Forum:BBV and canon policy

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → BBV and canon policy
This thread has been archived.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.

There's been some chatter on Talk:The Doctor (Party Animals) and between Revanvolatrelundar and Tangerineduel that has seemed to produced the basic sentiment: "If it's BBV, it's canon to us." Indeed, it would seem that the ill-nuanced canon policy is behind such a notion.

But I'm not sure such a blanket policy makes sense.

BBV weren't like Big Finish or COMIC. They never, ever had a full license to produce Doctor Who fiction. In fact, they had no license whatever from the BBC. So characters that looked like wholly-BBC-owned characters, like the Doctor, couldn't actually be those characters. The Nick Briggs BBV character, Fred, is therefore Fred, not, as was previously intimated by redirect, a version of the Doctor who appeared briefly in official DWM comics. I think we need to remember and clearly state in our canon policy that BBV productions are at best semi-canonical, because they never involve the rights of the BBC. However, at worst they're not at all canonical, because quite a bit of BBV's output doesn't involve the rights of even Doctor Who writers.

Actually, this "Fred" character shouldn't be mentioned by us whatsoever, because all his adventures involve the Cyberona, who are themselves rip-offs of the Cybermen. There's zero legal tie whatever to the DWU, so why are we covering them?

I get why we're including some of BBV, like that which uses Autons, Zygons, Krynods, the Rani and Sontarans. But for the life of me, I can't understand why we allow things like The Time Travellers, as the explicit point of these is that they have been designed so as to come as close as possible to portraying the Doctor, but to do so in such a way that explicitly avoids copyright infringement. It's zirconium — not a real diamond. And since we don't cover/allow in-line references to any other unlicensed stories, we shouldn't be covering these, either.

Seems to me that the such a stance would compel a few actions:

  1. The rewriting of tardis:canon policy. The rule should be: BBV productions which involve the rights of people who contributed to televised Doctor Who are valid resources on this wiki. However, works which are 100% copyrightable by BBV Productions should not be referenced here. Thus, if the production uses Auton, Zygons, Krynoids or any other race or character seen on Doctor Who, it's allowable. If, however, the production uses only characters that are close approximations of those seen on Doctor Who — as in The Time Travellers, The Wanderer, The Stranger, Adventures in a Pocket Universe and the like — they're not allowable.
  2. The creation of a template, like {{notdwu}}, to be clearly displayed the top of allowed BBV articles. It should read something like, "'This topic related to BBV Productions is only semi-canonical, as rights to create it were granted by the original Doctor Who writer, but not by the BBC.
  3. The transfer of all the non-compliant BBV material to the Doctor Who Extended wikia.
  4. The eradication of most of the links to the non-compliant material from our in-universe articles, and the redirection of real world links to the DWE articles. (Really not as daunting as it sounds; you can create a redirect directly to the DWE article. And there wouldn't be that much "eradication", as most in-universe articles have shied away from BBV, anyway.)

Thoughts?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

I agree, ive just been going through the BBV stuff I just got (hence the interest in the subject atm) and things like the PROBE and even the Stranger has nothing to do with the DWU (The Stranger branches away and i didn't even see too much of a resemblence to the Doctor or Peri anyway).

I'll get a list together of all productions that are definately in the DWU, those i havent tried yet or are unsure of and lastly the unrelated productions.

watch this space

--Revanvolatrelundar 20:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Within DWU[[edit source]]

The Auton Trilogy[[edit source]]

Zygon[[edit source]]

The Time Travellers[[edit source]]

(the Doctor and ace with new names) ABSOLUTELY NOT DWU
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Agreed, DWE here we come. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Adventures in a Pocket Universe[[edit source]]

(both with K9 in as far as i know) Perhaps DWU, but K9 isn't K9 Mark II and The Mistress isn't Romana II.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Agreed characters may not be who they're intended to be but still DWU related with K9 in it. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Zygons[[edit source]]

Krynoids[[edit source]]

Sontarans[[edit source]]

The I[[edit source]]

(from Seeing I for convenience)

The Rani[[edit source]]

Wirrn[[edit source]]

The Faction Paradox Protocols[[edit source]]

I don't personally see FP as part of the DWU; it's written so as to avoid copyright issues with the BBC, but maybe there's a point of definite intersection I'm missing.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

See below, these stories are set in an alternate timeline that ignores one story in the DWU. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Besides, Toy Story is an example of a crossover between series and is now included in FP universe. --Revan\Talk 21:38, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Rutans[[edit source]]

Mike Yates[[edit source]]

  • The Killing Stone (actually has the Fourth Doctor in it, no "dentist" type thing)
Don't know about this. The fact that it has fourth Doctor in it is dubious. Can't imagine he's there legally. Can't imagine Mike Yates is, either. Both characters wholly owned by the BBC and BBC definitely didn't license this puppy so it's fan fiction, I'm afraid.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
Legally or not, the Doctor and the Master etc. are all called by their proper names and DWU stories such as the Planet of Spiders are directly referenced. This story should definately stay. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Guy de Carnac (Sanctuary)[[edit source]]

P.R.O.B.E.[[edit source]]

(Liz Shaw)

Is Liz Shaw legally present here? I'm pretty sure she's a BBC-owned character, so how is she present? If rights weren't sold, it's just fan fiction.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

NOT DWU[[edit source]]

Cyberons[[edit source]]

The Stranger[[edit source]]

Not DWU, characters were later revealed to be some universal teleport terrorist people (i was bored so i didn't take it all in). --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

The Wanderer[[edit source]]

See above, not DWU. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

The Stranger[[edit source]]

See above, not DWU. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Other[[edit source]]

Not DWU. --Revan\Talk 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC) I have not included Reeltime productions in here (although as far as i know they all use DWU characters).

Discussion[[edit source]]

Please discuss Revanvolatrelundar 20:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

If they have no obvious tie to Doctor Who, then I think they should go.--Skittles the hog--Talk 22:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Guy de Carnac is from Sanctuary. He gets a fake cameo in Happy Endings. Like Miranda (comic story), its a spinoff from the character's creator. --Nyktimos 01:35, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Oh right! I should also add that a clean way to not simply junk stuff like The Wanderer is to migrate it to Doctor Who Expanded which is our version of memory(gamma?) but lawless and full of self-promoting lowlifes. --Nyktimos 01:59, January 30, 2011 (UTC)


Refined the list somewhat, any flaws? --Revan\Talk 15:33, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CzechOut on the approximations front, 'The Time Travellers, The Wanderer, The Stranger'.
I disagree in relation to PROBE and Adventures in a Pocket Universe. PROBE includes Liz Shaw and Adventures in a Pocket Universe includes K9.
I think we should keep 'Do you have a licence…', it is a spoof, it is made by BBV, it does include the Autons and Sontarans, it's an interesting book end to the big DW parodies etc.
I disagree partially on the template, I think if we start getting into statements like "semi-canonical" we'll start to get into trouble with things. If it's really needed I'd prefer it to read "This topic is related to BBV Productions. Rights to create it were granted by the original Doctor Who writer, but not the BBC." With maybe a link off to the a page covering all this, stuff about the Wilderness Years and how all this came about. But I'm not sure if it's needed or would help or confuse more.
I'd be cautious about stating whether or not something has an "obvious tie" to DW, the reason a lot of people bought these things DW related or not is precisely because of their ties to Doctor Who. It's the reason I've got The Airzone Solution VHS on my shelf (which is actually a very good story). --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
I'd already put the pocket universe and PROBE stuff in the DWU section, it was an initial mistake that i thought they didnt haev Who characters in them. Any clue about the Infidel's comet or The Pattern? --Revan\Talk 15:45, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Adventures in a Pocket Universe is tricky, though. Okay, it's a character called "K9", but is it our K9? Was there actual permission obtained from Baker and Martin? And it's definitely not Romana, even if played by Lalla Ward. So I'm not sure how you'd easily refer to this work in, say, pages about K9. It's total speculation that this is K9 Mark II who went off with Romana II at the end of Warriors' Gate — even if that's what the writer is implying. Frankly, I think it deserves to be considered K9 (BBV), and definitely shouldn't be mixed with the DWU K9 Mk II.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
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. If any of the actors are related to the DW television programme, they must have had only very minor roles. The Pattern is similarly original, and definitely shouldn't be covered by us. In fact, neither should even be covered by DWE. Articles like this should be redirected to a page which says something like, "This title has nothing to do with the DWU, but was produced by BBV, a company associated with making semi-canonical DWU stories."
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
Looking in a more detailed way at Revan's list, I'd note a few problems.
  • The Time Travellers (series) isn't a part of the DWU and shouldn't be covered here. Again, approximations of characters wholly owned by the BBC aren't the characters themselves, and so therefore aren't deserving of coverage.
  • Cyberon (video) is well off the list. There's nothing in the narrative of Cyberon which is in any way definitively set within the DWU. Cyberons do not exist within the DWU. Trying to retrofit it because the two stories share Dr. Lauren Anderson isn't on. The 100% BBV copyrightable characters aren't of interest to this wiki.
  • As for other objections, please refer up to Revan's original chart. Kinda laborious typing it all here, when I can just annotate the chart.

  • czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Faction Paradox definately IS within DWU, it just takes place in the timeline where The Ancestor Cell didn't happen, and the Second War in Heaven continued as normal. There are far too many overlaps with characters from DW and Bernice Summerfield for it to be considered non-canon. --Revan\Talk 18:47, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I always thought FP happened because Larry Miles pitched one of his famous hissy-fits cause he didn't like how The Ancestor Cell had been written, so he took his toys off to another universe to play. Aren't all the references to the DWU incredibly oblique and, in any case, one-way? Actual, branded DW stuff doesn't directly and unambiguously refer to FP elements, does it? I could have sworn it was all "coded language" to avoid copyright probs with the BBC —just like most of BBV's output. It's not actually the Time Lords or Gallifrey, right?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
If its not the Time Lords or Gallifrey then it's hard to see how Lolita, one of the Master's (called as such in Toy Story) previous TARDISes. Faction Paradox preys heavily on Doctor Who's past, with Morbius, Chris Cwej, Compassion and many other characters appearing. The "Evil Renegade" who Cwej used to travel with is also the Doctor. BBC books in the "War arc" like Unnatural History and the Taking of Planet 5 reference events that occured within the Faction Paradox books (Time Lords deserting Gallifrey, Mictlan being destroyed etc.). --Revan\Talk 13:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
What I have a problem with in regards to FP is the fact that it is an explicit reaction against The Ancestor Cell. I mean, it was the desire of the rights holders — the BBC, through their publishing arm, BBC Books —to end the FP story arc. They decided to kill it. Miles brought it back, saying that he was therefore going to ignore The Ancestor Cell. It's therefore a deliberate attempt to create another universe which is not the Doctor Who universe. 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.
We would definitely need to create new language within tardis:canon policy to explain this, however. Especially since Faction Paradox is canonical, but the lines referred to by the acronym FP are not. Articles like Hellfire Club, Timeship and rather incredibly Theory:Timeline - Eighth Doctor really bug me, because they claim a mixture of FP and DWU sources which imply a consistent narrative that simply doesn't exist. The timeline article really has me shakin' my head, because, as Toy Story appears in the Mad Norwegian version of Dead Romance, it can't include language that identifies the Doctor or any other BBC elements (or if it does, it does so quite illegally). And its original printing was in a charity publication, so there was never any BBC license employed. It's fan fiction written by a published author, who then later repurposed it in such a way that he could publish it in his own line of books.
No, I fully admit that Faction Paradox existed within the DWU at one time. But its storyline concluded with The Ancestor Cell and that's as far as we should go with it. Anything else is doing a disservice to our readers. There's a Faction Paradox Wiki, desperately in need of contributions. I say we shunt all our stuff there and stick a link on our main page with all the other "related" wikis.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
As CzechOut notes Miles does have a…contentious attitude to some Doctor Who (there's his for instance amusing reviews of the new series are linked into the Gallifrey base forums that people seem to like to argue about). Miles also likes to change his mind and make provacative staments anyway, see the notes section for Dead Romance.
As far as I know the FP stories haven't contradicted what happens in The Ancestor Cell, they've just gone off exploring as Revan said the timeline that didn't happen.
Side note: War of the Daleks is an explicit reaction to Remembrance of the Daleks (as much as I'd like to remove that story from canon) it and its various continuity references and retcons is canon.
The FP stories are still referencing and taking a sizeable amount of material from the DW universe.
As Revan says the FP stories explore the further adventures of several companion; Compassion, Cwej, etc (and elements of the FP universe have trickled back into the BIg Finish universe with the Cwejen appearing in The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel).
The timeline articles themselves are a separate issue. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:17, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Have we reached a decision on what to remove from the wikia then? everything in the not DWU section above seems eligible to go to me. --Revan\Talk 15:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Winnowing down[[edit source]]

Just giving a bit of a section break to make this more manageable. I think we're in agreement that the following things are definitely not on. I'm not entirely sure that they universally belong at DWE, though, because some of them simply aren't DW at all. However, I think they should all be redirected to a central page on this wiki that explains why we don't cover them. I think a lot of users (and apparently editors) believe that if it's BBV, it must be okay to cover here. And we need to put a message up at the end of all these articles to make the point clear.

Replace text of article with redirect to a central article
Edit article to make its place within the DWU clearer
Where we don't seem to yet be in agreement
  • The Killing Stone - Ya can't just say "legally or not" the fourth Doctor appears. The legalities matter. The legalities are what this whole movement is about. If they don't have permission from the BBC to use the fourth Doctor, Master and Mike Yates it is a fan film, and it belongs on DWE.
  • P.R.O.B.E. - Again, how is Liz Shaw present? The Wikipedia article says they got the rights to use the character, but . . . how? Who the hell owns Liz Shaw but the BBC? The Wikipedia article gives no source for their assertion. If she's not, in fact, legally present, then the videos are, again, fan films.
  • FP - There's more than enough to be getting on with, above. We can settle this at a later date in a discussion just about FP. Suffice it to say, though, I don't think the presence of DW elements in FP (and, please tell me they're in more than just Toy Story, which clearly doesn't count as "true" FP or "true" DW) means diddly. How are the DW elements present, precisely? And ultimately, why should I believe you guys when the creator of the FP universe is directly telling me in an interview that the FP universe is not the DWU?

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

I believe that with BBV, if theres a Doctor Who character in it, we should keep the story, be that FP, the Killing Stone or PROBE. I agree that with The Pocket universe stuff we should created a BBV K9 article and put in the behind the scenes section that the intention of it was to be...

Miles explains the FPU in the Book of the War et al. as being shaped by the War itself, thus meaning that the nature of this "timey wimey" war removed some elements from DWU. DWU elements such as the Celestis are a big part in the FPU and they as explained in PROSE: Alien Bodies as the Celestial Intervention Agency removing themselves from the universe for self-preservation.

I think we need to research the Killing Stone some more, i understand that if BBV used the Doctor and the Master in the audio and were selling it to an audience without copyright permission then it is illegal. We need to find out if the audio did have permission (it is one of the later audios). So lets keep this one on the fence while more info about it is found. Just to note that in Tangerineduel's message to me he said that we include BBV because it is a production company and not just a loose group of fans, to quote:

"The BBV stories were made by a production company (you can't really call it "fan made" using the definition it was made by fans of the programme, if you used that definition then the BBC Wales series is fan made because likely more than half the production team are fans). --Tangerineduel / talk 13:13, January 28, 2011 (UTC)"

--Revan\Talk 18:25, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Ive found that this story was apparently an unpublished novel made into an audiobook by BBV (http://www.ozmusicbooks.com/oz-music-books/doctor-who/reference-library/audio-cds-records-and-tapes/bbv/other-bbv-audio-titles). Still looking for further info. --Revan\Talk 18:46, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I saw that opinion from TD on your talk page, and I think he probably wasn't writing with the precision that he might've liked, on reflection, to use. I mean, Paul Cornell's a professional writer, but that doesn't mean he hasn't written fan fiction. Tons of professional writers have contributed to charity publications, and we routinely rule these out of bounds. The delimiting line isn't the professionalism of the individuals, but rather the legal right of publication. What makes the BBC Wales series "canon" isn't that RTD and Moffat have been in charge of it, but rather that Lorraine Heggessey and Jane Tranter fought for two hard years to get the rights to broadcast it on BBC One. Thus, the thing that matters with respect to BBV is exactly what rights were actually held by Bill Baggs. And I'm tellin' you right now, there is no way he ever had the rights to the Doctor or the Master. No. Freakin'. Way. The Liz Shaw thing we need to investigate more. The FP thing is probably a matter for a wider and more specific debate. But, happily, we are in agreement on the vast majority of these titles and can begin dispensing them forthwith.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
CzechOut is correct in his interpretation, when I wrote it I got a little bogged down on the fanfic idea.
In this instance in relation to BBV we need to be sure on the rights elements. I'll have to go digging around for my VHS copies, hopefully they'll have some fine print on them with regards to who owns what.
The Charity Publications are another topic I think we need to revisit / write into the canon policy our stance on them.
As to Liz Shaw, I think due to the weird way the BBC licensed stuff the characters are owned by whoever created them, so BBV I would guess must have licenced it from Robert Holmes' estate? Given that he wrote Spearhead from Space. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:28, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but that never applied when the producers/script editors created the character. The producers/script editors were under contract to the Beeb, and therefore any of their creations were automatically Beeb copyright. Liz was created by Sherwin/Dicks in very early 1969. Dicks then commissioned Holmes and said, "Right, you've got this new Doctor, a scientist named Liz Shaw (well, actually, she was Liz Shore, then) and the Brigadier. Have fun." So he gets the Autons as his copyright, because Dicks didn't specify that, but not Shaw. According to Shannon Sullivan, scripts for Spearhead were commissioned only on 3 June 69, but John was cast in July and formally contracted on 28 July. I don't actually know when the scripts were delivered, but filming didn't begin until mid-September. Point is, John was probably cast before Holmes had delivered his scripts, which means he didn't devise the character any more than he has a claim to Jo, Sarah Jane, the Master or Romana, other regular characters for whom he wrote the introductory episodes. The only companions that aren't owned wholly by the BBC are the ones that didn't start out as companions. So, the Brig, K9, Nyssa, Benton, Jago, Litefoot.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 
Just moving a tad back to the topic, i think we should keep this stuff but as you argue CzechOut, we need to be clear if we are to include it in canon. My view is that if a non official story doesn't directly contradict another story, we should include it as canon. But if some official story does come along and seem to contradict elements of the story then we should discuss whether to remove the story from canon. --Revan\Talk 19:32, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
No. Can't even pretend to go along with you. It's not really about canon. For years we've been abusing that word. It's about what we as a community will cover. No one has a right to say what's canonical or not in the DW universe, because the copyright holders haven't really made such declarations. But we do have a right, as a community, to say what the boundaries are on our wiki. Your notion that "if it doesn't contradict, it counts" simply isn't enforceable. There are thousands of pieces of fan fiction which fit that description. And we're absolutely not going to start covering fan fiction. "Non-official" means "fan fiction". And there are other wikis for that. We must draw a line in the sand and say that if it doesn't legally exploit a copyright, it's not something we cover. Otherwise, we have no firm definition of what we cover.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:57:41 Wed 25 May 2011 
I also disagree with the idea of "if a non-official story doesn't contradict another then it should be included", I could point to several thousand examples of fanfic which doesn't contradict any stories. That doesn't make it canon or what this wiki covers.
We don't need to cover fan fiction there's already two wikis that do that. DW expanded and DW Fanon.
CzechOut is right that we have been mis-using the word canon, it's more a convenient word that means generally what we mean. But what we're actually using it to mean is what this wiki covers, both in and out of universe. Canon often gets dragged through the dirt because it suggest we're trying to impose a structure on what anyone can count as canon, as our nc template says you can believe this is part of the DW universe, but we don't". We're not making a ruling canon wise, we're just deciding what to cover and what not to cover, the DW universe/media is already gigantic and we need limits so we can focus on what we've got and what we don't need to deal with. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Final decisions[[edit source]]

Over the previous year I've deleted and combined various articles and noted all this stuff in the T:CAN.

What we're left with:

  • The Killing Stone
  • As CzechOut says above, despite being released by BBV it's highly (almost impossibly) unlikely that BBV got permission to use "the Doctor" and "the Master" and any other bits of BBC legally owned stuff in this audio, based on an unpublished book.
  • I'm putting a NC, and also a prop delete, as it's legally it's a bit vague.
  • These remain until we've got further information, I suspect the information might be in DWM 219 which had a behind the scenes feature on The Zero Imperative. I don't have the issue to hand, but will look into it.

Which brings us to the Faction Paradox (series), which we've put off dealing with until everything else had been, which it has. I am in favour of keeping they're still rooted in the DWU universe with characters from the DWU universe. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:51, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for narrowing down the P.R.O.B.E. search. Here's the exact quote from page 12 of DWM 219:
Bill's previous videos have taken actors from Doctor Who and used them for his own devices in The Stranger series, and more recently in The Airzone Solution. "All the films up to now have been like Doctor Who, but they've been actors, not characters from the programme. This is the first time we've actually got permission from the BBC to use a character from the show. I telephoned [[BBC Enterprises] with the idea of trying to get permission to use the Liz Shaw character. I wasn't sure who actually owned the rights, but we went ahead with using Caroline anyway, playing a similar character called Abbott. The Friday before we started filming I got a fax through saying we could use the character as long as the BBC got an acknowledgement at the end. They didn't even charge me for it!"
So there we go. Pretty comprehensive statement of the legal picture. P.R.O.B.E. is therefore something we definitely cover.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:08: Thu 19 Jan 2012 
The Killing Stone is harder to definitively prove anything about. DWM 324, which contains a pretty damning review, doesn't shed much light on the legal picture. Now, I've heard/got the story itself, but I've long since lost the case and the second disc, on which there was an interview with Richard Franklin. It's been about ten years since I've heard it, though, and I honestly don't remember how much he talks about the precise situation with The Killing Stone. But that would be a source of possible info. I think all that might tell us, though, is that he pitched the story to BBC Books and they rejected it, so that's why he's doing the audio version. I've done a bit of a web search, but so far I've not been able to come up with anything solid.
I propose that we delete this one, though, and bringing it back only when there's incontrovertible proof that it had the BBC's blessing. It just seems so unlikely that BBV got permission to use SJS, the Fourth Doctor, the Brig, Benton, the Master and Yates. If they could do it in this instance, why couldn't they in the past? Surely it was their goal all along to tell stories with the Doctor? I just have a very hard time believing this was in any way authorised.
And the thing is, the story is huge. The implications it has for our understanding of Planet of the Spiders, the Delgado Master, the Doctor's relationship to the hierarchy of UNIT, the relationship of Yates and Benton — we'd have to alter several key pages to fully integrate the story into the wiki. And I'm just not prepared to do that unless I know for sure that the BBC approved of the story.
So let's just let this one be guilty until proven innocent, okay?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 19:40: Thu 19 Jan 2012 
As for Faction Paradox (series), I still think it's got a perfectly good wiki of its own, to which we link on our main page. We don't need to cover it. We need to create ample links to the wiki that covers it. We're including it only because of the subtext. We, as long time Doctor Who readers, are meant to know that this character is the Doctor, that character is Susan, that planet is Gallifrey, etc. But in terms of its actual text, it's not got a single thing to do with the Doctor Who universe. It'll just be so much easier to administer the wiki if we don't have to deal with "facts" from FP. Even those users who know FP, like Revan, are tempted to sometimes cross the line and insinuate that the FPU has something to do with the DWU. Which it actually doesn't. If someone who didn't know DW read a Faction Paradox novel, they'd have no clue it was making veiled references to the DWU. I just think it's dangerous o use FP material, save that which appears in the EDAs, on this wiki. Because when an FPU novel/short story references London, for instance, they're not talking about the London which is in the DWU. They're talking about a totally different one. And it's not even a BBC-authorised alternate London, like in Rise of the Cybermen or even NOTVALID: Exile. It's a London like the one in Blakes 7 or Tripods or something. It's very hard to adequately convey that you're talking about an alternate London every time you use the FP prefix. Most users just don't bother. They bung in the FP reference and leave it at that, implying that FP stories take place in the DWU. Which, again, they don't.
I think we're doing our readers a great disservice by mixing FPU info in with DWU info. FP is just not an equivalent source to an MA or a PDA or a TW story. It's so far down the food chain it's in a completely different universe. We should abolish the prefix, outlaw the FP series, and concentrate on linking to the FP wiki more.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:47: Thu 19 Jan 2012 
Thanks for finding the magazine article, and reproducing it the salient part of it.
I've not heard The Killing Stone, but read about it, and it seems to have the same feel to it as Campaign, heavy continuity references and a non-book.
You make a good argument about the FP series, (it is a Miles creation after all!). Lots of subtext, and sometimes really hard to discern subtext.
What about stuff that makes the cross from DWU to FPU and then back to DWU? The only example I can think of off immediately is Cwejen.
I think also we should include any major bits of info in the behind the scenes sections, when dealing with stuff that exists in both DWU/FPU, like Compassion, Cwej etc and then of course like off to the FP Wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:50, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be treated just like we'll treat Star Trek content in the crossover - just mention the stuff that actually appears in DWU stories, same as e.g. Jean-Luc Picard. Maybe there should be a general crossover policy? 94.75.90.48talk to me 00:29, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
Nope, that won't work with the FPU, because they're two different ideas about the same concept. 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. And I don't think a general crossover policy is possible/desirable. This ST:TNG is the first time we've had an official crossover. 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.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:22: Mon 20 Feb 2012 
Returning for the moment to The Killing Stone, I think we can now feel better about having deleted it. In Radio Free Skaro #297, at the 55'00" mark, Richard Franklin helpfully begins to talk about The Killing Stone, because he's releasing the full version of The Killing Stone later this year, called Operation: Hate (The Truth about The Killing Stone). (The audio was an abridged version of the novel text, which was originally a failed submission to BBC Books.) This new version includes the whole of the original text, but then adds, according to him, "50% more". He says:

Actually all of the names have had to be changed, because the BBC copyright situation now is rather tougher than it was when I did The Killing StoneRichard Franklin

So that's game set 'n' match to me. The BBC have specifically disallowed The Killing Stone.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:22: Mon 20 Feb 2012 
Actually, isnt' Death's Head the first official crossover? 78.8.48.6talk to me 11:21, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
"Crossover" is a bit of a grand word for DH. Yes, if you follow the Death's Head character from start to finish then you have a connection between the Marvel UK Transformers to the mainstream Marvel universe. Since the Seventh Doctor is integral to the story of the original Death's Head (he's the one that shrinks DH down to humanoid size with the Master's Tissue Compression Eliminator, and he's the one that dumps DH off on top of the Baxter Building) there is a kind of oblique "crossover" between the DWU and the MU.
However, it's not a crossover at all, in any sort of business sense. The Doctor was always a part of the Marvel Universe, from the moment Marvel acquired the license. They were just mixing and matching Marvel UK characters. Many comic scholars postulate the existence of a single entity called the "Marvel UK universe" — which I'm sure today has a numerical designation in the way that Marvel like to number their universes — to which the Seventh Doctor and DH mutually belong. Thus, if they are part of the same universe, there really is no basis for the term "crossover". You can't crossover if you're part of the same universe!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:39: Fri 24 Feb 2012 
Well, I'd still consider it a crossover, especially if it's between a licensed property and a publisher's own property, or between two properties licensed by one publisher - e.g. I'd call "Aliens vs. Predator" a crossover even if they're officially part of the same universe now. And I believe Marvel calls events like "Infinity Gauntlet" that combine many characters from their own titles a "crossover" too. I don't think any definition of crossover requires the characters to be from different universes. 62.87.247.149talk to me 20:56, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Also, looks like the Doctor Who Marvel continuity is considered to be separate from other Marvel continuities by Marvel, with its own numerical designation, even if it crosses over with other Marvel universes occasionally (and the Whoniverse contains various parallel universes anyhow). 78.8.138.178talk to me 15:49, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think what this discussion has demonstrated is that there is a basic philosophic difference between the two sides of this argument. One wishes to include everything that possibly can be included but reluctantly concedes that some things don't make any sense and then works really really hard to retcon any inconsistencies. The other wishes to have severely marked boundaries and he issue of retconning is not so difficult -- we're quite willing to attribute it to sloppiness. I come down on the latter side and can cite principles like Occam's Razor in support -- it requires fewer assumptions -- but really, it's a matter of simple taste; in my case, it's a taste for laziness. However, at least I don't have to tie myself in knots like the recent argument about the sequel to A Fix with Sontarans and Czechout's elegant cutting of the Gordian knot.

In summation: I say it's BBV and I say to hell with it. Boblipton talk to me 21:33, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :) And I personally agree with you Bob. I wish I could say that it's BBV, and, therefore, to hell with it. I find the BBV productions of a generally low and fanwanky quality, and it'd be better just to ignore them. (That said, are the BBV videos really worse than the Sylvester McCoy era? Yeah, I'll get back to you on that one.)
The thing is, we've made a lot of progress in this thread. This thread has firmly established the need for some sort of legal usage of characters in a story before we'll touch it. We didn't actually have that concept before.
This thread has proved invaluable for noting all the BBV stories in our databases and determining, one-by-one, whether we wish to continue covering them. This thread has definitely been the basis for a lot of positive action — not, as you seem to suppose, some sort of entrenched warfare between two sides. Don't be misled by a few recent posts about comics — which actually have nothing to do with the thread topic — or by the fact that Faction Paradox has been a bit of a sticking point. FP is actually a very difficult call; it should require energetic debate.
The testament to the fact that this thread has produced results is the number of redlinks now present on the list of stories. When this thread started — over a year ago! — they were all blue.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:41: Sat 25 Feb 2012 

Putting this thread into action[[edit source]]

The pages BBV Productions and Audio Adventures in Time & Space have today received a spring cleaning. New tables have been inserted which should make plain the decisions reached in this thread. Please stop by to see if it reflects the consensus to this point.

The Choice, The Search and Adventures in a Pocket Universe have also gotten some love. One thing that became evident here was that the disambiguation on the two main characters should follow our standard dab rules. So, it's K9 (The Choice) and the Mistress (The Choice). (Why dab the Mistress? Because of the Mistress (Warriors of Kudlak).)

We still need to resolve what we're going to do about Faction Paradox. I still, obviously, favor removing references from everything that's not the BBC "official" version of events with FP. Which would mean that all the BBV FP would have to go to w:c:factionparodox.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:10: Sun 04 Mar 2012 

The tables look good. Nice and clear for people reading the articles.
I've mused on the Faction Paradox problem further.
I think we should excise the Faction Paradox series; as after The Book of the War there are fewer and fewer references to established DWU elements.
Anything that is named specifically and already has an article here should have a brief summary of FP information in the behind the scenes section of their article and also linked away to the Faction Paradox wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:17, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Killing Zone continued[[edit source]]

Okay, so I asked one of my friends on YouTube to post his copy of The Killing Zone disk 2, as I recall someone had mentioned that it may retain copyright info... . [Link removed as it's a violation of T:VID LINK.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:42: Thu 15 Mar 2012  ] OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 15:58, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Later information is deemed superior. The Killing Zone is not something we cover. Matter is closed.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:42: Thu 15 Mar 2012 
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Forum:BBV_and_canon_policy&oldid=2368132"