Forum:Validity: Hacker T. Dog

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Validity: Hacker T. Dog

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Index → Inclusion debates → Validity: Hacker T. Dog

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

Validity of that CBBC continuity segment currently known as The Robot Reveal

So, I thought this one might be a nice easy, (hopefully) uncontroversial validity debate to start off with, now that the forums are back.

Also, this is the first OP I've wrote, so it won't be terribly good. Still, it's a learning curve, and I'll try not to waffle on too much. Now, let's get cracking.

Some time in 2016, I forget when, CBBC announced a competition to create a new robot. When this robot was revealed, they chose to use the Doctor's TARDIS as a framing device, having Hacker T Dog and Karim Zeroual (the continuity presenters who happened to be chosen for the task) step inside the TARDIS and have the TARDIS create the robot. The Doctor is said to be having the break on Florana, and Hacker is said to be a friend of the Doctor.

The page currently appears to state that this is invalid for being a parody, and therefore failing rule 4. I do not, however, believe this is the case. At no point does it attempt to mock, make fun of or otherwise lampoon Doctor Who. The only element even verging on parody is when Hacker calls the Tardis to him by simply barking.

But let us address the elephant in the room here. Upon closer study, one can easily make the inference that this story was in fact invalidated for being similar to Mind My Minions. Now, I don't want to make this assumption, as it is arguably in violation of T:FAITH, but I do want to address this possible concern. Yes, this is similar to Mind My Minions. However, while MMM is not clearly intended to be set in the DWU, there does not appear to be any such argument to be made for that CBBC continuity segment currently known as The Robot Reveal.

Thanks for reading, Aquanafrahudy ☎ 20:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I guess The Robot Reveal was tangentially discussed in Thread:207236 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1. (Insofar as it was in a big list of stories discussed.) It was also at one point considered potentially deletable and moved to our DW references lists. Not sure why it was ever listed as invalid. Someone want to ask Dench? Najawin ☎ 21:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

So this was actually a story that was on my list of Inclusion OPs to write in the coming months, quite shocked to see it covered here. Considering the debate is now live, I'd like to very quickly discuss all of the talking points I had intended to include.

So the reason this story is non-valid, as far as I can see, is that the comparison was made to Mind My Minions, as mentioned in the OP. Mind My Minions features the Minions using the TARDIS, Robot Reveal features Hacker borrowing the TARDIS. They're the same, both invalid, badabing badaboom.

There's many responses to be made here. The first is clearly that tone is more important here, and I think you can easily make the case that Minions is a Doctor Who parody, while Robot Reveal is simply a crossover between Doctor Who and (I believe) Scoop. In Robot Reveal, the Doctor Who elements are not lampooned - there are silly parts of the story, but I'd argue that is merely the internal logic of Scoop being itself silly, in the same way that Chute! Episode 9 is not a Sarah Jane Adventures parody.

But more important to this discussion, in my opinion, the discussion of a certain facet of this debate, which I like to call: The Kermit Factor.

So let me run through a theoretical. You're watching some American sitcom which, for the most part, has very typical internal logic with no supernatural elements. Then, in one specific episode, a character visits a bar in California and runs into... Kermit the Frog.

The character and Kermit have a brief heart-to-heart, and the main character moved on with their day, potentially having their point of view challenged by the green. Now, here is the question: would you find your suspension of disbelief was offended by this cameo?

Personally, whenever something like this happens, I am not offended. I don't see it as "jumping the shark" or the like. And that is because characters like Kermit have a very specific characteristic - something which I call, you'll never guess this, The Kermit Factor.

The Kermit Factor is thus defined as when a character can appear simply as a person without it seeming to challenge if this story is "serious" or "counts." Very few characters have this factor. I'd say just a few are Pudsey, Alf, and sometimes even Mickey Mouse. But in this case what I'm certain about is that the Minions do not have the Kermit factor. Hacker T Dog does, indisputably.

Hacker T Dog is not a puppet brought to life in the narrative, he's not a bit of magic or a miracle. He is a presenter on CBBC, who is even name dropped in another story: GAME: Doctor Who and the micro:bit.

Now, I understand that some will have hesitation to validate this, as it is common for licensed Doctor Who elements like the TARDIS and the Sonic screwdriver to appear on news shows and the like. But I think this is a very particular case where this short clearly justifies coverage and was clearly intended to be set inside the Doctor's universe.

The short even purposefully omits the most infamous facets that stories like this usually carry - it is not an in-universe live broadcast and Doctor Who is not presented as an in-universe TV series. It is not "meta" in that sense, it's just a little webcast which features a CBBC cast member interacting with parts of the universe. Thusly, the most similar comparison is not Mind My Minions, but in fact Chris Meets....

Personally, I consider this to be a part of the very small CBBC expanded Whoniverse, and thus I think it should be a valid source. OS25🤙☎️ 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Not entirely relevant, but I do remember seeing someone saying that the muppets were like modern day leprechauns. If you were walking down the street and you saw Gonzo at a bus stop, sure, you'd do a double take, it would be a bit odd, but fundamentally it would make sense to you.) Najawin ☎ 22:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, OS25. As a matter of fact, I discovered this story when you suggested it for a speed round, and as I didn't see it on your list of things to write validity debates for, I thought I might do it myself. I certainly see what you mean about the Kermit factor, as well; Hacker T Dog could pop up in mainstream DW, and nobody would bat an eyelid. (Also, technically, I think this story is a crossover between DW and the Cbbc continuity segments, which, it can be argued, are a spin-off of Scoop, but not entirely relevant here.) Aquanafrahudy ☎ 07:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I hardly mean to gatekeep, I don't expect everyone to check my sandboxes to see what I'm working on. I'm just shocked to find another person who cares about this. OS25🤙☎️ 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with validity. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The case for validity is very strong here. The Robot Reveal might share superficial plot similarities with Mind My Minions but they really are two different beasts. Whereas the Minions simply find the TARDIS with no explanation given as regards its provenance, Hacker is stated to be a friend of the Doctor who is allowed to use the TARDIS when the Doctor isn't using it. It's quite similar to River in The Husbands of River Song now that I think about it, though obviously she was taking the TARDIS without the Doctor's knowledge. Also, the mention of the Doctor (finally) getting to Florana pays off a series of fairly obscure references from the Pertwee era which is at the very least an indication that The Robot Reveal is intended to constitute a serious entry in the Doctor Who universe.

Additionally, I concur that Hacker possesses the "Kermit Factor" and that he shouldn't be a reason for the story to be invalid (if he ever was in the first place).

Finally, the question of whether The Robot Reveal is a crossover with Scoop does in fact matter because it decides whether that series can get a Tardis Wiki page using the precedent enshrined at Talk:Vienna (series). I'd say it is a Scoop crossover using the logic that all of Hacker's appearances are part of the "expanded Scoop universe" but I admit I haven't seen the show in aeons so I might be incorrect in my assessment. Borisashton ☎ 21:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

So I feel a bit silly for not mentioning this sooner, but CBBC was so familiar to me as a kid that despite it being quite an obvious point I didn't realise its format would have an impact on coverage.

The thing is, the official three minute and six second version of this story from YouTube is just a clip from a larger piece. Segments set in the CBBC studio bridge the gap between programmes, only the YouTube upload cuts out all this linking material to form a more-or-less self-contained story. As it happened on TV, after the TARDIS dematerialised Hacker, Karim and Bl1nk Bot had a small chat in the studio before they introduced the next programme. For the record, here's the full exchange:

KARIM: This is so cool! Hey, can I charge my phone off you?

HACKER: Can we keep him?

KARIM: I guess so. I can't believe we actually made a robot, Hacks!

HACKER: I know.

BL1NK BOT: I can't quite believe I had the opportunity to travel through space and time and... you brought me here?

HACKER: Hey, don't worry cocker. It's great here. We've got a brand-new hand dryer in the lavvy, you know.

KARIM: Hey. There's no time for, you know, lavvy chat. Thank you so much to everyone who sent in their robot designs. They have been a real inspiration. And, look! Here's our new friend. Here's our new robot. We'll find out more about him right after Just Kidding.

True to Hacker and Karim's discussion here, Bl1nk Bot would stick around for a bit, appearing in various continuity segments throughout CBBC's "Robot Week". This creates two problems in my mind. First, the story never really has a true ending and, second, the Doctor Who universe intent is increasingly strained as the days pass and Bl1nk Bot's introduction becomes more and more distant. Can it truly be said that a segment from a different day wherein Bl1nk Bot introduces a random show with no reference whatsoever to his origins passes Rule 4 to the same extent as the original TARDIS scene. I don't think so.

Despite this, I stand by opinion above that the original TARDIS scene does pass Rule 4 and the official upload cutting out the more out-of-universe bit at the end only strengthens my conviction here. However, the question remains of what to do with the other segments. I feel very strongly that we should cover them in some way. Bl1nk Bot is literally a child of the TARDIS. If we can't cover his appearances then we need to purge a lot of material from the site in my opinion. It's a tad unconventional but the best option I've come up with so far is to cover the YouTube upload version of the TARDIS scene as a valid source (maintaining its clear start and end) with the rest of Bl1nk Bot's segments from TV covered as invalid due to the doubtful DWU intent. These are probably too insubstantial to warrant separate pages for each one so a shared page called something like Robot Week (TV story) would do the trick, I think. The CBBC YT channel also has a pre-recorded video featuring Bl1nk Bot called Introducing BL1NK BOT 3. For the reasons outlined above I think this should have a page but I have no real thoughts on its validity prospects. Borisashton ☎ 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point Borisashton. I'll be honest, I hadn't truly considered the implication of Bl1nk Bot potentially being a "DWU character" due to him being born from the TARDIS. I think one solution might be that we cover his material in the same vein as Disney Time and Chute! Episode 9, except we only cover the linking segment.

My main worry isn't over-covering the material, but rather the fact that I doubt all of the Bl1nk Bot segments have been archived online or publicly. This it's hard to blindly say "This should all be valid" when we probably can't even find all of the material. However, at the very least I think we should cover the material. At the moment I'd suggest we cover the general linking segments as Robot Week (TV story). OS25🤙☎️ 23:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did wonder about this, but I couldn't find anything online; as OS25 has said, a lot of these CBBC segments aren't widely available. Can I ask, Borisashton, how you found the bit immediately following "The Robot Reveal"? There doesn't seem to be any information about it that I can find. R4 intent is definitely iffy, but we should certainly cover it nonetheless. Should we also cover all of the bits which B1ink Bot introduces? Probably, but it is a lot of work, so I'm not entirely sure. I literally cannot find any of this archived, and I don't even know if archives of this stuff exist. It's a complicated topic, certainly. Should the further adventures of B1ink Bot 3 be valid? I have absolutely no idea, however I'm leaning towards validation. Aquanafrahudy 📢 15:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if the further appearances are covered, then they should also be valid. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. I've discovered that every appearance of B1ink Bot 3 has actually been archived by none other than Warrick Brownlow-Pike, who plays B1ink Bot 3, on Youtube, so there's actually no need to worry about archiving. I also would say that the further appearances of B1ink Bot 3 should be valid, as r4 appears to tell us that if authorial intent is ambiguous, which I would say that it is in this situation, then we should just validate it. As for covering the programmes introduced by B1ink Bot, I'm actually quite hesitant to do this, as it would include wikifying the entirety of Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave, and all sorts of stuff. Also just how to cover them is very confusing, as it is sometimes ambiguous whether they are intended to be events that have happened in the same universe as the presenters, or if they are television programmes being introduced by the presenters. It's very confusing, anyhow. Aquanafrahudy 📢 19:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aquanafrahudy, you've seemingly answered your own question of where I found the minutes following The Robot Reveal but I'm afraid the problem of archiving still remains and is still a massive concern. The 13 minute video to which I assume you refer is nowhere near everything (with some of the segments that are present cut short) and what's there is also not in chronological order.

In any event, I concur that covering the shows introduced by Bl1nk is not wise and would potentially have us cover five full days of children's programming. Borisashton ☎ 20:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

While the concerns about the Robot introduced in this story is something I have no fresh insight on, I would like to voice my support for this story's validity, if possible. It reminds me greatly of the Young Sheldon episode A Race of Superhumans and a Letter to Alf, which is a similar case of the Kermit Factor; Young Sheldon is a prequel to The Big Bang Theory, which is set ostensibly in "our" world, with a couple of minor differences (i.e. a group of nerdy scientists meet famous actors and one of them gets a Nobel Prize), however it is in that aforementioned Young Sheldon episode... ALF from ALF appears at the end, despite him originating from a series with very different worldbuilding (i.e. aliens are a thing). The TBBT Wiki (AFAIK) would never question this episode's "canonicity"-or-what-have-you. It's the rule of funny. y'know? I don't feel this short, by itself, is any less "real" than any other Doctor Who story. I mean, Mr Spoon from Button Moon exists in the DWU.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

20:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Right, so, this.

Lots of walking-on-eggshells discussion of something called "the Kermit Factor", but really now, friends, this would be better called the Pudsey Precedent. More broadly it's a natural extension of crossover policy. Elements of the world being crossed-over-with should not prima facie be used as evidence of non-DWU-ness, because by definition they are hallmarks of a universe that is not normally synonmous the DWU, and that would be tantamount to arguing that crossovers shouldn't be valid. This is especially salient today when in fact the Doctor has name-dropped Hacker in a story which passes Rule 4 and is not otherwise a Scoop crossover - that being micro:bit. (Which isn't valid at the moment, of course, but for reasons of interactivity, not Rule 4.) We wouldn't invalidate a normal Who story for having the Doctor quip about Hacker being a real person, so we shouldn't lose our minds when a story shows that actually being the case.

That being said, this is a tricky case in other respects. I. Uhm. I think as proposed this fails Rule 1?… Not that it isn't fiction, obviously. But it isn't a complete work of fiction at all!

The revelation that the three-minute clip usually known as The Robot Reveal was really part of a wider, continuous programme really turns this case on its head. It would be one thing if it had been one of many discrete clips within Robot Week, with normal programming slotting in-between the DWU scene and the next one — but we now know that in fact the footage flowed naturally from the end of the TARDIS scene to the next, with no interruption yet.

Under the circumstances, I really don't see a justification for retaining a page about "The Robot Reveal" as a distinct entity. Sure, a reedit into a complete minisode would be imaginable (hrm), but I don't think that's what that YouTube upload actually is, considering that in fact The Robot Reveal is a fan title of dubious provenance and the thing is actually listed on YouTube as "Doctor Who TARDIS reveals CBBC's new robot!". It's a clip from the wider Robot Week TV broadcast, in just the same way that a scene from the latest Doctor Who episode might be uploaded under a "title" of sorts. There's no intent that I can see for The Robot RevealDoctor Who TARDIS reveals CBBC's new robot! to be perceived as its own story.

I do get it, I really do: a valid Robot Reveal minisode, and invalid Robot Week overview, sound ever so convenient. But we can't twist the facts around to fit what would make for easier coverage. Robot Week is all there is. The page currently listed as The Robot Reveal should be restructured to cover all Robot Week linking segments, as one, continuous thing. (I do agree that sanity must prevail and we should not cover all seven weeks' worth of programming packaged into those linking segments, unless evidence comes to light that this causes issues of similar magnitude to the Incomplete Death's Head situation.)

So my recommendation is to restructure this page into Robot Week (TV story), as best we can. It won't be complete for a while, but this is Doctor Who — these things happen.

Sadly, I do think this means we must refrain from validation until we've documented a bit more of this broader thing we're proposing to validate, and know what we're talking about. So long as swathes of it remain unarchived I think it'd be unreasonable to ask for people to have watched it in its entirety, but let's have robust Wikification of everything currently available, and revisit that once we're all on the same page there.

At any rate, as per the Death's Head closing post, I definitely affirm that we should consider Bl1nk Bot 3 an inherently DWU character, whose appearances should all be documented. Provided the Robot Week linking segments are understood to pass Rule 4, I don't think there's any question that the handful of other appearances of the character would as well. Although it transpires on the talk page that Introducing BL1NK BOT 3 was in fact also part of Robot Week, any genuinely independent later work featuring the character, if one exists, should henceforth be covered, its validity conditional on what we make of Robot Week upon revisiting it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)