They just haven't exited this deviation. What I'm saying is, that novel is from a negated timeline. I recall it ends just as Last of the Time Lords begins. If someone just had the book to go by, they wouldn't see the reality/timeline reverted back.
In summary: we either have a very fine line between what is and isn't acceptable... or we're being biased towards New Series stuff. Thoughts?
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: Can I just add a very simple and obvious point? If you make a "What if?" story invalid for that reason alone... then what makes it different than The Story of Martha? That takes place during The Year That Never Was, which is a negated timeline- "What if the Master used humans from the future to slay the present day humans?"
The only thing holding that together is the fact that the main character of the main story (Martha) originates from the original reality. But then again... so do the Unbound Doctors. They just haven't exited this deviation. What I'm saying is, that novel is from a negated timeline. I recall it ends just as Last of the Time Lords begins. If someone just had the book to go by, they wouldn't see the reality/timeline reverted back.
In summary: we either have a very fine line between what is and isn't acceptable... or we're being biased towards New Series stuff. Thoughts?
Exactly!
In the light of new information, I feel rather strongly that the Unbound series be treated as alternate universes, rather than invalid.
- 95.150.111.115
Pluto2 wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: Can I just add a very simple and obvious point? If you make a "What if?" story invalid for that reason alone... then what makes it different than The Story of Martha? That takes place during The Year That Never Was, which is a negated timeline- "What if the Master used humans from the future to slay the present day humans?"
The only thing holding that together is the fact that the main character of the main story (Martha) originates from the original reality. But then again... so do the Unbound Doctors. They just haven't exited this deviation. What I'm saying is, that novel is from a negated timeline. I recall it ends just as Last of the Time Lords begins. If someone just had the book to go by, they wouldn't see the reality/timeline reverted back.
In summary: we either have a very fine line between what is and isn't acceptable... or we're being biased towards New Series stuff. Thoughts?
Exactly!
In the light of new information, I feel rather strongly that the Unbound series be treated as alternate universes, rather than invalid.
Agreed it seems clear that the intention was that they all have the same relationship with the main DWU meaning they all valid if not then they should be all invalid regardless of the status of any sequels
- Thefartydoctor
It's also important to know the differences between alternate universes, alternate timelines and alternate realities. Here, we are talking about alternate/deviant timelines rather than universes, which works in our favour. For some, it's difficult to grasp that difference when you have Bernice Summerfield Unbound being set in "David Warner's Universe". But you have to understand, it's not a parallel universe, rather a deviant timeline, which evidently needs its own version of the DWU.
If you've followed me so far, you'll see that it supports Unbound Adventures being valid. No nitpicking about "well this is one is like this whereas this one has Derek Jacobi in it". They were all made with the same intention in mind - to have a point of divergence from the original DWU timeline and to deviate into its own. This fact alone is why it has to be valid.
On the other hand, if they rewrote the Warner stories and had his background and previous incarnations notably unlike our Hartnell/Troughton incarnations, that would be an alternate universe and would only become valid if it came into touch with the DWU. If tough to understand but eventually it clicks.
- Pluto2
At this point, surely it's clear the series passes rule 4, right...?
- Thefartydoctor
Firstly, we have to accept that "DWU" represents more than just the Whoniverse. It represents a multiverse, including things such as Iris Wildthyme and so on. These Doctors, as we have concluded, share the same timeline as the original Doctor of the Whoniverse before their respective deviations. With that in mind, it does indeed pass rule 4.
As the Doctor explains to Jackie "every single decision we make creates a parallel existence". One of those resulted in Pete's World and Donna's World. The Master does the same in the Series 3 finale. So yes, rule 4 is easily passed. :D
Personally, I don't see why this series is under discussion haha. It doesn't go against any of the rules.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: Firstly, we have to accept that "DWU" represents more than just the Whoniverse. It represents a multiverse, including things such as Iris Wildthyme and so on. These Doctors, as we have concluded, share the same timeline as the original Doctor of the Whoniverse before their respective deviations. With that in mind, it does indeed pass rule 4.
As the Doctor explains to Jackie "every single decision we make creates a parallel existence". One of those resulted in Pete's World and Donna's World. The Master does the same in the Series 3 finale. So yes, rule 4 is easily passed. :D
Personally, I don't see why this series is under discussion haha. It doesn't go against any of the rules.
Then can an admin close this thread? The series seems to rather conclusively pass the four little rules.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207278
I got my paws on the second Baker's End audio, Gobbleknoll Hall — from Bafflegab Productions, who made Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective (audio story). The titular hall belonged to Vince, his history in Hang onto Yourself is referenced, and he himself appears via demonic possession. Bafflegab have indicated on their Facebook that it's the same character from Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective. And for those worried about metafictional fiddling — don't. This Tom Baker isn't the one from real life, and he apparently hasn't starred in Doctor Who. So this is an obvious rule 4 pass.
Rule 3: The first two audios have, indeed, been officially released. A third is coming in January 2017.
Rule 2: It's written by the creator of Vince Cosmos, and published by the same company as his previous audio.
Rule 1: Definitely.`
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Sounds fine.
- NateBumber
Clearly satisfies all four little rules; seems like an open-and-shut case.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
We just need admin clarification now then.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: We just need admin clarification now then.
Well, obviously. That's always true of these threads. We knew that already, so why are you commenting it? It doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: We just need admin clarification now then.
Well, obviously. That's always true of these threads. We knew that already, so why are you commenting it? It doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.
Sorry if I've upset you pal. Very sorry buddy. I thought you'd like my input. Very sorry buddy. Won't happen again pal.
- Amorkuz
I have a question: what does it have to do with DWU? There are many characters who appeared in DWU and in other stories, like Robin Hood for instance. But it doesn't mean they all get included. I thought the intent should be not that it's the same character but that it is set in the same DWU.
- Amorkuz
Sorry, was not entirely right. One needs evidence that it is not set in DWU. So let me ask the obvious question: Did anyone try to find such an evidence? If not, then I'm afraid someone has to do due dilligence.
- Amorkuz
So, again Paul Magrs talking about Vince Cosmos audios on his own website: see the comments at the bottom:
"Yes, I have a few Audio projects coming up - including a couple of Doctor Who stories that haven't been officially announced; and a couple of other, unrelated projects - and 'Vince Cosmos - Glam Rock Detective!', which comes out this Autumn from Cosmic Hobo." Again, a clear separation: there are Doctor Who stories and there is everything else.
- Amorkuz
Oh, and another point no one bothered to mention. Apparently, this story is intended to be set in the same continuity as H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds. This makes it a completely different kettle of fish, doesn't it? With shadows of crossovers with other major franchises towering over its head.
Just to give people the benefit of the doubt, was the continuity with The War of the Worlds ever discussed as a potential objection? Or was it forgotten in the rush to include as much Magrs as possible? It was certainly conspicuously not brought up at the original induction debate for Vince Cosmos, and it appears to this outside observer that this strategy of withdrawing vital information succeeded then.
- Amorkuz
And, by the way, just as a perfect example of what happens after a story is pushed through to the induction. Witness Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective (audio story), included on December 17, 2016, more than a month ago. Since then the page was created and was given a whopping 14 edits. The original and only proponent of its inclusion, User:Fwhiffahder, has made a whole 1 of those 14 edits (and not because he was blocked later on: his edit was full nine days before being blocked). These edits lasted 6 days. Now no one cares about that page anymore. Some responsible users/admins added the infobox, the publisher's summary, (some?) characters. Exactly half of the characters are red links. To be precise, no new character page was created for this story. I concede writing plot is hard (though if you're passionate about the thing...). But with a story inducted based on recurring characters from prior stories, the "Continuity" section of that page is still empty.
To me this page is completely and totally useless to learn anything about Vince or the series. I can see how it is another trophey on Paul Magrs's wall or in Fwhiffahder's noble fight against what he called "f******** bastards". What I don't understand is how inclusion of that page (seemingly, by way of withdrawing information) is in any way beneficial to this Wiki.
- Amorkuz
Oh, and if you think that anyone was waiting maybe till a decision is made on whether to include Gobbleknoll Hall or not. A mister with unreadable name User:Дмитрий Куклин went ahead and created the page six days after the start of this discussion. If you think he had modesty to put an "invalid" tag on it, think again. And of course, the story is added to all the relevant lists of appearances. Creating pages with actual content took a second seat to keeping premature scores, I'm afraid.
- Amorkuz
Gets better and better. A third story of Baker's End was created without even an attempt at a debate .
- NateBumber
unreadable nameWow. It's Cyrillic for Dmitri [last name], fyi. I agree with your condemnation of the early page creations, though.
Some Time Hunter stories are set in the world of the novel 1984, and some Doctor Who stories are set in the world of Lovecraft's assorted mythos. I don't see why this would be any less difficult to reconcile.
Paul Magrs is just a tricky dude, since literally everything he writes (including Doctor Who stories) shares settings, characters, imagery, and species. Many of his Doctor Who stories are actually essential for understanding the "non-Doctor Who" characters that appear within, and vice versa! (It's kinda ridiculous to write about Iris Wildthyme without acknowledging her origin in Phoenix Court.) You'll find that 90% of inclusion debates in the last while have been manifestations of "How do we sort out Paul Magrs?"
(Note that in that quote, with your reading, he separates Vince Cosmos from both "Doctor Who" and "other stuff", which makes me think he's actually just putting emphasis on it due to its upcoming release, and the quote has nothing to do with this debate.)
I personally believe that we should just include the lot as a whole, since his "different series" are interconnected enough to just be one long story. Maybe a single inclusion debate addressing all his work would help simplify matters?
- Amorkuz
For names in Cyrillic, there's T:NON-ENG USER. And the alleged "last name" (like anyone uses their real name on a Wiki) may or may not mean something prohibited by the rules. I guess we will never know.
I can clearly see that many people admire Magrs so much that they would love nothing more than including all of his oeuvre. But, as far as I remember, he already has a separate Wiki, created by Fwhiffahder. That is the rightful place for his works, that's where they can shine. I, of course, will never step foot there, thanks to the welcoming message from its creator. But the important thing is that he has already a shrine to him. There is no reason to turn a Doctor-Who-centred Wiki into a second one.
Apparently, Michael Moorcock at some point opined that the Doctor is just another incarnation of the Eternal Champion. Moorcock also ever only wrote one big series about a huge multiverse with many explicit links. So if only Moorcock wrote a DW story, bam, authorial intent and all that! Oh, wait. *Stops in horror* The Terraphiles are coming. Quick, take cover before we are swamped by pages for Elric, and Korum, and Hawkmoon, and all the thousands (and I mean literally thousands) of Moorcock's characters, and comic book variants, and reprints.
So, with all due respect to Paul Magrs (and I did enjoy some of his works that he produced for Doctor Who rather than as a deconstruction of what Doctor Who is; in fact, exactly Vince Cosmos is something I would have had a soft spot for because of Tomorrow twins), I think he was very clever in exploiting our four little rules. It is certainly a smart move for a writer to latch onto a successful franchise and make sure that its fans are aware of his work. Can't blame him for that. But it does feel like exploitation. And I feel like I'm living through the Invasion from Magrs. I also feel like I'm only given the facts that support the inclusion, with attempts to fast-track the process before anyone notices.
- Thefartydoctor
I didn't really want to get involved in another thread but since I like to suck the information out of people and boil things right down to the constituent parts. First question: What exactly is it?
Setting? Main characters? Links with the DWU (which, remember is a multiverse, not a universe)?
I don't know who Vince Cosmos is. However, just because VC is in it, it doesn't make it automatically the VC from the DWU. Forget the four rules for now. I want to know What is Baker's End?. Only answer these questions is you've listened to it.
- Amorkuz
That's another loophole in the whole validity debates, by the way. Only those who listened to it have the full information. Must everyone cough up money for the honour of participating in these debates?
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: That's another loophole in the whole validity debates, by the way. Only those who listened to it have the full information. Must everyone cough up money for the honour of participating in these debates?
Yes, that's how it works.
Paul Magrs' works are like this. Characters criss-cross between series. And you maliciously accused Magrs of circumventing rules on a wiki he in all likelihood isn't aware of.
- Thefartydoctor
Hold on. There's nothing holding Baker's End to the DWU. So Bafflegab has a license to the DWU? That's fine. But there's nothing in Baker's End suggesting it takes place there, even if Vince Cosmos visits.
My main worry now is this: if Bafflegab and Paul Magrs' contributions to Bafflegab like to have characters dipping in and out of each-other's series, then we'd eventually end up adding everything from Bafflegab onto the Wiki. I like that that's how they do it, it's very unique. But for this Wiki, it's a pain. When Baker's End was introduced, it seemed to be an opportunity for Tom Baker to do something not Doctor Who related. It's a step in the wrong direction to just say "Sorry, Tom, this is DWU now".
Any ideas?
- Amorkuz
Bravo! What he said.
- NateBumber
Huh? Have you visited the "Paul Magrs Wiki" recently? I agree that wiki pages about the Enemy can be quite off-putting! Fwhiffahder specifically stated that the Timeship Wiki was useless for one reason: Paul Magr's works are literally inextricable from Doctor Who.
Amorkuz wrote:
I can clearly see that many people admire Magrs so much that they would love nothing more than including all of his oeuvre. But, as far as I remember, he already has a separate Wiki, created by Fwhiffahder. That is the rightful place for his works, that's where they can shine. I, of course, will never step foot there, thanks to the welcoming message from its creator.Apparently, Michael Moorcock at some point opined that the Doctor is just another incarnation of the Eternal Champion. Moorcock also ever only wrote one big series about a huge multiverse with many explicit links. So if only Moorcock wrote a DW story, bam, authorial intent and all that! Oh, wait. *Stops in horror* The Terraphiles are coming. Quick, take cover before we are swamped by pages for Elric, and Korum, and Hawkmoon, and all the thousands (and I mean literally thousands) of Moorcock's characters, and comic book variants, and reprints.And yknow what, I would completely agree, if these situations were anywhere near comparable. Moorcock's universe crosses over once, with one clear point of contact (in Terraphiles). In contrast, Magr's ... I can't even make a list of crossovers between the Obverse and the Doctor Who universe. Keep in mind that we already cover a ton of Obverse material (rightfully so, since it's just as much a part of the Whonisphere as E-Space). How about I contact Magrs via Facebook or other social media, and get a good quote to settle this once and for all?he was very clever in exploiting our four little rules ... exploitation ... the Invasion from Magrs ...Lol, this is a really weird accusation of malicious intent. You realize that wiki editors are probably at the bottom of a list of writers' concerns? - Thefartydoctor
Explain what we're settling? Are you referring to Vince Cosmos? Even if you got a quote from Magrs regarding Cosmos' appearance in Baker's End, then it doesn't settle authorial intent. You'd need a quote from Bafflegab.
If that's not what you meant, then ignore me.
- NateBumber
It's not really what I meant, I think - not gonna lie, I forgot what this thread was about when Amorkuz made it another outlet of his anti-Magrs crusade. But I'm curious: wouldn't it be enough to get a direct quote from the author?
Thefartydoctor wrote:
Explain what we're settling? Are you referring to Vince Cosmos? Even if you got a quote from Magrs regarding Cosmos' appearance in Baker's End, then it doesn't settle authorial intent. You'd need a quote from Bafflegab. - Amorkuz
Of course, not. The author directly benefits from greater visibility of his work. His words cannot be trusted.
- Thefartydoctor
That's not what authorial intent means on this Wiki. It has to be the production company. If you wanted a quote about the Unbound series, for example, you'd need to contact Big Finish. If you wanted to know something about a specific EDA, you'd contact BBC Books, not the author. It was heavily explained during the original FP thread. That's why users were getting so annoyed when various authors were leaving their opinions yet the opinions were seemingly not good enough.
- Thefartydoctor
Amorkuz wrote: Of course, not. The author directly benefits from greater visibility of his work. His words cannot be trusted.
Let's chill. Don't get yourself worked up because it'll lead to you getting banned. We need you in these debates. :)
- Pluto2
When did inclusion debates start being decided by people who have no desire to read or listen to the stories in question?
- Amorkuz
However, as I pointed out earlier, when in his own element, Paul Magrs has a very clear boundary between Doctor Who and everything else.
- Amorkuz
When people who want stories to be included started misquoting and withdrawing information.
- Thefartydoctor
Pluto2 wrote: When did inclusion debates start being decided by people who have no desire to read or listen to the stories in question?
People who love the TARDIS Wiki and the DWU have every right to defend or support anything they wish. When they are given the lines/paragraphs in question from a novel/audio, they have every right to reach their own conclusion. I think this is rather selfish of you to try and exclude others from debate just because it's not their cup of tea.
You've seen me on the other discussion get turned around and support FP regardless of the fact that I've no desire to read/listen to it. I'm a level-headed person. Why shouldn't I get involved. It's rude of you to attempt to exclude others.
- NateBumber
Was it heavily explained during the original FP thread? The reason those authors' opinions weren't considered was because (as CzechOut explained here) their IP addresses were unverifiable, not because they weren't the publisher. Just look at Vienna, where the author's statements overrode the publisher's clear marketing of the series as a Doctor Who spinoff.
Thefartydoctor wrote:
That's not what authorial intent means on this Wiki. It has to be the production company. If you wanted a quote about the Unbound series, for example, you'd need to contact Big Finish. If you wanted to know something about a specific EDA, you'd contact BBC Books, not the author. It was heavily explained during the original FP thread. That's why users were getting so annoyed when various authors were leaving their opinions yet the opinions were seemingly not good enough.Yknow what, you're right. And by the same token, we can't trust the BBC calling Class a "spinoff"; it's blatant promotion, since no one would have watched it without the Doctor Who connection. They were probably licensing the building, Weeping Angels, and the Doctor to P Ness for use in a separate universe, just like the appearances of Panda, Cleavis, and the Smudgelings in Brenda & Effie. I think we should really consider our inclusion of Class in light of this evidence.Amorkuz wrote:
Of course, not. The author directly benefits from greater visibility of his work. His words cannot be trusted. - Thefartydoctor
NateBumber wrote:
Was it heavily explained during the original FP thread? The reason those authors' opinions weren't considered was because (as CzechOut explained here) their IP addresses were unverifiable, not because they weren't the publisher.That was the first worry. Then they identified themselves. Regardless, the "author" in "authorial intent" is the production company. There's a difference here between "author" and "writer". Magrs is the writer and Bafflegab is the author.
- Amorkuz
And actually, you're wrong, Pluto2. Although you feel comfortable closing forum threads, neither you nor me can decide, we can only discuss, while the decision is down to admins. And I have as much right to discuss as you, thank you very much.
- Thefartydoctor
NateBumber wrote: Yknow what, you're right. And by the same token, we can't trust the BBC calling Class a "spinoff"; it's blatant promotion, since no one would have watched it without the Doctor Who connection.
Again, BBC is the author. The writer of the episodes (whose name escapes me) is the the writer. The BBC has the final say. However, rarely do we have to get in touch with the BBC because the broadcast of the episodes themselves is evidence enough haha.
- NateBumber
Thefartydoctor wrote:
That was the first worry. Then they identified themselves. Regardless, the "author" in "authorial intent" is the production company. There's a difference here between "author" and "writer". Magrs is the writer and Bafflegab is the author.CzechOut specifically says here that direct statements by authors to Tardis are not to be used. He does say that the Vienna thread treated Big Finish as the author, but only temporarily, and he calls the writers who appeared in the thread "authors". Drawing a difference between "author" and "writer" at all is nonsense, since they're literally dictionary synonyms.
- NateBumber
And as I said in that "earlier" thread,
Amorkuz wrote: However, as I pointed out earlier, when in his own element, Paul Magrs has a very clear boundary between Doctor Who and everything else.
You'll note that he doesn't include his Iris Wildthyme stories in those categories either, yet she's still very much a part of this wiki, is she not? All that Magrs is saying in that classification is that those stories were produced with the Doctor Who license, which clearly isn't necessary to create Doctor Who universe material (per Bernice Summerfield, K9, Lethbridge-Stewart, etc etc etc). Are you arguing against this no-license policy? - Thefartydoctor
Bearing in mind that very few people wanted Vienna to be valid, I suppose this was a case where the rules were bended. Regardless, usually authorial intent is Big Finish, not the writers of the individual stories. However, it's evident that it was a last resort haha. :P
Anyway, let's get back to the discussion at hand.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: Huh? Have you visited the "Paul Magrs Wiki" recently? I agree that wiki pages about the Enemy can be quite off-putting! Fwhiffahder specifically stated that the Timeship Wiki was useless for one reason: Paul Magr's works are literally inextricable from Doctor Who.
Well, if he cannot create a reasonable Wiki even being fully in control of it and having time for it by virtue of being banned here, it is certainly not my fault. He did copy a lot of pages from this Wiki, so he can, in principle, create a perfect copy there and do whatever he wants with it. More importantly, his problems are not a reason for flooding this wiki with stuff unrelated to Doctor Who.
So indeed, let us return to the matter at hand. What is the relationship of Baker's Dozen to DWU. What are the connecting links? Also, why did nobody try to induct Tatty Bogle, the first story of the Baker's End? What separates it from DWU? Or is that the next stage? Because it shares characters with the second story, so as soon as the second story is in, you can start including the first and the third. That's how it looks to me. You said it yourself: "I personally believe that we should just include the lot as a whole, since his "different series" are interconnected enough to just be one long story."
It may well be interconnected but its relationship to DWU on the whole seems, at first site, very tangential, closer than in the case of Moorcock, but not really different. Certainly, not on the scale of FP.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
NateBumber wrote: Huh? Have you visited the "Paul Magrs Wiki" recently? I agree that wiki pages about the Enemy can be quite off-putting! Fwhiffahder specifically stated that the Timeship Wiki was useless for one reason: Paul Magr's works are literally inextricable from Doctor Who.
Well, if he cannot create a reasonable Wiki even being fully in control of it and having time for it by virtue of being banned here, it is certainly not my fault. He did copy a lot of pages from this Wiki, so he can, in principle, create a perfect copy there and do whatever he wants with it. More importantly, his problems are not a reason for flooding this wiki with stuff unrelated to Doctor Who.
So indeed, let us return to the matter at hand. What is the relationship of Baker's Dozen to DWU. What are the connecting links? Also, why did nobody try to induct Tatty Bogle, the first story of the Baker's End? What separates it from DWU? Or is that the next stage? Because it shares characters with the second story, so as soon as the second story is in, you can start including the first and the third. That's how it looks to me. You said it yourself: "I personally believe that we should just include the lot as a whole, since his "different series" are interconnected enough to just be one long story."
It may well be interconnected but its relationship to DWU on the whole seems, at first site, very tangential, closer than in the case of Moorcock, but not really different. Certainly, not on the scale of FP.
No, Tatty Boogle isn't out yet, so it violates T:SPOIL.
- Thefartydoctor
You know my stance on the matter. I don't really think there's a reason in me posting anything else. It's all in the comment starting with "Hold on." My brain is still fried after the last discussion.
But in conclusion: I'm against putting ANY Baker's End into the DWU as "valid" due to Bafflegab's constant criss-crossing. They do it for fun and because they can, and quite frankly, I'm not against this criss-crossing because it sounds quite fun. However, if we took it all seriously, we'd be adding their whole œuvre into the Wiki. Plus, Baker's End is obviously written to give Tom Baker a role away from Doctor Who. To my knowledge, his most important role as the Doctor is not even mentioned as a role undertaken by the character of "Tom Baker". Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Amorkuz
Apologies, I would ask an admin to remove the mention of this not yet released story.
- NateBumber
What is this? I really really don't like what you're apparently insinuating here. Being banned from here doesn't necessarily mean someone has time to create a "reasonable Wiki". (Per the precedent of people complaining about attacks on admins without any admins actually being offended, I invoke the personal attacks rule.) Not to mention that you're completely missing the point: the Obverse doesn't make sense outside the context of the Doctor Who universe to which it is attached.
Amorkuz wrote:
Well, if he cannot create a reasonable Wiki even being fully in control of it and having time for it by virtue of being banned here, it is certainly not my fault. ... More importantly, his problems are not a reason for flooding this wiki with stuff unrelated to Doctor Who.You said it yourself: "I personally believe that we should just include the lot as a whole, since his "different series" are interconnected enough to just be one long story." It may well be interconnected but its relationship to DWU on the whole seems, at first site, very tangential, closer than in the case of Moorcock, but not really different. Certainly, not on the scale of FP.If we are to consider Paul Magrs' crossed-over stories to be one continuous series (which are all in the same continuity, in contrast to what you assumed in the absence of any evidence here) (and which I shouldn't have said included all of his works, since many of his works are completely stand-alone from the others), the list of connections to Doctor Who and other valid spinoffs would be quadruple the list for Faction Paradox. I'm completely serious that I will compile such a list, if you want me too.Just like the character "Tom Baker" who has already appeared in very very similar roles twice in the Doctor Who universe (here and here), this Tom Baker is said to be an actor who played a major television role for a long time; I don't know why this case would be any different than those. And it's clearly not a very good attempt at "a role away from Doctor Who" if it shares characters with Doctor Who spinoffs!Thefartydoctor wrote:
Baker's End is obviously written to give Tom Baker a role away from Doctor Who. To my knowledge, his most important role as the Doctor is not even mentioned as a role undertaken by the character of "Tom Baker". Correct me if I'm wrong. - Thefartydoctor
NateBumber wrote: The character "Tom Baker" has already appeared in very very similar roles twice in the Doctor Who universe (here and here); I don't know why this would be any different. And it's clearly not a very good attempt at "a role away from Doctor Who" if it shares characters with Doctor Who spinoffs!
You have to assume I know that Tom Baker as a character exists. Because I do. I'm aware that Tom Baker exists. I've read the adventure where the Doctor enters another universe with a fictional Doctor Who. I think your labelling of the character of "Tom Baker" as a "DWU character" alone is a bit silly.
If I wanted to write a role for Tom Baker based upon his own self and call it "Tom Baker", why should that have anything to do with the "Tom Baker(s)" in the DWU? And why is him playing himself not a good attempt at a role away from the DWU? He's not playing the Fourth Doctor. Nor is he playing a main Doctor Who character.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote:
What is this? I really really don't like what you're apparently insinuating here. Being banned from here doesn't necessarily mean someone has time to create a "reasonable Wiki". (Per the precedent of people complaining about attacks on admins without any admins actually being offended, I invoke the personal attacks rule.) Not to mention that you're completely missing the point: the Obverse doesn't make sense outside the context of the Doctor Who universe to which it is attached.Amorkuz wrote:
Well, if he cannot create a reasonable Wiki even being fully in control of it and having time for it by virtue of being banned here, it is certainly not my fault. ... More importantly, his problems are not a reason for flooding this wiki with stuff unrelated to Doctor Who.I'm not insinuating. I'm directly saying that the place of all Paul Magrs work is on that Wiki, and I am not responsible for its state. I don't understand how listing facts is a personal attack. He created that Wiki for this purpose. You said that it's in a sorry state. I just said: don't make it my problem. If anyone attacked him, it was you, I'm sorry.
- Thefartydoctor
Something that someone stated on the thread that everyone seems to be meanwhile active on. Spin-offs of spin-offs are valid, and I see the reasoning behind that. But when a character from the DWU wanders into any other body of non-DWU work... someone said that it's normally down to the writer enjoyed using that character and simply wanted to use them again. And that's how I think we should treat Vince Cosmos.
Of course he's valid. But just because he wanders into a series that has no known ties with the DWU, it means nothing. It can be added to the BTS section of Vince Cosmos. There is no difference between Vince Cosmos appearing in Baker's End and the Tenth Doctor's cameo in Family Guy. Both scenarios have DWU characters in non-DWU stories... therefore they're not valid. But their appearance is certainly noteworthy.
- Amorkuz
Yes, there's also Fourth Doctor (I believe called "Doctor Two", but still easily recognisable by unmistakable features such as the TARDIS and the scarf) and Daleks in Sesame Street. I completely agree.
No one so far stated anything supporting that Vince Cosmos in Baker's End has any connections to DWU, other than a character with the same name being in a valid DWU story.
- NateBumber
I did not say that it was in a sorry state; I pointed out that he said:
Amorkuz wrote: I'm not insinuating. I'm directly saying that the place of all Paul Magrs work is on that Wiki, and I am not responsible for its state. I don't understand how listing facts is a personal attack. He created that Wiki for this purpose. You said that it's in a sorry state. I just said: don't make it my problem. If anyone attacked him, it was you, I'm sorry.
I then realized that I'd not only have to do the Faction Paradox- [and Obverse]-related work (which I absolutely want to do), I'd have to do upkeep for the plethora of tangentially-related articles that here on tardis.wikia are taken care of by the Greater Doctor Who Fan Community(TM). Seems to me that it makes way more sense to combine efforts instead of imposing schisms where no one wants them.Regardless, the fact remains that there is no Paul Magrs Wiki. There used to be a Paul Magrs Wiki at timeship.wikia.com, but I can't find a relic of that old identity; nothing from the nav bar to the main page to the url says anything about Paul Magrs. This is no one's "fault". Unless you intend to say that you think the material should go there anyway, or that you plan to found a new Paul Magrs Wiki yourself, I don't see a better place for Paul Magrs material on Wikia than right here. The FP Wiki still exists but Faction Paradox is covered here anyway; the same goes for the Sarah Jane Adventures. This whole side discussion is a total non-sequitur.
- Amorkuz
Clever Fwhiffahder. To kill his own creation to force other people to make it for him. I mean CzechOut has been suggesting InterWiki links for ages. I just don't see why no one wants to use them. There is now a robust connection between this Wiki and DWLegacy, which is still invalid. Sure, some people are not satisfied, but it's better than nothing, though surely harder than actually maintaining a Wiki. Funny to hear about combining efforts from someone who called you "f***** bastard". I can only say: you reap what you sow.
I can only repeat: the fact that y'all think that the only way to cover Paul Magrs on this Wiki doesn't yet mean that it is indeed the only way or even that it is the best way.
As for other wikis existing, should I point you to a long and detailed explanation of CzechOut about multiple wikis covering the same topic from different angles?
- Thefartydoctor
Can we get back on topic before this thread devolves to an all-out argument? :) All Paul Magrs' valid DWU works indeed belong on this Wiki. But I still like the idea of the FP Wiki and from time to time, I myself visit that Wiki to see the same story written from a FP fan's POV. All Magrs' non-valid works should be mentioned on his bio page in his lists of works. I genuinely believe that.
But that's not the main discussion. We're here to solve Vince Cosmos.
- Amorkuz
Oh, and by the way, here's a reminder how much Fwhiffahder likes to combine efforts. He just banned me on Faction Paradox Wiki, of all places, with the following text: "Banned for violating rules 1, 2, and (the secret rule) 3: don't be an idiot."
I'm very happy that he has a playground where he has authority and can command people. I shudder to think what could happen if he were an admin here.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: Can we get back on topic before this thread devolves to an all-out argument? :) All Paul Magrs' valid DWU works indeed belong on this Wiki. But I still like the idea of the FP Wiki and from time to time, I myself visit that Wiki to see the same story written from a FP fan's POV. All Magrs' non-valid works should be mentioned on his bio page in his lists of works. I genuinely believe that.
But that's not the main discussion. We're here to solve Vince Cosmos.
Vince Cosmos is already valid. We're talking about Baker's End.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: Oh, and by the way, here's a reminder how much Fwhiffahder likes to combine efforts. He just banned me on Faction Paradox Wiki, of all places, with the following text: "Banned for violating rules 1, 2, and (the secret rule) 3: don't be an idiot."
I'm very happy that he has a playground where he has authority and can command people. I shudder to think what could happen if he were an admin here.
I think you need to check which wiki you're on. You were banned from Timeship, which is a test wiki. It's solely a playground for CSS stuff now.
- Amorkuz
So let me voice my categorical objection to Baker's End being included as a valid source. In all this discussion, no one was able to demonstrate any connection to DWU. Paul Magrs has DWU works and non-DWU works. It may be very hard to develop exact criteria for how to distinguish them. I guess we will have to decide each case separately by a similar discussion.
I do not see a single argument for Baker's End having any connection to DWU, though many connections to other works of Magrs that have connection to DWU it might have.
- Thefartydoctor
I know Vince Cosmos is valid. Do you read the previous comments? I've stated a billion times that Baker's End has no correlation or notable link to the DWU. Vince Cosmos' appearance makes no difference to that fact. It could be any number of alternate Vince Cosmoses. Writers like to use characters and criss-cross them simply because the character is interesting and fun to use. We can note this interaction in Cosmos' BTS section. That's as far as it should go. Unless anyone in this thread can step forward with a reasonable link between the DWU and Baker's End, then it must surely remain invalid.
We're just going in circles. No-one's produced a good enough link.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: So let me voice my categorical objection to Baker's End being included as a valid source. In all this discussion, no one was able to demonstrate any connection to DWU. Paul Magrs has DWU works and non-DWU works. It may be very hard to develop exact criteria for how to distinguish them. I guess we will have to decide each case separately by a similar discussion.
I do not see a single argument for Baker's End having any connection to DWU, though many connections to other works of Magrs that have connection to DWU it might have.
Off the top of my head, most Magrs works do have DWU connections.
Exchange introduced characters that went on to appear in Enter Wildthyme.
To the Devil - A Diva! is tied closely to Mad Dogs and Englishmen.
The Ninnies ties in with 'The Ninnies on Putney Common and the latter is a sequel of sorts to the former.
Brenda and Effie characters criss-cross between Iris stories, Doctor Who stories, and their own series.
Phoenix Court and The Blue Angel are firmly linked.
Imaginary Boys has characters from Doctor Who and Iris stories.
Baker's End has Vince Cosmos.
There are few, if any, works by Paul Magrs that have no connection to Doctor Who.
- NateBumber
Huh? I don't think he killed it; it kinda died on its own. He's just making a joke out of it now. "Clever Fwhiffahder." Jesus Christ the condescension. I think I'm gonna drop out of the debate scene for a while after this comment; it's gotten way too toxic.
Amorkuz wrote:
Clever Fwhiffahder. To kill his own creation to force other people to make it for him.I mean CzechOut has been suggesting InterWiki links for ages. I just don't see why no one wants to use them. There is now a robust connection between this Wiki and DWLegacy, which is still invalid. Sure, some people are not satisfied, but it's better than nothing, though surely harder than actually maintaining a Wiki. Funny to hear about combining efforts from someone who called you "f***** bastard". I can only say: you reap what you sow.Can you link me to somewhere that CzechOut suggested interwiki linking with timeship? The only mention of timeship that I've ever seen CzechOut make, was when he banned Fwhiffahder for importing pages there from Tardis.I can only repeat: the fact that y'all think that the only way to cover Paul Magrs on this Wiki doesn't yet mean that it is indeed the only way or even that it is the best way. As for other wikis existing, should I point you to a long and detailed explanation of CzechOut about multiple wikis covering the same topic from different angles?I'm well aware of that explanation, but, unlike Disney where there's a "different angle" between the movies and the cartoons; it's a set of character, all written by one author, each with one personality and cross-referenced history. Just like the Sarah Jane Adventures or the Faction Paradox Wiki, the Paul Magrs Wiki floundered divorced from its heavy Doctor Who context. You can't honestly fault a person for trying to create a Tardis Wiki level wiki by themselves, can you?N8 out.
- Thefartydoctor
This criss-crosses mean nothing. Read the Brenda and Effie discussion and you'll see what I mean. The characters are either being used because they're fun to use or because the writer wanted to input an easter egg. That's it. It means nothing more than that.
- Amorkuz
Pluto2 wrote: Baker's End has Vince Cosmos.
It's confirmed. The only thing connecting Baker's End to DWU is Vince Cosmos. I rest my case.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: I know Vince Cosmos is valid. Do you read the previous comments? I've stated a billion times that Baker's End has no correlation or notable link to the DWU. Vince Cosmos' appearance makes no difference to that fact. It could be any number of alternate Vince Cosmoses. Writers like to use characters and criss-cross them simply because the character is interesting and fun to use. We can note this interaction in Cosmos' BTS section. That's as far as it should go. Unless anyone in this thread can step forward with a reasonable link between the DWU and Baker's End, then it must surely remain invalid.
We're just going in circles. No-one's produced a good enough link.
Except in the first post, Fwhiffader linked to a statement from Bafflegab that it's the same Vince Cosmos.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: This criss-crosses mean nothing. Read the Brenda and Effie discussion and you'll see what I mean. The characters are either being used because they're fun to use or because the writer wanted to input an easter egg. That's it. It means nothing more than that.
Except for the fact that a major character (Panda) from the Iris Wildthyme series is also a major character in the last Brenda and Effie book.
- Thefartydoctor
I stick to my guns. It doesn't matter than it has a DWU character in it. Vince Cosmos is in it... so what? Baker's End needs to provide its own evidence. Nothing in the series suggests or even states a connection to the DWU. If Vince Cosmos is all you've got, this debate's going nowhere.
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote: Off the top of my head, most Magrs works do have DWU connections.
Exchange introduced characters that went on to appear in Enter Wildthyme.
To the Devil - A Diva! is tied closely to Mad Dogs and Englishmen.
The Ninnies ties in with 'The Ninnies on Putney Common and the latter is a sequel of sorts to the former.
Brenda and Effie characters criss-cross between Iris stories, Doctor Who stories, and their own series.
Phoenix Court and The Blue Angel are firmly linked.
Imaginary Boys has characters from Doctor Who and Iris stories.
Baker's End has Vince Cosmos.
There are few, if any, works by Paul Magrs that have no connection to Doctor Who.
I'll quote myself from Thread:208658:
My point is: Paul Magrs, and any other writer can pick characters of their DW related works, and use them outside of DWU. It may be confusing at first, but, if their intention is simply to use a character again, I'm pretty sure they won't be thinking "oh, let's make a new DWU novel/audio". They may just be thinking "oh, I liked that character. Let's use him/her/it again."
Since Paul Magrs like to cross characters this much, I believe the most appropiate question should be: is he truly intending to make these novels set on DWU, or is he simply wanting to use characters again?
Again: it might be confusing, but his interests might be different than ours. His interest is probably about the characters themselves, not the "universe" in which the novels takes place. It is very possible he doesn't care much (or at all) about these other novels being set on DWU or not.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: Can you link me to somewhere that CzechOut suggested interwiki linking with timeship? The only mention of timeship that I've ever seen CzechOut make, was when he banned Fwhiffahder for importing pages there from Tardis.
Oh, first of all this is not AT ALL what happened. There have been complaints at Fwhiffahder for months from various people. And CzechOut has mentioned them in his decision to ban. So either you are naive and believe whatever Fwhiffahder tells you or you are maliciously misinterpreting CzechOut's ruling. What happened after Fwhiffahder imported pages was that Shambala108 added a note to the bottom of almost every page explaining that this is legal and allowed so that no one else complained about it. Get your facts straight, friend.
You can't honestly fault a person for trying to create a Tardis Wiki level wiki by themselves, can you?
I'm not faulting him. I just don't want his problems becoming mine. He can do whatever he wants with his life.
- Thefartydoctor
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Since Paul Magrs like to cross characters this much, I believe the most appropiate question should be: is he truly intending to make these novels set on DWU, or is he simply wanting to use characters again?
Finally, someone who gets it. I'm in 100000000% agreement with you. I don't see these as little more than literary cameos. There's nothing more to it. If I were an author, I'd love to insert little nods to my other works. Not because I want an extended DWU, but because I can and it's fun to do so.
- Pluto2
Why are you people crusading about this?
Let me break something down for you:
Paul Magrs's works exist in a multiverse - the same multiverse that is the DWU. Characters and ideas crisscross from one series to another. Iris Wildthyme debuted in the Phoenix Court trilogy, then popped up in Doctor Who. Then she got her own series, which spawned spinoffs of its own.
Pretty much every story Paul Magrs writes references other stories, or even has shared villains. It's impossible to completely draw a line in the sand as to what's part of the DWU and what isn't. You've accused authors of being biased and thus not being reliable for saying their own work is in the DWU. You've accused them of circumventing rules on a wiki they may never have visited. You're coming into inclusion debates and claiming that because of your personal standards of what's valid and what isn't, a series isn't valid. A series that you have no desire to read or listen to.
- Pluto2
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Off the top of my head, most Magrs works do have DWU connections.
Exchange introduced characters that went on to appear in Enter Wildthyme.
To the Devil - A Diva! is tied closely to Mad Dogs and Englishmen.
The Ninnies ties in with 'The Ninnies on Putney Common and the latter is a sequel of sorts to the former.
Brenda and Effie characters criss-cross between Iris stories, Doctor Who stories, and their own series.
Phoenix Court and The Blue Angel are firmly linked.
Imaginary Boys has characters from Doctor Who and Iris stories.
Baker's End has Vince Cosmos.
There are few, if any, works by Paul Magrs that have no connection to Doctor Who.
I'll quote myself from Thread:208658:
My point is: Paul Magrs, and any other writer can pick characters of their DW related works, and use them outside of DWU. It may be confusing at first, but, if their intention is simply to use a character again, I'm pretty sure they won't be thinking "oh, let's make a new DWU novel/audio". They may just be thinking "oh, I liked that character. Let's use him/her/it again."
Since Paul Magrs like to cross characters this much, I believe the most appropiate question should be: is he truly intending to make these novels set on DWU, or is he simply wanting to use characters again?
Again: it might be confusing, but his interests might be different than ours. His interest is probably about the characters themselves, not the "universe" in which the novels takes place. It is very possible he doesn't care much (or at all) about these other novels being set on DWU or not.
I don't consider a major character from one series being a major character in another to be a cameo.
- Thefartydoctor
Pluto2 wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: I stick to my guns. It doesn't matter than it has a DWU character in it. Vince Cosmos is in it... so what? Baker's End needs to provide its own evidence. Nothing in the series suggests or even states a connection to the DWU. If Vince Cosmos is all you've got, this debate's going nowhere.
Why are you people crusading about this?
Let me break something down for you:
Paul Magrs's works exist in a multiverse - the same multiverse that is the DWU. Characters and ideas crisscross from one series to another. Iris Wildthyme debuted in the Phoenix Court trilogy, then popped up in Doctor Who. Then she got her own series, which spawned spinoffs of its own.
Pretty much every story Paul Magrs writes references other stories, or even has shared villains. It's impossible to completely draw a line in the sand as to what's part of the DWU and what isn't. You've accused authors of being biased and thus not being reliable for saying their own work is in the DWU. You've accused them of circumventing rules on a wiki they may never have visited. You're coming into inclusion debates and claiming that because of your personal standards of what's valid and what isn't, a series isn't valid. A series that you have no desire to read or listen to.
And I'll break something down for you:
Just because we don't wish to partake in the novels/audios, it does not take away our right to partake in the discussions. End of story. How many times do I have to explain free speech on this Wiki to you?
I suggest you retract my "accusations" about authors being biased, and the circumventing of rules. That's twice in this comment thread you've passively attacked me and I've let it go. Well I'm not now. You can either retract it or apologise. Choose one.
If you can't understand that authors sometimes choose to include their own characters for fun and not necessarily for literary value, then that's your problem. I find it amusing that you accuse people like me, someone who comes to these debates with a fair mind and tries to get to the bones of a discussion, of being biased when it's you that I've seen in numerous conversations standing up and saying that things that are evidently invalid or questionable have to be valid because "it's written by Paul Magrs".
I suggest to take a long, hard think about how you approach these discussions because if you can't handle someone playing devil's advocate and giving you an alternate view on a situation, then you probably shouldn't take part.
- Amorkuz
Exactly, it's all the same multiverse, Iris is a valid character, she debuted in Phoenix Court. And is it valid? No. Why? Because some parts of this Margs multiverse have nothing to do with DWU.
Let me formulate it this way. No matter how major a character is shared between two series (if it's not the Doctor), what is needed to make them into the same continuity is events, not individuals.
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote: I don't consider a major character from one series being a major character in another to be a cameo.
Is there any actual proof that the Vince Cosmos from Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective (audio story) is the same from the Vince Cosmos at Baker's End? It would not be the first time we have a character with the same name on DWU and on another, unrelated universe.
- Pluto2
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: I don't consider a major character from one series being a major character in another to be a cameo.
Is there any actual proof that the Vince Cosmos from Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective (audio story) is the same from the Vince Cosmos at Baker's End? It would not be the first time we have a character with the same name on DWU and on another, unrelated universe.
Bafflegab said on their Facebook that it's the same Vince Cosmos.
- Thefartydoctor
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: I don't consider a major character from one series being a major character in another to be a cameo.
Is there any actual proof that the Vince Cosmos from Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective (audio story) is the same from the Vince Cosmos at Baker's End? It would not be the first time we have a character with the same name on DWU and on another, unrelated universe.
The only "evidence" is a Facebook post, linked in the opening post.
- Amorkuz
Here is the quote that User:Fwhiffahder linked to in the OP:
"Have you listened to Gobbleknoll Hall in the past few days and wondered who this Vince Cosmos character is? Well, luckily enough we have a whole story about him! It's got Julian Rhind-Tutt in, it's written by Paul Magrs, and it's an absolute steal at £5.99 for two discs!"
- Amorkuz
What I call a shameless marketing plug.
- Thefartydoctor
Also, you should probably consider that the Facebook page is run by a team of people who are trying to sell you something. Of course, they're going to say it's the Vince Cosmos. They're not going to say "it's some variation of Vince Cosmos but whatever". It's called marketing. It's how you get people to buy your product. I'm not convinced it's a solid piece of evidence, in my honest opinion.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: Also, you should probably consider that the Facebook page is run by a team of people who are trying to sell you something. Of course, they're going to say it's the Vince Cosmos. They're not going to say "it's some variation of Vince Cosmos but whatever". It's called marketing. It's how you get people to buy your product. I'm not convinced it's a solid piece of evidence, in my honest opinion.
Then we better throw out a lot of spinoffs! Class could have a different Twelfth Doctor! Maybe they're just saying it's a spinoff for marketing purposes!
- Amorkuz
To give an analogy, when Osgood was called Petronella on the official BBC website, this evidence of her first name was laughed at because people running the website are generally clueless about highfaluting concepts like continuity, etc.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: To give an analogy, when Osgood was called Petronella on the official BBC website, this evidence of her first name was laughed at because people running the website are generally clueless about highfaluting concepts like continuity, etc.
No,the reason was that the website doesn't pass Rule 1.
- Thefartydoctor
Pluto2 wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: Also, you should probably consider that the Facebook page is run by a team of people who are trying to sell you something. Of course, they're going to say it's the Vince Cosmos. They're not going to say "it's some variation of Vince Cosmos but whatever". It's called marketing. It's how you get people to buy your product. I'm not convinced it's a solid piece of evidence, in my honest opinion.
Then we better throw out a lot of spinoffs! Class could have a different Twelfth Doctor! Maybe they're just saying it's a spinoff for marketing purposes!
I question whether you genuinely read what people write on here, or whether you just skim over it and leave a generic, smarmy comment. Who gives a flying fig about whether the Twelfth Doctor appeared in the BBC advert for Class?! He appeared in the first episode. It's him. It's a spin-off.
You're being petty because you know you don't have solid facts. And that's not how we do things here at Tardis. So either chill out or step away from the discussion.
- OncomingStorm12th
Yeah, probably a direct statement by the author (or, at the very least, a signed facebook post on that page) would be a bit more concrete.
- Amorkuz
Pluto2 wrote: Then we better throw out a lot of spinoffs! Class could have a different Twelfth Doctor! Maybe they're just saying it's a spinoff for marketing purposes!
Yes, they do indeed. They also own license to DW, not DWU but DW. So, unlike Paul Magrs, whatever they say is DW, is DW until they retract it. And we're gonna eat it.
Speaking seriously, you are subverting the argument. We are trying to establish the intent of the story being in DWU. BBC stated it very clearly and used it on every single marketing prop they could find. Bafflegab, in their strongest marketing fervour, never once mentions DWU.
- Amorkuz
Pluto2 wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: To give an analogy, when Osgood was called Petronella on the official BBC website, this evidence of her first name was laughed at because people running the website are generally clueless about highfaluting concepts like continuity, etc.
No,the reason was that the website doesn't pass Rule 1.
Has nothing to do with four rules. Osgood is a valid character, no questions. We were trying to determine what her first name is.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Then we better throw out a lot of spinoffs! Class could have a different Twelfth Doctor! Maybe they're just saying it's a spinoff for marketing purposes!
Yes, they do indeed. They also own license to DW, not DWU but DW. So, unlike Paul Magrs, whatever they say is DW, is DW until they retract it. And we're gonna eat it.
Speaking seriously, you are subverting the argument. We are trying to establish the intent of the story being in DWU. BBC stated it very clearly and used it on every single marketing prop they could find. Bafflegab, in their strongest marketing fervour, never once mentions DWU.
Because they don't have the legal permissions to say the words Doctor Who. They can say it's set in the Iris Wildthyme universe (which is part of the DWU).
- Thefartydoctor
I'm going to have to step away from this debate myself. There's no reasoning with Pluto2. I'm a genuine, fair-minded person who looks at both sides. I had hesitations about FP but saw the evidence and agreed with it. I didn't want to agree with it, but I did. Pluto had no arguments with me and Amorkuz being a part of that discussion because we were agreeing with her. Now we're on the opposing (and correct) team, she's not happy and she's offending people.
I've said all I have to say. There's no solid evidence here for Baker's End to be set in the DWU and if you're honestly telling me that a sale's pitch on Facebook is your back-up evidence... I'll sleep soundly knowing I'm still on the winning team.
When things settle down here, I'll return. Until then. Toodle-loo.
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: Also, you should probably consider that the Facebook page is run by a team of people who are trying to sell you something. Of course, they're going to say it's the Vince Cosmos. They're not going to say "it's some variation of Vince Cosmos but whatever". It's called marketing. It's how you get people to buy your product. I'm not convinced it's a solid piece of evidence, in my honest opinion.
Then we better throw out a lot of spinoffs! Class could have a different Twelfth Doctor! Maybe they're just saying it's a spinoff for marketing purposes!
Look. A bit different. Class has tons of clear connection with Doctor Who (and, most important, DWU). A few: - It is set on Coal Hill School
- It featured Twelfth Doctor, the Doctor's TARDIS and his sonic screwdriver
- Tanya mentions UNIT
- A Weeping Angel clearly appears
It is certainly stronger connections than appearances of one character (which came from a few spinoff appearances)
- Amorkuz
Also Miss Quill mentions a Dalek in one of the Class novels, out of the blue, for no good reason other than to establish yet another connection to DWU.
- Amorkuz
Oh, and the Coal Hill School Roll of Honours Board shown in Class multiple times has names of Clara and Danny, and the Doctor is sad when he looks at them. And Frank Armitage is still the headmaster at the beginning. This is a real unbreakable connection with DWU.
- Pluto2
I give up on this series. You win.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote:
he was very clever in exploiting our four little rules ... exploitation ... the Invasion from Magrs ...Lol, this is a really weird accusation of malicious intent. You realize that wiki editors are probably at the bottom of a list of writers' concerns?Not really for the purposes of extending this debate in any way, but just to provide evidence proving that authors and publishers are not really above getting into Wiki fights at all, specifically, publishers related to Magrs. At this link, you can find one of the founders of Obverse Books, Stuart Douglas, whom Pluto2 called by first name here and whom DENCH-and-PALMER thanked for publishing FP, this Stuart Douglas clearly caring very much whether books published by his company are covered by this Wiki or not.
I submit this as evidence that self-interest does guide people as far as these inclusion debates go.
- TheChampionOfTime
Look, regardless of your personal vendetta against Magrs, it seems absolutely bonkers to say that he's doing this just for a marketing ploy. Was his use of Iris Wildthyme in Old Flames (short story) a clever trick to get the many fans of his incredibly obscure Phoenix Court series to buy Doctor Who? Was there a nefarious plot to get books off shelves by making the main characters of Exchange the companions of Iris Wildthyme in Enter Wildthyme? I think Magrs just happens to make quite a few characters that he really likes and wants to reuse. Baker's End features the exact same Vince Cosmos that encountered Iris Wildthyme. Whether that makes the story in the DWU or not in the DWU is not for me to say.
P.S. All that stuff about "The War of the Worlds" you guys talked about near the beginning of this thread comes from Enter Wildthyme (novel), where the 1890s Martian invasion is shown to be in an alternate timeline.
- Amorkuz
TheChampionOfTime wrote: P.S. All that stuff about "The War of the Worlds" you guys talked about near the beginning of this thread comes from Enter Wildthyme (novel), where the 1890s Martian invasion is shown to be in an alternate timeline.
First, the important stuff. Why? Why?? WHY??? Why has no one ever mentioned this throughout the 80+ responses on this thread when I and TheFartyDoctor were begging to provide connections to DWU. Why of all the champions of Magrs only TheChampionOfTime finally found something beyond a mere name/character?
I can only apologise. I claimed before that only positive evidence is being provided. But it turns out I was wrong. Because positive evidence was also not being provided.
I guess it's time for me to leave this thread too, leaving it for admins to decide and in the capable and, more importantly, knowledgable hands of CoT.
- Amorkuz
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Look, regardless of your personal vendetta against Magrs, it seems absolutely bonkers to say that he's doing this just for a marketing ploy. Was his use of Iris Wildthyme in Old Flames (short story) a clever trick to get the many fans of his incredibly obscure Phoenix Court series to buy Doctor Who? Was there a nefarious plot to get books off shelves by making the main characters of Exchange the companions of Iris Wildthyme in Enter Wildthyme? I think Magrs just happens to make quite a few characters that he really likes and wants to reuse. Baker's End features the exact same Vince Cosmos that encountered Iris Wildthyme. Whether that makes the story in the DWU or not in the DWU is not for me to say.
But, before I leave completely, no, I don't really think that Magrs would do it for money. (He might or he might not. It's immaterial for which reason he includes DWU elements in his works. The validity should hinge on whether sufficiently many elements are included in a non-parodic way.) Could he do it as a bet with his buddy? Definitely. He strikes me as a writer who likes to mess with his readers, subvert their expectations, dazzle them with metafictional connections. Would he not want to get metaWiktional and mess up with editors of his own novels, subvert our expectations, dazzle us with connections that are there and not there at the same time? And then write a novel about that? I mean, come on, this thing is practically writing itself.
The world is breaking apart because the world encyclopaedia editors cannot agree on how to edit it. Evil Amorkuz keeps finding (seeming) inconsistencies in historical chronicles, unwittingly causing more and more rifts in reality, which only reinforce the inconsistencies. Brave Pluto2 feverishly searches for rare incunabula explaining Amorkuz's paradoxes away. She breaks into a secret vault containing the only copy of the Ultimate History of the World, Past, Present and Future, gets caught and is banished from the archives. But then TheChampionOfTime, a renowned scholar of the Ultimate History, begins countering Amorkuz's claims with simple common sense explanations. The world starts to heal. The heroes discover that the Ultimate History is nothing but the encyclopaedia they've been editing.
In fact, I half expect that he's already written something of the kind. Only smarter, more convoluted, and with a juicy mind-bending reveal about the Ultimate History.
Bottomline, I fully expect Magrs to mess with his readers for the fun of creating multidimensional multi-level narrative self-referential forks. And I never truly thought of this as a negative, just as something that I would not want to subvert this Wiki.
There, now I'm truly gone from this thread.
- TheChampionOfTime
Let me make one thing crystal clear, I hold no animosity towards anyone on this wiki. But "evil" Amorkuz, you don't know a thing about the sort of stories Paul Magrs would write!
Oh and another thing to be made crystal clear: The King of Cats (audio story) should never have even been suggested to be put on this wiki. That story has nothing to do with the DWU.
As for Gobbleknoll Hall (audio story), well I'll try to sum up the points of this discussion for whichever admin closes this.
- The story contains recurring Iris Wildthyme character Vince Cosmos
- That's about it
All you need to decide is:
Does a character that has never appeared in a Doctor Who™ story matter just as much as a character that has?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Then this will finally be over! This drawn-out, disgusting, anger-inducing feud! And we can finally get back to what we're here for: editing.
Based on comments above, this is ruled invalid. I suggest anyone concerned read Thread:208570 where some really useful points were made regarding inclusion in general.
And let's make one thing absolutely clear: on this wiki it is not a requirement to read/listen to/watch anything in order to participate in inclusion debates. That suggestion above was made by someone with no authority on this wiki.
I know this debate is almost two years old, but some of the behavior above is block-worthy. If anyone wonders why the admins are so reluctant to close these inclusion debates, this thread is a pretty good example of why we stay away.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207499
We've never had a discussion focusing on Scream of the Shalka and its sequel short story, The Feast of the Stone.
There's only two times the Doctor hints at which incarnation he's in:
1. He says a cat had used up all of his nine lives, "like me". This suggests he's in a ninth incarnation, but it doesn't change much. He could be in his second regeneration cycle, or his third. Or his fourth...you get the point. Besides, Time Lords don't have a nine-incarnation cycle, they have thirteen incarnations. So I honestly don't know what he was trying to say here - it could be he's just being poetic or something.
2. He mentions Andy Warhol once painted "all nine of him", but that could mean that back in the Eccleston or Hurt incarnation, he had Warhol paint himself and his predecessors.
At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.
In addition, there is evidence that Shalka is valid, coming from the new series:
1. The Twelfth Doctor mentions "stealing the President's daughter", something that is part of the established backstory for the "Shalka Doctor".
2. The Eleventh Doctor mentions having an android boyfriend, and the creators of the webcast have stated that, yes, the "Shalka Doctor" and the Master were a couple.
So, here's my proposal:
1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".
2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -
Essentially, Scream of the Shalka is vague on whether the "Ninth" Doctor is actually the ninth (as in following from the Eighth Doctor played by McGann), and other works have acknowledged parts of Shalka being in the Doctor's past. Thus, I propose we treat it like we do the incarnations from The Dalek Factor, The Cabinet of Light, Party Animals, etc. - refer to him merely as "an incarnation of the Doctor".
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I 100% agree.
It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has authorial intent changed since? And does the latter matter?
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.
It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?
The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.
It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?
The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.
Well put sir, I agree.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.
It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?
The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.
Well put sir, I agree.
Just an FYI...I'm a ma'am.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.
It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?
The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.
Well put sir, I agree.
Just an FYI...I'm a ma'am.
Correction: Well put ma'am, I agree.
Sorry bout that pal.
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: We've never had a discussion focusing on Scream of the Shalka and its sequel short story, The Feast of the Stone.
There's only two times the Doctor hints at which incarnation he's in:
1. He says a cat had used up all of his nine lives, "like me". This suggests he's in a ninth incarnation, but it doesn't change much. He could be in his second regeneration cycle, or his third. Or his fourth...you get the point. Besides, Time Lords don't have a nine-incarnation cycle, they have thirteen incarnations. So I honestly don't know what he was trying to say here - it could be he's just being poetic or something.
2. He mentions Andy Warhol once painted "all nine of him", but that could mean that back in the Eccleston or Hurt incarnation, he had Warhol paint himself and his predecessors.
At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.
In addition, there is evidence that Shalka is valid, coming from the new series:
1. The Twelfth Doctor mentions "stealing the President's daughter", something that is part of the established backstory for the "Shalka Doctor".
2. The Eleventh Doctor mentions having an android boyfriend, and the creators of the webcast have stated that, yes, the "Shalka Doctor" and the Master were a couple.
So, here's my proposal:
1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".
2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -
Essentially, Scream of the Shalka is vague on whether the "Ninth" Doctor is actually the ninth (as in following from the Eighth Doctor played by McGann), and other works have acknowledged parts of Shalka being in the Doctor's past. Thus, I propose we treat it like we do the incarnations from The Dalek Factor, The Cabinet of Light, Party Animals, etc. - refer to him merely as "an incarnation of the Doctor".
It's obvious that he's meant to be the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. Sure, you can do mental gymnastics to try to justify the idea that he's not. But if you care about authorial intent at the time it was written, you've got to admit that he was meant to be the Ninth Doctor.
But I do actually agree that it should be a valid source. The only reason anybody really argues against it is that it doesn't fit their idea of what Doctor Who should be. Yeah, it's not the same Ninth Doctor as Eccleston. I don't know why anyone cares. Contradictions are supposedly not a reason to disqualify something, but people ignore that if they think that a story shouldn't be canon. Following the precedent of Death Comes to Time, if either Ninth Doctor is NOTVALID it should be Eccleston, not Grant.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: We've never had a discussion focusing on Scream of the Shalka and its sequel short story, The Feast of the Stone.
There's only two times the Doctor hints at which incarnation he's in:
1. He says a cat had used up all of his nine lives, "like me". This suggests he's in a ninth incarnation, but it doesn't change much. He could be in his second regeneration cycle, or his third. Or his fourth...you get the point. Besides, Time Lords don't have a nine-incarnation cycle, they have thirteen incarnations. So I honestly don't know what he was trying to say here - it could be he's just being poetic or something.
2. He mentions Andy Warhol once painted "all nine of him", but that could mean that back in the Eccleston or Hurt incarnation, he had Warhol paint himself and his predecessors.
At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.
In addition, there is evidence that Shalka is valid, coming from the new series:
1. The Twelfth Doctor mentions "stealing the President's daughter", something that is part of the established backstory for the "Shalka Doctor".
2. The Eleventh Doctor mentions having an android boyfriend, and the creators of the webcast have stated that, yes, the "Shalka Doctor" and the Master were a couple.
So, here's my proposal:
1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".
2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -
Essentially, Scream of the Shalka is vague on whether the "Ninth" Doctor is actually the ninth (as in following from the Eighth Doctor played by McGann), and other works have acknowledged parts of Shalka being in the Doctor's past. Thus, I propose we treat it like we do the incarnations from The Dalek Factor, The Cabinet of Light, Party Animals, etc. - refer to him merely as "an incarnation of the Doctor".
It's obvious that he's meant to be the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. Sure, you can do mental gymnastics to try to justify the idea that he's not. But if you care about authorial intent at the time it was written, you've got to admit that he was meant to be the Ninth Doctor.
But I do actually agree that it should be a valid source. The only reason anybody really argues against it is that it doesn't fit their idea of what Doctor Who should be. Yeah, it's not the same Ninth Doctor as Eccleston. I don't know why anyone cares. Contradictions are supposedly not a reason to disqualify something, but people ignore that if they think that a story shouldn't be canon. Following the precedent of Death Comes to Time, if either Ninth Doctor is NOTVALID it should be Eccleston, not Grant.
Fair enough on the mental gymnastics part - you're probably right.
If it is deemed a valid source, should we keep the article about its Doctor with its current title, or move it to "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)"?
- WJDTwGL
It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote: It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.
Then should we classify it as an alternate universe Doctor (but still valid)?
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote: It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.
Then should we classify it as an alternate universe Doctor (but still valid)?
It would be more accurate than NOTVALID, but still — strictly speaking, the two should be equally "correct" versions. Just use the "according to one account" language. And comment on the mention of three Ninth Doctors in (I think) The Tomorrow Windows.
Not that any of it really matters. This thread isn't likely to go anywhere. It's more likely that an admin will swoop in and peremptorily close it, claiming that it's already been settled.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote: It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.
Then should we classify it as an alternate universe Doctor (but still valid)?
It would be more accurate than NOTVALID, but still — strictly speaking, the two should be equally "correct" versions. Just use the "according to one account" language. And comment on the mention of three Ninth Doctors in (I think) The Tomorrow Windows.
Not that any of it really matters. This thread isn't likely to go anywhere. It's more likely that an admin will swoop in and peremptorily close it, claiming that it's already been settled.
Well, as I've said, we've never had a formal discussion on Shalka, as the decision was just tossed out there during the Infinity Doctors debate and no one commented on it, so it was labelled a decision with no debate at all.
- Pluto2
The problem is that the New Series Doctors don't have dabs, and I don't know what to call them if we DO decide to add a dab.
If we were to deem Shalka valid and not move Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), some might say we would be biased towards the new series. On the other hand, if we move it to "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)", this isn't an issue.
- NateBumber
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. Well, it's a story, completely licensed in every way, obviously officially released, and definitely set in the Doctor Who universe. Considering all the plot hooks in the episode, it's clear that it was meant to be continued, so the conditions used to exclude Death Comes to Time (which I still don't understand) do not apply. Seems like all four rules are completely and undeniably satisfied! (Thank you Pluto2 for bringing this up; very strange that it was ruled invalid after zero debate.)
- Pluto2
You're welcome, Nate!
- SOTO
We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.
Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or
{{notdwu}}, as it were)? - Pluto2
SOTO wrote: We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.
Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or
{{notdwu}}, as it were)?The thing is, Shalka passes the four little rules with flying colors. No one actually debated Shalka in that discussion - it was just a single person saying something.
1. Is it a story? Yes.
2. Was it licensed? Yes.
3. Was it officially released? Yes.
4. Was it intended to be set in the DWU? Yes. It was advertised as a continuation of the series.
- SOTO
Not really, actually; several admin confirmed the reasoning behind its status. And besides, it does not pass the four rules. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.
When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU.
- NateBumber
SOTO wrote:
We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.It's kind of surreal to read that inclusion debate. It's pretty obvious that the four little rules hadn't been formalized then - the word "canon" is even thrown around willy-nilly! If we're reevaluating Shalka based on the rules currently formalized in the Valid Sources policy, it seems to fit: it's clearly licensed; it's an officially released story (twice or three times over, nonetheless); and by all accounts, the Shalka Doctor was clearly intended to become the new Ninth Doctor ... before RTD went ahead and got the TV license and chose to ignore it. As a result, the publisher has retroactively described it as being in a different universe, and that seems to be the grounds for its exclusion.
But I don't think that sort of retroactive justification counts nowadays. If Moffat comes out and declares that he thinks the EDAs are noncanon, would we declare them nonvalid? Remember that one of the main reasons for excluding Death Comes to Time was how the author knew about the Eighth Doctor and was deliberately choosing to cut him out of continuity. But didn't RTD do exactly the same thing with NuWho by excluding Shalka? Just something interesting to consider.
Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or{{notdwu}}, as it were)?I think the reason a lot of old decisions are being questioned is that we have the four little rules now, and they're clearly defined, and they have repercussions that reflect backwards pretty strongly on some of the older, less-formally-justified decisions, which are very disorganized and often self-contradictory to begin with. It's not really a bad thing in the growth of the wiki.
That said, you raise a very fair point that the pace needs to seriously slow down. No new material is being released about the Shalka Doctor, and most of it is currently covered under the "invalid" tag anyway, so if there were a list of inclusion debate priorities, this would be near the absolute bottom. I propose that instead, some of this energy should be channeled into making actual articles and edits. Shalka is already allowed on this wiki, if not as a completely valid source: if one wants to make an article about something in the Shalka stories, they freely can, as long as it follows the invalid naming and tagging conventions.
In contrast, more thoroughly debated series like Senor 105 and Faction Paradox are currently completely excluded. Right now, I see 13 open inclusion debates, just from the last week; at this pace, if and when a bureaucrat wanders through, they won't even know where to start. And what does that achieve? Do we really want to focus on stories that are already covered, where no one has anything new to add to the articles, at the expense of stories currently uncovered and full of potential? Patience might be hard, but it's necessary, and picking a dozen little fights won't possibly give any help the big ones. Just food for thought for OP and others.
- SOTO
No, of course statements by Moffat about portions of the DWU not under his control (nay, from before his involvement) would have no significance. But statements by the publishers, before, during or afterwards do have a bearing. We don't necessarily exclude Shalka because of anything said by RTD; rather, we look to its creators, those who hold the license, and, well, the BBC. I see Shalka as the start of something which was cancelled. I'm sure there are quotes from relevant individuals that I could bring up to better prove my point, but it's been a while since I've reviewed this.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: No, of course statements by Moffat about portions of the DWU not under his control (nay, from before his involvement) would have no significance. But statements by the publishers, before, during or afterwards do have a bearing. We don't necessarily exclude Shalka because of anything said by RTD; rather, we look to its creators, those who hold the license, and, well, the BBC. I see Shalka as the start of something which was cancelled. I'm sure there are quotes from relevant individuals that I could bring up to better prove my point, but it's been a while since I've reviewed this.
That's like saying because Doctor Who was cancelled, Dragonfire-onward is invalid because it started something that was cancelled.
- SOTO
Not really seeing the logic. I didn't say just "started something that was cancelled". That wasn't my reasoning at all. It started a whole divergent continuity which was cancelled, and soon after even the pilot was wholly written over.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Not really seeing the logic. I didn't say just "started something that was cancelled". That wasn't my reasoning at all. It started a whole divergent continuity which was cancelled, and soon after even the pilot was wholly written over.
So? That's not the point. Just treat it as an alternate universe. Don't deem it wholly invalid if it passes the four little rules. That's the guidelines that we, as a wiki, have decided are the ones used to determine whether something is a valid source. There's no precedent for a cancelled divergent continuity clause.
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: Not really seeing the logic. I didn't say just "started something that was cancelled". That wasn't my reasoning at all. It started a whole divergent continuity which was cancelled, and soon after even the pilot was wholly written over.
You could say that the New Adventures started a "whole divergent continuity." There was a time when some EDA writers (like Terrance Dicks and Lawrence Miles, although the latter changed his mind), and many fans, thought that the NAs were a dead continuity and the EDAs separate. Lots of fans whose brains are too small to handle heretical ideas like looms still insist that it's a separate continuity, or alternate timeline, or similar. But none of that affects this wiki's policy. Contradictions are just ignored.
You say that the pilot was "wholly written over." But last time I checked, there is no authority with such capabilities. There is no canon.
But I agree with User:NateBumber that this really isn't the best time for this inclusion debate, and that it might be better for User:Pluto2 to focus more of their energy on editing the articles that already exist.
- SOTO
We're not talking about contradictions here. We're talking about intent, and we're talking about statements from the creators of the story and from the BBC disregarding this as in any way part of Doctor Who continuity.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: We're not talking about contradictions here. We're talking about intent, and we're talking about statements from the creators of the story and from the BBC disregarding this as in any way part of Doctor Who continuity.
I think I agree with you SOTO pal.
Though can we add to this discussion, The Web of Caves, which I believe is a similar case...
The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story? After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote: At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.
Can we get a quote on that? Because what we get on DWM 465 is:
"I'm glad we didn't end up being proper Doctor Who," says Cornell, "but I think we gave it a really good shot."
To give the quote some context: it comes from an article reviewing Scream of the Shalka. More specifically, this quote is from the section "DVD Extras" (the DVD of the webcast was released one month after DWM 465).
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Though can we add to this discussion, The Web of Caves, which I believe is a similar case...
The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story? After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
Can we please not go off-topic? The Web of Caves is completly unrelated to Scream of the Shalka. If we are to discuss The Web of Caves, it should get a thread for itself, but not this one.
- TheChampionOfTime
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Can we get a quote on that?
From the article "No one can hear you SCREAM" in DWM 336:
"The Ninth Doctor in a story that sets its sights on the future and provides a starting point for ongoing adventures without reformatting the show. Traditional but original, new monsters that behave like Doctor Who monsters should, and a new Doctor with a new way of doing things who's still very much the Doctor we know and love" - Paul Cornell
Maybe even broadcast on television - just like like how proper Doctor Who used to be. Actually, according to BBCi, this is proper Doctor Who.
"It's a new medium, a new start for Doctor Who. No one knows what the next step is going to be." - James Goss
Also in DWM 336:
- After Eight
He came back to life before your eyes. But now he's regenerated - and no one thought to tell him. Benjamin Cook caught up with Paul Mcgann to mourn the passing of the Eight Doctor and pass judgement on his usurper [Richard E Grant].
In an interview with Justin Richards in DWM 338:
"My thought was that it would be nice to do 'Ninth Doctor' books within the Past Doctors line - there really isn't enough in Shalka to kick off a whole new strand, although it might have been possible if we'd been able to do one extra book every quarter in its own sub-range" - Justin Richards
The intent during production was most definitely that the story was set within the DWU. If only for a month, Richard E Grant was undeniably The Ninth Doctor. If COMIC: Genesis of Evil remains a valid source after Genesis of the Daleks, why can't Shalka remain a valid source after Rose. We can't go around saying "all media have equal weight" if we only cover the popular stuff.
- TheChampionOfTime
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Because what we get on DWM 465 is:
"I'm glad we didn't end up being proper Doctor Who," says Cornell, "but I think we gave it a really good shot."
Around the time that Cornell said that, he also said this in an interview on Kasterborous:
Of course, the way things are today, nothing is canonical. But then everything is canonical in a way. If the Time War has changed everything and left continuity up in the air, then Shalka might once have happened…!
- 178.100.233.86
Pluto2 wrote:
SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.
When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU.
So by the logic of you argument the 1960s dalek films with peter cursing are valid as they don't contodict anything said by that point in the franchise
- DENCH-and-PALMER
TheChampionOfTime wrote:
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Because what we get on DWM 465 is:
"I'm glad we didn't end up being proper Doctor Who," says Cornell, "but I think we gave it a really good shot."
Around the time that Cornell said that, he also said this in an interview on Kasterborous:
Of course, the way things are today, nothing is canonical. But then everything is canonical in a way. If the Time War has changed everything and left continuity up in the air, then Shalka might once have happened…!
Ooo CoT has convinced me. Is Cornell suggesting a divergent timeline caused by the Time War?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
178.100.233.86 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.
When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU.
So by the logic of your argument the 1960s dalek films with Peter Cushing are valid as they don't contradict anything said by that point in the franchise?
Did Pluto2 say that? I don't think so.
- WJDTwGL
178.100.233.86 wrote: So by the logic of you argument the 1960s dalek films with peter cursing are valid as they don't contodict anything said by that point in the franchise
The difference with the Dr. Who movies is that from the start they were meant to be separate from the original show. Scream of the Shalka features the Ninth Doctor, who is a successor to Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor, and is part of the same universe as everything before its release. Labelling Grant's Doctor NOTVALID means considering him a separate character from the one in Doctor Who (TV story) — which just isn't true. The contradiction of which Ninth Doctor is the "real" one is the only thing that makes the story at all controversial. And contradictions are not our problem.
- Bwburke94
Shalka is an admittedly unique case, because it was produced as part of the DWU, but the question isn't its production.
Yes, Shalka was undeniably intended to be set within the DWU as it existed at the time it was produced, but by the time it was released, was it still intended as such? By the time the first instalment of Shalka was released, the BBC Wales series had been announced, which means that the DWU existing as of 13 November 2003 was a universe that cannot in any way be reconciled with Shalka.
The other anti-Shalka argument, which unfortunately involves the c-word, is that Shalka is a part of the only case where the canonical order of Doctor regenerations was unambiguously changed. (The 2013 specials did not unambiguously change the order, because there was never any evidence Eccleston's Doctor was the ninth body. In Shalka, the Doctor directly states he is on his ninth body.) Every other "alternate" Doctor was intended to be non-canon at the time, or was not intended to follow from the last televised Doctor.
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: Shalka is an admittedly unique case, because it was produced as part of the DWU, but the question isn't its production.
Yes, Shalka was undeniably intended to be set within the DWU as it existed at the time it was produced, but by the time it was released, was it still intended as such? By the time the first instalment of Shalka was released, the BBC Wales series had been announced, which means that the DWU existing as of 13 November 2003 was a universe that cannot in any way be reconciled with Shalka.
That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced. The DWU, as defined by this wiki, does not ever include unreleased stories. And Shalka was still meant to feature an extension of the character seen in An Unearthly Child, the TV movie, and The Shadows of Avalon.
Bwburke94 wrote: The other anti-Shalka argument, which unfortunately involves the c-word, is that Shalka is a part of the only case where the canonical order of Doctor regenerations was unambiguously changed. (The 2013 specials did not unambiguously change the order, because there was never any evidence Eccleston's Doctor was the ninth body. In Shalka, the Doctor directly states he is on his ninth body.) Every other "alternate" Doctor was intended to be non-canon at the time, or was not intended to follow from the last televised Doctor.
As you mentioned yourself: this entire argument is invalid because it relies on "canon" — which does not exist, and the very concept of which is both stupid and toxic. Also: if we bring in the fact that Eccleston wasn't explicitly the ninth incarnation of the Doctor, but Grant was, we have to admit that until Hurt was introduced in The Name of the Doctor, Grant was the ninth incarnation of the Doctor.
- Bwburke94
Treating Shalka as valid and treating it as part of the main universe are not the same thing.
Am I correct in saying that a "valid" Shalka would be relegated to alternate-universe status, similar to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)?
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: Treating Shalka as valid and treating it as part of the main universe are not the same thing.
Am I correct in saying that a "valid" Shalka would be relegated to alternate-universe status, similar to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)?
It's certainly an option.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Treating Shalka as valid and treating it as part of the main universe are not the same thing.
Am I correct in saying that a "valid" Shalka would be relegated to alternate-universe status, similar to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)?
It's certainly an option.
This would be the best course of action, in my opinion.
- SOTO
Fwhiffahder wrote: That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced.
Not really, actually. The logic there was perfectly sound. At the time that the story was released, those involved knew full well that their little project couldn't jibe with the new series they now knew would happen. So between commissioning, recording and release, their stance on the story would have changed. So you get comments like this around the time of release:
- Martin Trickey: "The BBC said it was the ninth Doctor, so that's great. Is it part of the canon? I don't know. There's a big argument raging on the message board. I just hope people enjoy it. That's the main thing. Whether people choose to see it as the official Ninth Doctor or not is really up to them."
So it's clear, even just from that one quote, that by the time that Shalka was officially released, it wasn't really considered to be part of the main Doctor Who continuity. It doesn't matter what the intent was beforehand, any more than it matters that an unreleased story was intended to be valid, or a deleted scene was meant to be part of the DWU. This doesn't at all require "counting" the 2005 series before it was release, in any way--it's quite simply that knowledge of the new series affected the production intent by the time of the webcast's actual release.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote:
Fwhiffahder wrote: That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced.
Not really, actually. The logic there was perfectly sound. At the time that the story was released, those involved knew full well that their little project couldn't jibe with the new series they now knew would happen. So between commissioning, recording and release, their stance on the story would have changed. So you get comments like this around the time of release:
- Martin Trickey: "The BBC said it was the ninth Doctor, so that's great. Is it part of the canon? I don't know. There's a big argument raging on the message board. I just hope people enjoy it. That's the main thing. Whether people choose to see it as the official Ninth Doctor or not is really up to them."
So it's clear, even just from that one quote, that by the time that Shalka was officially released, it wasn't really considered to be part of the main Doctor Who continuity. It doesn't matter what the intent was beforehand, any more than it matters that an unreleased story was intended to be valid, or a deleted scene was meant to be part of the DWU. This doesn't at all require "counting" the 2005 series before it was release, in any way--it's quite simply that knowledge of the new series affected the production intent by the time of the webcast's actual release.
Authorial intent refers to the intent WHILE making the story, not post-release.
- SOTO
Read again. I didn't suggest post-release.
- WJDTwGL
The quote has nothing to do with whether Shalka is part of Doctor Who continuity. All it establishes is that Trickey didn't see it as part of the continuity of the then-upcoming BBC Wales series. The revived series is not Doctor Who. It's part of Doctor Who. Shalka is still part of the universe of the original series, regardless of the revived series divergence, as is painfully obvious to anyone who watches it. You can't say it doesn't pass rule four, because it is set in the universe of the original series. The revived series is also set in the universe of the original series. The only difference is that the revived series failed to set itself in the universe of the entire DWU as it existed at the time, because it didn't take into account Shalka. But that's not a good reason to call the entire revived series NOTVALID (and an even worse reason to call Shalka NOTVALID). Because the same logic could be applied to every story ever. We could track down every author of every story and ask them for a specific list of what they considered "canon" at the time they wrote the story, and then ban articles on each story from referring to stories not on the correct list. Or we could pick the "canon" list of one particular story, and deem everything not on it NOTVALID. But instead, we just ignore the contradictions. Because canon is stupid and an unfeasible headache. There's no reason not to do the exact same thing for Shalka. We don't disallow references between TV stories by Steven Moffat and New Adventures stories, even though Moffat has described the New Adventures as "a separate continuity." So regardless of whether the creators of Shalka became aware that the coming TV series would almost certainly ignore their story, there is no reason to dishonestly treat it as something separate from the rest of the DWU.
- Bwburke94
Given that Shalka
will most certainlycould easily be found valid, how do we best integrate it into the wiki?If the Shalka Ninth Doctor is part of the main Ninth Doctor page, it would unnecessarily confuse the readers. Borrowing a guideline from Wikipedia to make a point: "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."
T:VS states that if a story follows the given four rules, it is valid. It does not state that all valid stories take place in the same universe, so we have a completely viable way to shove Shalka into an alternate universe as we did with Sympathy for the Devil.
- SOTO
We've done no shoving for Sympathy for the Devil. A later story confirmed that that universe specifically was an alternate universe within the DWU. A main-universe DWU character travels there. Textbook parallel universe, like those visited in Inferno and Rise of the Cybermen. Other parallel universes are also visited or in some way take part in the plot of a properly DWU story.
We don't just assign "parallel universe" or "alternate timeline" to anything we might wish to somehow make valid, when no context is given to assume that it is an alternate timeline.
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: Given that Shalka will most certainly be found valid, how do we best integrate it into the wiki?
If the Shalka Ninth Doctor is part of the main Ninth Doctor page, it would unnecessarily confuse the readers. Borrowing a guideline from Wikipedia to make a point: "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."
T:VS states that if a story follows the given four rules, it is valid. It does not state that all valid stories take place in the same universe, so we have a completely viable way to shove Shalka into an alternate universe as we did with Sympathy for the Devil.
Erm, I'm not sure where you're getting "most certainly [will] be found valid." SOTO seems strongly opposed.
Sympathy for the Devil is slightly (though not hugely) different because it's officially a divergent timeline, where "timeline" is a specific well-defined concept. Shalka is practically the same, and I think there's definitely no reason to combine the two Ninth Doctor pages, but I think where Shalka and the revival contradict we should use "According to one account" language, rather than Sympathy's "In one timeline." I don't think we should emphatically state that Shalka is a different timeline without in-universe proof, but I haven't read The Tomorrow Windows.
- Bwburke94
"According to one account" would unnecessarily complicate the Ninth Doctor page. We've done it with the Master in his various post-Survival states, but applying the same principle to the Doctor is a step too far.
The Ninth Doctor seen in Shalka is most certainly not the same incarnation as the Ninth Doctor seen in Rose. If Shalka isn't an alternate universe of some sort, what is it?
- WJDTwGL
Bwburke94 wrote: "According to one account" would unnecessarily complicate the Ninth Doctor page. We've done it with the Master in his various post-Survival states, but applying the same principle to the Doctor is a step too far.
The Ninth Doctor seen in Shalka is most certainly not the same incarnation as the Ninth Doctor seen in Rose. If Shalka isn't an alternate universe of some sort, what is it?
I don't think anyone's saying that they're the same incarnation, and should be merged into one page. Just that Richard E. Grant's Doctor and John Hurt's Doctor are both the successor to Paul McGann's Doctor. Which is a contradiction, just like (as you said) whether Stop the Pigeon or First Frontier follows Survival for the Master. In the cases where that is relevant, it should be "one account"/"another account." But on their individual pages, they don't need more than a minor note mentioning each other, if even that.
- Bwburke94
In other words, this is somewhat similar to how Romana II has two direct successors?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: In other words, this is somewhat similar to how Romana II has two direct successors?
Yep.
- Bwburke94
What would go on the Eighth Doctor page, then?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: What would go on the Eighth Doctor page, then?
I...don't know.
Probably we'd say something about differing accounts.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Being a ninth incarnation, is he an alternate War Doctor?
- Bwburke94
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Being a ninth incarnation, is he an alternate War Doctor?
I assume he is an alternate Ninth who regenerated directly from the Eighth.
- RingoRoadagain
The issue is that rule 4 is not clear enough for the matter, after this discussion it probably should be rephrased.
It currently states "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU" but the authorial stance with Shalka changed between the comission and the release dates (november 2003) because of the new series announcement of september 2003.
Although I would try to fit it in my head-canon, to me it is the BBC intention at the time of release that should settle the matter; and very clearly the company was favorising the upcoming TV show. Furthermore Cornell now agrees that it is his "unbound" take on the franchise.
Put shortly: I would like to keep how the articles currently are and to change rule 4 to more precisely states "intended at the time of release" instead of just "intended".
- WJDTwGL
RingoRoadagain wrote: The issue is that rule 4 is not clear enough for the matter, after this discussion it probably should be rephrased.
It currently states "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU" but the authorial stance with Shalka changed between the comission and the release dates (november 2003) because of the new series announcement of september 2003.
Although I would try to fit it in my head-canon, to me it is the BBC intention at the time of release that should settle the matter; and very clearly the company was favorising the upcoming TV show. Furthermore Cornell now agrees that it is his "unbound" take on the franchise.
Put shortly: I would like to keep how the articles currently are and to change rule 4 to more precisely states "intended at the time of release" instead of just "intended".
Authorial intent was not that it was set outside the DWU. Dr. Who and the Daleks is set outside the DWU. For Scream of the Shalka, the best it can be stretched to is "set outside the universe of the revival." Because regardless of how aware the creators became that their version of the ninth Doctor wasn't going to be continued, Scream of the Shalka is still set in the universe of Terror of the Autons and The Deadly Assassin. What is that universe, if not the DWU? Rose and Shalka take two divergent directions. But they share everything before that point. If either one has to be the "true" DWU, it's Shalka. Because Rose deliberately ignored the current Doctor, thus setting itself outside the DWU.
- RingoRoadagain
Shalka sure is a special case but I suppose that we could basically say the same about the currently invalid story He Jests At Scars: it shares all the main DW Universe stories up to Trial of A Time Lord.
But I agree that Paul Cornell's intentions at the time are difficult to know for certain. I could not find a quote from him or other authorities from then explicitely saying that it was not as valid as the upcoming show (though he obviously never would have said that if he wanted people to be interested in the webcast).
Thinking about it again, I think rule 4 should be based on the way it is currently regarded since Sympathy for the Devil changed from a purely unbounded intention to a valid alternate universe thanks to the recent Bernice Summerfield stories. With the current rule 4, it should remain invalid forever and it would be inappropriate.
Should we take this new way of thinking, then I am positive that Cornell deemed Shalka as "unbound" at some point after the fact.
I still am of the opinion that the related articles should remain like they are now. But I would change my opinion with an explicit statement about it being equally valid, like Moffat frequently does with the 7th and 8th doctor novels. I think that for Shalka we must take a real world POV and not an in-universe one.
- Pluto2
I think all Unbound stories should be treated like the Warner duology - Big Finish have previously stated the series shows alternate universes ("alternative realities" was what they called them).
- Pluto2
But back to the main subject - Scream of the Shalka.
1. It's clearly a story. 2. It's certainly licensed. 3. It's a complete serial. 4. It's certainly clear that it was meant to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. The intention was to make a story about the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. It's the same Doctor as the one from the classic series and the TV movie. A few months later, RTD decides he doesn't like the serial, and decides to ignore it, casting Eccleston as a different Ninth Doctor. Chalk it up to contradictions. Different accounts. But the intent here was to make a story set in the DWU.
This story passes our four little rules with flying colors. The original "decision" wasn't one, just someone throwing something out there, and taking it as valid, with no one debating that story. It was part of the debate on The Infinity Doctors. One person saying something isn't a decision. We, as a community, did not decide as a group to deem this invalid.
- CzechOut
"Authorial intent" is being used differently here than it's meant to be under T:VS. What we mean by it is the intent of the copyright holder, which is a tricky concept in Doctor Who. Generally, for televised Doctor Who, and Shalka counts as "televised", we mean the BBC. So the question is not "what did Cornell intend", but what did the (then-controlling part of the) BBC.
This is key to understanding Shalka because yes, during much of production, one part of the BBC -- namely the commissioning BBCi -- definitely believed that this was straight-up, proper Doctor Who, and that they were telling the adventures of the Ninth Doctor.
However, simultaneously, Lorraine Heggessey was furiously putting a team together to take back Doctor Who for BBC One. She'd been working tirelessly to figure out the strange, complicated, tangled legal picture with Doctor Who, and she finally got it all figured out in September 2003. And from that announcement, Shalka was immediately an also-ran. It hadn't been broadcast yet, and by the time of its November 2003 broadcast, the momentum was with the BBC One team, not BBCi.
That's why you end up with DWM being pretty hands off with Shalka. It's only significantly in DWM 336 -- and even that has Richard E Grant on the cover with this orange bubble that touches his hair and announces "Doctor Who set for BBC TV comeback!"
The very next issue of DWM, 337 makes, as far as I can tell, one oblique reference to Shalka, deep in a 40th anniversary piece, but never mentions it by name. It's already old news, consigned to the scrap heap of Doctor Who. The end of 2003 is really all about what the Heggessey-Tranter-RTD team are gonna do.
So Shalka never made it to broadcast as "real" Doctor Who that had a serious chance of continuation. Heck DWM never even give a traditional "Richard E Grant is the Doctor" headline, so you know he's not really the Doctor.
That's why it's wrongheaded, in my view, to speak of it being "in the DWU as it existed in 2003". It's clear that the primary copyright holder at the time it was actually released -- the straight-up, as-seen-on-TV BBC -- never had any intention of considering Shalka a part of their world. To Lorraine Heggessey, Shalka was a contractual obligation of another department impeding progress on the television show. She had no problem allowing an announcement in September 2003 about her show that would obviously and completely kneecap Shalka with fans and, more importantly, the general public.
By DWM 342, DWM are going with a big interior headline that says, "Stop Press: The BBC Unveils the Ninth Doctor at Long Last"; in 343, the number nine is twice on the front cover. Any thought that you might have had that Richard E Grant was actually the Ninth Doctor had disappeared as if DWM 336 had never been printed.
- Pluto2
I see what you mean. So are you opposed to the "conflicting accounts" proposal, in which we would treat Shalka/Stone and the 2005 series as equally valid?
- CzechOut
Well, I gotta admit -- I'm confused what the point of the thread is. In your original post, you say,
So, here's my proposal:
1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".
2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -
I'm unambiguously opposed to point 1. He is a "Ninth Doctor". DWM 336 is the clearest contemporaneous source for that, and our local naming conventions therefore require Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) to be his name. Point 2 therefore is moot.
So the original ambition of the thread has failed, I think.
As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
an interview on Kasterborous:
Of course, the way things are today, nothing is canonical. But then everything is canonical in a way. If the Time War has changed everything and left continuity up in the air, then Shalka might once have happened…!
This implies during and after production, he still considered it "canonical" however in a different way.
- Bwburke94
@CzechOut: Where in Rule 4 is the copyright holder mentioned, even by implication?
Quoting from later in T:VS – "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4."
It seems clear from the text of the page (as it currently exists) that statements by an "author" can be used to determine validity. If you want to rewrite Rule 4 to clarify your point, you have the right to do so, but as it stands the rule is vague enough that Shalka passes it.
- RingoRoadagain
CzechOut wrote: Well, I gotta admit -- I'm confused what the point of the thread is. In your original post, you say,
So, here's my proposal:
1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".
2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -
I'm unambiguously opposed to point 1. He is a "Ninth Doctor". DWM 336 is the clearest contemporaneous source for that, and our local naming conventions therefore require Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) to be his name. Point 2 therefore is moot.
So the original ambition of the thread has failed, I think.
As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.
I am not the OP, but his suggestion for points 1 & 2 could be supported from the way the page "The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)" is not called "Third Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)". (I don't quite understand why it is named like it currently is, honestly).
After seeing the interview linked by Dench-and-Palmer, I am now inclined to make the story valid, as incompatible as it is with the current series.
- CzechOut
Bwburke94 wrote: @CzechOut: Where in Rule 4 is the copyright holder mentioned, even by implication?
The four little rules "chart", for lack of a better word, was never intended as the be-all, end-all of validity on the wiki. It was meant to be a simplified guide to the whole page of text at T:VS. "Authorial intent" has always been intertwined with copyright, because this is the nature of the frankly weird legal situation in which DWU stories are told.
From the section "In-universe sources":
- "Instead we are guided by the legal status of a work as well as the authorial intent. Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded."
I think the reason that "authorial intent" has come to mean actual writers in some contexts is because many of the books are copyrighted to their authors. So the legal author of the work is in fact the person who wrote it. However, in terms of most performed stories, like Shalka, the legal author is not Paul Cornell, but the BBC, who owns the copyright to the main structure of Doctor Who itself.
So when we say, "What was the authorial intent behind Shalka at the time of publication?", we cannot justifiably say that it was to be truly continuous with the main Doctor Who narrative. Lorraine Heggessey and her production team made that abundantly clear through their public actions in September 2003, as well as stories that appeared in each DWM thereafter.
One more point. The body of T:VS says:
- Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid.
It has been mentioned upthread that there needed to have been some validity discussion on this matter in the past. There's even the hint that there's something improper or "fishy" about the fact that there wasn't a specific discussion about it.
But it was perfectly obvious in 2003, when Shalka was released, that Grant wasn't going to be the Doctor "for real" and that the RTD series was the genuine article. So when the wiki was set up in 2005, the memory of all this was fresh in the minds of everyone who was here. It didn't occur to anyone to suggest that somehow REG was "legitimate". Later, once we had more formalised rules about validity, there was no need to hold a discussion about it. It just was patently obvious that Eccleston was the Ninth Doctor and REG was, as Wikipedia still has it, only the "Shalka Doctor".
- 213.205.251.63
Just a question but when was the decision to make Christopher escalation the ninth doctor made official as I seem to remember RTD saying it was because that what he expected every one to call him so they just went with it watts moor plans to continue the shalka doctor weren’t cancelled in till February 2004 and no one ever said it does not take place in the DWU it’s just that later developments made it in compatible.
- RingoRoadagain
Thanks for the clarifications about the four rules. Now I have to agree with the way those things are handled now.
It's not like invalid stories are inferior to a valid one anyway.
- Pluto2
RingoRoadagain wrote:
CzechOut wrote: Well, I gotta admit -- I'm confused what the point of the thread is. In your original post, you say,
So, here's my proposal:
1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".
2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -
I'm unambiguously opposed to point 1. He is a "Ninth Doctor". DWM 336 is the clearest contemporaneous source for that, and our local naming conventions therefore require Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) to be his name. Point 2 therefore is moot.
So the original ambition of the thread has failed, I think.
As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.
I am not the OP, but his suggestion for points 1 & 2 could be supported from the way the page "The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)" is not called "Third Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)". (I don't quite understand why it is named like it currently is, honestly).
After seeing the interview linked by Dench-and-Palmer, I am now inclined to make the story valid, as incompatible as it is with the current series.
Her, not his. I'm female.
- RingoRoadagain
duly noted
- Pluto2
If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote: If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?
At the time The Legend was written (not released), Shalka was meant to be the official continuation.
- OttselSpy25
RingoRoadagain wrote: It's not like invalid stories are inferior to a valid one anyway.
Oh-ho-ho Czech will fight you to the trenches over that one.
The way I see it, Shalka is one of those "on-the-edge" stories where it's only being considered invalid because there's been no confirmation on what it even is. As far as the BBC is concerned, it isn't "an alternate universe storyline" or an "alternate timeline caused by the time war." It's "a story that we made and then we ignored it to make something better."
The reason that Infinity Doctors is loosely valid is that we have confirmation that the plan from the beginning was to make a sequel that explained how it was an alternate timeline. But Shalka was, by almost all accounts, meant to be a legitimate continuation -- no one on the first day secretly planned a story that would explain the discrepancies between this version and the 2005 series, it wasn't given much thought.
If there had been a sequel story to even lightly touch upon the idea that this story was set in an alternate dimension/timeline/reality, then we'd probably slap it into that category and move on. But the most that we currently have to support this is a tongue-in-cheek statement from someone who had worked on it. It's the equivalent of trying to claim that Mace Windu is alive just because Samuel L. Jackson joked about it once or twice in interviews.
- OttselSpy25
I don't think, however, that questioning a closed discussion from a long time ago is a bad idea. I think some potent and honest things have been brought up here, still worth discussing.
I do kinda have to agree with the argument that we should treat Shalka like a contradiction and not something that's totally invalid. It's odd that one of the leading reasons we used to discount this story was that, while other flash-in-the-pants Doctor incarnations had no numbering, this one did and thus contradicted "the main stream." It feels like a technicality that really shouldn't matter under our modern rules and mandates.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?
At the time The Legend was written (not released), Shalka was meant to be the official continuation.
But that renders CzechOut's claim Shalka was never an official continuation invalid, as there's proof to the contrary.
- SeaniesBeanies
Regardless of validity, I feel as if we have to take a real world position on this one. Scream of the Shalka is such a special case that we may have to treat it as lesser than the revived series, because, realistically, the end user is going to be confused by the proposed Shalka Doctor/War Doctor incarnation split on the Eighth Doctor's page. I understand the policy of this wiki but I feel as if the end user has been forgotten within this discussion.
Instead, I propose that Shalka remains invalid, as changing its status to an "alternate universe" wouldn't affect any in-universe articles in the slightest apart from moving certain BTS information to an "in an alternate universe" section located slightly above it. This is despite my belief that both Shalka and The Curse Of Fatal Death are alternate "what if" timelines within the DWU, as their respective Ninth Doctors are both quite plainly alluded to within The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles.
It's just quite simple to me really: making Shalka valid would create unnecessary confusion within some major pages on this wiki and is a betrayal of our common sense.
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?
At the time The Legend was written (not released), Shalka was meant to be the official continuation.
But that renders CzechOut's claim Shalka was never an official continuation invalid, as there's proof to the contrary.
It sort of doesn't. By the time Shalka was released, it most certainly wasn't an unambiguous official continuation; what we're trying to decide is whether it was an official continuation at all.
- 178.96.113.164
At the time of release shalka was still an official continuation of the TV show. it should be understood the 2005 revile was still in a very early stage of development with things like how many episodes therd be ,whether they would have titles or numbers .whter the new show whoud be a reboot or a connection as well as who would be the doctor still to be dicided.
- SeaniesBeanies
Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU, and there are no reasons to believe it is an alternate timeline from any other story, which is rather important when you have to write your articles from an in-universe perspective. The only other nods to this Ninth Doctor that I'm aware of in the DWU are in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles, in which it is an easter egg for fans. Neither Jonny Morris nor Lance Parkin seriously considered REG as a "proper" Doctor at this point in time, not least because both books had been released after the new series' announcement, but also because the Shalka Doctor is quite clearly regarded as a possible future for McGann's Doctor- a possible future that we have seen didn't come to fruition, and if this possible future Doctor never appeared, then Scream of the Shalka did not happen within the DWU, and hence should remain labelled invalid.
As an aside, I am opening a debate on the Panopticon regarding changing some policy in T:VS that has struck me as unclear as this debate has gone on, if any of you would wish to join me.
- 82.3.146.201
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU, and there are no reasons to believe it is an alternate timeline from any other story, which is rather important when you have to write your articles from an in-universe perspective. The only other nods to this Ninth Doctor that I'm aware of in the DWU are in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles, in which it is an easter egg for fans. Neither Jonny Morris nor Lance Parkin seriously considered REG as a "proper" Doctor at this point in time, not least because both books had been released after the new series' announcement, but also because the Shalka Doctor is quite clearly regarded as a possible future for McGann's Doctor- a possible future that we have seen didn't come to fruition, and if this possible future Doctor never appeared, then Scream of the Shalka did not happen within the DWU, and hence should remain labelled invalid.
As an aside, I am opening a debate on the Panopticon regarding changing some policy in T:VS that has struck me as unclear as this debate has gone on, if any of you would wish to join me.
Where is your proof? We can't just theorise, we need to find established fact - namely the point of this thread.
I'm seeing more proof for rather than against at the minute.
- Pluto2
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU, and there are no reasons to believe it is an alternate timeline from any other story, which is rather important when you have to write your articles from an in-universe perspective. The only other nods to this Ninth Doctor that I'm aware of in the DWU are in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles, in which it is an easter egg for fans. Neither Jonny Morris nor Lance Parkin seriously considered REG as a "proper" Doctor at this point in time, not least because both books had been released after the new series' announcement, but also because the Shalka Doctor is quite clearly regarded as a possible future for McGann's Doctor- a possible future that we have seen didn't come to fruition, and if this possible future Doctor never appeared, then Scream of the Shalka did not happen within the DWU, and hence should remain labelled invalid.
As an aside, I am opening a debate on the Panopticon regarding changing some policy in T:VS that has struck me as unclear as this debate has gone on, if any of you would wish to join me.
Erm, what? Shalka was always intended to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. Everything up to that point was part of continuity. This was the Ninth Doctor at the time. The Doctor there was the same one who stole a TARDIS and ran away with his granddaughter Susan.
- SeaniesBeanies
Erm, what? Shalka was always intended to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. Everything up to that point was part of continuity. This was the Ninth Doctor at the time. The Doctor there was the same one who stole a TARDIS and ran away with his granddaughter Susan.
So is Rowan Atkinson's Ninth Doctor, but nobody with their head screwed on is going to take The Curse of Fatal Death as valid territory.
- 5.2.105.85
SeaniesBeanies wrote:
Erm, what? Shalka was always intended to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. Everything up to that point was part of continuity. This was the Ninth Doctor at the time. The Doctor there was the same one who stole a TARDIS and ran away with his granddaughter Susan.
So is Rowan Atkinson's Ninth Doctor, but nobody with their head screwed on is going to take The Curse of Fatal Death as valid territory.
TCOFD is a parodic story, whereas SOTS was an official, serious continuation.
Also, please don't say that one would have to have the heads screwed on to accept it - that's a boderline personal attack.
I personally except it as a divergent timeline, it's no more ridiculous than some stories in the revived series - many of the ridiculous things that were shown in TCOFD such as the Master kissing/loving he Doctor, the Doctor loving a companion, a Time Lord regenerating into a woman or even friendly timey wimey banter have all been integrated into the series proper as serious plot devices.
- NateBumber
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU
I'm gonna end my quote right there, since using this as a justification for invalidity goes against T:VS, which says
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
The only topic of this debate should be whether the authors intended it to be part of the Doctor Who universe, and, since it was intended to be an official continuation of the series, it clearly is. Yes, it was known there would be a different televised continuation, but it was unknown at that time whether it would be a new Doctor or continue where Shalka left off, so it can't be said that Shalka was made "unofficial" in any way due to the announcement. So far, it seems like the anti-inclusion arguments in this thread have consisted of complete non-sequiturs, as defined by T:VS, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.
- SeaniesBeanies
The BBC describe Shalka as "a curio". The BBC own the licence to it. The writers admit that it isn't and can't fully be a part of continuity. I'm struggling to see how this is a weak argument against inclusion.
- OttselSpy25
Well, to play devil's advocate, if it was at the time meant to be a valid story, it's difficult to go about trying to claim that other sources trump the meaning during production.
RTD's words after the start of the 2005 series probably shouldn't mean more than the producer of the episode at the time it was being made.
Everything that's been said against Shalka could every easily also be said against a story line Party Animals, and it seems that while a lot of people seem to agree that there is a difference between these two stories, not many people seem to be giving consistent answers.
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote:
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU
I'm gonna end my quote right there, since using this as a justification for invalidity goes against T:VS, which says
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
The only topic of this debate should be whether the authors intended it to be part of the Doctor Who universe, and, since it was intended to be an official continuation of the series, it clearly is. Yes, it was known there would be a different televised continuation, but it was unknown at that time whether it would be a new Doctor or continue where Shalka left off, so it can't be said that Shalka was made "unofficial" in any way due to the announcement. So far, it seems like the anti-inclusion arguments in this thread have consisted of complete non-sequiturs, as defined by T:VS, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.
Exactly. It passes our four little rules.
- Pluto2
In fact, every now and then the New Series writers add throwaway lines referencing the Shalka Ninth Doctor's backstory. Time of the Doctor has the android boyfriend line, and Hell Bent has this:
The Doctor: The last I heard, he stole the moon and the President's wife.
Clara: Was she, erm... Was she nice, the President's wife?
The Doctor: Ah, well, that was a lie put about by the Shabogans. It was the President's daughter. I didn't steal the moon, I lost it...
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote:
In fact, every now and then the New Series writers add throwaway lines referencing the Shalka Ninth Doctor's backstory. Time of the Doctor has the android boyfriend line, and Hell Bent has this: [snip]The validity of Shalka has nothing to do with continuity. Despite this discussion being opened for continuity-related matters, we're past that point.
What matters is whether it was "intended to take place [within] the DWU". Because of the unique circumstances of its production, this phrase can be interpreted either way.
It should be noted, of course, that the DWU is not a single progression of events. Shalka can easily take place within that big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff that is the DWU, even if not within the Doctor's "main" timeline.
- OttselSpy25
It's very complex to talk about our policies, because we often have to bring into the forefront things terms that we don't use. Because even if we've disowned them, they still existed outside of this domain.
For instance, our validity policies have nothing to do with if a story is meant to be a set in the DWU or not. But if a story was meant to be a valid, "canon" in-universe story at the time of release is a pressing issue.
The difference between a story being "not set in the Doctor Who Universe" and a story being set "in another universe" are notably different. If we had evidence that Shalka was envisioned from the start as an alternate universe story, then it'd be valid in the same vein as The Infinity Doctors. But now the topic falls to if the story was meant to be a valid, main-universe story when it was made.
The disagreement that has befallen us now is a more specific definition of what that even means. Czech argues that because by the time the BBC released it it already "no longer counted," it should be ignored in the same sense of Planet of the Rain Gods.
Others would argue that we should only view this from the point of view of the people making it, who presumably had no idea that a much better show was about to be announced which would make their series seem totally irrelevant.
I have no idea.
- OttselSpy25
SeaniesBeanies wrote: The BBC describe Shalka as "a curio". The BBC own the licence to it. The writers admit that it isn't and can't fully be a part of continuity. I'm struggling to see how this is a weak argument against inclusion.
The problem is that there are easily countless stories out there just like that that we would call valid. The BBC has surely called the Pre-DWM comics "oddities" at some point. I'm sure there's heavy doubt from the people who worked at Virgin about Lungbarrow "counting." It's kind of a weak base for a conclusion in the wider context.
- 213.205.253.221
Wasn't it described as the 1st official fully animated story when the DVD was released
- Bwburke94
The basic problem with the Shalka argument is that there is no in-universe evidence that it is in a different timeline from the BBC Wales series, yet the Shalka and BBC Wales timelines can't remotely be reconciled with each other.
We've been eschewing continuity as a reason for inclusion, but Shalka will always be an extreme case no matter what we do.
- 213.205.253.221
Bwburke94 wrote: The basic problem with the Shalka argument is that there is no in-universe evidence that it is in a different timeline from the BBC Wales series, yet the Shalka and BBC Wales timelines can't remotely be reconciled with each other.
We've been eschewing continuity as a reason for inclusion, but Shalka will always be an extreme case no matter what we do.
True but it's not the only time difrent story's seem to follow incomparable timelines just look at ace and the masters post survival bios on this wiki
- OttselSpy25
Exactly. It's hard to argue for this on an in-universe basis when we've spent a long time discouraging that sort of thing on this site. Most stories that are invalid here have practical reasons for being so from a real-world point of view. Such things as "the story was a joke to the writers" or "it wasn't meant to be taken seriously." Not something like "oh it contradicts [some dumb comic or something]."
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Exactly. It's hard to argue for this on an in-universe basis when we've spent a long time discouraging that sort of thing on this site. Most stories that are invalid here have practical reasons for being so from a real-world point of view. Such things as "the story was a joke to the writers" or "it wasn't meant to be taken seriously." Not something like "oh it contradicts [some dumb comic or something]."
Exactly. This doesn't go out of its way to contradict other stories. In my opinion, treating Shalka and the New Series as just being equally valid, if differing, accounts is the best way to go.
- OttselSpy25
As far as I see it, we have two options here. We either,
1) Agree an out-of-universe explanation for why it's invalid, as per most other stories we call invalid
or
B) no, 2) We make it semi-valid -- an odd technicality of an unclear incarnation (since he never says what regeneration he's in) -- who isn't invalid but who is obscure enough to be mainly ignored by editors (see: every weird one-off PROSE or COMIC Doctor incarnation).
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: As far as I see it, we have two options here. We either,
1) Agree an out-of-universe explanation for why it's invalid, as per most other stories we call invalid
or
B) no, 2) We make it semi-valid -- an odd technicality of an unclear incarnation (since he never says what regeneration he's in) -- who isn't invalid but who is obscure enough to be mainly ignored by editors (see: every weird one-off PROSE or COMIC Doctor incarnation).
I prefer 2, myself. From an in-universe perspective, all we know is that he's after Eight, as he recalls "all nine of him" being painted by Warhol (which could mean Nine as in Hartnell through Hurt or Eccleston if we don't count War). From the line about nine lives, it doesn't make any sense no matter how you interpret it, as a regeneration cycle is thirteen lives. If we're gonna keep Man with the Rosette separate from the Master due to no in-universe evidence (despite authorial intent), we should do the same here.
- OttselSpy25
Isn't the line more like
Woman: "My cat's gonna die."
Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."
If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Isn't the line more like
Woman: "My cat's gonna die."
Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."
If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...
Just skimmed through The Feast of the Stone. No mention is made of what incarnation he's in.
- 95.147.32.223
OttselSpy25 wrote: Isn't the line more like
Woman: "My cat's gonna die."
Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."
If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...
That line mikes it sounds more like he's at the end of a regeneration cycle than in his 9th incarnation
- Pluto2
Here's a demonstration of what the Shalka Doctor's article might look like under option 2: The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka).
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Isn't the line more like
Woman: "My cat's gonna die."
Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."
If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...
Yeah, I just watched that episode. The way he says that suggests he's already passed his ninth incarnation, like he's already lived nine lives by that point.
- OttselSpy25
The only way we can call the Shalka Doctor the "Ninth Doctor" is through out-of-universe logic. But by the same logic, we also can figure out that this Doctor was likely meant to be Doctor #8, but we never see that in the comic so it's never mentioned on his page. It's hinted what incarnation Shalka is in, but never out-right said.
In that sense, I think it's totally a rational plan to simply treat both Shalka and Party Animals equally the same.
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: The only way we can call the Shalka Doctor the "Ninth Doctor" is through out-of-universe logic. But by the same logic, we also can figure out that this Doctor was likely meant to be Doctor #8, but we never see that in the comic so it's never mentioned on his page. It's hinted what incarnation Shalka is in, but never out-right said.
In that sense, I think it's totally a rational plan to simply treat both Shalka and Party Animals equally the same.
Erm, it's never implied that the actual Doctor in Party Animals is a particular number incarnation. It's an unspecified future one, with a possible implication it's the incarnation seen (or rather, heard) in the Audio Visuals. But if we're going down that path, that Doctor has to be the ninth, as Stephen Payne comes before. A more apt comparison here would be Man with the Rosette and the Master.
- Pluto2
At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason Scream of the Shalka (both the webcast and novelization) and The Feast of the Stone could be considered invalid, as there's...not much to debate here. It certainly passes rule 4, and discontinuity with the Wales series is not in itself a reason for exclusion. From a purely in-universe standpoint, nothing outright says the incarnation Grant plays is the ninth.
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote: At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason Scream of the Shalka (both the webcast and novelization) and The Feast of the Stone could be considered invalid, as there's...not much to debate here. It certainly passes rule 4, and discontinuity with the Wales series is not in itself a reason for exclusion. From a purely in-universe standpoint, nothing outright says the incarnation Grant plays is the ninth.
The "all nine of him" line that you yourself provided is good enough evidence. You've twisted the words to make sense of how he could potentially be a later incarnation, but saying that he is not ninth (in his personal timeline) is pure speculation.
The more pressing question is the Eighth Doctor, because he will have regenerated into two entirely different Doctors if the Shalka incarnation is ninth.
- 95.147.32.223
Bwburke94 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason Scream of the Shalka (both the webcast and novelization) and The Feast of the Stone could be considered invalid, as there's...not much to debate here. It certainly passes rule 4, and discontinuity with the Wales series is not in itself a reason for exclusion. From a purely in-universe standpoint, nothing outright says the incarnation Grant plays is the ninth.
The "all nine of him" line that you yourself provided is good enough evidence. You've twisted the words to make sense of how he could potentially be a later incarnation, but saying that he is not ninth (in his personal timeline) is pure speculation.
The more pressing question is the Eighth Doctor, because he will have regenerated into two entirely different Doctors if the Shalka incarnation is ninth.
Is that any different than Antony anleys incarnation of the master who has 3 different endings including losing his body and regerating into a new incarnation or the Delgado master who in the books simply became disfigured and was the one seen in the deadly assassina or in big finish regerated into the one who became disfigured
- OttselSpy25
Not to mention the fact that there are like three contradicting post-Ainley incarnations.
I still stand by the fact that as the story in-universe only vaguely touches upon his incarnation he's no different from any other one-off Doctor of secondary-stories past.
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Not to mention the fact that there are like three contradicting post-Ainley incarnations.
I still stand by the fact that as the story in-universe only vaguely touches upon his incarnation he's no different from any other one-off Doctor of secondary-stories past.
Agreed.
If we really have to treat it as a ninth incarnation, there's always the existence of Grandfather Halfling (who's implied to be the version of the Eighth Doctor who became the Relic, resurrected in the City of the Saved)...
- OttselSpy25
R-right...
I think it's best to stay away from explaining this in-universe. In fact, I absolutely insist we don't try to make Shalka "make sense." That's not what our job is.
- AeD
I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."
So are you in favor of treating Scream of the Shalka as valid, and its Doctor as just an unspecified post-McGann one?
- 95.147.32.223
Pluto2 wrote:
AeD wrote: I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."
So are you in favor of treating Scream of the Shalka as valid, and its Doctor as just an unspecified post-McGann one?
Yes I am
- Pluto2
Would The Master (Scream of the Shalka) be merged with The Master, or would it be kept separate?
- Bwburke94
95.147.32.223 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
AeD wrote: I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."
So are you in favor of treating Scream of the Shalka as valid, and its Doctor as just an unspecified post-McGann one?
Yes I am
AeD, can you confirm this was your IP address?
- AeD
(IP 95.147.32.223 is not me.)
The evidence for "Ninth Doctor" is so flimsy that, validity aside, I think the article should be moved (back?) to [[The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]], yes, with the minor rewrite of the article this implies.
As for the Master, I think the closest equivalent on the site is [[The Master (Sympathy for the Devil)]] -- valid, but a distinct enough from the "main" one to warrant a separate article. So yeah, I would keep it at [[The Master (Scream of the Shalka)]].
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: (IP 95.147.32.223 is not me.)
The evidence for "Ninth Doctor" is so flimsy that, validity aside, I think the article should be moved (back?) to [[The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]], yes, with the minor rewrite of the article this implies.
As for the Master, I think the closest equivalent on the site is [[The Master (Sympathy for the Devil)]] -- valid, but a distinct enough from the "main" one to warrant a separate article. So yeah, I would keep it at [[The Master (Scream of the Shalka)]].
The thing is, the Master in Sympathy for the Devil is from an alternate universe. Meanwhile, The Master (Scream of the Shalka) is the main universe's Master, his consciousness placed in an android body. It's the same Master that debuted in Terror of the Autons. This is similar to the Master stealing a body.
- Pluto2
How about we do something like User:Pluto2/The Master? Does this look good?
- OttselSpy25
I think we need to make it clear how questionable the Shalka source remains to be. "According to one source" everywhere.
Also, I feel like shalka still needs to be somewhere special on the page, like in a "Unclear incarnations' section.
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: I think we need to make it clear how questionable the Shalka source remains to be. "According to one source" everywhere.
Also, I feel like shalka still needs to be somewhere special on the page, like in a "Unclear incarnations' section.
We treat all valid sources equally on this wiki. Just place it in undated adventures.
- OttselSpy25
Yes, but any source that's questionable gets a big ol' "according to one source" text piece.
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, but any source that's questionable gets a big ol' "according to one source" text piece.
How exactly is Shalka questionable from an in-universe standpoint?
- AeD
*looks up thread* *looks back down*
It's questionable because it's a one-off run of webisodes that was supplanted by the revived television series. It's essentially an Unbound story.
- Bwburke94
AeD wrote: *looks up thread* *looks back down*
It's questionable because it's a one-off run of webisodes that was supplanted by the revived television series. It's essentially an Unbound story.
Trying to fit Shalka into continuity is like trying to eat soup with a fork. We need to consider its impact on pages before we throw it into in-universe articles, even if this means Rule 4 needs to be redefined.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote:
AeD wrote: *looks up thread* *looks back down*
It's questionable because it's a one-off run of webisodes that was supplanted by the revived television series. It's essentially an Unbound story.
Trying to fit Shalka into continuity is like trying to eat soup with a fork. We need to consider its impact on pages before we throw it into in-universe articles, even if this means Rule 4 needs to be redefined.
One idea for the Master is to put it under undated events. Another is to keep Shalka info on a separate page, and call it "The Master (Android)" or something .
- Bwburke94
The problem here isn't the Master, because we're already dealing with multiple potential fates for the post-Ainley incarnation.
The problem is the Eighth Doctor.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: The problem here isn't the Master, because we're already dealing with multiple potential fates for the post-Ainley incarnation.
The problem is the Eighth Doctor.
Except that aside from ouf-of-universe sources, the only indication given about the Shalka Doctor is that he's after McGann. He could be the ninth, or he could be a later incarnation. The best way to handle the Shalka Doctor, in my opinion, is to treat him like a distinct but unspecified number incarnation, moving the page to "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" . Something like this.
- Bwburke94
Actually, let's get back to the "is he Ninth" part of the discussion.
It would take some severe mental gymnastics to state that he was not intended to be ninth at the time of production. Trying to take a strict in-universe perspective on these sort of things leads to madness.
However, The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) is certainly a reasonable name for the article, regardless of whether he is ninth or not.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: Actually, let's get back to the "is he Ninth" part of the discussion.
It would take some severe mental gymnastics to state that he was not intended to be ninth at the time of production. Trying to take a strict in-universe perspective on these sort of things leads to madness.
However, The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) is certainly a reasonable name for the article, regardless of whether he is ninth or not.
That's the thing. What counts for in-universe articles is in-universe material. So we can say in BTS that he was intended to be the ninth, but that's it.
- Bwburke94
The "all nine of me" line and comparison to a cat's nine lives are both in-universe material. The former is as direct a confirmation as we'd get on any Time Lord without them directly stating their incarnation; the latter line further indicates that the former was not referring to a previous incarnation.
And therein lies the problem. If Shalka is valid, this Doctor is unambiguously the Ninth, but the readers of this wiki as a whole would expect "Ninth Doctor" to refer solely to the Doctor played by Christopher Eccleston.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: The "all nine of me" line and comparison to a cat's nine lives are both in-universe material. The former is as direct a confirmation as we'd get on any Time Lord without them directly stating their incarnation; the latter line further indicates that the former was not referring to a previous incarnation.
And therein lies the problem. If Shalka is valid, this Doctor is unambiguously the Ninth, but the readers of this wiki as a whole would expect "Ninth Doctor" to refer solely to the Doctor played by Christopher Eccleston.
The thing is that "all of my nine lives" makes no sense at all, because a Time Lord regeneration cycle has thirteen incarnations. Perhaps he's just being poetic. And the Warhol remark seems rather off-the-cuff ("Lovely man, wanted to paint all nine of me").
- Bwburke94
It doesn't matter that the line is off-the-cuff. It's evidence that he's ninth.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: It doesn't matter that the line is off-the-cuff. It's evidence that he's ninth.
It doesn't help much, though. It could be that in his ninth incarnation, Warhol wished to paint all nine at the time. It's rather useless for anything, because it could mean a variety of things. All it establishes is that by Shalka, the Doctor has had nine incarnations. It doesn't establish that he's the ninth of those.
- OttselSpy25
It's unclear is what it is. In the story, the Doctor does not say "I am the ninth Doctor, I have used up eight lives."
He says "Your cats have used up their nine lives -- much like me." So is he the Ninth Doctor? Or is he the Tenth doctor, because of him using up nine lives? Or is he the Thirteenth Doctor, because of him using up 'all of his lives' as the cat had?
It's unclear, so we shouldn't decide.
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: It's unclear is what it is. In the story, the Doctor does not say "I am the ninth Doctor, I have used up eight lives."
He says "Your cats have used up their nine lives -- much like me." So is he the Ninth Doctor? Or is he the Tenth doctor, because of him using up nine lives? Or is he the Thirteenth Doctor, because of him using up 'all of his lives' as the cat had?
It's unclear, so we shouldn't decide.
Ding ding ding!
- Pluto2
It looks like this thread has reached a conclusion, with the consensus being that it's valid. Can an admin close this thread, please?
- Amorkuz
I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?
Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.
- Amorkuz
Oh, yes, and just for the record, I am not an admin, who User:Fwhiffahder predicted to spoil his fun of adding more and more content, but I agree with the reasoning of CzechOut that this is invalid.
- OttselSpy25
I absolutely agree that the thread is not closed. Around here is where we must wait for others to notice the thread and to hopefully continue the discussion from our own points. It is not uncommon for admins to suddenly close down a thread despite any form on consensus.
once again, a lack of traffic does not mean that we get to form a sly monopoly over the site's rules.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?
Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.
It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus.
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?
Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.
It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus.
Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was.
- Pluto2
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?
Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.
It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus.
Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was.
How so?
Authorial intent when making this was to create a new story with the same Doctor that was played by Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Hurndall, Davison, Baker, McCoy, and McGann, but in a new incarnation. The fact is, this was promoted as being a new Doctor, but it absolutely wasn't meant to be a separate universe. It was only when Davies decided to ignore it that it got shoved off to the side. Authorial intent refers to the intention when the story was being made. Even if someone's position changed a few months later when the revival was announced, it doesn't count.
- OncomingStorm12th
CzechOut wrote: As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.
CzechOut wrote: But it was perfectly obvious in 2003, when Shalka was released, that Grant wasn't going to be the Doctor "for real" and that the RTD series was the genuine article. So when the wiki was set up in 2005, the memory of all this was fresh in the minds of everyone who was here. It didn't occur to anyone to suggest that somehow REG was "legitimate". Later, once we had more formalised rules about validity, there was no need to hold a discussion about it. It just was patently obvious that Eccleston was the Ninth Doctor and REG was, as Wikipedia still has it, only the "Shalka Doctor".
These two arguments seem way stonger to me than anything else stated on the rest of the thread. And, going by CzechOut's coments: the BBC (aka, the ones who holds the copyrights for DW, as much as this thread is concerned), favoured Series 1 as part of the DWU, not Scream of the Shalka. The "abortion" of future webcasts with Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) also back this up.
- Amorkuz
Actually, the exact quote is "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4."
It does not mention anything about the time the author has to say this. However, I would say that the other three rules and Wiki policies imply that the statement of authorial intent should come at the time or after the official release. Because before the official release, the story does not exist as far as this Wiki is concerned. Not simply is it not valid by Rule 3. No, it is not a story. Even mentioning it on this Wiki is prohibited by T:SPOIL. So how can a statement about something that does not yet exist be used to support some opinion?
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: Actually, the exact quote is "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4."
The only thing close to that is Cornell saying it could be considered unbound - which would mean a parallel universe.
- Thefartydoctor
I suppose it depends how you interpret The Tomorrow Windows. He sees all of his ninth selves. If you interpret that as the Eighth Doctor saw the Shalka Doctor as a possible Ninth Doctor, then... would that be unbound?
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: I suppose it depends how you interpret The Tomorrow Windows. He sees all of his ninth selves. If you interpret that as the Eighth Doctor saw the Shalka Doctor as a possible Ninth Doctor, then... would that be unbound?
The thing is, he sees various future selves, not all of which are the ninth. The Merlin Doctor (redhaired) is seen, as is the Valeyard. And neither of those are a Ninth Doctor. From a narrative perspective, all we can say on the Shalka Doctor is that he's after his Eighth incarnation. He's had at least nine lives - given Warhol painted nine of him. But nothing narrative says the incarnation is the ninth outright, it's only implied.
- SeaniesBeanies
Pluto2 The thing is, he sees various future selves, not all of which are the ninth. The Merlin Doctor (redhaired) is seen, as is the Valeyard. And neither of those are a Ninth Doctor. From a narrative perspective, all we can say on the Shalka Doctor is that he's after his Eighth incarnation. He's had at least nine lives - given Warhol painted nine of him. But nothing narrative says the incarnation is the ninth outright, it's only implied.
And rather heavily implied too by The Gallifrey Chronicles
- Pluto2
Or not, apparently.
The novelization has shot that down. When the Doctor arrives, after explaining regeneration, it outright says "This form was his ninth." So...we'll have to treat him as a ninth incarnation.
- Pluto2
Here's my new proposal:
1. Scream of the Shalka, its novelization, and The Feast of the Stone are to be treated as valid sources.
2. No change is to be made to the title of the article Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), given that the novelization unambiguously states the Doctor is in his ninth incarnation.
3. We can either treat The Master (Scream of the Shalka) as the same Master, placing his info under "Undated events" in his main article, or keep them separate.
Either way, there is certainly proof this was set in the DWU. The novelization has the Master reminisce about having stolen several bodies, for example. Thus, it passes rule 4.
- Thefartydoctor
We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.
So we'd treat it as an alternate universe, like the Unbounds? That is fine by me, as long as we treat then as valid sources!
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.
So we'd treat it as an alternate universe, like the Unbounds? That is fine by me, as long as we treat then as valid sources!
But how can we trat it as an alternate universe, if they give us no evidence. We only treat it as an alternate universe if they tells us, give evidence it is. We do not decide it as an alternate universe just because it doesn't fit well with what would be the "main universe"
- Thefartydoctor
As I've already been part of one heated debate today, I'm just gonna leave my opinion on the matter and let you guys do whatever. Like I say, I see parallels with the David Warner situation. That's how I'd treat this. To be honest, the only thing making me just about comfortable treating these two novels as valid is that they were republished. That's it. To me, these events play no part in the prime timeline of the Doctor's life.
However, if we are forced to treat them as valid, then I suggest the David Warner route is how we go with this. They're both respectively the Doctor/Master up until a certain point and then they diverge. That's my opinion. I can't be bothered to find the evidence haha. I've had one stressful debate today that's left me very stressed and unnerved, so I'm leaving it to you guys.
- Pluto2
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.
So we'd treat it as an alternate universe, like the Unbounds? That is fine by me, as long as we treat then as valid sources!
But how can we trat it as an alternate universe, if they give us no evidence. We only treat it as an alternate universe if they tells us, give evidence it is. We do not decide it as an alternate universe just because it doesn't fit well with what would be the "main universe"
Cornell is on record as referring to the story, after the fact, as "unbound".
- OncomingStorm12th
Like I say, I see parallels with the David Warner situation. That's how I'd treat this. To be honest, the only thing making me just about comfortable treating these two novels as valid is that they were republished. That's it. To me, these events play no part in the prime timeline of the Doctor's life.
Look, to be honest, I don't see why being republished would mean much. Dr. Who and the Daleks, one of the most unquestionable non-DWU stories on this wiki, also has been adapted into a comic story.
- Thefartydoctor
It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.
@Pluto2, forgive my lack of knowledge but I take it Cornell is linked with this story? If so, I ask you all, is that enough to provide us with "authorial intent"? We've had this on the other debate (that got kinda out of hand)... authorial intent is more to do with the BBC, right? It's not really the actual writer/author.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.
@Pluto2, forgive my lack of knowledge but I take it Cornell is linked with this story? If so, I ask you all, is that enough to provide us with "authorial intent"? We've had this on the other debate (that got kinda out of hand)... authorial intent is more to do with the BBC, right? It's not really the actual writer/author.
Yes, Paul Cornell wrote the story.
- OncomingStorm12th
Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.
But that's exactly my point. If even a story that wouldn't be valid "in a billion years" can be reprinted, how could a non-clear like Shalka be deemed valid only because it was reprinted?
- Thefartydoctor
I know you said about the whole Vienna thing and it going against the usual protocol for "authorial intent"... I'm just wondering... you'd never get a statement or any form of proof from the BBC or from BBC Books because it's so tiny and insignificant. So, I'm wondering whether admins would look at an official statement made by Paul Cornell in a non-biased context and take it as "authorial intent". It's grasping at straws, admittedly, but I'd be interested in hearing your guys' opinions.
- Thefartydoctor
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.
But that's exactly my point. If even a story that wouldn't be valid "in a billion years" can be reprinted, how could a non-clear like Shalka be deemed valid only because it was reprinted?
I was talking more about my personal levels of comfort. For the record, I can't at the moment deem them as valid. I never have done. He's not the Ninth Doctor and the other dude isn't the Master. If someone comes up with a legit connection here to suggest a way of it being possible, then hooray. I wasn't suggesting you take my reprint suggestion overly seriously.
- OncomingStorm12th
Thefartydoctor wrote: I wasn't suggesting you take my reprint suggestion overly seriously.
Oh gosh, I really overlook this part:
To me, these events play no part in the prime timeline of the Doctor's life.
Sorry. Now I see your position on this.
- Thefartydoctor
No need to apologise, it was me trying my hardest to find a way to let them into my life haha. But so far, it's not happening. x'D
- Pluto2
Here is my proposal:
Given that Paul Cornell has referred to this little corner of the franchise as being "unbound", the following changes would be made:
1. Scream of the Shalka, its novelization, and The Feast of the Stone are to be treated as valid sources, albeit ones in a different universe to the 2005 series. The first eight incarnations of the Doctor are certainly the same ones as the revived series has.
2. No change is to be made to the title of the article Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), given that the novelization unambiguously states the Doctor is in his ninth incarnation.
3. We likewise treat the adroid Master like we do the one Mark Gatiss plays.
Essentially, we would follow the ruling given for Unbound - the three Shalka Doctor stories are in a separate universe to the revived series, but still valid sources.
- Thefartydoctor
I just want to know one thing and one thing only, and in my opinion, this all pivots on it. Everyone put their opinions to one side and look at this factually. Does what Paul Cornell say satisfy "authorial intent". If not, explain why not. If yes, explain why yes. Because up until now, I've been told that authorial intent is less to do with writer of the story and more to do with publisher/producer (i.e. the BBC, BBC Books). However, today I was made aware that this decision was overruled in a debate regarding Vienna, in which the writer of the series contradicted Big Finish and stated it "was its own thing" rather than an official spin-off.
So... authorial intent satisfied or not? Because I'm confused.
- Bwburke94
Vienna is its own mess. Let's shunt the authorial intent debate onto the existing intent thread and continue with what we have here.
I like what Pluto2 is proposing. Treat it as valid but in a separate universe, similar to the Unbounds.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.
Not really that relevant I guess, but I think Dr. Who and the Daleks isn't the most far something on this site can go from being valid. I would say the most definite invalid stories would be something like A Fix with Sontarans or Tonight's the Night -- where it isn't even a full narrative. Realistically any story with a "different universe" is one Spider-Verse crossover away from being valid on this site.
Anyways, good detective work finding more solid evidence that the Doctor is in his Ninth incarnation. In the past that would have been a definite justification to say that it was invalid, but in the present I think it isn't enough.
But I must strongly clarify that we will not be saying at any point that this Doctor is from "an alternate universe/timeline." That is reserved for stories where we have clear authorial intent for this to be the case -- and furthermore we've only done this in one instance where it's been clear that an unproduced sequel story would have explained it away (I know this has been recently questioned, but in this instance I'm speaking wholly from a point of view of policy and precedent).
It's one thing for Paul Cornell to say -- a very long time after he was finished with the product -- "Yea it's probably an alternate universe I guess." To say that it's an alternate universe, we would seriously need either him saying it was meant to be an alternate universe at the time of production or, again, a Spider-verse crossover comic..
The final question of it is is valid, once again, comes down to the question of authorial intent.
The point of view of many people in this thread is that as the writers meant for it to be valid, it's valid. However, by the time it was released the BBC had disowned it and was working on an official TV series. I would like to see quotes from the BBC about the product by the time of its release to confirm exactly how the BBC presented it.
There is precedent, again, to disown a story because it presented a "pilot" that was then abandoned by further productions. I believe that was the justification for abandoning Death Comes to Time. So changing the stance on this story would have larger consequences outside of just this narrative.
On the other hand, this doesn't exactly shatter the motion that the beliefs of those in the production room might mean more than the BBC executives who changed their minds at the last minute. I'm simply not absolutely sure.
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote: Here is my proposal:
Given that Paul Cornell has referred to this little corner of the franchise as being "unbound", the following changes would be made:
1. Scream of the Shalka, its novelization, and The Feast of the Stone are to be treated as valid sources, albeit ones in a different universe to the 2005 series. The first eight incarnations of the Doctor are certainly the same ones as the revived series has.
2. No change is to be made to the title of the article Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), given that the novelization unambiguously states the Doctor is in his ninth incarnation.
3. We likewise treat the adroid Master like we do the one Mark Gatiss plays.
Essentially, we would follow the ruling given for Unbound - the three Shalka Doctor stories are in a separate universe to the revived series, but still valid sources.
In my own personal "cannon", I always fitted Shalka as an alternate universe. But since Cornell refers to the story as "unbound", I can agree with deeming it as an alternate timeline here as well. The Doctor Who Unbound page itself says " term has been adopted as a general descriptor of out-of-continuity stories." and uses Shalka as an example, actually.
- Thefartydoctor
This discussion should not really have been reopened. There's evidently no new evidence. If anyone has DWM issues from the time, they may need a good scouring for possible quotes. It seems this story continually is brought back to debate without new evidence. I only threw Paul Cornell into the mix as a last ditched attempt to salvage any sort of means of validation, but now you've verified what I always thought authorial intent to mean, we're left at stage one, aren't we?
We're saying it remains as it is currently until someone genuinely comes up with something of interest?
- Bwburke94
There is no hard in-universe evidence Shalka is an alternate timeline, but it is so discontinuitous with later-released works that we may have no choice but to place it as such if valid.
We have a rules problem here - we can't use Cornell's statement to call it an alternate timeline because it is not in-universe evidence, but we cannot use the narrative differences to deem it invalid because our rules prevent this. The solution is simple: use Cornell's statement among others to determine its validity, then if it is valid, use the narrative differences to call it an alternate timeline!
Rules were meant to be broken. Trying to use our existing rules to place Shalka is so obviously impossible that we might as well bend them to our advantage.
- TheChampionOfTime
For FartyDoctor, here's some DWM quotes which have been buried in the sea of posts that make up this thread.
From the article "No one can hear you SCREAM" in DWM 336:
"The Ninth Doctor in a story that sets its sights on the future and provides a starting point for ongoing adventures without reformatting the show. Traditional but original, new monsters that behave like Doctor Who monsters should, and a new Doctor with a new way of doing things who's still very much the Doctor we know and love" - Paul Cornell
Maybe even broadcast on television - just like like how proper Doctor Who used to be. Actually, according to BBCi, this is proper Doctor Who.
"It's a new medium, a new start for Doctor Who. No one knows what the next step is going to be." - James Goss
The header of an article in DWM 336:
- After Eight
He came back to life before your eyes. But now he's regenerated - and no one thought to tell him. Benjamin Cook caught up with Paul Mcgann to mourn the passing of the Eight Doctor and pass judgement on his usurper [Richard E Grant].
In an interview with Justin Richards in DWM 338 he talks about cancelled plans to do a series of novels with the Shalka Doc:
"My thought was that it would be nice to do 'Ninth Doctor' books within the Past Doctors line - there really isn't enough in Shalka to kick off a whole new strand, although it might have been possible if we'd been able to do one extra book every quarter in its own sub-range" - Justin Richards
- Pluto2
So is everyone fine with treating this like an alternate universe?
- OttselSpy25
Pluto2 wrote: So is everyone fine with treating this like an alternate universe?
No.
- OttselSpy25
What's important about this is that, despite the "Grant-cover" DWM being released after the announcement, it's pretty clear that most of it was made before. If it hadn't been, Grant likely would not have been on the cover at all.
So all of these are what people had to say about Shalka before the announcement:
"The Ninth Doctor in a story that sets its sights on the future and provides a starting point for ongoing adventures without reformatting the show. Traditional but original, new monsters that behave like Doctor Who monsters should, and a new Doctor with a new way of doing things who's still very much the Doctor we know and love" - Paul Cornell
Maybe even broadcast on television - just like like how proper Doctor Who used to be. Actually, according to BBCi, this is proper Doctor Who.
"It's a new medium, a new start for Doctor Who. No one knows what the next step is going to be." - James Goss
And this is what people had to say about it after, and thus technically before it was even released:
- After Eight
He came back to life before your eyes. But now he's regenerated - and no one thought to tell him. Benjamin Cook caught up with Paul Mcgann to mourn the passing of the Eight Doctor and pass judgement on his usurper [Richard E Grant].
Usurper means "less important," btw.
So it's pretty clear that everyone jumped ship on Shalka being anything that "counted" before it was even released. I even recall my father showing it to me as a child and constantly saying "Don't get attached to any of this." If anything, by releasing this statement just before the story came out, it was almost as if the BBC wanted to purposefully sabotage the story just so people wouldn't get confused. If you look at this from the point of view of the BBC being the "authors," then this certainly wasn't something that they expected to be "part of our world," as it were.
On the topic of if a story is an alternate universe or timeline, I must again say that we simply can not guess something like that without very specific guidelines. I would need Cornell saying "We were going to do a second one where Shalka fell from his universe into RTD's and met Chris Ecclesiastes" before we would have enough info to do to this what we did to Infinity Doctors. You can't just call every full narrative that wasn't meant to be the DWU an "alternate timeline" with absolutely no evidence at all.
So my next big question would be how the official DVD release of Shalka discusses the story?
- SeaniesBeanies
Well I'm not digging the DVD out right now but all of the interviews in the extras were along the lines of "we put loads of effort into this and it turned out it wasn't proper 2 months before release".
- OttselSpy25
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Well I'm not digging the DVD out right now but all of the interviews in the extras were along the lines of "we put loads of effort into this and it turned out it wasn't proper 2 months before release".
Sounds like that builds even further to the "The BBC didn't consider this valid" narrative.
- 95.147.32.223
This wiki has this to say about the piriod just before and after it was released
As a result, the "official" nature of the Shalka webcast was in doubt from even before it was released. After the web cast, in February 2004, plans for sequels were indefinitely shelved. For a period, it was unclear if the new television Doctor would be the Ninth or Tenth Doctor, but this was settled in April 2004 when in an interview with Doctor Who Magazine, Davies announced that the new television Doctor (played by Christopher Eccleston), would be the Ninth Doctor, relegating the Richard E Grant Doctor to unofficial status. This suggests shalka was still official until April 2004 at lest and plans for a sequel to shalka continued after the new series was announced whoud indicate that the new series and web series where considers compatible at the time also it should be noted how little work had on the new series had been done by the end of 2003 the question remains do letter reference invalidated the story to not also give that RTD cornel and Moffat have all mad stem ants that everything is canon can any thing they say invalidate a story
- Bwburke94
95.147.32.223 wrote: This suggests shalka was still official until April 2004 at lest and plans for a sequel to shalka continued after the new series was announced whoud indicate that the new series and web series where considers compatible at the time also it should be noted how little work had on the new series had been done by the end of 2003 the question remains do letter reference invalidated the story to not also give that RTD cornel and Moffat have all mad stem ants that everything is canon can any thing they say invalidate a story
I think it's clear we need to figure out exactly what Rule 4 is and isn't. When exactly did it become outside the bounds of the DWU?
- OttselSpy25
Someone mentioned earlier that the people making Shalka were informed that it wasn't going to "count" two months before it was released. Can we get an official quote on that? That sounds like a very important clue to when the BBC disowned it.
- 95.147.32.223
On the making documentary they metion finding out about the new series half way through production but nothing about it not counting also it seems shalka made the revival eseare as as the BBC one was not aware they hade the rights as the shalka team where told before they began their where rights issues wich when they reached they found did not exist this information was given to the exec who letter comishend the new series
I would like to point out and quote something that User:OncomingStorm12th said:
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was.
This is absolutely on the nose. Some policies do not require consensus or majority.
And I want to stress something CzechOut mentioned in his first post. Tardis:Valid sources gives us a nice little list summarizing the "four little rules", but anyone participating in an inclusion debate needs to be aware of the entire policy page.
In addition, it is not the place of users to decide (or even ask) the question of whether any consensus or decision is reached. Doing so can give new users the impression that a decision has been reached, and they may act on that supposed decision. Leave the question of consensus up to the admins. It will make for a smoother process.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207622
I've started a new thread as requested.
The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story? After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious than Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.
- Pluto2
Valid.
- AeD
I'll be honest: I think if The Web of Caves gets to be considered a valid source of information about the DWU, the four little rules need adjusting.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AeD wrote: I'll be honest: I think if The Web of Caves gets to be considered a valid source of information about the DWU, the four little rules need adjusting.
I you watch it, the Doctor is more serious than the Eleventh Doctor. Only Walliam's character is silly but is that any different from Gibbis he plays later on? It's just tongue-in-cheek.
Robot of Sherwood that Gatiss wrote years later has Robin Hood talking about soiling himself. Is that any different?
- 178.100.233.86
Based on the evidence in this thred I'd say valid and leave the 4 rules as is
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AeD wrote: I'll be honest: I think if The Web of Caves gets to be considered a valid source of information about the DWU, the four little rules need adjusting.
Why's that?
- AeD
It's so clearly presented as and meant to be a comedy sketch. They're riffing on the show's reputation exactly like how Curse of Fatal Death does -- and how "seriously" Gatiss plays the Doctor, and comparing it to scatological humour in the revived series, is completely irrelevant.
It's like covering The Corridor Sketch as a serious docudrama.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AeD wrote: It's so clearly presented as and meant to be a comedy sketch. They're riffing on the show's reputation exactly like how Curse of Fatal Death does -- and how "seriously" Gatiss plays the Doctor, and comparing it to scatological humour in the revived series, is completely irrelevant.
It's like covering The Corridor Sketch as a serious docudrama.
The difference is that The Web of Caves was intended to be so-called "canonical". It's stated in DWM 285. Best wishes.
- RingoRoadagain
I just found an issue of DWM 285, could you please give me where they specifically states that?
I just skimmed through it, and on page 27, on the second column's 3rd line under the picture, Mark Gatiss refers to it as a "Doctor Who spoof".
"[The Web of Caves] is the actual spoof of an episode itself, and this is the one that gave us the most trouble... It's very hard to decide what to spoof about Doctor Who..."
"The sad thing about it is that we've recorded the spoof adventure now..."
Back in in DWM 279, Mark confessed to a desire to play the Doctor for real, in a proper new series of Doctor Who. Has this comedy outing fulfilled that need?
"Good God, no!" he laughs. "If anything, it's sharpened it!"
But we shouldn't need the creator to repeatedly, unequivocally call it a spoof to know for ourselves that this is, indeed, a spoof. It is so, so obviously a spoof, and will not become a valid source under rule 4 of Tardis:Valid sources.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207769
This is an unusual case. Mann created the character of Archibald Angelchrist for his own stories, then included him as a character in Paradox Lost, and continues to use the character elsewhere.
Mann has elsewhere said things to the effect of implying all his works are set in one universe.
Thus, can his non-Doctor Who works be covered here?
- SOTO
Usually, when an outside character is used in a work of Doctor Who, we only cover the character's DWU appearances, and give information outside of that only in the 'behind the scenes' and 'external links' sections. But in all such cases that come to mind, those characters from from large franchises of their own, so perhaps we should look into this a bit further.
- Josiah Rowe
If we follow that logic too far, we would end up incorporating all of Michael Moorcock's oeuvre as well, because The Coming of the Terraphiles includes Captain Cornelius, who is clearly a version of Jerry Cornelius and thus an aspect of the Eternal Champion. (If I recall correctly, Moorcock has also strongly intimated that the Doctor was an aspect of the Eternal Champion, both in Terraphiles and elsewhere in his own work.)
The precedent of Iris Wildthyme (who appeared in various Paul Magrs works before her arrival in Doctor Who) would suggest that we could include Archibald Angelchrist, but not necessarily everyone and everything else from Mann's writings.
- Bwburke94
Under normal circumstances, a story cannot be part of the DWU unless it includes a character or concept introduced in an earlier DWU work. This is an unofficial guideline, but it helps us weed out non-DWU characters who happened to make crossover appearances.
There are limited cases where a story can retroactively become part of the DWU on a character's later appearance, but those are few and far between. Other than An Unearthly Child and the Iris Wildthyme stuff, I can't think of one off the top of my head.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: Under normal circumstances, a story cannot be part of the DWU unless it includes a character or concept introduced in an earlier DWU work. This is an unofficial guideline, but it helps us weed out non-DWU characters who happened to make crossover appearances.
There are limited cases where a story can retroactively become part of the DWU on a character's later appearance, but those are few and far between. Other than An Unearthly Child and the Iris Wildthyme stuff, I can't think of one off the top of my head.
What's retroactive about Unearthly Child?
- Bwburke94
In a sense, everything about AUC is retroactive. There's no "earlier" DWU work, so by definition it can't have been part of the DWU until the DWU existed.
- Pluto2
Josiah Rowe wrote: If we follow that logic too far, we would end up incorporating all of Michael Moorcock's oeuvre as well, because The Coming of the Terraphiles includes Captain Cornelius, who is clearly a version of Jerry Cornelius and thus an aspect of the Eternal Champion. (If I recall correctly, Moorcock has also strongly intimated that the Doctor was an aspect of the Eternal Champion, both in Terraphiles and elsewhere in his own work.)
The precedent of Iris Wildthyme (who appeared in various Paul Magrs works before her arrival in Doctor Who) would suggest that we could include Archibald Angelchrist, but not necessarily everyone and everything else from Mann's writings.
Mann has stated all his works are in the same universe:
- OncomingStorm12th
Pluto2 wrote: Mann has stated all his works are in the same universe:
Wow, I think this would be going a bit too far. All we have (on the provided link at least) is a "list" os George Mann's "Newbury & Hobbes" novels. I see that he himself writes the blog/website, but he certainly did not list "all" his works there.
We don't have him saying "Hey, all my novels happen in the same universe". We have one DWU book listed there (I only could find "Paradox Lost". If there is another, I didn't see it).
Additionally, under the "Newbury & Hobbes" page of the very same blog, there is no mention of "Paradox Lost" at all.
Archibald Angelchrist, one of the (seemingly) main conection between "Paradox Lost" and "Newbury & Hobbes" originated on The Affinity Bridge, a book from the "Newbury & Hobbes" series, and later appeared on "Paradox Lost". As SOTO pointed out, "Usually, when an outside character is used in a work of Doctor Who, we only cover the character's DWU appearances, and give information outside of that only in the 'behind the scenes' and 'external links' sections." This seems to me just a case where a non-DWU character crosses over to a DWU story, much like Bart Simpson appearing on COMIC: Party Animals
- AeD
What that page on Mr Mann's website implies is that that particular Doctor Who novel is set in the N&H universe, not that any of the others are set in the DWU.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:207790
There are currently meny discussions about rule 4 of the validity policy right now so I thought I'd ask if it should be scrapped as meny behind the seense people have said there is no canon making me wonder if any of these people can set a story out side the dwu is they don't believe such a thing exist as used on this wiki
- DENCH-and-PALMER
213.205.252.70 wrote: There are currently many discussions about rule 4 of the validity policy right now. So I thought I'd ask if it could be scrapped as many individuals involved behind the scenes have stated that "there is no canon" which is making me wonder if any of these people can set a story outside the DWU, if they don't believe such a thing exist? As used on this wiki.
I've corrected spelling and the grammatical errors. This is to make sense out of it.
However I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with rule 4.
- Bwburke94
Rule 4, or an analogue of Rule 4, must exist in order to exclude the clearly parodic stories.
- AeD
Scrapping rule 4, you'd end up covering every episode of Call the Midwife and EastEnders, too.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208189
I'm not disrupting this wiki to prove a point. I have new evidence.
It has been over a year since Home Invasion was first released, I have been searching the net looking for licensing.
Then I came across this: Radio Times
It probably doesn't mean a lot but the Radio Times is run by the BBC, so surely have an article praising the video suggests they, at the very least, endorse it.
It may not prove a lot but since this is the only bit of evidence at all and it goes in inclusion's favour.
I'm not proposing in any way that we make the special a valid source on the wiki - no...just no - though I am suggesting that we reconsider covering it, due to the BBC's (albeit minor) endorsement.
And there is no evidence to suggest it isn't licensed.
As it featured Peter Capaldi in costume and a Dalek. The BBC would have 100% known about it as they are responsible for the props being signed away when used by crew - thus, again, a minor endorsement.
- 31.84.150.30
Just a quick corporation but the BBC sold the radio times in 2011
- DENCH-and-PALMER
31.84.150.30 wrote: Just a quick corporation but the BBC sold the radio times in 2011
They still co-run it and administrate it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
31.84.150.30 wrote: Just a quick corporation but the BBC sold the radio times in 2011
That aside - they still let them use the props.
- Pluto2
I'm in favor of inclusion. But validity is something else.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: I'm in favor of inclusion. But validity is something else.
I also agree it should be included on the wiki but an invalid source.
As we already decided in Thread:191251, this video has no place on this wiki. Please do not start another discussion on this. Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208381
Something that's been bugging me.
In cases where an animated version of a serial has been made to replace the missing original, should we consider the animation a valid source? For instance, The Power of the Daleks adds the Bad Wolf meme to a bulletin board, and tosses in a Magpie Electricals logo.
So, should we consider such recons valid sources?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Yes they are valid sources, in the same way of novelisations. Just alternate accounts.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208414
I feel that the appearance of Carnell in Corpse Maker and Kaldor City, with a backstory identical to that of Carnell from Blake's 7, is sufficient for us to say B7 is in the DWU.
- Carnell is a psychostrategist in the B7 episode Weapon. At the end of that episode, he made a great failure.
- Carnell is an exiled psychostrategist in Corpse Maker and Kaldor City, and is established as only having failed once. He was on the run for two years before settling down in Kaldor City.
And to top it off, Scott Fredericks, who played him in B7, voices the character in Kaldor City. In my opinion, it seems extremely unlikely that the intent here was that the Carnell in Kaldor City isn't the B7 one. They have the same name, same profession, same backstory, same actor. To me, this is saying B7 is in the DWU, and the Federation has appeared several times. And that's not to mention the implication that Kaston Iago is an alias of Kerr Avon.
Any thoughts? Comments?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Okay, I usually agree with most of this inclusion stuff but... I don't think I can here.
Yes Terry Nation did want to have the Daleks crossover in to the series, but it never happened.
We look at the B7 character in KC the same way we look at Death's Head in the SD comic.
Cover as much that happened in the DWU.
I don't think this was Terry Nation's intention either, I recall reading him saying that he wanted the Daleks to appear to cross over into both universes.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this one mate.
- Pluto2
The Kaldor City website outright states it's in the universe that Weapon is from:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: The Kaldor City website outright states it's in the universe that Weapon is from:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
That doesn't mean B7 is set in thr DWU though.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: The Kaldor City website outright states it's in the universe that Weapon is from:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
That doesn't mean B7 is set in thr DWU though.
...Except they're saying Weapon is set in the DWU. At the very least, we should cover Weapon.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: The Kaldor City website outright states it's in the universe that Weapon is from:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
That doesn't mean B7 is set in thr DWU though.
...Except they're saying Weapon is set in the DWU. At the very least, we should cover Weapon.
I suppose, however it'd seem, some what... strange.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: The Kaldor City website outright states it's in the universe that Weapon is from:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
That doesn't mean B7 is set in thr DWU though.
...Except they're saying Weapon is set in the DWU. At the very least, we should cover Weapon.
I suppose, however it'd seem, some what... strange.
Hence why I feel it might be better to include all of Blake's 7.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: The Kaldor City website outright states it's in the universe that Weapon is from:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
That doesn't mean B7 is set in thr DWU though.
...Except they're saying Weapon is set in the DWU. At the very least, we should cover Weapon.
I suppose, however it'd seem, some what... strange.
Hence why I feel it might be better to include all of Blake's 7.
I can understand the one episode at the very least.
But not the whole lot, how would we explain that to casual readers.
I'm opposed adding the whole series, and it should be noted the same way as Death's Head.
However, I'm not apposed the one episode Weapon.
- Pluto2
There's another thing:
Kaston Iago is heavily implied to be Kerr Avon. His backstory as given in Metafiction is basically a summary of Blake's 7.
- SeaniesBeanies
Did they have the license to use Kerr Avon?
- Bwburke94
Allowing B7 as valid would bring us dangerously close to the Tommy Westphall Universe theory.
The fact that a B7 character later appeared in the DWU does not automatically place B7 in the DWU. (Neither does Assimilation² bring the rest of Star Trek into the DWU, for that matter.)
- SOTO
We are not going to cover all of Blake's 7. B7 has its own wiki. If you want to remark that a certain character originated elsewhere, or explain that part of their backstory if relevant, you can link to that wiki in a BTS section.
Remember, we didn't decide in 2013 to cover every single Big Finish audio series just because of The Worlds of Big Finish. Let's stick to the Doctor Who universe, please.
- Pluto2
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Did they have the license to use Kerr Avon?
They don't outright call him Kerr Avon, but his backstory given in Metafiction is identical to what he did in B7. In fact, it's stated he killed the Butcher of Zircaster - a name given in an audio story to Travis, a character killed by Avon in B7. So they're in a roundabout way equating Iago with Avon without outright saying the words "Kerr Avon". It's clear who they are talking about.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: We are not going to cover all of Blake's 7. B7 has its own wiki. If you want to remark that a certain character originated elsewhere, or explain that part of their backstory if relevant, you can link to that wiki in a BTS section.
Remember, we didn't decide in 2013 to cover every single Big Finish audio series just because of The Worlds of Big Finish. Let's stick to the Doctor Who universe, please.
At the very least, we should cover the episode Weapon, which has been established by Kaldor City to be in the DWU.
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote:
SOTO wrote: We are not going to cover all of Blake's 7. B7 has its own wiki. If you want to remark that a certain character originated elsewhere, or explain that part of their backstory if relevant, you can link to that wiki in a BTS section.
Remember, we didn't decide in 2013 to cover every single Big Finish audio series just because of The Worlds of Big Finish. Let's stick to the Doctor Who universe, please.
At the very least, we should cover the episode Weapon, which has been established by Kaldor City to be in the DWU.
That's exactly our problem. Can a later work validate an earlier, previously unconnected, work?
- SOTO
I don't think the makers of Kaldor City are in a position to make Kaldor City pass rule 4. It might have been their intent to derive from that episode, but they cannot speak for any authorial intent on part of the BBC that it was intended to be set in the DWU.
- Pluto2
The thing is, Kaldor City was advertised as being a spinoff of both Doctor Who and Blake's 7. The fact is that Kaston Iago's backstory given in Metafiction is practically identical to the events experienced by Kerr Avon in Blake's 7. It's even stated that Iago killed the Butcher of Zircaster, which is the name given in the charity audio The Mark of Kane to the character Travis, who was a character killed by Avon in the TV series. They're equating Iago with Avon in a roundabout way, and a character from an episode of Blake's 7 is a main character in both Corpse Maker and Kaldor City.
- Pluto2
And it's not like this is one author equating the two as being in the same universe. Chris Boucher was a script editor for Blake's 7 - part of the production team.
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote:
The thing is, Kaldor City was advertised as being a spinoff of both Doctor Who and Blake's 7.In other words, it was advertised as a crossover. But does that make it a crossover?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
The thing is, Kaldor City was advertised as being a spinoff of both Doctor Who and Blake's 7.In other words, it was advertised as a crossover. But does that make it a crossover?
Well, considering the script editor of Blake's 7 was part of the production team that made Kaldor City...yeah.
- Bwburke94
So it's a crossover, then. And I assume that places B7 proper outside the DWU, but there's no clear way to handle this sort of situation.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: So it's a crossover, then. And I assume that places B7 proper outside the DWU, but there's no clear way to handle this sort of situation.
In this case, however, the advertising is treating B7 and Doctor Who as being in the same universe.
The website says:
"The Kaldor City audios are an ultraviolent tale of power, sex and intrigue set in the universe of Chris Boucher's Doctor Who: The Robots of Death, Blake's 7: Weapon and Doctor Who spinoff novel Corpse Marker."
- Bwburke94
But that doesn't necessarily mean they are in the same universe, from the perspective of this wiki.
Is there any evidence in the original B7 television programme that it is set in the DWU?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: But that doesn't necessarily mean they are in the same universe, from the perspective of this wiki.
Is there any evidence in the original B7 television programme that it is set in the DWU?
Well, they were going to have the Daleks as villains at one point, but it fell through.
- AeD
So what you're saying, then, is that no, there is no evidence in the original television programme that it is set in the DWU.
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: So what you're saying, then, is that no, there is no evidence in the original television programme that it is set in the DWU.
Erm, if they intended to include the Daleks, they certainly considered it part of the DWU, don't you think?
- AeD
"Intended to" is not the same as "actually did."
- Bwburke94
This is where Rule 4 weirdness comes in. It was intended to eventually take place in the DWU.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: This is where Rule 4 weirdness comes in. It was intended to eventually take place in the DWU.
Does this mean it passes or not? The script editor himself says in promotional material that B7 is set in the DWU in that Kaldor City is set in the universe of Doctor Who and Blake's 7.
- Bwburke94
Is Rule 4 even intended to apply here?
- AeD
I just want something clarified: Is the intended goal of this thread to declare all of Blake's 7 a valid source, and thus for this wiki to cover Blake's 7 exactly like it does Torchwood, K-9 & Company, etcetera? Is the goal for this wiki to have a page about the Blake's 7 episode Rumours of Death?
Because that's ridiculous.
- AeD
Welcome to the Tommy Westphall Wikia.
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: Welcome to the Tommy Westphall Wikia.
It's not like every series ever should be covered. It's that Kaldor City rather firmly links B7 with Doctor Who.
- 82.3.146.201
Pluto2 wrote: It's not like every series ever should be covered. It's that Kaldor City rather firmly links B7 with Doctor Who.
It'd seem a bit silly to cover Blake's 7, whilst we're at it we might as well cover EastEnders, Call the Midwife and the complete Marvel multi-verse.
In other words, it's a crossover, not a spin-off. Covering it would lead in to uncharted territory.
- Bwburke94
AeD wrote: Welcome to the Tommy Westphall Wikia.
That is exactly the point I've been trying to make. If we allow B7, it leads into a rather ridiculous chain where we'd eventually be covering every single English-language fictional work, and a few non-English-language works as well.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote:
AeD wrote: Welcome to the Tommy Westphall Wikia.
That is exactly the point I've been trying to make. If we allow B7, it leads into a rather ridiculous chain where we'd eventually be covering every single English-language fictional work, and a few non-English-language works as well.
This isn't going to be the Tommy Westphall Wikia. If the script editor says, point blank, that Kaldor City is set in the universe (not universes, plural) of Blake's 7 and Doctor Who, that's stating Blake's 7 is in the DWU. The fact is, if they planned to use the Daleks in the series, that's a pretty good indicator they felt the two series were in the same universe.
- AeD
Pluto2 wrote:
AeD wrote: Welcome to the Tommy Westphall Wikia.
It's not like every series ever should be covered. It's that Kaldor City rather firmly links B7 with Doctor Who.
Which, to me, is a problem you solve by linking the handful of relevant articles to the Blake's 7 Wiki for more information.
- Pluto2
I'd also like to point out Tom Baker and Gareth Thomas wanted Four and Roj to cross paths at one point.
- 82.3.146.201
Pluto2 wrote: I'd also like to point out Tom Baker and Gareth Thomas wanted Four and Roj to cross paths at one point.
Cross... crossover. It's a mere crossover not a part of the DWU.
- OncomingStorm12th
Look, it doesn't matter what they wanted to do. If the crossover did not happen, we can't (and most likely, won't) cover it, except on "behind the scenes". Yes, they might have wanted Daleks and the Fourth Doctor on Blake's 7, but the plain truth is: it did not happen. We should not take this "they wanted X thing to happen" as arguments for inclusion any more than deleted scenes of TV episodes or any other unreleased story.
The only thing which seems to "connect" the DWU and B7U is Carnell. However, quoting User:SOTO on Thread:207769, "Usually, when an outside character is used in a work of Doctor Who, we only cover the character's DWU appearances, and give information outside of that only in the 'behind the scenes' and 'external links' sections.". If there are no other, stronger, "connections" between B7 and DWU, I'd say we should just cover Carnell the way we do, and add a link to the characters page at Blake's 7 wiki.
- 82.3.146.201
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Look, it doesn't matter what they wanted to do. If the crossover did not happen, we can't (and most likely, won't) cover it, except on "behind the scenes". Yes, they might have wanted Daleks and the Fourth Doctor on Blake's 7, but the plain truth is: it did not happen. We should not take this "they wanted X thing to happen" as arguments for inclusion any more than deleted scenes of TV episodes or any other unreleased story.
The only thing which seems to "connect" the DWU and B7U is Carnell. However, quoting User:SOTO on Thread:207769, "Usually, when an outside character is used in a work of Doctor Who, we only cover the character's DWU appearances, and give information outside of that only in the 'behind the scenes' and 'external links' sections.". If there are no other, stronger, "connections" between B7 and DWU, I'd say we should just cover Carnell the way we do, and add a link to the characters page at Blake's 7 wiki.
Agreed
- Pluto2
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Look, it doesn't matter what they wanted to do. If the crossover did not happen, we can't (and most likely, won't) cover it, except on "behind the scenes". Yes, they might have wanted Daleks and the Fourth Doctor on Blake's 7, but the plain truth is: it did not happen. We should not take this "they wanted X thing to happen" as arguments for inclusion any more than deleted scenes of TV episodes or any other unreleased story.
The only thing which seems to "connect" the DWU and B7U is Carnell. However, quoting User:SOTO on Thread:207769, "Usually, when an outside character is used in a work of Doctor Who, we only cover the character's DWU appearances, and give information outside of that only in the 'behind the scenes' and 'external links' sections.". If there are no other, stronger, "connections" between B7 and DWU, I'd say we should just cover Carnell the way we do, and add a link to the characters page at Blake's 7 wiki.
It's not just Carnell.
It's that in material promoting Kaldor City, they basically said Blake's 7 and Doctor Who are in the same universe. Who created Kaldor City? Chris Boucher. Who was script editor of Blake's 7? Chris Boucher.
Not only that, but the same person played Carnell in Blake's 7 and in Kaldor City. Paul Darrow plays Avon and "Iago", and in Kaldor City, "Iago" is given a backstory identical to that of Kerr Avon. It's not just that Carnell's there. It's that a main character from Blake's 7 is very heavily implied to be a main character in Kaldor City. With all of this, I don't think there's reason to doubt that Blake's 7 is in the DWU.
- OncomingStorm12th
It's that in material promoting Kaldor City, they basically said Blake's 7 and Doctor Who are in the same universe. Who created Kaldor City? Chris Boucher. Who was script editor of Blake's 7? Chris Boucher.
Well, there is quite a difference between basically saying something and actually saying that thing. Also, for the record, calling something a "spin off" of something, has not been enough evidence in the past, 'cause in previous threads (not sure which) it was agreed that sometimes something is called a "spin off" of DW purely for marketing (as is the case of Vienna).
Not only that, but the same person played Carnell in Blake's 7 and in Kaldor City. Paul Darrow plays Avon and "Iago", and in Kaldor City, "Iago" is given a backstory identical to that of Kerr Avon. It's not just that Carnell's there. It's that a main character from Blake's 7 is very heavily implied to be a main character in Kaldor City. With all of this, I don't think there's reason to doubt that Blake's 7 is in the DWU.
The fact that they share an actor means nothing. Maxil, Tepesh and the Sixth Doctor are all played by Colin Baker. Still, the fact they're played by the same actor is no evidence these three characters are the same (and, indeed, they aren't)
"a main character from Blake's 7 is very heavily implied to be a main character in Kaldor City". Well, if it's only "heavily implied to be", saying that he is the same character would be speculating, which is not allowed on in-universe articles.
"Who created Kaldor City? Chris Boucher. Who was script editor of Blake's 7? Chris Boucher.". Who created the BBC version of Sherlock? Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. Both of them have also written for Doctor Who multiple times. This is no more proof that Sherlock is part of the DWU. Similarly, sharing crew is also no proof that Blake's 7 would be.
- Bwburke94
How was B7 advertised? If there were no connections to the DWU during its run, we have nothing to talk about.
- AeD
RTD notably wanted to cross over with Enterprise, which had exactly the same effect on anything: Bupkis.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'm in the boat to keep Blake's 7 separate from the wiki. The way I see it is the same as Assimilation², where characters from another franchise appear, yet we do not include that whole universe within our scope. Similarly we could say that the whole Transformers universe is part of our main Doctor Who universe, just because Death's Head has appeared in a few comics back in the 90s.
Sometimes with our inclusions we can go too far, and I believe that Blake's 7 is sadly one such inclusion.
- Pluto2
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: I'm in the boat to keep Blake's 7 separate from the wiki. The way I see it is the same as Assimilation², where characters from another franchise appear, yet we do not include that whole universe within our scope. Similarly we could say that the whole Transformers universe is part of our main Doctor Who universe, just because Death's Head has appeared in a few comics back in the 90s.
Sometimes with our inclusions we can go too far, and I believe that Blake's 7 is sadly one such inclusion.
But Assimilation^2 was outright separate universes colliding. They made it clear Star Trek and Doctor Who were separate universes, ones that simply collided at one point and then split back off.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Pluto2 wrote:
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: I'm in the boat to keep Blake's 7 separate from the wiki. The way I see it is the same as Assimilation², where characters from another franchise appear, yet we do not include that whole universe within our scope. Similarly we could say that the whole Transformers universe is part of our main Doctor Who universe, just because Death's Head has appeared in a few comics back in the 90s.
Sometimes with our inclusions we can go too far, and I believe that Blake's 7 is sadly one such inclusion.
But Assimilation^2 was outright separate universes colliding. They made it clear Star Trek and Doctor Who were separate universes, ones that simply collided at one point and then split back off.
That still doesn't avoid the appearance of Death's Head in Doctor Who. The Coming of the Terraphiles has characters from Michael Moorcocks novels in it, but we don't include the entire sum of his work on the wiki either. Carnell's appearance in Doctor Who is a nice easter egg, but that's about all.
- Pluto2
I'd also like to point out that some of the Virgin stories with Benny suggest Blake's 7 are simultaneously a TV series and real. So...it's weird.
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote: I'd also like to point out that some of the Virgin stories with Benny suggest Blake's 7 are simultaneously a TV series and real. So...it's weird.
The DWU in general can be called "weird".
- AeD
I mean, Doctor Who has occasionally pointed out that Doctor Who itself is a TV show, too.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Pluto2 wrote: I'd also like to point out that some of the Virgin stories with Benny suggest Blake's 7 are simultaneously a TV series and real. So...it's weird.
I've done a quick search on the Discontinuity Guide website, and it seems that the only references to Blake's 7 are in Cold Fusion, where Tegan says she has seen transmats on the TV show before; and a short story in The Dead Men Diaries where one character like Blake's 7 and names his cat after Servalan.
The only same universe reference is a weak one at best, where in Prisoner of the Daleks a character is said to be from Gauda Prime, which shares a name with a planet in Blake's 7. There are many stories that use the names of planets from other series, so giving taking this reference as explicit proof that Blake's 7 and Doctor Who share the same universe is a bit far fetched.
From these mentions it lends credence to what I already thought; that Blake's 7 is just a TV show in Doctor Who, and in the Kaldor City stories a character from Blake's 7 makes a licensed appearance.
So while I normally try to give a rationale, I've got to crack on here. It is not a reasonable or common interpretation of Blakes 7 to believe that it is a part of the DWU.
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 this assertion.
If you wish to contribute around Blakes 7, please proceed to w:c:blakes7.
As for the one alleged crossover character of Carnell, SOTO has proposed a perfectly workable notion:
If you want to remark that a certain character originated elsewhere, or explain that part of their backstory if relevant, you can link to [the B7] wiki in a BTS section.
Additionally, we will not cover the B7 episode Warhead in any way.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208570
This is one of Paul Magrs's series, and it looks to me it should be considered valid.
Brenda and Effie appear at a party in From Wildthyme with Love!, while Panda is an art critic in Brenda and Effie Forever!
So should we include the series as a valid source?
- Dmitriy Volfson
Beatrice Mapp and Rupert Von Thal from The Boy That Time Forgot also appeared in The Bride That Time Forgot.
- SOTO
As I've said in previous threads, usually, if a character which did not debut in the DWU appears in a DWU story, we only cover that DWU story. Now, you might say this case does have multiple strands connecting it to the DWU. I'm not sure of that. Keep in mind that we document the Doctor Who universe here, not anything a DWU writer publishes if they mention another character of theirs.
- SOTO
If this does not pass this inclusion debate, it can only be mentioned in those characters' BTS sections.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: As I've said in previous threads, usually, if a character which did not debut in the DWU appears in a DWU story, we only cover that DWU story. Now, you might say this case does have multiple strands connecting it to the DWU. I'm not sure of that. Keep in mind that we document the Doctor Who universe here, not anything a DWU writer publishes if they mention another character of theirs.
In this case, characters of Magrs' are freely wandering into other characters' series. Panda appears in a Brenda and Effie book. Brenda and Effie appear in an Iris Wildthyme book, etc. I think a case can be made for inclusion here.
- Dmitriy Volfson
SOTO wrote: If this does not pass this inclusion debate, it can only be mentioned in those characters' BTS sections.
Why BTS sections? How is this different from the Erimem appearance in Kerides the Thinker’s Return of the Queen and Vince Cosmos appearance in Baker's End’s Gobbleknoll Hall? I think we should include at least the appearances of the DWU characters like Panda, Beatrice and Rupert.
- SOTO
Both Erimem and Vince Cosmos began as DWU characters, and then afterwards went on to be the protagonists of their own series and stories. We don't cover The Simpsons simply because the Fourth Doctor has appeared several times. Instead, we consider that a cultural references to the Doctor Who universe.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Both Erimem and Vince Cosmos began as DWU characters, and then afterwards went on to be the protagonists of their own series and stories. We don't cover The Simpsons simply because the Fourth Doctor has appeared several times. Instead, we consider that a cultural references to the Doctor Who universe.
The thing is, Magrs is having his characters travel between series. They're not references. Panda being in a Brenda and Effie book is more than just a reference here.
- Pluto2
The first book, Never the Bride, has Kristoff Alucard, who appeared in The Dreadful Flap.
The second book, Something Borrowed, has Cleavis, other Smudgelings, and The True History of Planets. These appeared in Mad Dogs and Englishmen.
- Pluto2
The Smudgelings also appeared in Peculiar Lives.
In this case, it's not just Brenda and Effie cameoing in Iris Wildthyme stories. It's characters and concepts from the Iris Wildthyme series popping up in Brenda and Effie, too. Panda is a main character in one of the books, even. It's difficult to find a reason for exclusion here.
- AeD
I can understand the argument in favour, but I think this is more like how Image Comics used to rules-lawyer crossovers between wildly contradictory universes.
i.e. let's say New York has been destroyed in Invincible, but not in Savage Dragon. If Invincible shows up in an issue of Savage Dragon, clearly the events of Invincible can't have happened in Savage Dragon, so for the purposes of Savage Dragon, the only things you can say are true about Invincible is what you see on the page. Nothing from Invincible that hasn't explicitly been shown or said in Savage Dragon is canon for Savage Dragon. If nobody calls him Mark, you can't say he's called Mark in Savage Dragon. If he never takes off his mask, you can't say anything about the colour of his eyes, etcetera.
- AeD
Also, to be clear, I think these recent inclusion debates are leaning pretty silly and if I ever get to write anything that would be covered by this site, I will be messing with y'all SO HARD.
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: I can understand the argument in favour, but I think this is more like how Image Comics used to rules-lawyer crossovers between wildly contradictory universes.
i.e. let's say New York has been destroyed in Invincible, but not in Savage Dragon. If Invincible shows up in an issue of Savage Dragon, clearly the events of Invincible can't have happened in Savage Dragon, so for the purposes of Savage Dragon, the only things you can say are true about Invincible is what you see on the page. Nothing from Invincible that hasn't explicitly been shown or said in Savage Dragon is canon for Savage Dragon. If nobody calls him Mark, you can't say he's called Mark in Savage Dragon. If he never takes off his mask, you can't say anything about the colour of his eyes, etcetera.
But there's a massive amount of shared stuff between Brenda and Effie and other series.
- Amorkuz
Дмитрий Куклин wrote: Vince Cosmos appearance in Baker's End’s Gobbleknoll Hall?
Yes, about that, just for your information, there is an ongoing inclusion debate. Until that is concluded in the positive, no one is allowed to edit Baker's End into this Wiki per T:BOUND.
- Amorkuz
Will this flood of ever less and less DWU-related stuff ever stop? As AeD said, it is apparently sufficient to get to write one story for DWU, then you take at least one new character from that series, create a series about him and we have to cover it? Then you take a character created for this other series and make her a centrepiece of yet another series, and we have to cover it? This is bad as it is.
However, in this case, thankfully, as noted above, characters were created elsewhere. So at least this we can safely discard.
- AeD
Yeah, I don't know that there's a clean, neat line to draw of what's in and what's out with stuff like this, at least not within the rules as they currently stand, but I think any reasonable person not determined to get everything included in this wiki they possibly can would agree the side of the line this one is on is "out".
- 82.3.146.201
Amorkuz wrote: Will this flood of ever less and less DWU-related stuff ever stop? As AeD said, it is apparently sufficient to get to write one story for DWU, then you take at least one new character from that series, create a series about him and we have to cover it? Then you take a character created for this other series and make her a centrepiece of yet another series, and we have to cover it? This is bad as it is.
However, in this case, thankfully, as noted above, characters were created elsewhere. So at least this we can safely discard.
I agree this series shouldn't be included. Not when obvious DWU series like The Minister of Chance and Faction Paradox (until recently) are being discarded.
- OncomingStorm12th
82.3.146.201 wrote: I agree this series shouldn't be included. Not when obvious DWU series like The Minister of Chance and Faction Paradox (until recently) are being discarded.
Look, I'm not sold on the inclusion of this series as well, but the exclusion of other series can't have anything to do with this.
- TheChampionOfTime
I do not support all of this series being validated on this wiki, but I strongly suspect The Bride That Time Forgot to be a sequel to The Boy That Time Forgot (audio story). Apparently it even shares a few characters. The trouble is, I have no immediate plans to read the book and everyone else that might have read it are either exiled or have given up on these debates. Perhaps this thread should be closed declaring the series to be invalid, but could later I open a thread specifically for The Bride That Time Forgot when I get around to reading it?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208705
This is a novella in the Diogenes Club series by Kim Newman, who wrote Time and Relative. It's linked to the DWU in that Relative's villain, the Cold, is also the villain of Cold Snap. Can this be considered a valid source? Newman is reusing a character he owns, so there's no problems with licensing here.
- TheChampionOfTime
According to the non-alien creatures wiki the events of Cold Snap contradict the events of Time and Relative.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208775
I'd like to reopen the Vienna debate, given that the reasons for exclusion are flimsy at best.
It's considered invalid currently because of a single comment saying "it's not in the Doctor Who world at all" . But it's entirely unclear whether they're speaking literally, or if they're just saying it's a standalone thing. There's a big difference between this and Dorian Gray. With the latter, I asked the Creative Team on the Divergent Universe forums, and they outright stated that The Confessions of Dorian Gray literally IS in a different universe, and Shades of Gray is a different Dorian, from a different universe. But here, it's completely vague as to whether they literally mean Vienna is a different universe.
I raise this as evidence in favor of inclusion: [22]
Big Finish is repeatedly stating that Vienna is a spin-off. Over and over and over. I'm fairly certain one of these instances, it's coming from Richardson himself.
- Pluto2
Here's what the producer, Mark Wright, said:
“The Shadow Heart and The Memory Box gave us a great introduction to Vienna,” continues Mark, “how she operates and the epic and colourful universe she exists in. Now we’re going to start delving into Vienna’s past…”
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208795
We previously set this trilogy outside our fences primarily because there was so little information available online that we couldn't determine whether it was intended to be set in the DWU.
But I have evidence that contests this ruling. The evidence? The Blue Angel. And I'm not talking about a throwaway reference. The entire novel is basically a crossover between Doctor Who and Phoenix Court.
Sally, Big Sue, Belinda, and Nesta all originated in the Phoenix Court trilogy.
The Blue Angel is basically book four of Phoenix Court. It's full of repeated references.
The argument that the trilogy has a different Iris doesn't mean much. Iris's origin is constantly changing. That's part of her character. Sometimes she's a lesbian novelist. Sometimes she's a Clockwork. Sometimes she's a Time Lady.
In short, I feel that the Phoenix Court trilogy should be considered a valid source, as The Blue Angel is a full-blown crossover between Doctor Who and the series.
- NateBumber
Now this is an inclusion debate I can get behind!
A note on the previous inclusion debates on this topic, which can be found here and here: these debates specifically did not mention the evidence Pluto2 has presented in the OP, making the existence of these crossovers completely new information, despite being obvious in the stories themselves.
I'd like to note that this is nothing like Death's Head or Kaldor City, where select elements crossed over between the Doctor Who universe and that of Marvel or Blake's 7. Phoenix Court isn't a multi-author franchise where only one author believes them to be the same: all three stories were written by Paul Magrs, who also wrote The Blue Angel, which directly and definitively places the trilogy within Doctor Who continuity. This smashes the four little rules right out of the water.
Oddly enough, the original decision to exclude Phoenix Court appears to have been done in a complete absence of anyone who'd actually read the trilogy, meaning the series was judged based on cobbled-together online reviews instead of any real familiarity with the source material. I think that's a pretty funny way to decide inclusion debates, especially when it's a matter as small as three books involving a character who's mostly doing her own thing nowadays anyway. I see no reason for Phoenix Court to be invalid.
- AeD
Having, like most, not read it, if it's The Blue Angel that's "book four," then surely we should be treating it as we do Star Trek or EastEnders -- just because Dr Who walks into that world, doesn't mean that world is his world.
- NateBumber
AeD wrote: Having, like most, not read it, if it's The Blue Angel that's "book four," then surely we should be treating it as we do Star Trek or EastEnders -- just because Dr Who walks into that world, doesn't mean that world is his world.
I refer you to my earlier post:
NateBumber wrote:
I'd like to note that this is nothing like Death's Head or Kaldor City [or Assimilation], where select elements crossed over between the Doctor Who universe and that of Marvel or Blake's 7 [or Star Trek]. Phoenix Court isn't a multi-author franchise where only one author believes them to be the same: all three stories were written by Paul Magrs, who also wrote The Blue Angel, which directly and definitively places the trilogy within Doctor Who continuity. This smashes the four little rules right out of the water. - Pluto2
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me, really. There's ample evidence in favor of Phoenix Court being part of the DWU.
- Pluto2
So...is there any reason this shouldn't be valid, in light of new evidence?
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote:
AeD wrote: Having, like most, not read it, if it's The Blue Angel that's "book four," then surely we should be treating it as we do Star Trek or EastEnders -- just because Dr Who walks into that world, doesn't mean that world is his world.
I refer you to my earlier post:
NateBumber wrote:
I'd like to note that this is nothing like Death's Head or Kaldor City [or Assimilation], where select elements crossed over between the Doctor Who universe and that of Marvel or Blake's 7 [or Star Trek]. Phoenix Court isn't a multi-author franchise where only one author believes them to be the same: all three stories were written by Paul Magrs, who also wrote The Blue Angel, which directly and definitively places the trilogy within Doctor Who continuity. This smashes the four little rules right out of the water.Exactly. It's pretty clear that the author considers all of Phoenix Court to be in the DWU.
Wait, so no one's touching this? Surely, given that the one dissenting argument was shot down by NateBumber, that means it passes, right?
The simplest way forward here is the one we've been using: start with Old Flames as the first appearance in the DWU.
A behind-the-scenes note at Iris Wildthyme, explaining that the name originated in Marked for Life, is totally fine. The same approach can be used for any other character names that started in that trilogy, but later were seen in Doctor Who-branded works.
But any characters who only appeared in the Phoenix Court trilogy don't belong here, any more than some full-throated article about Optimus Prime or Reed Richards.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:208934
Looking through the archives, I noticed that the decision to exclude CYOA stories wasn't based on the four little rules: Forum:Decide Your Destiny and Find Your Fate are NOTDWU from here on out.
Instead, this was a decision based on coverage seemingly being too hard - which goes against our "no hard basket" policy .
The "debate" isn't one. At all. Two people came into the discussion having already decided something, and a single person agreed. And thus, such stories were set outside our fences in a decision that would not pass today. It's based on obsolete rules.
It also means that despite multiple reference works listing Attack of the Graske as an interactive episode and being just as much an episode as any other, we consider it invalid.
Let's go through the four little rules.
1. Are they stories? Absolutely. Even if they have multiple endings, they still have a narrative.
2. Are they licensed? Yes.
3. Are they officially released? Yes.
4. Were they intended to be set in the DWU? Yes! I've already used the example of Attack of the Graske above.
In short, the previous decision has no basis in the four little rules. The community didn't vote to exclude it. Two people decided this.
Essentially, I feel all CYOA-style stories need to be addressed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:209497
I believe the decision to treat The Infinity Doctors as an alternate universe was a mistake. The story hinges on continuity references.
The death that Omega saved Patience from in TID is stated in the text itself: She was shot in the head.
This is what happens in Cold Fusion! She's shot in the head, and then her body vanishes - and TID is basically saying what the vanishing was - Omega saved her.
Savar's whole "eye removal" thing is covered in both ' 'Seeing I and The Infinity Doctors.
The Needle is referenced multiple times in the EDAs, and it debuts in The Infinity Doctors.
In The Infinity Doctors, the Doctor thinks his father might be a professor from Berkeley. In Unnatural History, Professor Daniel Joyce is a Time Lord teaching at Berkeley who calls the Doctor "son".
Basically, detaching The Infinity Doctors from other stories and treating it as an alternate universe without in-universe evidence presented in narrative form results in TID making no sense. Not only does TID refer to previously released works, the EDAs reference it several times!
The original debate was before the four little rules were accepted. Back then, there wasn't "valid" and "invalid". It's been years since the original decision, and I really think this debate in particular needed readdressing.
- Pluto2
One of the main arguments used against it is this quote:
"He's clearly not the eighth Doctor of mainstream continuity. He does look like Paul McGann."
But what does this even mean? If I recall correctly, Lance Parkin makes no distinction between an "Infinity Doctors universe" and " the main DWU" in the book Whoniverse. There's no indication he regards The Infinity Doctors as being in a separate universe. Part of the point of The Infinity Doctors is the fact it depicts Gallifrey very differently. That's the idea. Trying to declare it an alternate universe and claim the author agrees doesn't work when the author isn't actually agreeing with you.
In fact, AHistory says the following:
"References in Seeing I, Unnatural History, The Taking of Planet 5, Father Time and The Gallifrey Chronicles all make it clear that The Infinity Doctors (or, at the very least, events identical to it) took place in the "real" Doctor Who universe."
Lance Parkin is outright stating TID is in the main universe here!
- OttselSpy25
Continuity and canon to elements of the DWU seems irrelevant. It is, irrelevant, I should say.
Weren't there plenty of quotes in the original thread that lead to the final decision? Try addressing those first before bringing in new info.
- Pluto2
OttselSpy25 wrote: Continuity and canon to elements of the DWU seems irrelevant. It is, irrelevant, I should say.
Weren't there plenty of quotes in the original thread that lead to the final decision? Try addressing those first before bringing in new info.
There's still the fact Parkin himself has stated TID is set in the same universe as the EDAs, not its own one.
- Pluto2
And doesn't "eighth Doctor of mainstream continuity" just mean he's not the Eighth? That could mean anything from him being One and looking like McGann to being an alternate universe version to a future incarnation like the Curator (revisiting an old face). That quote is vague.
- OttselSpy25
I'll clarify -- for this thread to work you'll need to directly reference and challenge parts of the original.
- Pluto2
I'll counter each point.
1. The incarnation of the Doctor is uncertain, with different reviewers saying "it's definitely the Eighth Doctor", "it may be the First Doctor prior to leaving Gallifrey", or it may be a future or alternative timeline version of whom we've never heard elsewhere
And...? We have this page, and this one, and this one...
2. The time setting is, by the author's admission, intentionally vague. With no clear setting, how can we possibly speak of any of the events with anything like certainty?
When has that ever stopped us? We know it's in the Doctor's era, so its setting isn't entirely unclear.
3. Reviewers can't seem to agree whether the book even happens in the normal DWU
What do reviewers have to do with this?
4. Lance Parkin said in an interview with the old BBCi that it was meant to be book one of a two book series, with the second book containing a "reset button" that would allow the story to return to the "normal" DWU. Without this reset button, the story languishes in a weird nether world
What the original plan was and what the end result is are very different in this case. Parkin's on record as saying it's not an alternate universe.
5. Because of the vast narrative uncertainties, it is extremely problematic to allow even basic information from this story into our other pages. Basic factual writing requires that we define the who-what-when-why-and-how of situations, but the novel doesn't allow us to precisely know the who, what or when of almost any statement we'd care to craft.
Umm...so? This is really irrelevant. We cover The Dalek Factor, which lacks a "who". We cover Cambridge Previsited, which lacks a "when". And we cover The Comet's Tail, which lacks a "what".
- Pluto2
Just something that might help...
In The Taking of Planet 5, the President references Sontar's visit to the Capitol, albeit indirectly. He says he's forgotten the general's name, but does mention he's an alien.
- NateBumber
I think we should definitely be paying major attention to the fact that AHistory definitively states that The Infinity Doctors is set in the same Doctor Who universe as the EDAs etc. AHistory is written by Lance Parkin himself. Trying to say that an old interview about the first draft overweighs a direct statement about the final release is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote: I think we should definitely be paying major attention to the fact that AHistory definitively states that The Infinity Doctors is set in the same Doctor Who universe as the EDAs etc. AHistory is written by Lance Parkin himself. Trying to say that an old interview about the first draft overweighs a direct statement about the final release is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.
Exactly. The alternate universe decision, to me, seems extremely arbitrary.
- AeD
It having been meant as part one of two when part two never happened is not reflective of the final product, and seems irrelevant to me, but yeah, the AHistory thing -- Parkin including his own book in how he views the DWU -- kinda pushes it over the edge, dunnit?
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: It having been meant as part one of two when part two never happened is not reflective of the final product, and seems irrelevant to me, but yeah, the AHistory thing -- Parkin including his own book in how he views the DWU -- kinda pushes it over the edge, dunnit?
Exactly. It's hard to argue that authorial intent was that TID was an alternate universe when said author is making it clear TID is in the main universe - i.e. the opposite of what the original decision is asserting.
- Bwburke94
On the Doctor's own page, the events of TID can be placed ambiguously in his timeline, correct? If so, what's the problem with doing so?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: On the Doctor's own page, the events of TID can be placed ambiguously in his timeline, correct? If so, what's the problem with doing so?
...I really don't see any, so there's no problem here. For the Magistrate, it's tricky because placing it relies on the Lord President's word in TOP5. In that, he's the War King (while not called that, the description given of the Lord President is identical to that for the War King). However, it's only implied that the War King is the Master...
- Bwburke94
And because it's not confirmed that the War King is the Master, we just say "they're two separate characters" and go our merry way?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: And because it's not confirmed that the War King is the Master, we just say "they're two separate characters" and go our merry way?
I guess we'd treat the Magistrate, Master, and War King as separate individuals. Don't see a problem with that.
- Pluto2
It looks like there's very little, if any opposition. In just a few posts, everything used to declare TID an alternate universe has been discredited!
- OttselSpy25
Don't mistake a lack of traffic for the end of a discussion.
- Josiah Rowe
That's fair, but seven months without any traffic sure looks like the end of a discussion to me.
- Pluto2
Josiah Rowe wrote: That's fair, but seven months without any traffic sure looks like the end of a discussion to me.
So are we agreed on changing our policy to just treat it as an unspecified incarnation of the Doctor, rather than a separate universe?
- NateBumber
In summary: The proposal is to move The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors universe) to The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors), following the precedent used for plenty of other stories with Doctors whose incarnation we can't exactly pin down (eg The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) and The Doctor (The Dalek Factor)). Along with this decision would be a deletion of The Infinity Doctors universe, all the information of which is already redundant to the Behind the scenes sections of The Infinity Doctors (novel).
The reason for this change is that the author Lance Parkin indicated that he intended The Infinity Doctors to be in the main Doctor Who universe not only by referencing it in both his EDAs but also by including it right alongside stories like Cold Fusion and The Gallifrey Chronicles in his AHistory and Whoniverse, facts which render any information about previous drafts completely irrelevant. Not just Parkin but also other authors view it as in the main universe, given the references in Unnatural History, The Taking of Planet 5, Seeing I, and afaik The Ancestor Cell. Yes, the story might contradict some things - frankly, I'm not sure what, since it seems to go along with more than it contradicts - and if we got in the habit of tossing all stories that contradict others into an alternate universe, this wiki would be a very different place.
So far, literally no one in the last nine months has brought up a counterargument. I've called people out on false consensus more times than I can count, but, uhh ... nine months. Not gonna say "Speak now or forever hold your peace", but someone please speak now!
- NateBumber
Someone recently reminded me of this discussion and I realised it's been a full six months since the last comment here. This means the thread has been open for fifteen months and there still hasn't been a single argument against the proposal. In fact, The Doctor (The Infinity Doctor universe) has already been moved to The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors).
Does anyone have any more thoughts?
- Shambala108
I do.
First of all, I would like to once again remind everyone that, if you are not an admin, you should not be making pronouncements of consensus or whether a thread needs to be closed. That is up to the admins, and on these forums it is not clear by looking at names who is and isn't an admin. A new user might take someone's opinion as an official statement and act upon it. Comments that call for thread closure or that try to sum up where everyone stands will be deleted.
Second, Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point specifically and explicitly states: "Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic." I personally haven't been convinced that anything new has been added in this thread to the original discussion. However, at this point anyone who wants to comment should make themselves familiar with the discussion at Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, especially User:CzechOut's comments about author intent, and also make sure that any points you want to make don't cover the same ground as that already covered by the dissenters in that thread.
Lastly, it is not a good idea to assume that silence means agreement or lack of disagreement. As has been stated multiple times, after a glut of inclusion debates, including the reopening of several already closed debates, and the anger and venom that some of these debates sparked, many users, especially admins, are staying away from these debates. That doesn't imply wiki agreement with the small number of users who have posted in this thread thus far. That's one of the reasons why users should leave the determination of consensus up to the admins.
Thanks for your attention.
- Pluto2
Okay, it's been two months and this thread is dead. I think a strong case has been made for full validity, so can an admin PLEASE act on this? The discussion has been open for almost a year and a half.
So I'm closing as no change to current policy.
It's fine that the article on the Doctor in this narrative is now at The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors). That extra word, "universe", wasn't really in compliance with our naming policy, anyway.
But to go further than that and say that this story is fully in the same universe as that in which most TV narratives occur — well, that's just not quite right. This thread has not mentioned the 2004 quote by Lance Parkin which brought that lengthy discussion to an equitable end, so I think it bears repeating here:
- ... I realised this was a unique chance to do a story that could be outside the normal 'continuity' — about continuity. Which I found quite a fun idea. And I also realised that most of the readers would be expecting the bit where the universe goes all wobbly and turns back into the 'real' Doctor Who universe, and once I decided not to do that, it was very liberating. — Lance Parkin
That led all participants to agree — even though the AHistory stuff had already been discussed — that it did indeed take place in another universe. Josiah Rowe then suggested the following easy way to preface information drawn from TiD:
In [[The Infinity Doctors universe|one universe]], <insert factoid here>.
That was readily agreed to by all the people then still participating in the thread. And it points out the technical utility of the page The Infinity Doctors universe. It makes it easy to link to a brief explanation of what's up with this book — something casual readers of our site need. It shouldn't be deleted, even if the information also exists on the TID page itself.
(After all, plenty of information is duplicated on pages across this wiki. If you want to find out about K9's relationship to Sarah Jane, you can look on either page to learn details about A Girl's Best Friend and School Reunion.)
It is important that we be mindful, as editors, of the fact that most of our readers have never even heard of 1990s books in general — much less the specifics of a single book. This is even more vital when that book is, by the author's own admission, not a part of "the 'real' Doctor Who universe".
Finally, I'll reiterate something brought up in the 2012 discussion. A large part of the original poster's argument rests on the notion that because some things that happened in The Infinity Doctors are later referenced in other books which are unambiguously in the "mainstream DWU" that this means — through, I guess, the transitive property — that TID itself is in the mainstream DWU. This sort of thing happens all the time in comic books and other speculative fiction — but it doesn't make it any less an alternative universe. I think I gave examples from Earth-2's Batman/Catwoman relationship.
But a clearer example is likely the Kelvin universe created by Star Trek (2009). There's Khan in the "regular" STU, played by Ricardo Montalban. And there's Khan played by Benedict Cumberbatch in the Kelvin timeline. They're not the same, yet the two stories have points of intersection. Both involve one of the senior officers of the Enterprise sacrificing their lives for the good of the others. In one, it's Spock; in the other, Kirk. That's a big difference, yet the cause of their demise is pretty similar. Both are trying to restore power to the ship to escape Khan's wrath by exposing themselves to the radiation of the engine itself. But no reasonable observer would say that these events happen in the same universe.
That's how it is with details echoing from TID into other books. The whole concept of multiple realities depends on at least some things being similar across the realities. But that doesn't mean that they are the same.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:209664
I've been looking around this wiki for The Minister of Chance audio series.
However I now realize it isn't actually covered here. I can't find any inclusion debate on the matter, so with new evidence.
Here are my reasons of why TMOC should be covered here.
The audios were officially released as was the onscreen prologue. [23]
But the problem lies more with proof that it is in the DW multiverse.
Here is a Den of Geek review describing it as a spin off. [24]
Another website claiming the same. [25]
Even the Radio Times has had a crack at calling it a Doctor Who spin off. [26]
An official place to purchase it sells it as a DW spin off. [27]
Another official review claiming the same. [28]
And yet another official place declares it a spin off. [29]
Another website stating explicitly it's in the DWU, and they even quote Dan Freeman on it. [30]
And even the official website calling it a Doctor Who spin off. [31]
Another official review. [32]
Lee Sullivan the original artist of Death Comes to Time calling it a Doctor Who spin off. [33]
Another review calling it Who. [34]
Another piece makes the claim. [35]
Another site makes the claim. [36]
Another interview with Dan the man. [37]
Ample evidence above, if you have any more evidence for or against be sure to add it.
- Pluto2
Does it actually reference DCTT? Is it a sequel, or does it ignore DCTT? We've ruled DCTT invalid because Freedman couldn't make up his mind as to whether his own work was "canon" - he said there was a canon, and then basically said "maybe DCTT is canon, maybe it isn't".
I think we should cover it, but whether it's valid or invalid is a different question.
- HolmestoHomes
Pluto2 wrote: Does it actually reference DCTT? Is it a sequel, or does it ignore DCTT? We've ruled DCTT invalid because Freedman couldn't make up his mind as to whether his own work was "canon" - he said there was a canon, and then basically said "maybe DCTT is canon, maybe it isn't".
I think we should cover it, but whether it's valid or invalid is a different question.
He states it as part of the DWU but I got the impression it's in a different universe to DCTT.
- Pluto2
HolmestoHomes wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Does it actually reference DCTT? Is it a sequel, or does it ignore DCTT? We've ruled DCTT invalid because Freedman couldn't make up his mind as to whether his own work was "canon" - he said there was a canon, and then basically said "maybe DCTT is canon, maybe it isn't".
I think we should cover it, but whether it's valid or invalid is a different question.
He states it as part of the DWU but I got the impression it's in a different universe to DCTT.
In that case, it's probably a valid source.
- HolmestoHomes
Pluto2 wrote:
HolmestoHomes wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Does it actually reference DCTT? Is it a sequel, or does it ignore DCTT? We've ruled DCTT invalid because Freedman couldn't make up his mind as to whether his own work was "canon" - he said there was a canon, and then basically said "maybe DCTT is canon, maybe it isn't".
I think we should cover it, but whether it's valid or invalid is a different question.
He states it as part of the DWU but I got the impression it's in a different universe to DCTT.
In that case, it's probably a valid source.
Hopefully
- NateBumber
Wonderful compilation of evidence that I think definitively proves that the Minister of Chance was intended to be in the Doctor Who universe. This isn't just people calling it a spinoff for marketing purposes; this is the creator himself directly acknowledging it as a Doctor Who spinoff and part of the universe of the series. I'd also like to mention that the Minister was referenced in The Gallifrey Chronicles, so DCTT isn't his only point of intersection with the DWU, for anyone who's worried about that :)
- HolmestoHomes
NateBumber wrote: Wonderful compilation of evidence that I think definitively proves that the Minister of Chance was intended to be in the Doctor Who universe. This isn't just people calling it a spinoff for marketing purposes; this is the creator himself directly acknowledging it as a Doctor Who spinoff and part of the universe of the series. I'd also like to mention that the Minister was referenced in The Gallifrey Chronicles, so DCTT isn't his only point of intersection with the DWU, for anyone who's worried about that :)
I'm glad you like the compilation.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Minister was in that novel.
- AeD
1: "Officially released" exists as a rule to stop over-eager folks from covering stuff from pre-broadcast screenings or leaks, so it's functionally irrelevant when we're talking about a teeny-tiny production company putting something on Vimeo, but alright.
2: They call it an "unofficial spin-off," this is essentially a press release from the Minister of Chance people, and I don't think Den of Geek should be considered a valid source on this, anyway.
3: That's a podcast listing for the episodes of The Minister of Chance, directly pulled from the MoC RSS feed, not a separate site.
4: The Radio Times is not any kind of arbiter on this either, for that matter, and "spin-off" is used pretty loosely by the general public anyway, not in the more strict technical sense that would be relevant to us.
5: Goodreads is not an official anything. It's a community for talking about books, essentially comparable to Wikipedia or the IMDb or a big internet forum.
6: The words "official review" are meaningless, and it's not a review, anyway, it's a blog post about PR material sent by RadioStatic to Shadowlocked, a site that, again, has exactly as much to say about this as Den of Geek does.
7: "Another official place" is another fan site.
8: It's not Dan Freeman who's quoted but the MoC website, and I don't think Patrick Hester of SF Signal can legally make any kind of statement about whether or not MoC is set in the DWU.
9: Not an official website, but a Doctor Who review site.
10: Not a review, official or otherwise, just PR republishing again.
11: Sullivan describes MoC as "a brilliant audio drama with its origins in 'Doctor Who - Death Comes to Time' webcast," which, yes, is accurate, in that the character of the Minister clearly originates from DCtT, but this introduces no new information.
12, 13, 14: All PR faff again.
15: I don't have the option of listening to this 45-minute podcast right now, so if there's anything in there worth having on the table, please feel free to quote it here.
To be clear, based on the opening post of this thread, I see absolutely no evidence of even an iota of substance that says anything about the validity of The Minister of Chance in either direction.
- NateBumber
Okay! Well here is an archive of ministerofchance.com, where author/director/whatever Dan Freeman says:A lot of people ask me if The Minister Of Chance is actually part of the Doctor Who universe. Well, as I understand it even the mighty Daleks are arguably not part of the Doctor Who universe (they're in the copyright of the estate of Terry Nation, not the BBC) and neither is the K9 character (which is in the copyright of that character's creators, Bob Baker and Dave Martin).
Every time the Daleks show up, the BBC have to pay for them to appear. Likewise K9, and likewise an absolute avalanche of beloved characters from Doctor Who's 48+ years - characters that are considered to be part of the 'Whoniverse', but are not owned by the BBC. This kind of fracturing of rights occurs in numerous long-running serials where more than one writer contributes characters and ideas.
The character of the Minister Of Chance is my creation, and first appeared in the BBC serial Death Comes To Time. He was then, and still is, a Time Lord from Gallifrey - the planet of origin for the Time Lord race.He never answers "yes" or "no" to the starting question, but he does say (and this is made much clearer in the later paragraphs at the link) that the Minister of Chance is no more and no less "part of the Doctor Who universe" as the Daleks and K9. The same site also repeatedly describes the Minister as a "defrocked Time Lord". I think that's pretty damn conclusive, and could even be used as evidence for a Death Comes to Time inclusion debate (since the last one didn't even mention that the Doctor isn't confirmed dead at the end).
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote: Okay! Well here is an archive of ministerofchance.com, where author/director/whatever Dan Freeman says:
A lot of people ask me if The Minister Of Chance is actually part of the Doctor Who universe. Well, as I understand it even the mighty Daleks are arguably not part of the Doctor Who universe (they're in the copyright of the estate of Terry Nation, not the BBC) and neither is the K9 character (which is in the copyright of that character's creators, Bob Baker and Dave Martin).Every time the Daleks show up, the BBC have to pay for them to appear. Likewise K9, and likewise an absolute avalanche of beloved characters from Doctor Who's 48+ years - characters that are considered to be part of the 'Whoniverse', but are not owned by the BBC. This kind of fracturing of rights occurs in numerous long-running serials where more than one writer contributes characters and ideas.
The character of the Minister Of Chance is my creation, and first appeared in the BBC serial Death Comes To Time. He was then, and still is, a Time Lord from Gallifrey - the planet of origin for the Time Lord race.He never answers "yes" or "no" to the starting question, but he does say (and this is made much clearer in the later paragraphs at the link) that the Minister of Chance is no more and no less "part of the Doctor Who universe" as the Daleks and K9. The same site also repeatedly describes the Minister as a "defrocked Time Lord". I think that's pretty damn conclusive, and could even be used as evidence for a Death Comes to Time inclusion debate (since the last one didn't even mention that the Doctor isn't confirmed dead at the end).
I previously mentioned it in the debate over whether to classify it as an alternate universe. My personal opinion is that Death Comes to Time should be valid, and very little suggests the Doctor is actually dead. If anything, it's very ambiguous.
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote: Okay! Well here is an archive of ministerofchance.com, where author/director/whatever Dan Freeman says:
A lot of people ask me if The Minister Of Chance is actually part of the Doctor Who universe. Well, as I understand it even the mighty Daleks are arguably not part of the Doctor Who universe (they're in the copyright of the estate of Terry Nation, not the BBC) and neither is the K9 character (which is in the copyright of that character's creators, Bob Baker and Dave Martin).Every time the Daleks show up, the BBC have to pay for them to appear. Likewise K9, and likewise an absolute avalanche of beloved characters from Doctor Who's 48+ years - characters that are considered to be part of the 'Whoniverse', but are not owned by the BBC. This kind of fracturing of rights occurs in numerous long-running serials where more than one writer contributes characters and ideas.
The character of the Minister Of Chance is my creation, and first appeared in the BBC serial Death Comes To Time. He was then, and still is, a Time Lord from Gallifrey - the planet of origin for the Time Lord race.He never answers "yes" or "no" to the starting question, but he does say (and this is made much clearer in the later paragraphs at the link) that the Minister of Chance is no more and no less "part of the Doctor Who universe" as the Daleks and K9. The same site also repeatedly describes the Minister as a "defrocked Time Lord". I think that's pretty damn conclusive, and could even be used as evidence for a Death Comes to Time inclusion debate (since the last one didn't even mention that the Doctor isn't confirmed dead at the end).
Yeah, this definitely seems to be valid.
- HolmestoHomes
NateBumber wrote: Okay! Well here is an archive of ministerofchance.com, where author/director/whatever Dan Freeman says:
A lot of people ask me if The Minister Of Chance is actually part of the Doctor Who universe. Well, as I understand it even the mighty Daleks are arguably not part of the Doctor Who universe (they're in the copyright of the estate of Terry Nation, not the BBC) and neither is the K9 character (which is in the copyright of that character's creators, Bob Baker and Dave Martin).Every time the Daleks show up, the BBC have to pay for them to appear. Likewise K9, and likewise an absolute avalanche of beloved characters from Doctor Who's 48+ years - characters that are considered to be part of the 'Whoniverse', but are not owned by the BBC. This kind of fracturing of rights occurs in numerous long-running serials where more than one writer contributes characters and ideas.
The character of the Minister Of Chance is my creation, and first appeared in the BBC serial Death Comes To Time. He was then, and still is, a Time Lord from Gallifrey - the planet of origin for the Time Lord race.He never answers "yes" or "no" to the starting question, but he does say (and this is made much clearer in the later paragraphs at the link) that the Minister of Chance is no more and no less "part of the Doctor Who universe" as the Daleks and K9. The same site also repeatedly describes the Minister as a "defrocked Time Lord". I think that's pretty damn conclusive, and could even be used as evidence for a Death Comes to Time inclusion debate (since the last one didn't even mention that the Doctor isn't confirmed dead at the end).
Yes, that seems to confirm it in my eyes.
- HolmestoHomes
HolmestoHomes wrote:
NateBumber wrote: Okay! Well here is an archive of ministerofchance.com, where author/director/whatever Dan Freeman says:
A lot of people ask me if The Minister Of Chance is actually part of the Doctor Who universe. Well, as I understand it even the mighty Daleks are arguably not part of the Doctor Who universe (they're in the copyright of the estate of Terry Nation, not the BBC) and neither is the K9 character (which is in the copyright of that character's creators, Bob Baker and Dave Martin).Every time the Daleks show up, the BBC have to pay for them to appear. Likewise K9, and likewise an absolute avalanche of beloved characters from Doctor Who's 48+ years - characters that are considered to be part of the 'Whoniverse', but are not owned by the BBC. This kind of fracturing of rights occurs in numerous long-running serials where more than one writer contributes characters and ideas.
The character of the Minister Of Chance is my creation, and first appeared in the BBC serial Death Comes To Time. He was then, and still is, a Time Lord from Gallifrey - the planet of origin for the Time Lord race.He never answers "yes" or "no" to the starting question, but he does say (and this is made much clearer in the later paragraphs at the link) that the Minister of Chance is no more and no less "part of the Doctor Who universe" as the Daleks and K9. The same site also repeatedly describes the Minister as a "defrocked Time Lord". I think that's pretty damn conclusive, and could even be used as evidence for a Death Comes to Time inclusion debate (since the last one didn't even mention that the Doctor isn't confirmed dead at the end).
Yes, that seems to confirm it in my eyes.
Any more opposition?
- AeD
*raises hand*
I haven't heard it, but from reviews and other descriptions, I feel comfortable saying the story does not, and can not legally, use any elements of the DWU besides the titular Minister, who is owned by Dan Freeman.
How is this any different from something like Vienna?
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: *raises hand*
I haven't heard it, but from reviews and other descriptions, I feel comfortable saying the story does not, and can not legally, use any elements of the DWU besides the titular Minister, who is owned by Dan Freeman.
How is this any different from something like Vienna?
Erm, Vienna can use Doctor Who characters. They just choose not to.
- NateBumber
AeD wrote: *raises hand*
I haven't heard it, but from reviews and other descriptions, I feel comfortable saying the story does not, and can not legally, use any elements of the DWU besides the titular Minister, who is owned by Dan Freeman.
How is this any different from something like Vienna?
A significantly better question is, "How is this any different from Graceless, or Time Hunter, or Iris Wildthyme, or Bernice Summerfield, or the K9 show, or Faction Paradox, or Erimem, or Lethbridge-Stewart?" Vienna isn't included on this wiki because the creator has explicitly stated that it's outside the bounds of the Doctor Who universe. Dan Freeman, however, has said the exact opposite, as quoted up-thread. I can't really see how this could be any more clear.
- 82.3.146.201
NateBumber wrote:
AeD wrote: *raises hand*
I haven't heard it, but from reviews and other descriptions, I feel comfortable saying the story does not, and can not legally, use any elements of the DWU besides the titular Minister, who is owned by Dan Freeman.
How is this any different from something like Vienna?
A significantly better question is, "How is this any different from Graceless, or Time Hunter, or Iris Wildthyme, or Bernice Summerfield, or the K9 show, or Faction Paradox, or Erimem, or Lethbridge-Stewart?" Vienna isn't included on this wiki because the creator has explicitly stated that it's outside the bounds of the Doctor Who universe. Dan Freeman, however, has said the exact opposite, as quoted up-thread. I can't really see how this could be any more clear.
Exactly, I agree. I agree with the OP as well, this definitely should be covered.
- Bwburke94
The Vienna discussion was screwed up enough that we shouldn't be using it as precedent.
The main difference I see between TMOC and the other works NateBumber mentioned is that the Minister is primarily linked to the DWU via an invalid work.
- 82.3.146.201
Bwburke94 wrote: The Vienna discussion was screwed up enough that we shouldn't be using it as precedent.
The main difference I see between TMOC and the other works NateBumber mentioned is that the Minister is primarily linked to the DWU via an invalid work.
This should not matter, remember that the MOC appeared in a BBC Book. Anyway Dan Freeman has stated that it's in a different universe to DCTT but still in a DWU.
OOI why do you oppose it?
- NateBumber
I guess I'd settle for covering it as invalid?
- 82.3.146.201
NateBumber wrote: I guess I'd settle for covering it as invalid?
It should 100% be covered.
But Dan Freeman has said (albeit unclearly) that DCTT is not part of Doctor Who' continuity however he said that TMOC chance is in the DWU.
So surely that means it that it should be considered valid.
- 82.3.146.201
Natebumber's post seems to have vanished, good job I quoted it... otherwise it would have been lost forever.
Must be a glitch. Never mind.
- NateBumber
I removed it because I decided I actually wouldn't settle for covering it as invalid.
82.3.146.201 wrote: Natebumber's post seems to have vanished, good job I quoted it... otherwise it would have been lost forever.
Must be a glitch. Never mind.
- 82.3.146.201
NateBumber wrote:
I removed it because I decided I actually wouldn't settle for covering it as invalid.82.3.146.201 wrote: Natebumber's post seems to have vanished, good job I quoted it... otherwise it would have been lost forever.
Must be a glitch. Never mind.
Ah right.
Based that Dan has said that MOC is in the DWU and DCTT isn't.
That's problem over, that's sorted. MOC is valid.
However we do have some that are "against" for reasons currently unknown to us. It'd be great if they were shared.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The description of the Minister of Chance has appeared in a licenced Doctor Who novel, yet that appearance could easily be interpreted in other forms. If Dan Freeman himself is saying that DCTT isn't in the DWU, then how can we possibly cover the Minister of Chance series, as DCTT is our only solid way of linking it to the wider DWU.
Unless the Minister of Chance series does include some already established links that exist both within official Doctor Who works and the MoC series, then I can't see how it can be included. Basically at the moment Vienna's series has more right to be included on the wiki than the MoC series, since her character and several species from that series have appeared in the DWU. At the moment the MoC series' only link to the DWU is an audio play that is widely considered non-canon due to its complete disregard for series lore, and a vague description of Stephen Fry in The Gallifrey Chronicles.
Just as a side note on that description in The Gallifrey Chronicles; The Tomorrow Windows also includes a description of a future Doctor that the Discontinuity Guide website interprets as Stephen Fry. So while the description in The Gallifrey Chronicles could be the Minister of Chance, it could equally be this supposed future Doctor, or vice versa.
The argument is just too strenuous for me to win my vote for the series' addition to the wiki.
- Pluto2
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: The description of the Minister of Chance has appeared in a licenced Doctor Who novel, yet that appearance could easily be interpreted in other forms. If Dan Freeman himself is saying that DCTT isn't in the DWU, then how can we possibly cover the Minister of Chance series, as DCTT is our only solid way of linking it to the wider DWU.
Unless the Minister of Chance series does include some already established links that exist both within official Doctor Who works and the MoC series, then I can't see how it can be included. Basically at the moment Vienna's series has more right to be included on the wiki than the MoC series, since her character and several species from that series have appeared in the DWU. At the moment the MoC series' only link to the DWU is an audio play that is widely considered non-canon due to its complete disregard for series lore, and a vague description of Stephen Fry in The Gallifrey Chronicles.
Just as a side note on that description in The Gallifrey Chronicles; The Tomorrow Windows also includes a description of a future Doctor that the Discontinuity Guide website interprets as Stephen Fry. So while the description in The Gallifrey Chronicles could be the Minister of Chance, it could equally be this supposed future Doctor, or vice versa.
The argument is just too strenuous for me to win my vote for the series' addition to the wiki.
But isn't the Minister of Chance mentioned by name as a survivor of the War?
- Revanvolatrelundar
Nope, the appearance of the Minister in the book is as follows:
"a tall man with a bent nose wearing a cravat and holding a pair of dice"
That could actually be anybody. For interest, this is the full paragraph on the four survivors (not including Marnal):
"A man with a sallow face and small, pointed black beard, who wore a blue rosette; a young woman with long blonde hair in an extraordinary piece of haute couture; a tall man with a bent nose wearing a cravat and holding a pair of dice; the Doctor himself with close-cropped hair, sitting on an ornate throne, a newborn baby girl in his arms."
- 85.255.236.240
I've had a look at the situation at hand and the evidence it looks like Dan Freemdman has said DCTT is "canon" but to sum that up I think he believes that both DCTT and the TMOC are in the DWU but not part of mainstream continuity but another reality.
I'm sure NateBumber will agree with me on this one.
- Pluto2
85.255.236.240 wrote: I've had a look at the situation at hand and the evidence it looks like Dan Freemdman has said DCTT is "canon" but to sum that up I think he believes that both DCTT and the TMOC are in the DWU but not part of mainstream continuity but another reality.
I'm sure NateBumber will agree with me on this one.
So...we treat like we now treat the Unbounds (alternate universes)? I'd accept that.
- 82.3.146.201
85.255.236.240 wrote: I've had a look at the situation at hand and the evidence it looks like Dan Freemdman has said DCTT is "canon" but to sum that up I think he believes that both DCTT and the TMOC are in the DWU but not part of mainstream continuity but another reality.
I'm sure NateBumber will agree with me on this one.
Agreed, Dan definitely has stated it's in the DWU.
Also I'd also love NateBumber to help expand on this as he has first class debating skills.
- Revanvolatrelundar
But where does it say that the MoC is in an alternate universe. The Unbound stories were explicitly advertised as being outside the mainstream universe from their very conception. DCTT was billed as an oddity of a continuation when it was released, and never had a place to fit in at any point due to the nature of its plot, but nevertheless was never sold as a "what if?" like the Unbounds were.
- Pluto2
Why is this being questioned? Freedman has openly stated MoC is in the DWU. Shouldn't this be open-and-shut?
- Bwburke94
I don't think the question is whether DCTT was sold as a "what if?", because it has long been interpreted to fail Rule 4 regardless of how it was sold.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: I don't think the question is whether DCTT was sold as a "what if?", because it has long been interpreted to fail Rule 4 regardless of how it was sold.
No, I'm asking why The Minister of Chance is being questioned.
- Bwburke94
The MoC character primarily stems from an invalid work, which is the issue here. The character is currently valid only because of a vague passage in The Gallifrey Chronicles – the name "Minister of Chance" has not appeared in any currently-valid work if I am reading this thread correctly.
Treating the MoC audio series as valid would fix most of these problems.
Truth is, the reasons for not including The Minister of Chance series are easy to demonstrate, using solely the interview Nate mentioned above.
Only, he didn't give the most salient passage, which is the final paragraph:
So the only answer I can make to the question originally posed [is the minister part of the DWU?] is that at the moment the BBC are not licensing the Minister Of Chance character for use in Doctor Who output. But he was a Time Lord when he first came to our ears in Death Comes To Time, and he's still a Time Lord - still the same character.
So:
- The BBC aren't licensing the Minister of Chance character
- in Doctor Who output
- And the BBC wholly own the concept of Time Lords.
- Yet Freeman insists it's the same character and that the MoC is explicitly a Time Lord.
In other words, it fails Rule 2 of our four little rules:
- A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.
You just can't call a character a "Time Lord" unless the BBC say you can, and they didn't. And the BBC have some kind of ownership of the Minister of Chance character, otherwise Freeman wouldn't talk about the BBC licensing the character. This, of course, is quite apart from the BBC's outright ownership of Time Lords, generally.
It also isn't set in the DWU, because Freeman explicitly said that the BBC aren't licensing it for use in Doctor Who material. So if it's being used, logically it isn't being used in the DWU.
So The Minister of Chance, as a series, fails on at least two counts by Freeman's own admission.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:209691
I'd like to propose the two Dirk Gently books (but not the adaptations) be considered a valid source.
One of the central characters of the series is Professor Chronotis, who was created for Shada. There's a lot suggesting the Chronotis in Dirk Gently is the same Chronotis that appears in Shada.
For instance, in Dirk Gently, Chronotis is a time traveller whose time machine is his office. He's got memory problems, and has been alive for centuries, having resided in the same office for over 200 years. It's also stated he retired from "something pretty good" .
In fact, he's even teaching at the same college - St. Cedd's.
There's this exchange:
"Here?" said Reg. " Just about two hundred years. Ever since I retired."
"Retired from what?"
"Search me. Must have been something pretty good, though, what do you think?"
I'm not saying that the TV series is valid, because both of them remove Chronotis, and thus the connection to Doctor Who, entirely.
The novels, however, have Chronotis as a main character. The comics published by IDW do as well.
- AeD
There's enough overlap between how Chronotis appears in Shada and how he does in these books that I think the one rules out the other co-existing.
- Pluto2
AeD wrote: There's enough overlap between how Chronotis appears in Shada and how he does in these books that I think the one rules out the other co-existing.
Erm, what does that mean? They're in two separate universes?
- AeD
Essentially, yes.
- OttselSpy25
Sorry man, but that's absolutely an insane proposition.
- AeD
This recent trend of -- yeah, insane is the right word -- inclusion debates, and I don't want to accuse anyone of anything or come off as hostile, but I can't help but feel like these are either increasingly being offered in bad faith, or by people who either don't understand the rules or prove that they need to be sharpened down a little further.
- Pluto2
...I'm going to remove this thread.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:210381
Surely this wiki's pages (plural!) on [[The Lollipop Man (TV story)|this 2008 ''Doctor Who'' pastiche from TV soap ''Doctors'']] cover this thing in way, way more depth than is appropriate?
Like, do we really need pages about the fictional-fictional character "The Lollipop Man", the [[Graham Capelli|the fictional actor who played him on TV]], [[Debbie Capelli|his fictional wife]], or about the episode's non-fictional [[David Semple|writer]] and [[Bob Thomson|director]], neither of whom otherwise have anything to do with Doctor Who?
Certainly, "The Lollipop Man" surely has no business whatsoever being in the Non-DWU Doctors category?
It's an episode of Doctors, for chrissakes.
- TheChampionOfTime
I think this discussion should perhaps be put in stasis for another two months until User:DENCH-and-PALMER - the self-proclaimed "king of invalid" and creator of all these pages and more - is no longer exiled from the wiki. I think this conversation would be a bit one-sided without him.
In my opinion, The Lollipop Man isn't the only unneeded invalid page. I don't know why a cut-away gag from Family Guy deserves to be called a story (also, I highly doubt the BBC were in any way involved with it, you're allowed to do certain things in the name of parody) and I don't see the need for Peter Davison (The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot) or Colin Baker (The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot).
There will probably have to be some sort of cleanup, but I don't think now's the time.
- 194.171.148.23
(This is AeD, who'd prefer not to log in at school.)
I understand where you're coming from, but waiting for, what, two months, to get the input of someone who was blocked for bad behaviour on content that, to you and me at the very least, is somewhat excessive, that seems counter-productive to me.
- 5.2.105.85
I believe that the page on Graham and his wife should be deleted.
However the story and the actual lollipop man seem important enough to stay imo.
- Amorkuz
194.171.148.23 wrote: I understand where you're coming from, but waiting for, what, two months, to get the input of someone who was blocked for bad behaviour...
I respectfully submit that "bad behaviour" is too simplistic a description of what happened to poor Dencher. It was all more nuanced and seemed (to me) like a case of good intentions. Let's not make his exile even harder on him by dismantling his work while he helplessly watches from outside. Two months is really not that long compared to many other debates.
In addition, you can never know what arguments/knowledge other people harbour. It's a source of constant amazement for me. There was a very recent example of virtually everyone in attendance agreeing on something very simple and then a user whose input was needed providing a much more complex and nuanced description for this "simple" case.
So let's hear what the man has to say first.
- SeaniesBeanies
TBH I don't see the problem in keeping it at all. It's a nicely detailed page that's just a bit of fun, and it isn't exactly on the front page or anything.
I say just delete the link on the incarnations of the Doctor page, because that confused me when I first saw it.
- AeD
re: "Bad behaviour," yeah, I conflated DENCH-and-PALMER to some extent with that other block, for which I apologise.
If information about this is kept, I feel it should be boiled down to probably a single page about the television programme Doctors, and the ways in which it has intersected with Doctor Who -- at the very least, the pages about the characters and the writer and director don't need to be here, and the "The Lollipop Man," though obviously a pastiche of the Doctor, should not be be considered in any way an incarnation of the Doctor, non-DWU or otherwise.
And that Family Guy gag -- this should surely just go on [[Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe]]? (The Doctors thing, too, maybe?)
Besides, this is really not a difficult case at all. AeD has already nailed the course of action on the head. I'm not going to reiterate what AeD has already said eloquently, so let me just boil it down to bullet points:
- [[The Lollipop Man (TV story)]] will be deleted.
- [["The Lollipop Man"]] will be deleted.
- [[David Semple]] and [[Bob Thomson]] will be deleted.
- [[Graham Capelli]] and [[Debbie Capelli]] will be deleted.
- As Doctors really doesn't have massive intersection with Doctor Who, it probably shouldn't get its own page. Although there is some crossover between cast and crew -- notably Alice Troughton got some of her early, pre-Doctor Who directorial experience on Doctors -- the connection is decidedly weaker than All Creatures Great and Small, Z-Cars, Sea of Souls, and Born and Bred. As AeD suggested above, Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe (or Doctor Who parodies) seems a better place than creating a page for it.
Update:
- All pages deleted. Entry added to Doctor Who parodies about this subject.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:210741
So some time ago, I tried to make a page on the brief 'Sleeze Brothers' comic book which was printed after their appearance in the DWM comic strip Follow That TARDIS!. I can't remember where, but Czech objected to this (even as I had marked it as what would now be considered "invalid") as the comic apparently didn't even justify having a page on TARDIS. It was to be seen as just about as relevant to the DWU as Cyberon.
A lot has happened since then. "Canon" is gone, we're no longer an "Index File," and it's safe to say we're a more healthy website.
And so I think it's worth re-opening the idea that Sleeze Brothers the 6-issue-comic-series not only deserves a page on this wikia, but it might even be totally valid.
What is important to recognize is that the Sleeze Brothers are much more like Abslom Daak (a character who was supposed to exit connections with Who comics to be his own thing while still being the same person) than Death's Head (a character from the Transformers comic who did a series of "crossovers" with the DWM universe). The brothers first appeared in a Doctor Who Magazine strip entitled Follow that TARDIS!, and then they spread into their mini-series.
If anything, this is extremely close to how we see Vince Cosmos -- who was introduced in Hang onto Yourself and then continued to be explored in the spin-off audio Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective.
Let's go down the four-little-rules:
| 1 | Only stories count. |
It's a story of sorts, yes.
| 2 | A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. |
Since DWM and the spin-off series were both printed by Marvel comics, we can presume that there weren't any licensing problems in the long run...
| 3 | A story must be officially released to be valid. |
Yea, it was released.
| 4 | If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. |
For this I'm just gonna steal User:Fwhiffahder's quote about Vince Cosmos. "It tallies with the characters' other depictions, with nothing indicating it's not the same universe."
Unless there's some huge unseen difference between this and Glam Rock Detective, I think the comic series must be valid.
- OttselSpy25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleeze_Brothers
Here is the Wikipedia page on the characters in question, and while they're not exactly the best source it's important to note how the comic is described there.
"The characters were spun off from a Doctor Who comic strip by Carnell entitled "Follow That TARDIS!", published in Doctor Who Magazine #147 (April 1989), though they are not generally considered part of the Doctor Who extended universe."
That fluff about "generally" means very little to us. It's not cited, and Wikipedia's standards for "validity" are likely very different from ours. What's important is the clear suggestion that they were created for DWM and they were then spun into their own series.
What I've been able to easily find pretty strongly supports them being the same characters. Same coats, same silly hats, same flying Volkswagen. I think it's setting of "a futuristic New York" is comparable to the setting of K9.
The comics look crazy and silly but the DWM comic is crazy and silly. Whatever, right?
It's fine to point out in a BTS note that the characters went on to have a life of their own, but that's as far as we can reasonably go. If all you use are the "four little rules", I guess you can prove just about anything valid. But they are not the be-all, end-all of validity. Much too much has been made of that lately. T:VS is a much larger, more nuanced page, and the four little rules are just a quick summary that gives us something we can use in most cases to make a quick determination.
That's why it's important to remember that the Board:Inclusion debates description focuses on the four little rules not because they are the entirety of our decision-making process, but merely because board descriptions have a character limit.
As several participants to recent inclusion debates have pointed out, there's more to it than that. You have to ask yourself some common sense questions.
And one of the common sense questions we might ask here is whether the authors of the comic series genuinely meant their work to take place in the DWU. And they surely didn't. There would have been no financial inducement to do so. Why tie your fortunes to the BBC if you don't have to? And why would Epic Comics, the imprint that published the Sleaze Brothers mini-series, want to get entangled with potential BBC copyright problems?
Finally, the standard OS25 uses in his original post is not one we can reasonably use.
- "It tallies with the characters' other depictions, with nothing indicating it's not the same universe."
We need positives, not double-negatives. The absence of a negative is not at all the same thing as a positive.
So, returning to Follow That TARDIS!: there is no new information provided by OS25 that would give cause to cover the Sleaze Brothers mini-series here at Tardis. The way things are set up, with a link to the Marvel Database's page on the Epic Comics' series, is completely adequate to meet the needs of our readers.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY Warning: Display title "User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1" overrides earlier display title "Inclusion debates/'Sleeze Brothers' comics".