Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference

Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon? (edit)

Revision as of 15:11, 24 August 2023

31,142 bytes added ,  24 August 2023
m
no edit summary
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Panopticon}}
{{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:inclusion debates]]
<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->[[category:inclusion debates]]
<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->[[category:inclusion debates]]
{{you may|Forum:Operationalising the Infinity Doctors discussion}}
I move that we rule ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'' non-canonical, in the sense that it can't be used as a valid soure for other articles.   
I move that we rule ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'' non-canonical, in the sense that it can't be used as a valid soure for other articles.   
*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
*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
Line 9: Line 10:
*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.
*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.


Obviously, I'm not suggesting that we delete the page ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'', but I think we do need to quarantine it from the rest of our pages. Thoughts? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">04:57: Fri&nbsp;20 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
Obviously, I'm not suggesting that we delete the page ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'', but I think we do need to quarantine it from the rest of our pages. Thoughts? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}04:57: Fri&nbsp;20 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>


:I agree. It doesn't make any sense in the context of DWU canon. '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 01:02, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
:I agree. It doesn't make any sense in the context of DWU canon. '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 01:02, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
Line 31: Line 32:
:::All of this still lets in a heck of a lot of stuff, and firmly protects the EDA range, the John and Gillian stuff, and most everything you've mentioned above. In fact, I've probably uploaded more John and Gillian-related stuff to the wiki than anyone!   
:::All of this still lets in a heck of a lot of stuff, and firmly protects the EDA range, the John and Gillian stuff, and most everything you've mentioned above. In fact, I've probably uploaded more John and Gillian-related stuff to the wiki than anyone!   


:::So don't worry, this isn't the first battle the long campaign to turn this into a TV-only DW wiki. Nor is this an effort to actually delete the page.  ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'' will always be on this wiki.  It's just that it will not be a valid source for the writing of ''other'' articles.  This will force all information about ''The Infinity Doctors'' to be '''on that page''', which will make that page ''much'' better and clearer.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:56: Mon&nbsp;23 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
:::So don't worry, this isn't the first battle the long campaign to turn this into a TV-only DW wiki. Nor is this an effort to actually delete the page.  ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'' will always be on this wiki.  It's just that it will not be a valid source for the writing of ''other'' articles.  This will force all information about ''The Infinity Doctors'' to be '''on that page''', which will make that page ''much'' better and clearer.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}23:56: Mon&nbsp;23 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>


I disagree with this suggestion as well, though perhaps not as vehemently as the anon above. I think that the key phrase in the Parkin quote is "of mainstream continuity". ''The Infinity Doctors'' exists as a sort of side-step from the main EDA range, but it's not parodic and it's just as authorized.
I disagree with this suggestion as well, though perhaps not as vehemently as the anon above. I think that the key phrase in the Parkin quote is "of mainstream continuity". ''The Infinity Doctors'' exists as a sort of side-step from the main EDA range, but it's not parodic and it's just as authorized.
Line 57: Line 58:
::I'm not quite understanding the level of negativity to this proposal.  This is a perfectly ordinary part of our normal processes, consistent with other specific inclusion debates.  We've had enough of them that [[:category:inclusion debates|there's a whole category of them]].  Yes, we have a '''general rule''' that goes something like, "As long as it's licensed, it's included".  But I think the last few posters have forgotten that we ''do'' make exceptions.  We have to.  The BBC has played with its property in ways that are clearly outside its own continuity. ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' was  [[Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?|decisively rejected by our community]], with only one anon user voting in its favor.
::I'm not quite understanding the level of negativity to this proposal.  This is a perfectly ordinary part of our normal processes, consistent with other specific inclusion debates.  We've had enough of them that [[:category:inclusion debates|there's a whole category of them]].  Yes, we have a '''general rule''' that goes something like, "As long as it's licensed, it's included".  But I think the last few posters have forgotten that we ''do'' make exceptions.  We have to.  The BBC has played with its property in ways that are clearly outside its own continuity. ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' was  [[Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?|decisively rejected by our community]], with only one anon user voting in its favor.


::There is no difference between ''Curse'' and this.  Both are fully licensed stories.  But we reject ''Curse'' '''totally''' on grounds of authorial intent. It was ''intended'' as something out of continuity.  The same thing happens in other fandoms, as with ''Star Wars''{{'}} "[[starwars:Infinities|Infinities]]" or DC Comics' [[w:c:dc:Elseworlds|Elseworlds]] ranges.  And lest you consider responding with "we're not ''Star Wars'' or DC Comics," don't forget that we have ''Unbound'' and a few comic stories that are absolutely parodic.  I mean, [[Dicky Howett]]'s entire body of ''Doctor Who'' work — which spans '''years and years''' — is outside of what we allow to be used to write in-universe articles.  Why?  Because it's not licensed?  No.  Because it's not professionally published?  No.  It's ''solely'' because ''[[Doctor Who?]]'' is parody, ''meant'' to be read as out-of-continuity. Similarly, we don't run around talking about the time the Doctor was a woman who worked in a grocery store, because the non-parodic, fully licensed ''[[Exile]]'' is clearly labelled as ''Unbound''. Also, we reject ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', not because it's parodic, not because it's unlicensed, not because the BBC told us it wasn't canonical, not because the producers (initially) told us it wasn't canonical, but because '''RTD told us not to believe in it'''.   
::There is no difference between ''Curse'' and this.  Both are fully licensed stories.  But we reject ''Curse'' '''totally''' on grounds of authorial intent. It was ''intended'' as something out of continuity.  The same thing happens in other fandoms, as with ''Star Wars''{{'}} "[[starwars:Infinities|Infinities]]" or DC Comics' [[w:c:dc:Elseworlds|Elseworlds]] ranges.  And lest you consider responding with "we're not ''Star Wars'' or DC Comics," don't forget that we have ''Unbound'' and a few comic stories that are absolutely parodic.  I mean, [[Dicky Howett]]'s entire body of ''Doctor Who'' work — which spans '''years and years''' — is outside of what we allow to be used to write in-universe articles.  Why?  Because it's not licensed?  No.  Because it's not professionally published?  No.  It's ''solely'' because ''[[Doctor Who? (comic series)|Doctor Who?]]'' is parody, ''meant'' to be read as out-of-continuity. Similarly, we don't run around talking about the time the Doctor was a woman who worked in a grocery store, because the non-parodic, fully licensed ''[[Exile]]'' is clearly labelled as ''Unbound''. Also, we reject ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', not because it's parodic, not because it's unlicensed, not because the BBC told us it wasn't canonical, not because the producers (initially) told us it wasn't canonical, but because '''RTD told us not to believe in it'''.   


::[[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] has made the point that we can't believe a writer who says that their work '''''is''''' canonical.  That's very true.  But, in my opinion, he's incorrect on the reverse.  I think we ''do'' have to believe a writer who declares, "Look, this isn't a part of the mainstream continuity." After all, we've believed it before.  I don't see any rational argument for doing something '''different''' in this case.  Moreover, it's kinda stupid to say that as the author, unless you mean it.  Saying something is out of continuity '''will''' have a negative impact on sales.  So if someone says it, you ''do'' take it seriously, because they're acting ''against'' their self-interest.
::[[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] has made the point that we can't believe a writer who says that their work '''''is''''' canonical.  That's very true.  But, in my opinion, he's incorrect on the reverse.  I think we ''do'' have to believe a writer who declares, "Look, this isn't a part of the mainstream continuity." After all, we've believed it before.  I don't see any rational argument for doing something '''different''' in this case.  Moreover, it's kinda stupid to say that as the author, unless you mean it.  Saying something is out of continuity '''will''' have a negative impact on sales.  So if someone says it, you ''do'' take it seriously, because they're acting ''against'' their self-interest.
Line 63: Line 64:
::I think for reasons of easy administration, we've got to cut this thing off at the knees.  Otherwise we'll get a completely unmanageable situation, like the thing [[User:Rowan Earthwood|Rowan Earthwood]] is suggesting.  Do we really want to count what the book says about Gallifrey, but not what it says about the Doctor?  That's tantamount to assigning "semi-canonical" status, which isn't really possible.  Yet I suspect that's what people actually want to do, and why there's so much resistance to this proposal.  I think people are reluctant to let go of ''The Infinity Doctors'' because it's arguably the most detailed description of the mysterious Gallifrey.  But if those revelations are made through the use of a Doctor that isn't a part of normal continuity, they're no better than the descriptions of [[Tersurus]] in ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]''.   
::I think for reasons of easy administration, we've got to cut this thing off at the knees.  Otherwise we'll get a completely unmanageable situation, like the thing [[User:Rowan Earthwood|Rowan Earthwood]] is suggesting.  Do we really want to count what the book says about Gallifrey, but not what it says about the Doctor?  That's tantamount to assigning "semi-canonical" status, which isn't really possible.  Yet I suspect that's what people actually want to do, and why there's so much resistance to this proposal.  I think people are reluctant to let go of ''The Infinity Doctors'' because it's arguably the most detailed description of the mysterious Gallifrey.  But if those revelations are made through the use of a Doctor that isn't a part of normal continuity, they're no better than the descriptions of [[Tersurus]] in ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]''.   


::My argument is '''''absolutely not''''' "it's too hard to fit into articles".  Obviously, inconsistencies are ''the rule'' in DW canon discussions, not the exception.  I am ''only'' after the bath water, not the baby, so I'm in no way suggesting anything that's out of line with a series of other steps that have been pretty easily accepted by the community. ''The Infinity Doctors'' ''exactly'' fits the arguments used to rule other things out of our canon policy.  It's simply '''illogical''' to deny the BBC-licensed ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'', ''[[Doctor Who?]]'', ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'', and ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' but keep this.   
::My argument is '''''absolutely not''''' "it's too hard to fit into articles".  Obviously, inconsistencies are ''the rule'' in DW canon discussions, not the exception.  I am ''only'' after the bath water, not the baby, so I'm in no way suggesting anything that's out of line with a series of other steps that have been pretty easily accepted by the community. ''The Infinity Doctors'' ''exactly'' fits the arguments used to rule other things out of our canon policy.  It's simply '''illogical''' to deny the BBC-licensed ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'', ''[[Doctor Who? (comic series)|Doctor Who?]]'', ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'', and ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' but keep this.   


::Generally, everything licensed ''is'' an acceptable source for writing articles.  I firmly believe that's the best metric for shaping the boundaries of the wiki.  But there ''are'' exceptions.  And this is one of them.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">21:03: Tue&nbsp;24 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
::Generally, everything licensed ''is'' an acceptable source for writing articles.  I firmly believe that's the best metric for shaping the boundaries of the wiki.  But there ''are'' exceptions.  And this is one of them.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:03: Tue&nbsp;24 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>


:::I'm not sure why you're lumping this in with licensed-but-parodic works like ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. ''Dimensions in Time'' is perhaps a closer fit, but even that isn't quite the same. ''The Infinity Doctors'' was published as part of an ongoing line of novels, but doesn't fit with that line in terms of narrative continuity. To my mind, that makes it more like ''[[The Shadow of the Scourge]]'' or ''[[TV Action!]]'' ... or even ''[[Mission to the Unknown]]'', if that hadn't been followed by ''[[The Daleks' Master Plan]]''.
:::I'm not sure why you're lumping this in with licensed-but-parodic works like ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. ''Dimensions in Time'' is perhaps a closer fit, but even that isn't quite the same. ''The Infinity Doctors'' was published as part of an ongoing line of novels, but doesn't fit with that line in terms of narrative continuity. To my mind, that makes it more like ''[[The Shadow of the Scourge]]'' or ''[[TV Action!]]'' ... or even ''[[Mission to the Unknown]]'', if that hadn't been followed by ''[[The Daleks' Master Plan]]''.
Line 75: Line 76:
:::: I think, too, that the fact that it's part of the PDAs, rather than the EDAs, makes it more vulnerable to dismissal from our canon policy, since we put another PDA —  ''[[Scream of the Shalka (novelisation)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' — outside the fence, too.  And the PDAs that are novelisations of audio stories are nominally the inferior, or secondary, versions of those stories. The PDAs are just a different editorial deal, because there is no "BBC Books continuity" going on with them, except maybe with ''[[Fear Itself (novel)|Fear Itself]]''.  They're all self-contained adventures, so pulling one out doesn't invalidate the whole range.
:::: I think, too, that the fact that it's part of the PDAs, rather than the EDAs, makes it more vulnerable to dismissal from our canon policy, since we put another PDA —  ''[[Scream of the Shalka (novelisation)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' — outside the fence, too.  And the PDAs that are novelisations of audio stories are nominally the inferior, or secondary, versions of those stories. The PDAs are just a different editorial deal, because there is no "BBC Books continuity" going on with them, except maybe with ''[[Fear Itself (novel)|Fear Itself]]''.  They're all self-contained adventures, so pulling one out doesn't invalidate the whole range.


:::: And I'm not lumping this into "licensed but parodic" works.  I'm saying it's a part of the "licensed but outside continuity" gang, which includes not just parodic stories but also ''Unbound'', ''Shalka'' and other "serious" stories.  I stressed its relation to ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' largely because there was a clear and well-remembered forum discussion about that particular story in our recent past. Also, the issue of whether a story is comedic or straight really has nothing to do with whether we consider it allowable under our canon policy. A story is a story is a story.  So therefore you ''can'' hold up a parodic example against a straight story, and vice versa.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">05:00: Wed&nbsp;25 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
:::: And I'm not lumping this into "licensed but parodic" works.  I'm saying it's a part of the "licensed but outside continuity" gang, which includes not just parodic stories but also ''Unbound'', ''Shalka'' and other "serious" stories.  I stressed its relation to ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' largely because there was a clear and well-remembered forum discussion about that particular story in our recent past. Also, the issue of whether a story is comedic or straight really has nothing to do with whether we consider it allowable under our canon policy. A story is a story is a story.  So therefore you ''can'' hold up a parodic example against a straight story, and vice versa.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}05:00: Wed&nbsp;25 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>


Just a brief discussion of Czechout's statement that the story being a PDA rather than an EDA makes it more liable to dismissal as non-canonical. While there are undoubtedly issues that would make a PDA more likely to be dismissed -- mostly due to lack of eidetic memory causing the author to contradict something on the label of a can of pasta, a problem that grows with the antiquity of the can -- the general rule should be:
Just a brief discussion of Czechout's statement that the story being a PDA rather than an EDA makes it more liable to dismissal as non-canonical. While there are undoubtedly issues that would make a PDA more likely to be dismissed -- mostly due to lack of eidetic memory causing the author to contradict something on the label of a can of pasta, a problem that grows with the antiquity of the can -- the general rule should be:
Line 112: Line 113:
::Lance Parkin says himself in ''[[AHistory]]'' (Second Edition) about ''The Infinity Doctors "is a story set on Gallifrey that takes all information from every previous story (in all media) set on Gallifrey - and other references to it - at face value and incorporates them into the narrative"''. This would suggest that if we look at the wider stories there shouldn't be anything problematic in incorporating it into the wiki. I admit he also says ''"''The Infinity Doctors''' super-adhearance to established continuity actually makes it impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere."'' This, I don't consider an issue because we deal with contradictory information all of the time. He also states in the same body of text that ''"References in ''[[Seeing I (novel)|Seeing I]], [[Unnatural History (novel)|Unnatural History]], [[The Taking of Planet 5 (novel)|The Taking of Planet 5]], [[Father Time (novel)|Father Time]] and [[The Gallifrey Chronicles (novel)|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."'' --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:08, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
::Lance Parkin says himself in ''[[AHistory]]'' (Second Edition) about ''The Infinity Doctors "is a story set on Gallifrey that takes all information from every previous story (in all media) set on Gallifrey - and other references to it - at face value and incorporates them into the narrative"''. This would suggest that if we look at the wider stories there shouldn't be anything problematic in incorporating it into the wiki. I admit he also says ''"''The Infinity Doctors''' super-adhearance to established continuity actually makes it impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere."'' This, I don't consider an issue because we deal with contradictory information all of the time. He also states in the same body of text that ''"References in ''[[Seeing I (novel)|Seeing I]], [[Unnatural History (novel)|Unnatural History]], [[The Taking of Planet 5 (novel)|The Taking of Planet 5]], [[Father Time (novel)|Father Time]] and [[The Gallifrey Chronicles (novel)|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."'' --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:08, April 25, 2012 (UTC)


:One further point: if ''TID'' is declared non-canonical, [[Patience]] (which is already confusing) will become completely nonsensical. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 20:44, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
:One further point: if ''TID'' is declared non-canonical, [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]] (which is already confusing) will become completely nonsensical. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 20:44, April 25, 2012 (UTC)


I really can't believe some of the arguments I'm hearing with this topic. It's clear to me that most of you haven't actually read the book, and therefore you should really learn more about the content of the book before making these opinionated judgements.  
I really can't believe some of the arguments I'm hearing with this topic. It's clear to me that most of you haven't actually read the book, and therefore you should really learn more about the content of the book before making these opinionated judgements.  
It has never been the policy of this wiki for us to base the majority of an argument on what writers say about the product, in fact, quite the opposite, we make policy on the sources themselves and the in-universe content of them. So really, what Lance Parkin has said about the book, in large part, is irrelevant.
It has never been the policy of this wiki for us to base the majority of an argument on what writers say about the product, in fact, quite the opposite, we make policy on the sources themselves and the in-universe content of them. So really, what Lance Parkin has said about the book, in large part, is irrelevant.
I agree entirely with Tangerineduel on this one, several sources which are listed above refer directly to events that take place within TID, and some even have characters that overlap with the book. Seeing I is more or less a sequel to TID where the [[I]] are concerned, and certainly without TID, most of Seeing I's plot wouldn't make sense. And then we have the example of [[Larna]]; who crosses from TID into both The Gallifrey Chronicles and Unnatural History.  
I agree entirely with Tangerineduel on this one, several sources which are listed above refer directly to events that take place within TID, and some even have characters that overlap with the book. Seeing I is more or less a sequel to TID where the [[I (Seeing I)|I]] are concerned, and certainly without TID, most of Seeing I's plot wouldn't make sense. And then we have the example of [[Larna]]; who crosses from TID into both The Gallifrey Chronicles and Unnatural History.  
Therefore from an in-universe perspective, it is clear that TID does have quite a large overlap with the DWU; even if there is doubt as to whether it takes place within the same timeline as our "mainstream Doctors". --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 22:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Therefore from an in-universe perspective, it is clear that TID does have quite a large overlap with the DWU; even if there is doubt as to whether it takes place within the same timeline as our "mainstream Doctors". --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 22:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)


:I '''strongly''' disagree with you, Revan.  Everything we've put outside the canonical wall has been placed there '''precisely because of''' out-of-universe arguments. We throw out ''Curse of Fatal Death'' because we've made a judgement its genre is parody, aided by what Moffat and Curtis told us in the "making of" video.  We've thrown out fanfic because it has no license by the BBC, not because of ''anything'' to do with its narrative.  We've thown out "analagous literature" like ''The Stranger'' for much the same reasons.  Rejection of material from our canon policy has always, and will always, be because of out-of-universe reasons.  We '''must''' have an out-of-universe reason to throw it out.  Otherwise, we're making a value judgement about the narrative.  I'm not saying there can't be other, narrative reasons mentioned in the inclusion debate, but we '''have''' to have a valid out-of-universe rationale for exclusion.  What Parkin says about his work, what scholars of the DWU line say about the work, are vital to this discussion. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">15:28: Sat&nbsp;28 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
:I '''strongly''' disagree with you, Revan.  Everything we've put outside the canonical wall has been placed there '''precisely because of''' out-of-universe arguments. We throw out ''Curse of Fatal Death'' because we've made a judgement its genre is parody, aided by what Moffat and Curtis told us in the "making of" video.  We've thrown out fanfic because it has no license by the BBC, not because of ''anything'' to do with its narrative.  We've thown out "analagous literature" like ''The Stranger'' for much the same reasons.  Rejection of material from our canon policy has always, and will always, be because of out-of-universe reasons.  We '''must''' have an out-of-universe reason to throw it out.  Otherwise, we're making a value judgement about the narrative.  I'm not saying there can't be other, narrative reasons mentioned in the inclusion debate, but we '''have''' to have a valid out-of-universe rationale for exclusion.  What Parkin says about his work, what scholars of the DWU line say about the work, are vital to this discussion. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}15:28: Sat&nbsp;28 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
::I apologise to others for being away from this discussion for a few days.  I'm still rather stunned by the amount of opposition to this rather simple idea, and wasn't expecting to have to devote so much energy here.  Before I get into detailed responses, I would again urge people not to get hung up on the fact that I used parodical examples initially.  There are equally valid comparisons to be made to "serious" stories, if you need those, as I think there's no reason to keep this while debarring ''Shalka'', the Dalek movies, and the ''Unbound'' range.  
::I apologise to others for being away from this discussion for a few days.  I'm still rather stunned by the amount of opposition to this rather simple idea, and wasn't expecting to have to devote so much energy here.  Before I get into detailed responses, I would again urge people not to get hung up on the fact that I used parodical examples initially.  There are equally valid comparisons to be made to "serious" stories, if you need those, as I think there's no reason to keep this while debarring ''Shalka'', the Dalek movies, and the ''Unbound'' range.  


Line 133: Line 134:
::But this contextual confusion is the authorial intent.  The book is a metaphor for ''Doctor Who''.  This is what DWM are getting when they say in their [[1998]] review:
::But this contextual confusion is the authorial intent.  The book is a metaphor for ''Doctor Who''.  This is what DWM are getting when they say in their [[1998]] review:
{{quote|this Doctor [is] an embodiment of the character's ethos rather than a specific representation.  The same appplies to all the book.  This is not a coda to already-sung ''[[Doctor Who]]'' but a fugue — an improvisation based on known themes, and not an extra verse.  Once assimilated, this notion is truly intoxicating.  The author has the freedom to be more explicit than would otherwise be possible with the Doctor's recollections of his family, and he can assume the role of romantic lead without the shock of 1996's televised kisses.  ''The Infinity Doctors'' is a fugue not only on the series' broader recurring themes, but also on some of its most specific passages . . . The meaning of the title becomes clear; this is how it ''might'' have happened — the details and even some of the broader facts are different, but the essence of the Doctor remains.|[[DWM 271]]}}  
{{quote|this Doctor [is] an embodiment of the character's ethos rather than a specific representation.  The same appplies to all the book.  This is not a coda to already-sung ''[[Doctor Who]]'' but a fugue — an improvisation based on known themes, and not an extra verse.  Once assimilated, this notion is truly intoxicating.  The author has the freedom to be more explicit than would otherwise be possible with the Doctor's recollections of his family, and he can assume the role of romantic lead without the shock of 1996's televised kisses.  ''The Infinity Doctors'' is a fugue not only on the series' broader recurring themes, but also on some of its most specific passages . . . The meaning of the title becomes clear; this is how it ''might'' have happened — the details and even some of the broader facts are different, but the essence of the Doctor remains.|[[DWM 271]]}}  
::So, no, Revan, it's not a matter of ignoring the contents of the book.  It's rather the reverse.  Having paid ''close'' attention to the book, I oppose its continued inclusion as a valid source because it's '''just not meant to be read''' for details of plot, incident or description.  As an anniversary tale, it's a celebration of the meta-fictional ''concepts'' related to ''Doctor Who''.  By treating it like any other book in the range, which we mine for picky li'l details, we're doing it a disservice.  And we're confusing the hell out of our casual readers. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">19:30: Sat&nbsp;28 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
::So, no, Revan, it's not a matter of ignoring the contents of the book.  It's rather the reverse.  Having paid ''close'' attention to the book, I oppose its continued inclusion as a valid source because it's '''just not meant to be read''' for details of plot, incident or description.  As an anniversary tale, it's a celebration of the meta-fictional ''concepts'' related to ''Doctor Who''.  By treating it like any other book in the range, which we mine for picky li'l details, we're doing it a disservice.  And we're confusing the hell out of our casual readers. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}19:30: Sat&nbsp;28 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>
:::CzechOut, you are correct in what you say about the metafictional value of ''TID'', but you're wrong in suggesting that that value precludes using it as a narrative. To my reading, that's the genius of the book: it works '''both''' as a commentary on 35 years of ''Doctor Who'' in multiple media '''and''' as a ''Doctor Who'' story in its own right. The one does not prevent the other; in fact, each level enriches the other. It's like a fractal, with the larger continuity image containing an image of the smaller within it, and vice-versa.
:::CzechOut, you are correct in what you say about the metafictional value of ''TID'', but you're wrong in suggesting that that value precludes using it as a narrative. To my reading, that's the genius of the book: it works '''both''' as a commentary on 35 years of ''Doctor Who'' in multiple media '''and''' as a ''Doctor Who'' story in its own right. The one does not prevent the other; in fact, each level enriches the other. It's like a fractal, with the larger continuity image containing an image of the smaller within it, and vice-versa.


:::*I disagree strongly with the statement that there is a "'''massive''' difference" between saying that the events of ''The Infinity Doctors'' took place in the Doctor Who universe or events identical to them took place. If the events are truly '''identical''', then by definition there's no difference. The suggestion that what Parkin means by that is that the plot may have taken place against the backdrop of a different Gallifrey is, as far as I can see, unsupported. To me, it looks as if what Parkin is saying is that the fact that major plot elements in ''TID'' are drawn from previous novels (e.g. ''[[Cold Fusion]]'', ''[[Seeing I]]'') and are carried on into future novels (e.g. ''[[Unnatural History]]'', ''[[The Gallifrey Chronicles]]'') shows that it's part of the overall tapestry of the ''Doctor Who'' novels.
:::*I disagree strongly with the statement that there is a "'''massive''' difference" between saying that the events of ''The Infinity Doctors'' took place in the Doctor Who universe or events identical to them took place. If the events are truly '''identical''', then by definition there's no difference. The suggestion that what Parkin means by that is that the plot may have taken place against the backdrop of a different Gallifrey is, as far as I can see, unsupported. To me, it looks as if what Parkin is saying is that the fact that major plot elements in ''TID'' are drawn from previous novels (e.g. ''[[Cold Fusion (novel)|Cold Fusion]]'', ''[[Seeing I]]'') and are carried on into future novels (e.g. ''[[Unnatural History]]'', ''[[The Gallifrey Chronicles]]'') shows that it's part of the overall tapestry of the ''Doctor Who'' novels.


:::*" '... impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere.' Guys, that's the definition of anti-canonical." How is that any different from ''Mawdryn Undead'' saying that the Brigadier retired in 1977? Or, more recently, Amy Pond having two contradictory histories (with and without parents)? The ''Doctor Who'' universe contains contradictions. We have to accept that, or we'll go crazy. Once we start cutting out bits that seem not to fit, we're no better than [[Light]] or [[Griffin (Unnatural History)|Griffin]].
:::*" '... impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere.' Guys, that's the definition of anti-canonical." How is that any different from ''Mawdryn Undead'' saying that the Brigadier retired in 1977? Or, more recently, Amy Pond having two contradictory histories (with and without parents)? The ''Doctor Who'' universe contains contradictions. We have to accept that, or we'll go crazy. Once we start cutting out bits that seem not to fit, we're no better than [[Light (Ghost Light)|Light]] or [[Griffin (Unnatural History)|Griffin]].


:::* "''Human Nature'' is really two different stories with the same name. To my mind they aren't in (major) contradiction at all, because they happen to two separate Doctors ... Much of the detail of the plots is quite different." But not the essential details: hiding from alien hunters, the Doctor becomes a human teacher named John Smith at a public school near Farringham, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War. While in this identity, he falls in love with a nurse named Joan Redfern, and one of his students, a boy named Tim, steals the receptacle of the Doctor's identity and takes on aspects of his Time Lord nature. The aliens pursue the Doctor, and in order to save the local residents, the Doctor's companion must convince John Smith to become the Doctor again. Yes, there are differences (1913 vs. 1914, Farringham School for Boys vs. Hulton College, etc.), but the story is similar enough that it's absurd in a strictly linear sense to say that it happened to the Doctor twice. And yet, we don't exclude either version of the story, because ''they're both valid''. They were both authorized ''Doctor Who'' stories, and they both "count". And we muddle through. ''TID'' is no different.
:::* "''Human Nature'' is really two different stories with the same name. To my mind they aren't in (major) contradiction at all, because they happen to two separate Doctors ... Much of the detail of the plots is quite different." But not the essential details: hiding from alien hunters, the Doctor becomes a human teacher named John Smith at a public school near Farringham, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War. While in this identity, he falls in love with a nurse named Joan Redfern, and one of his students, a boy named Tim, steals the receptacle of the Doctor's identity and takes on aspects of his Time Lord nature. The aliens pursue the Doctor, and in order to save the local residents, the Doctor's companion must convince John Smith to become the Doctor again. Yes, there are differences (1913 vs. 1914, Farringham School for Boys vs. Hulton College, etc.), but the story is similar enough that it's absurd in a strictly linear sense to say that it happened to the Doctor twice. And yet, we don't exclude either version of the story, because ''they're both valid''. They were both authorized ''Doctor Who'' stories, and they both "count". And we muddle through. ''TID'' is no different.
Line 152: Line 153:
::::'''Meta-fiction is okay narrative.'''  Is it?  It means we have to separate the ''meta'' from the ''fiction''.  We have to declare which parts of the book aren't meant to be read literally and which are.  As [[user:Boblipton|Boblipton]] has stated upthread, we can't have a book be halfway in and halfway out of our borders. It's either all in or all out.
::::'''Meta-fiction is okay narrative.'''  Is it?  It means we have to separate the ''meta'' from the ''fiction''.  We have to declare which parts of the book aren't meant to be read literally and which are.  As [[user:Boblipton|Boblipton]] has stated upthread, we can't have a book be halfway in and halfway out of our borders. It's either all in or all out.


::::'''" '... impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere.' Guys, that's the definition of anti-canonical."''' You've missed the point of what I was saying.  The author is telling us, flatly, that '''at the time he wrote it''' he knew the story was going to be out of continuity with several stories.  He ''intended'' it to be out of continuity.  This is different from ''Mawdryn'' in that Grimwade wasn't ''trying'' to be out of continuity.  He, Saward, JNT and everybody else were just ''ignorant'' of continuity. And in series 5/6 it's a '''point of the narrative''' that Amy has dual lives, and that her "life doesn't make sense".  In other words, it's a part of continuity that her existence is discontinuous, as proved by the ''Night and the Doctor'' sketches.  I don't actually think this Amy example has much relevance at all to ''Infinity''.  What's different about ''Infinity'' is that the author knew full well as he wrote the work that he was creating something discontinuous.  By trying to include all these little nods to everything he could put his hands on — and particularly things that ''weren't'' a part of canon, such as plot elements from unmade stories — he knew he was creating something that "fit" nowhere. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">14:25: Tue&nbsp;01 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::::'''" '... impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere.' Guys, that's the definition of anti-canonical."''' You've missed the point of what I was saying.  The author is telling us, flatly, that '''at the time he wrote it''' he knew the story was going to be out of continuity with several stories.  He ''intended'' it to be out of continuity.  This is different from ''Mawdryn'' in that Grimwade wasn't ''trying'' to be out of continuity.  He, Saward, JNT and everybody else were just ''ignorant'' of continuity. And in series 5/6 it's a '''point of the narrative''' that Amy has dual lives, and that her "life doesn't make sense".  In other words, it's a part of continuity that her existence is discontinuous, as proved by the ''Night and the Doctor'' sketches.  I don't actually think this Amy example has much relevance at all to ''Infinity''.  What's different about ''Infinity'' is that the author knew full well as he wrote the work that he was creating something discontinuous.  By trying to include all these little nods to everything he could put his hands on — and particularly things that ''weren't'' a part of canon, such as plot elements from unmade stories — he knew he was creating something that "fit" nowhere. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}14:25: Tue&nbsp;01 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


:::::Just to go back over something, CzechOut are you saying because an author deliberately wrote something knowingly that it would contradict common continuity that we should disallow it?  
:::::Just to go back over something, CzechOut are you saying because an author deliberately wrote something knowingly that it would contradict common continuity that we should disallow it?  
Line 170: Line 171:
:I think — and by that, I mean it's my opinion —  you've got to agree that Parkin himself has said that he was writing something that didn't fit into continuity — precisely because it was trying to fit everything and the kitchen sink into the novel.  I think you also have to agree that he's said that the star of the book isn't the mainstream Eighth Doctor.  He even shows us on his personal website that he is, to this day, ambiguous about who stars in the book, since he classes the book as both First ''and'' Eighth Doctor.  Every single damn person who has ''ever'' written about this book professionally ''always'' hedges their bets as to whether it actually occurs in the DWU.  I think you further have to agree that there is a degree to which this book is definitely metaphor, not reality.   
:I think — and by that, I mean it's my opinion —  you've got to agree that Parkin himself has said that he was writing something that didn't fit into continuity — precisely because it was trying to fit everything and the kitchen sink into the novel.  I think you also have to agree that he's said that the star of the book isn't the mainstream Eighth Doctor.  He even shows us on his personal website that he is, to this day, ambiguous about who stars in the book, since he classes the book as both First ''and'' Eighth Doctor.  Every single damn person who has ''ever'' written about this book professionally ''always'' hedges their bets as to whether it actually occurs in the DWU.  I think you further have to agree that there is a degree to which this book is definitely metaphor, not reality.   


:So explain to me why something like this should be given the same weight as a story that is unambiguously intended as a narratively ordinary speck of continuity?  What is so damned special about this alternate reality that you guys wanna make the writing of articles about Gallifrey so much more difficult and confusing than it needs to be? Cause I don't understand why I should be forced to accept ''anything'' in this book as "real".  Everything in my bones tells me it's like that great ''Star Wars Tales'' story where Darth Vader meets Darth Maul on Tatooine.  Why is it ''not'' that?  What's the logical grounds on which I can accept the description of Gallifrey in this book, but not the description of Tersurus in ''The Curse of Fatal Death''? (And please don't use the words, "Because ''Curse of Fatal Death'' is parodic".)  What makes this account of Time Lords more believable than those we see in ''Exile''? At this point in the discussion, I ''really'' don't understand why this book is such a sacred cow, when it bears all of the hallmarks of other things we've readily eschewed. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">00:57: Thu&nbsp;03 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
:So explain to me why something like this should be given the same weight as a story that is unambiguously intended as a narratively ordinary speck of continuity?  What is so damned special about this alternate reality that you guys wanna make the writing of articles about Gallifrey so much more difficult and confusing than it needs to be? Cause I don't understand why I should be forced to accept ''anything'' in this book as "real".  Everything in my bones tells me it's like that great ''Star Wars Tales'' story where Darth Vader meets Darth Maul on Tatooine.  Why is it ''not'' that?  What's the logical grounds on which I can accept the description of Gallifrey in this book, but not the description of Tersurus in ''The Curse of Fatal Death''? (And please don't use the words, "Because ''Curse of Fatal Death'' is parodic".)  What makes this account of Time Lords more believable than those we see in ''Exile''? At this point in the discussion, I ''really'' don't understand why this book is such a sacred cow, when it bears all of the hallmarks of other things we've readily eschewed. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}00:57: Thu&nbsp;03 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


As I noted above, I've never read it, but allow me to anticipate: it's a well written work of fiction that fills in a blank area in people's vision. I don't find that a compelling argument, but some might. On another point, some people have accepted it as part of their personal canon. Without saying anything about the right or wrong of this particular issue, a decision to remove this from canon  could be seen as a statement that those who accept it as canon are wrong, ''just as a decision to leave it in canon could be seen as a statement that you are wrong.''
As I noted above, I've never read it, but allow me to anticipate: it's a well written work of fiction that fills in a blank area in people's vision. I don't find that a compelling argument, but some might. On another point, some people have accepted it as part of their personal canon. Without saying anything about the right or wrong of this particular issue, a decision to remove this from canon  could be seen as a statement that those who accept it as canon are wrong, ''just as a decision to leave it in canon could be seen as a statement that you are wrong.''
Line 176: Line 177:
Of course, neither course would be a statement about one or the other. However the distinction is rarely so clear when one is in the middle of a heated argument. For example, there's been a lot of discussion of the metafictional qualities of this work.  As metafictional details concern themselves with things outside the incidents of the story, it has no reference to the in-universe "facts" of the story, any more than, say the references to Narnia in ''[[The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe]]: perhaps a "behind the scenes" note, but no more. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 01:23, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Of course, neither course would be a statement about one or the other. However the distinction is rarely so clear when one is in the middle of a heated argument. For example, there's been a lot of discussion of the metafictional qualities of this work.  As metafictional details concern themselves with things outside the incidents of the story, it has no reference to the in-universe "facts" of the story, any more than, say the references to Narnia in ''[[The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe]]: perhaps a "behind the scenes" note, but no more. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 01:23, May 3, 2012 (UTC)


:Thank you, Bob. You're absolutely right about the metafictional elements: they're really irrelevant to this discussion, a complete red herring. However, you're wrong in saying that I want this included because of its quality, or because of my own vision of the Doctor Who universe (I abhor the phrase "personal canon", since it's a complete oxymoron, but that's neither here nor there). I want this included because there is textual evidence in several other novels, both prior and subsequent, that it should be included. ''The Infinity Doctors'' either  introduces or gives key information about [[Patience]], [[Savar]], [[Marnal]], the [[I]], [[Daniel Joyce]], [[Larna]]! [[Saldaamir]] and probably many others, all of whom appear in other novels; and in most of those cases, their other appearances are informed by their roles in ''TID''. In several of those cases, removing ''TID'' would critically diminish the entries for these characters. This, I think, is what Parkin means when he says that "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." And I maintain that it's not impossible to reconcile either the events or the details of ''TID'' with other stories in the ''Doctor Who'' universe.
:Thank you, Bob. You're absolutely right about the metafictional elements: they're really irrelevant to this discussion, a complete red herring. However, you're wrong in saying that I want this included because of its quality, or because of my own vision of the Doctor Who universe (I abhor the phrase "personal canon", since it's a complete oxymoron, but that's neither here nor there). I want this included because there is textual evidence in several other novels, both prior and subsequent, that it should be included. ''The Infinity Doctors'' either  introduces or gives key information about [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]], [[Savar]], [[Marnal]], the [[I (Seeing I)|I]], [[Daniel Joyce]], [[Larna]]! [[Saldaamir]] and probably many others, all of whom appear in other novels; and in most of those cases, their other appearances are informed by their roles in ''TID''. In several of those cases, removing ''TID'' would critically diminish the entries for these characters. This, I think, is what Parkin means when he says that "References in ''[[Seeing I]]'', ''[[Unnatural History]]'', ''[[The Taking of Planet 5]]'', ''[[Father Time (novel)|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." And I maintain that it's not impossible to reconcile either the events or the details of ''TID'' with other stories in the ''Doctor Who'' universe.


:That's not the case with ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. The Rowan Atkinson Doctor clearly says that he's in his ninth incarnation, and he then proceeds to regenerate four more times. It's just not possible to reconcile that with, say, the Matt Smith Doctor explicitly saying that he's in his eleventh incarnation. The uncertainties of ''TID'' are of a completely different quality from that.
:That's not the case with ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. The Rowan Atkinson Doctor clearly says that he's in his ninth incarnation, and he then proceeds to regenerate four more times. It's just not possible to reconcile that with, say, the Matt Smith Doctor explicitly saying that he's in his eleventh incarnation. The uncertainties of ''TID'' are of a completely different quality from that.
Line 193: Line 194:
::It absolutely ''is'' our job to set the boundaries of what this wiki covers.  Without such an effort, ''anything'' could count.  And we can't have that, because we write in an in-universe style.  There is wide community support now, as there was from the very beginning of this wiki, for the notion that we write from an in-universe perspective, and that we prize in-universe sources as '''primary''' ones.  We therefore '''must''' define, specifically, what the scope of the universe is.  Defining the universe is the very '''first''' job we must do or the wiki simply won't work.  And we've been putting off these story-specific discussions for far too long on this wiki.  The Panopticon archives are full of threads where people, in one way or another, simply don't understand our "canon" policy and therefore have a difficult time figuring out how to operate within it.
::It absolutely ''is'' our job to set the boundaries of what this wiki covers.  Without such an effort, ''anything'' could count.  And we can't have that, because we write in an in-universe style.  There is wide community support now, as there was from the very beginning of this wiki, for the notion that we write from an in-universe perspective, and that we prize in-universe sources as '''primary''' ones.  We therefore '''must''' define, specifically, what the scope of the universe is.  Defining the universe is the very '''first''' job we must do or the wiki simply won't work.  And we've been putting off these story-specific discussions for far too long on this wiki.  The Panopticon archives are full of threads where people, in one way or another, simply don't understand our "canon" policy and therefore have a difficult time figuring out how to operate within it.


::That confusion '''is''' coming to an end.  We '''will''' figure this out.  In fact, this is one of the last specific stories that we need to thrash out.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">02:39: Fri&nbsp;04 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::That confusion '''is''' coming to an end.  We '''will''' figure this out.  In fact, this is one of the last specific stories that we need to thrash out.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}02:39: Fri&nbsp;04 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


:::''The Infinity Doctors'' is different from ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' in that it was written as part of an ongoing ''Doctor Who'' series — in this case the BBC Books line. (Incidentally, I'm not completely certain that we were right in referring to it as a PDA earlier in the thread — sure, it was released in a PDA slot in November 1998, but was it ever listed as a "Past Doctor Adventure" by BBC Books, or by DWM?) ''TID'' was one of BBC Books' monthly novel releases. That's equivalent to being an episode of the television series. The only other release from that line which we exclude is ''[[Scream of the Shalka (novelisation)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', and we exclude that because it's a novelisation of a webcast which we treat as outside the ''Doctor Who'' universe. (Incidentally, you're right that we need ''some'' rules on what we do and don't cover here, though ultimately I'd love it if we eventually got rid of the term "canon".) As I've pointed out several times in this thread, elements of ''The Infinity Doctors'' were picked up in subsequent novels.
:::''The Infinity Doctors'' is different from ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' in that it was written as part of an ongoing ''Doctor Who'' series — in this case the BBC Books line. (Incidentally, I'm not completely certain that we were right in referring to it as a PDA earlier in the thread — sure, it was released in a PDA slot in November 1998, but was it ever listed as a "Past Doctor Adventure" by BBC Books, or by DWM?) ''TID'' was one of BBC Books' monthly novel releases. That's equivalent to being an episode of the television series. The only other release from that line which we exclude is ''[[Scream of the Shalka (novelisation)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', and we exclude that because it's a novelisation of a webcast which we treat as outside the ''Doctor Who'' universe. (Incidentally, you're right that we need ''some'' rules on what we do and don't cover here, though ultimately I'd love it if we eventually got rid of the term "canon".) As I've pointed out several times in this thread, elements of ''The Infinity Doctors'' were picked up in subsequent novels.
Line 218: Line 219:
:::::And I'm not sure I can let you get away with implying there's some sort of time limit on the validity of an author's statements.  It matters not one whit it was a statement from "a decade later".  If we applied this notion more broadly, then we couldn't use any classic era DVD infotext, commentary, documentaries, ''nada''.  Absolutely contemporaneous statements are hard to find, because 1998 is going back a bit far for most internet archives, and because he didn't give a print interview to DWM.  Unfortunately, too, the book falls at that awkward time when nobody ''other'' than DWM would have given a damn, and when fanzines were very much on the wane.  As far as I know, there's nothing contemporaneous to be had, aside from the substance of a contemporaneous DWM review, which clearly puts the book into the Land of Metaphor. Besides, you've consistently attacked the very first quote made on the page, without noticing there is a ''pattern'' of statements from Parkin.  He's ''never'' declaratively said outright the thing is in the proper DWU.  He's ''always'' hedged his bets, even in ''Ahistory'', even on his personal website.  Whenever he's his own editor, his own writer, his own publisher, he consistently refuses the opportunity to just say, "Yeah, it's straight-up DWU."  There's ''always'' a proviso, always a way out, always a tricky little wording that lets him hedge his bets.  As of yet, I've never seen ''any'' quote from the author in which he tries to claim, '''unambiguously''', that the book takes place in the DWU.   
:::::And I'm not sure I can let you get away with implying there's some sort of time limit on the validity of an author's statements.  It matters not one whit it was a statement from "a decade later".  If we applied this notion more broadly, then we couldn't use any classic era DVD infotext, commentary, documentaries, ''nada''.  Absolutely contemporaneous statements are hard to find, because 1998 is going back a bit far for most internet archives, and because he didn't give a print interview to DWM.  Unfortunately, too, the book falls at that awkward time when nobody ''other'' than DWM would have given a damn, and when fanzines were very much on the wane.  As far as I know, there's nothing contemporaneous to be had, aside from the substance of a contemporaneous DWM review, which clearly puts the book into the Land of Metaphor. Besides, you've consistently attacked the very first quote made on the page, without noticing there is a ''pattern'' of statements from Parkin.  He's ''never'' declaratively said outright the thing is in the proper DWU.  He's ''always'' hedged his bets, even in ''Ahistory'', even on his personal website.  Whenever he's his own editor, his own writer, his own publisher, he consistently refuses the opportunity to just say, "Yeah, it's straight-up DWU."  There's ''always'' a proviso, always a way out, always a tricky little wording that lets him hedge his bets.  As of yet, I've never seen ''any'' quote from the author in which he tries to claim, '''unambiguously''', that the book takes place in the DWU.   


:::::You say, "''The Infinity Doctors'' either  introduces or gives key information about [[Patience]], [[Savar]], [[Marnal]], the [[I]], [[Daniel Joyce]], [[Larna]]! [[Saldaamir]] and probably many others, all of whom appear in other novels; and in most of those cases, their other appearances are informed by their roles in ''TID''. In several of those cases, removing ''TID'' would critically diminish the entries for these characters."
:::::You say, "''The Infinity Doctors'' either  introduces or gives key information about [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]], [[Savar]], [[Marnal]], the [[I (Seeing I)|I]], [[Daniel Joyce]], [[Larna]]! [[Saldaamir]] and probably many others, all of whom appear in other novels; and in most of those cases, their other appearances are informed by their roles in ''TID''. In several of those cases, removing ''TID'' would critically diminish the entries for these characters."


:::::Would it though?  I mean [[Patience]] is, as you've alluded, a difficult character to understand.  Would it ''really'' be more difficult to understand her if this book was declared ''verboten'' and the information on the page were thus moved to the behind the scenes section?  I've never been talking about ''removing'' the information outright; just moving it to the behind the scenes area.   
:::::Would it though?  I mean [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]] is, as you've alluded, a difficult character to understand.  Would it ''really'' be more difficult to understand her if this book was declared ''verboten'' and the information on the page were thus moved to the behind the scenes section?  I've never been talking about ''removing'' the information outright; just moving it to the behind the scenes area.   


:::::Moreover, I dunno about you, but I've got a lot of experience with other franchises that have stories declared, for some reason or another, "outside the fence".  I'm not, therefore, seeing how the odd mention of a concept from this book in ''another'' book means the '''entire book''' is within the DWU.  ''[[Doctor Who?]]'' is replete with continuity references, but that doesn't make it something you can reference in in-universe sections..  ''Scream of the Shalka'' has continuity references in it, but that doesn't make REG the "real" Ninth Doctor.  If I read an Elseworlds comic, it may have Lois Lane in it, but I'm completely capable of understanding it's not the Lois Lane of ''any'' part of the DC continuity.  But that doesn't mean that an Elseworlds concept might not get pulled into the current continuity.  For instance, there are many concepts from ''The Dark Knight'' — an explicitly extra-continuous story — which did eventually get pulled into the mainstream DCU.  There's perhaps no single work that's as informative to the character of the Batman as ''The Dark Knight''.  '''But it's explicitly outside the boundaries of the main continuity'''.  Equally, people we just '''accept''' as part of the DCU — like Jimmy Olsen and Harlequin — were pulled into the main DC continuity from other, "non-canon" stories.  I mean, sure, "Donelli's Protection Racket" might feature the first actual appearance of Jimmy Olsen, and all subsequent serials of ''The Adventures of Superman'' might well have informed us ''greatly'' as to the basic character and function of Jimmy, but that doesn't make ''TAOS'' a valid part of ''Superman'' canon.  
:::::Moreover, I dunno about you, but I've got a lot of experience with other franchises that have stories declared, for some reason or another, "outside the fence".  I'm not, therefore, seeing how the odd mention of a concept from this book in ''another'' book means the '''entire book''' is within the DWU.  ''[[Doctor Who? (comic series)|Doctor Who?]]'' is replete with continuity references, but that doesn't make it something you can reference in in-universe sections..  ''Scream of the Shalka'' has continuity references in it, but that doesn't make REG the "real" Ninth Doctor.  If I read an Elseworlds comic, it may have Lois Lane in it, but I'm completely capable of understanding it's not the Lois Lane of ''any'' part of the DC continuity.  But that doesn't mean that an Elseworlds concept might not get pulled into the current continuity.  For instance, there are many concepts from ''The Dark Knight'' — an explicitly extra-continuous story — which did eventually get pulled into the mainstream DCU.  There's perhaps no single work that's as informative to the character of the Batman as ''The Dark Knight''.  '''But it's explicitly outside the boundaries of the main continuity'''.  Equally, people we just '''accept''' as part of the DCU — like Jimmy Olsen and Harlequin — were pulled into the main DC continuity from other, "non-canon" stories.  I mean, sure, "Donelli's Protection Racket" might feature the first actual appearance of Jimmy Olsen, and all subsequent serials of ''The Adventures of Superman'' might well have informed us ''greatly'' as to the basic character and function of Jimmy, but that doesn't make ''TAOS'' a valid part of ''Superman'' canon.  


:::::I suppose what I'm saying is that just because a story "informs" another story that doesn't '''automatically''' make it a valid source.  ''Frankenstein'' '''informs''' ''The Brain of Morbius''.  Does that mean ''Frankenstein'' is a valid source for ''this'' wiki?  No.  Equally, ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' completely informs ''Let's Kill Hitler''.  Why do we accept the silly lil timey-wimey "hide the gun from River" scene?  Because we've seen it before in ''Curse'' and we collectively say to Moffat, "I see what you did there, sir, I see what you did."  
:::::I suppose what I'm saying is that just because a story "informs" another story that doesn't '''automatically''' make it a valid source.  ''Frankenstein'' '''informs''' ''The Brain of Morbius''.  Does that mean ''Frankenstein'' is a valid source for ''this'' wiki?  No.  Equally, ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' completely informs ''Let's Kill Hitler''.  Why do we accept the silly lil timey-wimey "hide the gun from River" scene?  Because we've seen it before in ''Curse'' and we collectively say to Moffat, "I see what you did there, sir, I see what you did."  


:::::And just to underline a point that may have gotten lost, declaring a fully licensed work invalid as an in-universe source doesn't mean that we have to deprive a page of whatever light that book might shed on it.  It ''only'' means we move that info from the in-universe section to the "behind the scenes" section. So the [[Patience]] thing that worries you wouldn't be overly affected by this.  The only thing truly lost would be pages about things that ''only'' exist in ''Infinity''.  
:::::And just to underline a point that may have gotten lost, declaring a fully licensed work invalid as an in-universe source doesn't mean that we have to deprive a page of whatever light that book might shed on it.  It ''only'' means we move that info from the in-universe section to the "behind the scenes" section. So the [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]] thing that worries you wouldn't be overly affected by this.  The only thing truly lost would be pages about things that ''only'' exist in ''Infinity''.  


:::::And if the thought of banishing ''Infinity'' to "behind the scenes" sections doesn't agree with you, I'd be equally happy with the "Star Wars Tales" solution.  At Wookieepedia, they do this inline demarcation thing where they set off a block of text with a warning that whatever appears within the bracket holds an uncertain position in canon.  There's a whole raft of such templates, found at [[starwars:category:advisory templates]], but one in particular that comes close is [[starwars:template:talesstart]].  I would think that something like that would accurately reflect the stalemate here.   
:::::And if the thought of banishing ''Infinity'' to "behind the scenes" sections doesn't agree with you, I'd be equally happy with the "Star Wars Tales" solution.  At Wookieepedia, they do this inline demarcation thing where they set off a block of text with a warning that whatever appears within the bracket holds an uncertain position in canon.  There's a whole raft of such templates, found at [[starwars:category:advisory templates]], but one in particular that comes close is [[starwars:template:talesstart]].  I would think that something like that would accurately reflect the stalemate here.   
Line 238: Line 239:
:::::(Obviously, this isn't the final form; I'm just using a div class that springs to mind and is easy to insert on-the-fly.  It would clearly be redesigned.  Also, the statement would clearly link back to this discussion, allowing the reader to better understand the difficulties of assessing ''TID''. )
:::::(Obviously, this isn't the final form; I'm just using a div class that springs to mind and is easy to insert on-the-fly.  It would clearly be redesigned.  Also, the statement would clearly link back to this discussion, allowing the reader to better understand the difficulties of assessing ''TID''. )
    
    
:::::But I don't think we're necessarily finished talking.  I'm not suggesting that as a way to end the discussion.  I'm just saying that, no, we will ''not'' be setting the precedent that an ''apparent'' tie means we take no action.  I've read ''every'' thread ever started and there's no way that our decision-making process could remain viable if we said "1-1 splits mean the motion is defeated."  Now of course, there are instances where all parties sorta forget about a thread, and it goes cold without clear resolution.  But that's a bit different to this thread, where the matter has been ''hotly'' contested.  ''Something'' '''will''' result from this, if only because of the current rewrite to canon policy which everyone I've ever talked to on this wiki agrees needs to happen. "No action because of non-consensus" is simply not an option. A consensus for ''something'' — even if it's to say that we're not agreed — will emerge. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">17:29: Fri&nbsp;04 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
:::::But I don't think we're necessarily finished talking.  I'm not suggesting that as a way to end the discussion.  I'm just saying that, no, we will ''not'' be setting the precedent that an ''apparent'' tie means we take no action.  I've read ''every'' thread ever started and there's no way that our decision-making process could remain viable if we said "1-1 splits mean the motion is defeated."  Now of course, there are instances where all parties sorta forget about a thread, and it goes cold without clear resolution.  But that's a bit different to this thread, where the matter has been ''hotly'' contested.  ''Something'' '''will''' result from this, if only because of the current rewrite to canon policy which everyone I've ever talked to on this wiki agrees needs to happen. "No action because of non-consensus" is simply not an option. A consensus for ''something'' — even if it's to say that we're not agreed — will emerge. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}17:29: Fri&nbsp;04 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


::::::Wow, lots to respond to there. I may not be able to get to all of it, but a few points:
::::::Wow, lots to respond to there. I may not be able to get to all of it, but a few points:
Line 296: Line 297:
::''I'' think the copyright holder's consistent hesitation over time, and his complete failure to clearly and unambiguously state that it does occur in the DWU — even when he's been at absolute liberty to do so in later books —  means that it ''does not'' take place therein.  If you guys want to keep this book around, we have to be honest with our readers and tell people that the copyright holder himself doesn't firmly place the book in the DWU, so therefore [''this fact here''] may not actually be true of the DWU.  The only other alternative I can think of is that we say the BBC is our guiding light, and if they haven't licensed the story, then it doesn't count, but everything they have licensed does count, unless they've told us otherwise.  Which would mean the expulsion of BBV (except for P.R.O.B.E., for which we know they licensed the character of Liz Shaw), K9TV, and maybe some Dalek-only stories (but that's a minefield and a half.)
::''I'' think the copyright holder's consistent hesitation over time, and his complete failure to clearly and unambiguously state that it does occur in the DWU — even when he's been at absolute liberty to do so in later books —  means that it ''does not'' take place therein.  If you guys want to keep this book around, we have to be honest with our readers and tell people that the copyright holder himself doesn't firmly place the book in the DWU, so therefore [''this fact here''] may not actually be true of the DWU.  The only other alternative I can think of is that we say the BBC is our guiding light, and if they haven't licensed the story, then it doesn't count, but everything they have licensed does count, unless they've told us otherwise.  Which would mean the expulsion of BBV (except for P.R.O.B.E., for which we know they licensed the character of Liz Shaw), K9TV, and maybe some Dalek-only stories (but that's a minefield and a half.)


::So what'll be your pleasure?  Compromise over this one little book?  Or destruction of large parts of the wiki?  Or do you see some other option that's ''totally'' eluding me at the moment? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">16:25: Tue&nbsp;08 May 2012&nbsp;</span>   
::So what'll be your pleasure?  Compromise over this one little book?  Or destruction of large parts of the wiki?  Or do you see some other option that's ''totally'' eluding me at the moment? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}16:25: Tue&nbsp;08 May 2012&nbsp;</span>   


No, Czechout, it's not a choice of one book or the Wiki.  It's hard work to do it right or give up.  I vote for hard work. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:15, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
No, Czechout, it's not a choice of one book or the Wiki.  It's hard work to do it right or give up.  I vote for hard work. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:15, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
:Hard work is no match for logic, Bob.  And there's no logical argument I can think of that allows us to ignore the statements of the copyright holder in this instance, but value them in others.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">00:50: Wed&nbsp;09 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
:Hard work is no match for logic, Bob.  And there's no logical argument I can think of that allows us to ignore the statements of the copyright holder in this instance, but value them in others.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}00:50: Wed&nbsp;09 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::And, Bob, please stop oversimplifying what I'm saying.  I '''never, ever''' said ''anything like'' "it's one book or the wiki".  You ''know'' I was talking about the phenomenon of author-owned material.  Because we ''do'' accept the words of authors in some cases, it would be fundamentally illogical to ignore Parkin's decided ambiguity in this instance.  After all, we cover one of Parkin's ''other'' creations, ''[[I Scream]]'', ''solely'' on the basis that he, the copyright holder to the [[I]], has told us that it is a legitimate extension of the story of the [[I]].  That being the case, the logic by which we can ignore his statements in regards to ''Infinity'' eludes me.
::And, Bob, please stop oversimplifying what I'm saying.  I '''never, ever''' said ''anything like'' "it's one book or the wiki".  You ''know'' I was talking about the phenomenon of author-owned material.  Because we ''do'' accept the words of authors in some cases, it would be fundamentally illogical to ignore Parkin's decided ambiguity in this instance.  After all, we cover one of Parkin's ''other'' creations, ''[[I Scream (audio story)|I Scream]]'', ''solely'' on the basis that he, the copyright holder to the [[I (Seeing I)|I]], has told us that it is a legitimate extension of the story of the [[I (Seeing I)|I]].  That being the case, the logic by which we can ignore his statements in regards to ''Infinity'' eludes me.


::I don't mind a hard fight or tough talkin', Bob — but play fair.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">01:02: Wed&nbsp;09 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::I don't mind a hard fight or tough talkin', Bob — but play fair.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}01:02: Wed&nbsp;09 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


I thought it was clear from what I said earlier, but I consider Mr. Parkin to be a good writer whose pronouncements about ''Doctor Who'' are as reliable as Moffat's. You may feel his pronouncements about what he intended to accomplish with a particular work to be worthy of note.  I think intentions are nothing.  Take a look and see what he has done in the pages of the book, not something he wrote on his blog at 3 AM after a night on the tiles.
I thought it was clear from what I said earlier, but I consider Mr. Parkin to be a good writer whose pronouncements about ''Doctor Who'' are as reliable as Moffat's. You may feel his pronouncements about what he intended to accomplish with a particular work to be worthy of note.  I think intentions are nothing.  Take a look and see what he has done in the pages of the book, not something he wrote on his blog at 3 AM after a night on the tiles.
Line 317: Line 318:
::That's an illogical conclusion, Bob, since we've established these statements were made long after the books were pulled from first-run booksellers, and therefore his financial interest in sales ended.  He's got little financial interest in the book, much past the year 2000, by "stirring the pot".  However, his financial interest will have returned in [[2012]], because I think the book has just been put back up for sale as an e-book.  But certainly no statements made in the whole decade of the 2000s have no plausible financial motivation.   
::That's an illogical conclusion, Bob, since we've established these statements were made long after the books were pulled from first-run booksellers, and therefore his financial interest in sales ended.  He's got little financial interest in the book, much past the year 2000, by "stirring the pot".  However, his financial interest will have returned in [[2012]], because I think the book has just been put back up for sale as an e-book.  But certainly no statements made in the whole decade of the 2000s have no plausible financial motivation.   


::And Josiah's most recent post puts things in a way I can agree with. Parkin has sewn ambiguity in a way that no other copyright holder ever has.  So let us clearly mark statements drawn from that book in a way we don't with any other book.  A unique situation demands an equally unique response from us.  A boilerplate announcement — although one much less obtrusive than the quick sample shown above — is something we ''can'' agree on. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:06: Fri&nbsp;11 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::And Josiah's most recent post puts things in a way I can agree with. Parkin has sewn ambiguity in a way that no other copyright holder ever has.  So let us clearly mark statements drawn from that book in a way we don't with any other book.  A unique situation demands an equally unique response from us.  A boilerplate announcement — although one much less obtrusive than the quick sample shown above — is something we ''can'' agree on. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}18:06: Fri&nbsp;11 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
== A new proposal ==
== A new proposal ==
At this point, I am convinced to modify my initial proposal.  I withdraw my request to remove ''Infinity'' from our scope ''on the condition that'' we reference it ''differently'' than we do other works, as befits its uniqueness. I move that we require references to ''Infinity'' in in-universe sections to be set off by a clear boilerplate.   
At this point, I am convinced to modify my initial proposal.  I withdraw my request to remove ''Infinity'' from our scope ''on the condition that'' we reference it ''differently'' than we do other works, as befits its uniqueness. I move that we require references to ''Infinity'' in in-universe sections to be set off by a clear boilerplate.   
Line 324: Line 325:
We can argue ''form'' and wording later.  But for now, I'd like to hear views on the general concept of using a boilerplate — that is an inline template with a top and bottom clearly setting off the text within it from the rest of the article.
We can argue ''form'' and wording later.  But for now, I'd like to hear views on the general concept of using a boilerplate — that is an inline template with a top and bottom clearly setting off the text within it from the rest of the article.


I want to make it very clear that this does not set a foreseeable precedent.  This method is only talking about modifying the way we integrate material from ''The Infinity Doctors'' '''alone'''.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:06: Fri&nbsp;11 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
I want to make it very clear that this does not set a foreseeable precedent.  This method is only talking about modifying the way we integrate material from ''The Infinity Doctors'' '''alone'''.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}18:06: Fri&nbsp;11 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


:I still object to the imposition of yet another category of information. I still believe that something should be either canonical or non-canonical for this wiki. Period. Furthermore, stating that this is a ''sui generis'' solution  strikes me as disingenuous. There is more to reading and writing than the ability to compose a sentence that does not violate any of a limited number of rules. The fact that it has been done will inevitably be used as an excuse for it to be done again on subjects ever less marginal, all in an effort to avoid the awful chore of thinking. It will be easier for the bureaucratically minded to cite this as a precedent rather than actually have to think about how to fit a difficult work into canon. Declaring it "non-precedental"  is as ridiculous as the US Supreme Court's addendum to that effect in their consideration of the 2000 Presidential election. Foreseeing that, I cannot approve of this ridiculous decision, no matter how many times you write "of course." As Donald Knuth wrote, “Nearly every example of faulty reasoning that has been published is accompanied by the phrase ‘of course’ or its equivalent.”[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:13, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
:I still object to the imposition of yet another category of information. I still believe that something should be either canonical or non-canonical for this wiki. Period. Furthermore, stating that this is a ''sui generis'' solution  strikes me as disingenuous. There is more to reading and writing than the ability to compose a sentence that does not violate any of a limited number of rules. The fact that it has been done will inevitably be used as an excuse for it to be done again on subjects ever less marginal, all in an effort to avoid the awful chore of thinking. It will be easier for the bureaucratically minded to cite this as a precedent rather than actually have to think about how to fit a difficult work into canon. Declaring it "non-precedental"  is as ridiculous as the US Supreme Court's addendum to that effect in their consideration of the 2000 Presidential election. Foreseeing that, I cannot approve of this ridiculous decision, no matter how many times you write "of course." As Donald Knuth wrote, “Nearly every example of faulty reasoning that has been published is accompanied by the phrase ‘of course’ or its equivalent.”[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:13, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Line 357: Line 358:
:::The entire point of this thread, from my perspective, is that TID is not just "another account".  It's an account which many, many people — including the copyright holder himself — cannot definitively place within the DWU.  It ''is'' different, set apart, and, yes, Bob, '''absolutely non-precedental'''.  This new proposal of [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] misses the point by a country mile.  And a half.  And then a few more country miles.  And then a couple of AUs.  
:::The entire point of this thread, from my perspective, is that TID is not just "another account".  It's an account which many, many people — including the copyright holder himself — cannot definitively place within the DWU.  It ''is'' different, set apart, and, yes, Bob, '''absolutely non-precedental'''.  This new proposal of [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] misses the point by a country mile.  And a half.  And then a few more country miles.  And then a couple of AUs.  


:::(BTW, the reason that canon policy doesn't show up is because the link color is the same color as the header color.  If you put something blue on something blue it becomes invisible.  I've fixed that, and I've stopped the internal headers from interfering with normal editing of this section.)  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">15:32: Thu&nbsp;17 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
:::(BTW, the reason that canon policy doesn't show up is because the link color is the same color as the header color.  If you put something blue on something blue it becomes invisible.  I've fixed that, and I've stopped the internal headers from interfering with normal editing of this section.)  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}15:32: Thu&nbsp;17 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::::I should just add that Tangerineduel's proposal is a '''hijacking of the thread'''.  This thread is about ''The Infinity Doctors''.  It is completely inappropriate to use this thread for a '''massive change to ''general'' policy''' that will impact hundreds of pages that have '''nothing to do with''' the subject of this thread. The name of this thread is '''Is The Infinity Doctors canon?''' — not '''How do we best handling conflicting accounts?''' {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">15:44: Thu&nbsp;17 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::::I should just add that Tangerineduel's proposal is a '''hijacking of the thread'''.  This thread is about ''The Infinity Doctors''.  It is completely inappropriate to use this thread for a '''massive change to ''general'' policy''' that will impact hundreds of pages that have '''nothing to do with''' the subject of this thread. The name of this thread is '''Is The Infinity Doctors canon?''' — not '''How do we best handling conflicting accounts?''' {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}15:44: Thu&nbsp;17 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


:::::I have seen this question of CzechOut's of "is ''The Infinity Doctors'' canon" as one of two things, it's either an extremely isolated and unique question, so much so it perplexes me as to why it's asked given the scope of what we cover and the vagueness of other texts.
:::::I have seen this question of CzechOut's of "is ''The Infinity Doctors'' canon" as one of two things, it's either an extremely isolated and unique question, so much so it perplexes me as to why it's asked given the scope of what we cover and the vagueness of other texts.
Line 389: Line 390:
Tangerineduel, this last proposal strikes me as satirical. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 21:08, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Tangerineduel, this last proposal strikes me as satirical. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 21:08, May 18, 2012 (UTC)


:I don't mind the notion of the boilerplate being collapsible — though I think it's unnecessary — but I do very much mind the wording "this information is contentious".  The message must be specifically tied to ''The Infinity Doctors''.  I don't at all want to create something which could be applied '''in any other circumstance'''.  ''TID'' is completely unique.  It would be inappropriate for this thread to result in ''anything'' which could be repurposed to allow for usage with other narratives. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:06: Fri&nbsp;18 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
:I don't mind the notion of the boilerplate being collapsible — though I think it's unnecessary — but I do very much mind the wording "this information is contentious".  The message must be specifically tied to ''The Infinity Doctors''.  I don't at all want to create something which could be applied '''in any other circumstance'''.  ''TID'' is completely unique.  It would be inappropriate for this thread to result in ''anything'' which could be repurposed to allow for usage with other narratives. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}23:06: Fri&nbsp;18 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


I believe it's clear by now, Czechout, that not everyone shares this opinion: certainly not to the extent that it needs to be awarded a special category in which it is uniquely half slave and half free, half canonical and half not. I see it as someplace on the continuum running from authors who delight in retconning points to make everything match up nicely, to people who simply ignore continuity (John and Gillian..... Who?), to people who write ''Doctor Who Unbound'' pieces, exacerbated by Parkin's delight in being annoying. Let's put this aside for a year or two and maybe by then either you'll be too tired to propose this or the people who scream about it will be gone:  the democratic process. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 23:43, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
I believe it's clear by now, Czechout, that not everyone shares this opinion: certainly not to the extent that it needs to be awarded a special category in which it is uniquely half slave and half free, half canonical and half not. I see it as someplace on the continuum running from authors who delight in retconning points to make everything match up nicely, to people who simply ignore continuity (John and Gillian..... Who?), to people who write ''Doctor Who Unbound'' pieces, exacerbated by Parkin's delight in being annoying. Let's put this aside for a year or two and maybe by then either you'll be too tired to propose this or the people who scream about it will be gone:  the democratic process. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 23:43, May 18, 2012 (UTC)


::Actually, Bob, it is a long held principle of wiki decision-making that {{W|WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|n1=the attempt to find consensus is not an experiment in democracy}}. In any case I don't accept that mine is the substantively minority view, as you seem to be suggesting.
::Actually, Bob, it is a long held principle of wiki decision-making that {{w|WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|n1=the attempt to find consensus is not an experiment in democracy}}. In any case I don't accept that mine is the substantively minority view, as you seem to be suggesting.


::Unfortunately, I can't just let it go because ultimately I have to write the rules surrounding the inclusion of this book.  I have to find some language that actually works in the rewrite of canon policy, so '''it actually matters to me''' that this discussion come to a conclusion of some sort other than "we're all tired of fighting about it; let's forget about it for a few years."  
::Unfortunately, I can't just let it go because ultimately I have to write the rules surrounding the inclusion of this book.  I have to find some language that actually works in the rewrite of canon policy, so '''it actually matters to me''' that this discussion come to a conclusion of some sort other than "we're all tired of fighting about it; let's forget about it for a few years."  
Line 399: Line 400:
::Amongst the people still contributing to this thread, the only person who's not showing any flexibility in finding common ground here, Bob, is you.  Instead of trying to just end this thing arbitrarily, please propose a compromise position of some sort, just like the rest of us are trying to do.  
::Amongst the people still contributing to this thread, the only person who's not showing any flexibility in finding common ground here, Bob, is you.  Instead of trying to just end this thing arbitrarily, please propose a compromise position of some sort, just like the rest of us are trying to do.  


::What this thread has proven is precisely that no one opinion is dominant.  The compromise, it seems to me, is to clearly tell our readers that we have been unable to come to an agreement as to whether this work takes place within the DWU or not. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">01:04: Sat&nbsp;19 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::What this thread has proven is precisely that no one opinion is dominant.  The compromise, it seems to me, is to clearly tell our readers that we have been unable to come to an agreement as to whether this work takes place within the DWU or not. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}01:04: Sat&nbsp;19 May 2012&nbsp;</span>


::um, czechout,you are probably the least willing to budge of all the people on this thread.  i agree with boblipton that we could use this Boilerplate or whatever for all works of questionable "canon", because even if this book is the only one now, chances are there will be something else in the future.  shouldn't we try to avoid too many unique cases?  maybe we can make a list of works of questionable "canon" which can be separated using this template.  yet again, even if TID is the only work that is in there now, it would make the boilerplate future proof in case anything similar to this happens again.  to those of you who have read/listened to a lot of spin off media, have you noticed any other works that could share a boilerplate category with TID?  also, i like the idea of it being collapsible.  i think it looks better than the other boilerplate proposals.[[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] <sup>[[User talk:Imamadmad|talk to me]]</sup> 01:24, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
::um, czechout,you are probably the least willing to budge of all the people on this thread.  i agree with boblipton that we could use this Boilerplate or whatever for all works of questionable "canon", because even if this book is the only one now, chances are there will be something else in the future.  shouldn't we try to avoid too many unique cases?  maybe we can make a list of works of questionable "canon" which can be separated using this template.  yet again, even if TID is the only work that is in there now, it would make the boilerplate future proof in case anything similar to this happens again.  to those of you who have read/listened to a lot of spin off media, have you noticed any other works that could share a boilerplate category with TID?  also, i like the idea of it being collapsible.  i think it looks better than the other boilerplate proposals.[[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] <sup>[[User talk:Imamadmad|talk to me]]</sup> 01:24, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
::I am trying to maintain a level of good humor here and avoid rancor. I apologize if my jokes and a suggestion that the matter be tabled for a bit failed.
::I agreed and still agree with with Tangerineduel's earlier proposal -- it clearly recognizes a general issue of sloppy continuity. You say it is a thread hijacking.  I don't see it that way for the reasons I have already mentioned: it is a specific case of a general problem (the variability of Anji Kapoor's character, the many lives and deaths of Jo Grant and Dodo Chaplet and so forth), in brief, continuity issues that have not been retconned.
::Up to now, these have been handled in behind the scenes sections such as "Will the Real Anji Kapoor Please Stand Up?" -- again, based on comments by Parkin -- or "Will the Real Dodo Chaplet Please Stand Up?" -- perhaps it should be titled "Will the real Infinity Doctor Please Stand Up?" In it you may quote Lance Parkin to your heart's content (no sarcasm intended), citing the issues, alerting people to the issues and allowing the careful, intelligent reader to draw conclusions, with the intellectual risks on view for that same intelligent reader.
::I'm sure this has been suggested before  upstream. If so, the amount of discussion that has gone on since may have rendered it more appealing.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 01:55, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
<small>''I wrote the comment below before seeing Boblipton's latest post. I had an edit conflict, and might have worded things slightly differently if I'd seen his post first, but I think that my larger point stands and is compatible with his.''</small>
It seems to me that we've got two different but related questions here. The first is the title question, "Is ''The Infinity Doctors'' canon?" The second is "If we cannot come to a consensus on whether a certain work is canonical, how should we treat that material?" All this talk of templates is an attempt to answer the second, but that presumes that we can't come to a consensus on the first. CzechOut originally objected to treating it as canonical, among other reasons, "because of the vast narrative uncertainties, it is extremely problematic to allow even basic information from this story into our other pages." But all the other proposals on how to treat ''TID'' also seem to be "extremely problematic" to someone. Saying "it's not canon" (CzechOut's preferred position) is extremely problematic to me, as I feel that there is no valid justification for its exclusion. Saying "it may or may not be canon" (my preferred position, which CzechOut has expressed willingness to allow) is extremely problematic to boblipton, who feels strongly that a text must be either ruled canonical or not, with no middle ground or indeterminate status. So... can we consider the first option again? Treating it as canonical?
Early in this wiki's development, a decision was made to be generally ''inclusive''. There are plenty of ''Doctor Who'' fans who feel that only what's on TV "counts". There are others who love the books but look down on the comics, and others who are devoted to Big Finish but can't stand the novels. There are fans who include the DWM comics in their "personal canon" (abhorrent phrase, that) but reject John and Gillian. This wiki decided not to take sides, even though it might have been simpler if we had stuck with a "TV only" rule (as Memory Alpha does — yes, Paramount/CBS has a clearer rule on canon than the BBC does, blah blah blah, but you get my point).
The things we exclude are deliberately very limited. We don't count the 1960s Dalek movies because a) the Doctor's a human who invented the TARDIS, and b) it's a remake of a television story. We don't count the "Unbound" Doctors because they're deliberately outside of ''Doctor Who'' continuity. We don't count ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' and ''Scream of the Shalka'' because, among other reasons, the narrative of the TV series from 2005 on clearly doesn't follow the Doctor(s) depicted therein. And that's about it. Somewhat to my surprise, we count ''Death Comes to Time'', even though that explicitly shows the Doctor dying in his seventh incarnation — something I'd have thought would be more problematic than an adventure which may have happened to the First Doctor before leaving Gallifrey or may have happened to the Eighth after its restoration but before its second destruction.
So, considering that our default position has always been one of inclusion, and that we can't seem to get a consensus to support either of the other options (exclusion or "quantum inclusion" [that is, "it may or may not be canonical"]), perhaps we should reconsider inclusion? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 02:37, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
:@[[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]]: I think you have missed huge parts of this debate if you think I haven't modified my stance.  I said at the very top of this section:
::{{quote|At this point, I am convinced to modify my initial proposal.  I withdraw my request to remove ''Infinity'' from our scope ''on the condition that'' we reference it ''differently'' than we do other works, as befits its uniqueness. I move that we require references to ''Infinity'' in in-universe sections to be set off by a clear boilerplate.|[[user:CzechOut|CzechOut]]}}
:This is a fair distance away from my starting point of total eradication, so I think it's completely unfair to say I haven't budged.  I've '''by far''' come the ''furthest'' distance from my original position.
:@ Josiah: Going back to simply including TID, without comment, doesn't work. We can not, must not, '''will not''' establish a precedent that "no consensus = no change".  You've had no participants '''at all''' at  [[Forum:Dark Disambiguation]], but you've (properly, in my view) seen the lack of interest as consent.  If we were to apply what you suggest to ''that'' thread, then you've had no authority to proceed with your disambiguation. We just don't have the numbers here to say that lack of agreement means no change.
:The whole point of this exercise is to figure out the words we would use in policy to allow for the inclusion of this novel when we don't allow in ''Shalka'', ''Exile'', ''Curse'' or whatever other licensed, but not allowed, stories you'd care to name.  How do we explain the position to a newbie? 
:Is this licensed?  Yes, just like ''Curse''.  Has there been talk by the copyright holder that casts doubt as to it being set in the DWU?  Yes, just like ''Shalka'', just like ''Exile''.  So why is it different?  Why do we allow it in, treating it like any other book in the BBC Books range?   
:Talking about this one, wholly unique book does not threaten the goals this wiki has had since 2004.  We are still generally inclusive.  But we do have a responsibility to make it clear to new users why ''this'' book — which has much more in common with ''Curse'' and ''Unbound'' and all the other things we don't consider "canonical" — is allowed in.
:We have to be able to explain how this is different from ''Shalka'', ''Curse'' and the rest in order to write the change to canon policy we all agree needs to be written. If we can't offer an agreed explanation, then we owe it to our readers to say that '''we can't agree'''. 
:It seems to me that ''everyone'' is agreed on (resigned to?) some kind of boilerplate.  The devil now is in what that boilerplate will say. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}04:01: Sat&nbsp;19 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::It's a tangential point, but I think that there's a difference between what one might call a "passive" lack of consensus (demonstrated by a lack of interest, as at [[Forum:Dark Disambiguation]]) and the "active" lack of consensus (the result of prolonged discussion, with multiple participants) that we have on the original question here. In the case of the former, action is justified (in part because nobody else cares). In the case of the latter, inaction may be justified, if no action can be agreed upon by the participants.
::But perhaps I've been too ready to give up. It's true that everybody has expressed willingness to go along with some sort of boilerplate, but we're not just debating the wording and formatting of such a boilerplate — we're debating its applicability. Is this something which should apply '''only''' to material from ''The Infinity Doctors'', as CzechOut prefers, or can it also apply to other cases of unclear canonicity? (As an aside, has there ever been a discussion about ''Death Comes to Time''? Some pages with material from that — e.g. [[the Fraction]] — have notes saying "The canonicity of ''Death Comes to Time'' is unclear." I can't really disagree with that statement, but is it supported by any discussion or policy?) Do we want a template to set aside material from ''TID'' (or another questionable source, if we go that way), or do we want a template to incorporate apparently contradictory sources which are both canonical (for cases like the fate of Ace)? These are slightly different goals, and we need to know which one we're trying to accomplish. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 06:16, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
:::This is one of the things I continue to struggle with. Why bring this issue up as a question unless you want it struck from the record? If we looked hard enough we'd probably be able to find other authors/copyright holders/'''reviewers''' that claim that various works are not part of the DWU universe. I still don't totally understand why CzechOut singled out TID with a single quote from Parkin. The other points raised are based on readings of the novel by individual readers.
:::Other authors Paul Magrs for example delights in creating meta-fictional settings and characters that also sit outside the bounds of regular continuity, but we've yet to have a discussion about the viability of Iris Wildthyme, based purely on the fact her adventures are hard to quantify.
:::I think I've justified the exclusion of Shalka fairly well, it's in a published by the BBC text, it's stated very clearly it's not '''the''' Ninth Doctor. CzechOut's justification lays on one interview with the author. An interview that ''doesn't'' cite a date so we can't put it into context. WTF does "mainstream continuity" mean anyway? Especially put within the framework of what we deal with on this wiki. In the interview cited, it can be read that the interviewer leads Parkin into the statement he makes.
:::Is there any further proof, any other statements made by the author where he states straight that ''TID'' in his consideration isn't part of DWU canon?
:::Curse and Shalka have supporting evidence in BBC published texts that they're not part of regular Doctor Who.
:::''The Infinity Doctors'' as far as I can find has no statements like this in BBC published texts, only in Parkin's ''AHistory'', which I've mentioned above, and even then is not a clear yes or no, unlike ''Shalka'' and ''Curse''.
:::Why do we let ''TID''? Treating it like any other book in the range, because like every other book (except Shalka which as I've mentioned above has evidence) there is nothing tangible to suggest it's not any other book. We don't need to explain how it's different from ''Shalka'' and ''Curse'' we just have to show how ''Curse'' and ''Shalka'' are different from everything else.
:::Resigned to this is the best term, agreed, certainly not. I am still not convinced by the initial argument made for even ''beginning'' this discussion, let alone excising the work, even with a boilerplate.
:::I do agree with Josiah Rowe, that ''TID'' should not be viewed as a single case, cannot in fact, because it is very much incorporated within a release structure of other novels and has not in any BBC-signed off text been stated to be not ''Doctor Who''. ''Death Comes to Time'' has as or an even more chequered history and story than ''TID''. ''Death Comes to Time'' began as a radio pilot, turned into a webcast and does a lot to mess around with continuity, far more in some respects than ''TID'' does. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 12:03, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
<div style="margin-left:100px">
We haven't as a community debated the merits of ''Death Comes to Time'' or Iris Wildthyme — unless you count [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]]'s summary judgement against the so-called "[[Forum:early Wildthyme books|early Wildthyme books]]".  It has been our apparent convention to handle these exceptions one at a time.  Even within [[Forum:BBV and canon policy]], we were involved in an ''itemised'' discussion.  So mention upthread of the fact that we haven't yet got around to DCTT and IW we can't be used to detract from ''this'' discussion. This discussion is completely consistent with previous practice, and it is in no way appropriate to detract from it by saying that we've ''not'' talked about DCTT yet.
[[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] is insisting in his latest post to go all the way back to the beginning of the thread.  The question before us is no longer — and hasn't been for over a week — the ''excision'' of TID.  I again turn your attention to [[#A new proposal|the top of this section]].  I have agreed with the majority that ''TID'' is a valid source for the writing of in-universe articles ''so long as'' we clearly have a note on each mention of material from ''TID'' which '''points back to this discussion'''.
I think TD is misrepresenting the thread when he says that Josiah thinks "''TID'' should not be viewed as a single case".  Josiah has ''actually'' agreed with me, saying, "The point is that the canonicity of ''TID'' is deliberately ambiguous, and we should find a way to respect that ambiguity" and "the principle of letting information from ''TID'' stay in the main-body text but with a boilerplate note seems like a good compromise to me".  He has only ''rhetorically'' asked what the function of the boilerplate should be, in an effort to characterise the discussion so far.  But his initial response to the original proposal of this section seemed to be in the affirmative.  Obviously, Josiah can and should clarify, but I'm seeing that Josiah has said the precise opposite of what TD suggests.
I think TD isn't being very careful with his other assertions, either. He's saying that my entire argument rests on a single quotation from Parkin.  Not only is that not true, but the one he alludes to is pretty damning.  To admit that you have a Doctor who looks like Paul McGann but is '''definitively not''' the Eighth Doctor is no small admission.  You can't just ignore such a statement.
TD seems to be ''looking'' for some way to disqualify the statement because "it doesn't cite a date" and because he thinks the "interviewer leads Parkin into the statement he makes".  But we do know the date, basically. The interview dates from no earlier than 4Q 2011, because it was given in aid of the ebook releases that are coming in 2012.  Not that time context is particularly ''important'' to this statement, but the "context" is, for all intents and purposes, "now". 
And the suggestion that the interviewer goaded Parkin into saying something he didn't want to say is, frankly, ludicrous. The interviewer asks Parkin to give four books to put into a hypothetical "Lance Parkin Collection".  He says, [[Just War (novel)|Just War]], [[The Infinity Doctors]], [[Father Time (novel)|Father Time]] and [[The Eyeless]]. Completely unprompted by the interviewer, Parkin then says the reason for his choice is that "they're set past-present-Gallifrey-future; each one's a different Doctor".  Because [[Father Time (novel)|Father Time]] is an Eighth Doctor adventure, [[The Eyeless]] is a 10th Doctor, Just War a 7th Doctor, the interviewer ''naturally'' pricks his ears up and wonders if that means Parkin is confirming that ''TID'' doesn't feature the Eighth Doctor.  And then we get the quote at the top of this thread.  If anybody prompted ''anybody'', it was Parkin himself.  The interviewer merely asked a question that naturally arose out of a '''unforced''' statement that Parkin had made.  The quote from Parkin cannot be disqualified or dismissed on any grounds TD has set forth.  It's Parkin who led the interviewer; it's Parkin who said precisely what he wanted to say.  To believe otherwise is to twist the obvious, common-sense reading of the quote.  Taken in its entire context, Parkin is straight-up telling us it's not an Eighth Doctor novel, but somehow the Doctor looks like Paul McGann, which means that TID isn't "normal" DWU continuity. 
TD asks, "WTF does 'mainstream continuity' mean anyway?"  It's a perfectly straightforward phrase that I'm sure TD has encountered many times before and which he himself may have even used.  It means a continuity other than the one that is typically viewed as one applying to a body of fiction. There is no reason to believe that Parkin meant it in anything other than a denotative way.
Moreover, I think TD has somewhat de-emphasised the quotes he himself introduced from ''AHistory''.  These are Parkin's words, too.  And they absolutely introduce doubt as to whether the book occurs in the DWU.  And if TD is going to be allowed to quote from ''AHistory'', then my quote from DWM can't be dismissed.  DWM is a valid resource under [[Tardis:Resources]].  The work of criticism there can't be adjudged as "inferior" to the work of criticism that is ''AHistory''.  The words of ''professional'' critics are instructive to the central question of whether the story's setting is ambiguous.
Finally, TD is still erroneously hung up on this notion that my argument is "based purely on the fact [that] adventures are hard to quantify".  I am not saying "this is too hard; let's not do it".  That's never been my central argument.  Of the five points that started this thread, something ''vaguely'' like that was my '''fifth''' point.  The first four points are squarely about out-of-universe concerns.  As I have said over and over again in this thread, inclusion debates ''must'' hinge on out-of-universe rationales.  They must bring forward statements from the copyright holders or legitimate critics or ''someone'' external to the narrative.
Thus I have demonstrated that Parkin has flatly stated that his Doctor in ''TID'' somehow looks like McGann but isn't the Eighth Doctor, which suggests we're not talking about the DWU as we know it, or as it will ever likely play out.  I've shown that other industry professionals see the book as a metaphorical construct, equally unable to place it in the DWU.  And I've raised the issue of the fact that it was known that there was supposed to be a second book which would have tied this book back into the "mainstream DWU".  Because this book wasn't written, ''TID'' is therefore completely outside the DWU.
TD wishes to place the rule, "prove that it's ''not'' in the DWU", at the center of these proceedings.  That's a '''really odd''' way of thinking.  Generally, though admittedly not always, one tries to prove '''positive''' statements, like "this person ''is'' the murderer" or "this chemical reaction ''will'' produce this result", or "I think she'll say 'yes', so I'm going to ask that girl to marry me".  Except in dictatorships, dourt cases are always framed so that the positive assertion is guilt, that you ''are'' the murderer.  Thus, you only have to prove that you are "not guilty".  The scientific method generally holds that you frame hypotheses positively ("I believe that by combining this amount of hydrogen an this amount of chlorine, I'll get hydrogen chloride"), and then note why that hypothesis failed ("That hypothesis was wrong because my ratio of H:Cl was incorrect."). And you don't ask someone ''not'' to marry you, or ''not'' to marry everyone else. 
In the same way, I'm asking, "is this story set in the DWU?" and have created reasonable doubt, based on statements from the copyright holder, that it is. It's '''completely wrongheaded''' to ask, "Is this story ''not'' set in the DWU?" and then to have to prove a negative.  If we applied this logic to a court of law, we would have to prove people were actually "innocent" rather than "guilty". 
Yet even though I think I've adequately demonstrated reasonable doubt, I'm no longer even asking for us to put ''TID'' outside our fences.  I'm ''only'' asking that we alert readers to the fact that there ''is'' reasonable doubt.
{{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}16:12: Sat&nbsp;19 May 2012&nbsp;</span></div>
::::For the record, I don't think I've stated a position on the question of whether the proposed boilerplate should apply only to ''TID'', or also to other ambiguous cases. CzechOut is right that my questioning was rhetorical, framing the discussion for clarity — but Tangerineduel is right that my preference would be for simple inclusion, with a boilerplate as an acceptable fallback position.
::::My asides about ''Death Comes to Time'' were partly requests for information. I wasn't certain that there had not been a discussion that I failed to find using the (currently wonky) search tool. I wasn't trying to "detract from" anything.
::::I think that CzechOut is slightly misrepresenting Parkin when he interprets "not the Eighth Doctor of mainstream continuity" as equivalent to "'''definitively not''' the Eighth Doctor", full stop. As I've mentioned before, "of mainstream continuity" could mean any of a number of things. One might, for example, say that the appearances of the Second Doctor in ''The Five Doctors'' and ''The Two Doctors'' are not the Second Doctor of mainstream continuity, since in the former he knows about the Time Lords wiping Jamie and Zoe's memories, and in the latter he's working for the Time Lords — neither of which fit with the "mainstream continuity" of the Second Doctor, which ends in ''The War Games''. As I've said before, Parkin has always been '''deliberately ambiguous''' about the canonicity and placement of ''TID'', and this remark is no different.
::::And that leads us to the question of whether we must treat ''TID'' as an individual case, or if there are other works which should be treated the same way. I think that depends on what decision we make about ''TID''. There are other works whose canonicity may be ''disputed'', but I don't think that there are any which were consciously '''created''' with an ambiguous relationship to the ongoing narrative of ''Doctor Who''. Of the works we already exclude, they were either not intended as a link in the narrative chain (e.g. the Unbounds, ''Curse of Fatal Death'') or were superseded by other developments (''Shalka''). The former in a sense cut themselves off from the canon upon their creation; the latter was cut off by diktat. ''Death Comes to Time'' chooses to ignore a major strand of the ongoing narrative (the Eighth Doctor) and attempts to strike off on its own, but such an attempt is by its nature not going to be part of the strand which it denies. ''TID'' is different from any of these. ''TID'' sticks its tongue out at continuity and says, "You don't know if I'm in or out."
::::Because of this, the ''continuity'' problems presented by ''TID'' are slightly different from those presented by, say, the multiple fates of Ace. Other continuity conundrums are usually caused by the interaction between two canonical texts. ''TID'' says "I may or may not be canonical". (As previously expressed, I think that its interaction with other novels suggests that it is, but I acknowledge that the text itself is ambiguous on the question.) So I think that if we do decide to use a template for ''TID'', it should be a unique one. '''However''', that doesn't mean that we shouldn't '''also''' have some sort of template — perhaps a similar one — for other cases of unclear continuity. The two might even be able to be combined, something like this:
<div id=ss style="border-bottom:3px solid #2f2cb8"><div style="background-color:#2f2cb8;color:white;font-size:80%">Accounts of the Doctor's parentage are unclear. All accounts covered by our [[T:CAN|<span style="color:gold">canon policy</span>]] are presented below.</div><div id=sf style="background-color:#ddd">
According to ''[[Lungbarrow (novel)|Lungbarrow]]'', the Doctor was one of forty-five Cousins in the [[House of Lungbarrow]], and had no parents.
<div id=ss style="border-bottom:3px solid #2f2cb8"><div style="background-color:#2f2cb8;color:white;font-size:80%">The following information comes from ''The Infinity Doctors'', a story which may or may not be set in the DWU.</div><div id=sf style="background-color:#ddd">
The Doctor's father was a prominent Time Lord with a close-cropped white beard, and his mother was a human woman with grey eyes.</div></div>
</div></div>
::::I don't know whether this will satisfy anyone: using the "may or may not" language is probably too uncertain for Bob, who will probably find it neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. I'm just trying to find some middle ground here. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 04:36, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with almost everything else Josiah has just said '''about ''The Infinity Doctors'''''.  As he's just confirmed, ''The Infinity Doctors'' '''is unique'''.  It demands a unique response.  Therefore, using this thread to find some sort of ''general'' response to ''other'' "difficult" narratives is completely inappropriate.  Please don't let's get off topic.  If you want to propose a general "this is tricky" boilerplate, it should ideally be done in another thread, as it is a completely separate issue. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}20:27: Sun&nbsp;20 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::It's taken a while to find this, but here's yet more evidence from Parkin himself, from 1 Jan 2004:
::{{quote|... 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.| http://web.archive.org/web/20040930123308/http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/drwho/2004/01/01/13699.shtml}}
::That seems pretty cut and dired to me.  He's flat-out saying that ''TID'' is not in the real DWU, and that the point of the exercise was to write something which was both outside of and about continuity.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}06:54: Mon&nbsp;21 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
:::Thank you CzechOut for going through and finding this interview! This puts things in better context and frames how ''The Infinity Doctors'' came to be.
:::I think this information should be on on ''TID'' page and if the boilerplate is used it should link to that section with this information.
:::I'd also like to retract my proposal for it to be hidden in the proposed template above. In light of this information it frames the novel in a different light and I think CzechOut's boilerplate presents the information in a nicer way. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:05, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
::::I second TD's thanks. This certainly does seem to be clearer than any other interview I'd seen with Parkin. In fact, the interview makes me question my previous attachment to the "may or may not" wording: it seems fairly clear that this ''isn't'' part of the main ''Doctor Who'' universe. But we're still stuck with the fact that it's part of the ''Doctor Who'' '''multiverse''', as it were: elements from this universe show up in DWU stories (Savar, Patience, Larna et al.).It would seem, then to b something akin to [[Pete's World]]: an alternate universe with significant impact on the main universe. It's still part of the narrative body of ''Doctor Who'' (so still shouldn't be treated as completely non-canonical), but it's not the same universe that other stories take place in.
::::Using Pete's World as a model, I suggest a different approach. We create a page for the ''TID'' universe, and for any information that's about that universe, we simply link to the page, like so:
:::::<nowiki>In [[Infinity Doctors universe|one universe]], Gallifrey had six founders.</nowiki>
::::(We can probably figure out a better name than that.) But this way, the information is included in the main body of the text, but without having to resort to any templates, and without creating a new category of quantum canonicity. Howzat? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 18:06, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
:As a DC Universe fan, I'm used to such expressions as, "On [[Earth-2]], Batman married Catwoman".  So Josiah's suggestion seems perfectly acceptable to me.  No cumbersome templates, no awkward "maybe it is, maybe it isn't", no ambiguous "according to one source".  This is a much more direct and definite way of referring to material from the book. Having a simple link pointing back to a page on which we can explain all this is a simple and elegant solution. I don't even have an objection to the proposed title.  I say we just go with [[Infinity Doctors universe]], and then if people have a better idea down the road, we can ''easily'' change it, later.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}15:30: Thu&nbsp;24 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::That sounds fine. Simple and easy. I have no objections. So, can we go ahead and do this or do we need to wait? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:05, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
:::I think we've had a full, even ''exhaustive'', discussion, and all the major participants seem to be getting something they want. I think most neutral observers would have to say that we've arrived at an agreeable consensus. No need for further waiting.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}17:30: Fri&nbsp;25 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
::::Is the page title based on the OOU novel? If so, shouldn't it be "''The Infinity Doctors'' universe"? Or is it based on an in-universe (at least, in-TID-universe) item called Infinity Doctors? I think it should be "''The Infinity Doctors'' universe". '''[[User:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:Tardis1963|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">talk</span>]]''' 12:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
== Archivist's notes ==
This thread has been split into two parts.  This first part deals with the question of what to do about ''The Infinity Doctors'' and comes to a pretty solid conclusion.  How we clean up after this decision has now been moved to [[Forum:Operationalising the Infinity Doctors discussion]].  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}22:05: Mon&nbsp;20 Aug 2012&nbsp;</span>
NateBumber
emailconfirmed, Administrators
15,041

edits

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1102785...3589109"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information