Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown!/Archive 1

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Archive.png
 This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

Rename reason[[edit source]]

Name changed as stated by creator here Toqgers ☎ 08:07, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

missing number[[edit source]]

There is a Watchalong number 8 and number 10, but where is number 9? --Rübenbrei ☎ 19:46, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

I think that someone thought Human Nature / Family of Blood were to be counted seperately. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 19:52, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Paternoster Gang[[edit source]]

Is the Paternoster Gang watch-along really part of this event? It had nothing to do with Emily Cook or the Lockdown! brand. It was organised solely by Big Finish. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 19:52, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Other Watchalongs[[edit source]]

If we are to keep track of ALL tweetalong events during COVID-19 pandemics, I think these events should be added:

But is it really necessary? I mean, anyone can start a tweetalong event. If I arrange a tweetalong event, should it be covered by this article? I think we need some criteria for this article's coverage.--Wholmesian ☎ 05:44, May 6, 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Paternoser Gang watch-along because frankly it has nothing to do with this event, but someone else added it to a newly created “other” section. I agree that a I don’t think these should be covered, anyone can host a watch-along but none of these are part of the same event. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 09:32, May 6, 2020 (UTC)

That does seem a bit of a shame to remove The Five Doctors and the Big Finish ones, I agree that not every watch-along should be posted, but maybe keep it to anything endorsed or organised by Emily Cook or the BBC? I think that's a fair way of doing it if the "other" section is reinstated. VeryFerociousDrama ☎ 10:35, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear that any and all post-Lockdown, COVID-19-era Doctor Who tweetalongs are inspired by Lockdown!. For that reason, so long as the deleted COVID-19 page remains deleted, I think this is the best page to document all the ‘official’ watchalongs. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:50, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

Non-Lockdown stories[[edit source]]

so weve established that non-lockdown watchalongs shouldnt be included. so why sould non-lockdown stories like 'how the monk got his habit'? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

The issue is that the other watchalongs aren't part of any centralised event (or, in TARDIS Monkey's case, aren't in any way shape or form acknowledged by the BBC or other rightsholders). That obviously doesn't apply to something like Message from the Doctor.
Personally, I think they should remain included on this page, if they're covered on the Wiki, until such a time as we have a COVID-19 page again. They might not be branded as Lockdown!, but these "side-releases" are clearly revolving in the same noosphere, following the trail of the ball that Emily Cook got rolling. Sorry for the tortured metaphor. We should have a list of these somewhere, and this is as good a place as any.
This is what the title of the section, "Associated releases" is supposed to convey. They're associated with Lockdown!, so until we get a better idea, that's where we list them; but they're not necessarily part of Lockdown!. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:51, May 17, 2020 (UTC)
an issue to be discussed elsewhere. you shouldt just pile unrelated information here just because another area doesnt exist. the other watch alongs have been decided no to be placed her, and so the nonrelated stories should not be here too. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 14:52, May 17, 2020 (UTC)
That's not your place to decide and it's not mine either. It's the place of an admin, after a lengthy debate involving the rest of the community. Until then, Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point applies. You started this discussion and it must be aired out. The best thing to do would be to create a Panopticon thread, and I'll go do so right now. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:59, May 17, 2020 (UTC)
the information should be removed until it is decided that it is allowed by an admin then... information about non-lockdown stories (which you yourself said deserves to be elsewhere) should not reside on the lockdown page - and theres already a president with the non-lockdown watches being removed. it is incredbly misleading. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎
I've started the Panopticon thread. And I would dispute the idea that it is "incredibly misleading". Again, we're calling these Associated releases, not 100%-on-brand-Lockdwon-originals. A bunch of people have been editing this page in the last few months, including admins, not to mention the oodles more passive readers; you're the first to complain. You do not get to make a decision about this and neither do I. Go argue your point in the forums, and an admin will rule over it eventually, but in the meantme, Tardis:You are bound by current policy. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:06, May 17, 2020 (UTC)

Fear is a Superpower Comic[[edit source]]

The LOCKDOWN! YouTube channel also release a narrated comic strip featuring the life of Danny Pink entitled Fear is a Superpower. It's not exactly a webcast, I'm assuming it still goes under the story list? TheFartyDoctor Talk 18:55, May 20, 2020 (UTC)

Sure! There are already other things than webcasts in the story list. Doctor Who and the Time War, for one. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:00, May 20, 2020 (UTC)

Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery[[edit source]]

Okay, we're straying into edit war territory here. Let's discuss the subject of this project that was posted on the Lockdown! youtube channel. It's a scene of Vincent and the Doctor (TV story), when Starry Night is being conceived, that leads into a series of fan art, and then the gallery scene with "pile of good things and bad things". Does this merit inclusion on this wiki and inclusion in this series? In my view, clearly not. This does not itself constitute a story, as there's a scene, a harsh cut to montage, and then a harsh cut to another scene, with thematic coherence but no narrative coherence. Even putting that aside, there's no new narrative material here, just reposting clips of an already existing episode, at best you should make a note on the episode page, and this wiki is not the place for fan art. And finally, not everything this youtube page does is noteworthy, as evidenced by other videos existing that aren't being talked about on this wiki. Let's discuss. Najawin ☎ 01:22, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

So the issue here isn't "is this part of the event". Technically anyone tweeting while watching the episode is part of the event. It's a tweetalong. It's "is this part of the event and is this something the wiki should cover". I think the reasons I've given establish it's not. Not everything this youtube video posts is worthy of being covered, and this clearly isn't supposed to be taken to be in universe, unlike your example. So, funnily enough, this Wiki actually didn't appear in The Zygon Isolation. Rather, an N-Space version of it did. Which is sort of tangential to the main point, but still defuses it nicely. Najawin ☎ 01:39, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
Well, N-Space is just where Doctor Who takes place. And since this is where the Osgoods exist, sort of by definition they're in N-Space. This isn't speculation. It clearly can't be our wiki, as Doctor Who is not real in our world, but there is Doctor Who (N-Space), and associated fansites. As for why this story isn't taking place in N-Space, well, it's not a story, for one. For the second, we can check the "publisher summary". "A compilation of Vincent van Gogh-inspired Doctor Who fan artwork along with inspirational quotes from the series which have helped fans through tough times." It's very clearly just supposed to be a compilation within a certain framing device using the episode, not an actual story set within N-Space.Najawin ☎ 01:56, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: it is a violation of Tardis:Vandalism policy to alter other users' posts on talk pages, discussion boards, and/or forums. Continued violation of this policy WILL result in a block. Shambala108 ☎ 02:05, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a story, or at the very least not a valid story. However, I see no reason not to have a page about it as a "(documentary)". Devious is a good precedent for a licensed DW documentary serving to showcase bits of something that started out as a fanwork. It doesn't mean very much that the Wiki doesn't have pages on a lot of YouTube documentaries — it also lacks a lot of pages about EDA characters. The fact that Wiki editors are only human doesn't mean the pages shouldn't, in the abstract, exist.
Ergo, I think we can cover Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery the way we cover a lot of episodes of The Fan Show: as a documentary with some invalid in-universe bits that are impossible to separate fully from the documentariness. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 09:47, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. Danochy ☎ 12:25, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
So we all agree it's not a story within the DWU. The issue is that I don't think it's a story without the DWU either, which it would usually need to be to be a documentary. There's simply no narrative to the thing. It's a compilation of fan art. There's no discussion of how the the fan art is impacting people, or how people are making the fan art, these things are taken as ontological primitives and there's a montage of fan art. It can't be a documentary in the traditional sense. It's something else. What else that thing is is up for debate.
As for your example of Devious, I don't think the two are comparable. The one was on a BBC release, so while it wasn't produced with a license, it certainly was distributed as if it had one (though not intended to be in the DWU). But we know that the Lockdown as a whole does not have a license. This is something that's come up multiple times in our discussions in Thread:273268. The things that are debatable are "new Official Doctor Who stories", and what those are and whether those are licensed. This is quite clearly not one of those. So I think it just blatantly runs afoul of T:NO FANVID, especially considering the definition of fanvid given in the sidebar there. Najawin ☎ 18:13, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
But… if it's not a story at all, but rather a documentary, then it wouldn't need a license, would it? The portion of T:VS that's concerned with things having commercial licenses is for what counts as a valid story. But for documentary features, all that's required is that the source be reliable. I think a DWM editor like Emily Cook is a reliable source for REF information, and that's what matters.
(This Wiki's understanding of "documentary", unless I'm very wrong, is "video or audio product that tells about DW in the real world rather than being a purveyor of fiction". Vincnt and the Doctor's Gallery very much is that if nothing else.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:38, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

My point on the license issue is more to show that the two aren't comparable. Not to argue that it's not a documentary. The argument for why it's not a documentary is the prior paragraph, which I think still stands. This doesn't tell us anything about Doctor Who. It isn't intended to tell us about Doctor Who. It's intended to be a collection of fan art and inspirational quotes that have helped people through these tough times. It's intended to be part of Lockdown's overall goal, which is more community and keeping people in high spirits. But it's not telling us anything about Doctor Who or anything about Doctor Who Fan Culture except listing off a set of ontological primitives. Which just isn't sufficient for a documentary. Najawin ☎ 18:44, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's showcasing a bunch of real-world Doctor Who-related objects (namely, the pieces of fanart). If standalone releases of VFX tests, without any additional commentary, count as documentaries, then I think so should this. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:46, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
If it's an individual VFX test, or a compilation of a single or similar VFX tests, that actually has narrative continuity, funnily enough. If it's just a bunch of random VFX effects thrown together, I'd agree, that would be precedent, as that's just a bunch of ontological primitives thrown together with no relation, exactly the same situation as we have here. I'd prefer to call that not a documentary and invent a new term, and perhaps then argue whether this should be covered under that new term. But by T:BOUND it would be precedent, that's just my preference. Najawin ☎ 18:52, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
Well, User:OncomingStorm12th changed Heaven Sent Previsualizations’s dab term from my "(webcast)" to "(documentary)". User:SOTO later removed the dab term altogether due to their not being any conflict, but not denying that if we were to use a dab term, this would be the correct one. So there we are. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:00, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think this qualifies. These are both shots mocked up in CGI, actual scenes, described, and they're united by the description of being previsualizations of a single episode. What I imagined you talking about was, say, someone compiling different VFX effects from S3 into a single documentary, and showing how they did Lazarus before immediately showing a mockup of the Master's regeneration. That would be the level of discontinuity that's analogous. (I apologize for the miscommunication, in my mind VFX test = you're testing the visual effects, not creating a CGI mockup of a scene that will be created later with some CGI and some live action.) Najawin ☎ 19:09, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
I mean, all the pieces of fan-submitted art featured in Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery are also united by a common theme, indeed, united by a common episode as their subject. I'm not sure I follow. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:14, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

The "actual scenes" clause there is rather relevant. But this also just isn't true. There are two pieces of artwork that are generic TARDISes. Perhaps they'd be more relevant from afar? But from what we can see they've got no connection to the framing device. (Also if I want to be really pedantic, some of their connection to the episode is just the style of art, "The Pandorica Opens" is featured, and that belongs to a latter episode. As in, Vincent Van Gogh outright shows up in a latter episode with the picture, so it's just out of place here. But I don't think I need to be that specific.) Najawin ☎ 19:24, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

An Adventure in Space and Time[[edit source]]

A watchalong for An Adventure in Space and Time has been announced and scheduled for the 23rd of May, featuring live commentary from Mark Gatiss and Sacha Dhawan with the hashtag #London1963. Since the page is protected, I am hereby requesting for an administrator to add it to the list of watchalongs. TheDarkBomber -- Talk Page 12:38, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

What's more, another lock-down story has also come out Doctors Assemble. This also needs to be added as well. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 18:12, May 23, 2020 (UTC)

Name change proposal, and dates[[edit source]]

Just wanted to drop a message here I can't see a discussion about the proposal to change this article's name to "Lockdown!". Personally, I don't see a problem with this especially if it is the convention of this wiki for "Doctor Who:..." articles. Although, I have noticed another article titled "Lockdown" without the "!", so perhaps the distinction is necessary/useful to avoid confusion. Opinions anyone?

Also, I noticed that the dates of this are listed as "21 March 2020-present", but this should probably be changed as per tweets such as https://twitter.com/Emily_Rosina/status/1269671792785973248 and https://twitter.com/Emily_Rosina/status/1269532196492148736 which indicate June 7th as the final date. Oswinoswaldbowtiesarecool ☎ 23:04, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

the page should be "Doctor Who: LOCKDOWN!" that is what Emily Cook officially stated that she was naming the event. [1] the YouTube channel also takes this exact name, and only the tweets go by "#DoctorWhoLockdown" because i'm pretty sure you cannot have a colon or exclamation mark in the hashtag - dont know why the "Lockdown" wasnt capitalised in the hashtag but it is elsewhere. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:10, June 9, 2020 (UTC)
While this is all true, please see the threads linked in the rename template for why this page might not be named that way. Thread:116217 seems to be a dead link, but Forum:Doctor Who prefix in titles seems to work alright. Danochy ☎ 23:42, June 9, 2020 (UTC)
Capitalising Lockdown brings us a technical problem (all caps is read as shouting, and words in all caps at this length are caught by the abuse filter unless a specific exception is made), so it is certainly easier for us to read "Doctor Who: LOCKDOWN!" as a stylisation of "Doctor Who: Lockdown!". This would incidentally be following Wikipedia's lead on non-standard capitalisation when the name isn't an acronym. If you google the name, you'll find news sources for Lockdown in regular title case, so it (presumably) isn't our invention. Finally, there's the issue of inconsistency. The YouTube channel might be called "Doctor Who: LOCKDOWN!" now, but the title of each video excludes the exclamation mark. We've gotta go with something.
As for the prefix issue, we have decided to retain the Doctor Who prefix where doing away with it would bring ambiguity (or require unnecessary disambiguation). ex: A Celebration vs. Doctor Who: A Celebration, or Regeneration vs. Doctor Who: Regeneration. This is a possibility if that's what is resolved through discussion.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 00:05, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
thanks for going into detail, the link in the rename tag wasn't going to the thread (just taking me back to the main page). i think the name is best as it is right now. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:35, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
(The correct link is Thread:117218)
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 00:37, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

DWM 554[[edit source]]

I am cautious posting this, as I do not want to reopen the discussion outside of the current thread, but I think that this information is extremely important. @RingoRoadagain claims that DWM 554 gives a comprehensive list on all of the stories that they believe to be part of the “Lockdown Season” (with the insight of having interviewed creatives like Emily Cook.


The stories that are left behind are;

The BBC released stories - which most were in agreement deserved their own page


The released COVID-related video messages


This leaves three stories (two of which are worthy candidates for deletion):


It only seems logical to go with the stories that DWM credited as being “Lockdown” releases, while finding new places to house the other stories. I think that a new page should be created to house the BBC lockdown stories. The COVID-related video messages could be covered on the main COVID or Lockdown pages.

That leaves us with the three stories that are orphaned. I am more than sure that two out of three stories will find themselves deleted (or merged) before long, and the final story – Dalek alternative script extract – could remain on this page as mention only rather than on the stories list (as it is the odd one out of all the other releases which all got webcasts – even the short story that was ‘Revenge of the Nestene’ got the webcast of Jacob Dudman’s narration). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:15, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

DWM 554 does contain this list, and I agree that it is a very interesting piece of data. Still, it makes no claim to be "comprehensive", nor that the list itself was based on their discussions with Cook.
It also notably includes the non-narrative Long Song cover, which they don't separate from the rest at all, so they clearly use different criteria than we would in any case. Since we're going to slightly mess with their scheme by not including Long Song in the same list, I see no reason not to also leave Dalek alternative script extract in the list, possibly with a footnote explaining that it was not included in the DWM article. Ditto for How The Monk Got His Habit under the current policy of considering it a short story, though of course, if your proposal to merge it goes through, that would change matters somewhat.
After all, DWM are positing a Lockdown Season. It is obvious that such a thing could only contain media which are, in one shape or another, video. This is not necessarily a denial that prose obviously released under the Lockdown! banner (in this case, the Dalek alternative script extracts and arguably Monk) is not part of Lockdown!.
I agree that the lack of any mention of the BBC Website stories is compelling evidence to house them on a different page, albeit with prominent link from that page to this one and vice-versa. We might also think of some scheme whereby Doctor Who and the Time War and Incoming Message, while not part of the list of stories, are mentioned in the infobox of the watchalongs themselves as having been released to tie in with the Rose watchalong, even if they are not quite part of the Lockdown! brand and/or Season. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:26, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
Not interested at all in going over the discussions we have been circling for the past couple of months once again. The reason for my post was to publish the new information, that you erased from the page, as it is extremely valuable.
You can suggest that they use different criteria all you like, but the fact is that what is published in DWM is more reliable than your interpretatiobs. Coincidentally, their list is the exact same as the one I originally created at the start of the discussion...!
I will leave the topic for the admins to pick up, and hope that the new information speeds up the resolution. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:31, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
I was actually trying to avoid the main sticking points of our arguments (such as the Monk story). Still, the fact remains that the list you reproduced above is not quite the list DWM gave us. The list DWM gave us includes the Long Song cover, and the formatting of the article leaves no question that they consider it to be an installment of "the Lockdown Season" like any other, non-narrative though it may be.
The matter cannot possibly be resolved (by admins or otherwise) until a full solution is put forward in the Forums. Your post, while mistaken in one respect, was a step on the way to constructing such a solution, and I'd like your opinion on the option to e.g. mention the two not-quite-Lockdown stories released on the day of the Rose watchalong in the watchalongs table but not the stories list. Surely this doesn't require sparking up any old arguments?
I did not 'erase' this information from the page. The lead already contains a paragraph describing the contents of the DWM article. It phrases it by pointing out which stories currently held to be Lockdown! by this Wiki the DWM article did not include — but that is the same information, and it was redundant to have it appear twice. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:37, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
The Long Song cover is the only lockdown-created documentary that could be properly reviewed. All of the other documentaries are either news related, preparations for the song cover, work that was created long ago (like the Heaven Sent stuff) or a COVID-related webcast like The Doctors Say Thank You. The only other thing created in lockdown was Vincent and the Doctor’s Gallery and that is just a collection of fan work, not really worth reviewing.
The fact is that I believe the true lockdown releases have been obvious from the start - case in point my original list matching DWM’s. That’s why I have no intention whatsoever discussing it with you further as I know we are unable to see eye to eye on this matter. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’d go another 500 posts before agreeing, and I’m not prepared to do it. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:53, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
I dunno what's all this talk of "reviewing" is. The Wiki is unconcerned with what you choose to critique. (Unless you mean "rewatch"? But again, T:NPOV. If you think these documentaries are dull, that's your problem.)
But again, staying away from the matter of what is a part of Lockdown!, I don't see why you won't provide feedback on a suggestion for what to do with possibly the only two damn things which we agree aren't quite part of Lockdown! yet should be covered, namely Incoming Message and Doctor Who and the Time War. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:02, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
Mention only in the introduction - similar to the other content and watchalongs. That has always been my stance. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 01:06, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

New Evidence re Lockdown stories[[edit source]]

The official Doctor Who: Lockdown! website, which launched today, gives us a list of "Minisodes" and "Extras" that are counted as part of the official Lockdown event.

The minisodes are as follows (and this information lines up EXACTLY with what was explained in DWM 554 which I mentioned above);

"Extras" are;

Now two individual sources; the official Lockdown website and the DWM, both reveal that those 16 stories above are the only releases associated with the Lockdown brand.

We should be finding a place to rehouse the other stories listed in the associated releases section. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 15:57, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Quite so. We're long overdue finding some way to split the BBC website stories from the YouTube and Twitter stories.
Fact remains, though, that a lot of the documentary webcasts that are unquestionably part of Lockdown! (having been released on the YouTube channel) aren't on the website's listings: no A-to-Z of Impressions With Jon Culshaw to be seen, for example. And Tests for the Mechanism of Heaven Sent's Confession Dial isn't listed despite being clearly the same thing as Heaven Sent Previsualizations. So while this reinforces that we should find somewhere else to put the BBC stories than in the same table as the strictly Lockdown! ones, we shouldn't get carried away.
I still think the easiest solution is to keep it all on this page but split the lists further — I'm thinking three sections using the titles and listings given on the new website ("Minisodes", "Singalongs", "Extras"), then "BBC website stories", then a "Miscellaneous" in which we can stuff the other Lockdown! YouTube channel videos, Incoming Message, How The Monk Got His Habit, and so on. I'm unsure if the BBC videos (like Message from the Doctor) should be lumped in with "BBC website stories," "Miscellaneous", or be yet a sixth listing.
Thoughts? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:08, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. 16:16, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
We should be going with what DWM and the official Doctor Who: Lockdown site tells us - especially as they both agree on which stories count and which stories don't.
The 6 BBC stories should be on their own page, and the 3 COVID-related messages should be either with them or relegated to mentions on the COVID-related pages (unsure which ones).
The only stories I can see that should be up for discussion are; Breaking Isolation and How The Monk Got His Habit. In my opinion these two should either be mentioned only - due to the fact that they are the only invalid releases and have not been claimed by either Emily Rosina or the Lockdown team, or at a push included in the "Extras" section. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 16:19, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
User:Najawin's question at Talk:COVID-19#Behind the scenes has yet to be answered and could prove relevant here. Although it would not be my perfect solution due to the omissions Scrooge mentioned above, it could be feasible to cover on this article only what is on the website and then use the bts section of the COVID-19 article to provide an overview of everything else that has been created, or otherwise affected, as a result of the pandemic. --Borisashton ☎ 16:22, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
That's maybe a valid place to shunt off the BBC websites stories — although even then, it's weird historical revisionism to act as though Doctor Who and the Time War wasn't very specifically released to tie in with the Lockdown! tweetalong of TV: Rose. The real problems are the webcasts that are on the Doctor Who: Lockdown! YouTube channel, just not on the website. And, of course, Monk, which was released as part of the tweetalong hashtag, but not through the usual channels.
Speaking of which, @DiSoRiEnTeD1, those are far from the only two invalid releases. Spoof Scenes ain't valid, just to name one that unquestionably belongs on this page. But there are also all the documentary-type things and singalongs.
(I think we can discount Breaking Isolation at this stage, though. I still maintain that it can be read as a story in its own right, but in hindsight it's clear that it wasn't actually part of Lockdown! to any extent, so its licensedness is up for debate. The page should probably be reconverted into being about the poem it stole the image from, and the comic story Breaking Isolation, which was technically "fanfic", will become a BTS note. Not because it fails Rule 1, though. But because it fails Rules 2 and 3.)--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:29, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if you yourself @ScroogeMacDuck took responsibility of Breaking Isolation having learned from your problematic creation of the K9 "stories" (which turned out to just be replies from the official Twitter account). This "story" was only a picture from another work with a single caption, it does not equate a new story - and several people on Talk: Breaking Isolation (comic story) agree with that.
With Breaking Isolation removed from the equation the only story I see without a place is How The Monk Got His Habit. The 16 Lockdown stories can go on this page along with the 3 Extra features, and the 6 BBC website stories can go on their own page along with the 3 video messages. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 16:31, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
…Look, if you're going to ignore the arguments raised in answer to your points, I'm going to have to ask you to stop participating in this conversation until you've actually read through it properly. To wit, to name but one: the Lockdown! webcasts that are on the YouTube channel but not on the website: what do we do with'em, in your scheme?
The video messages also can't all go on the BBC website because it's not clear that Incoming Message was licensed by the BBC rather than by RTD himself, creator and owner of the character Yvonne Hartman. Even if the BBC lent it their approval, however, it certainly wasn't released by the Beeb.
I can see shunting off the BBC website stories to their own page, if that's what the consensus is, but we're still going to need a "Miscellaneous" list on the Lockdown! page to cover things like Tests for the Mechanism of Heaven Sent's Confession Dial. I suggest we stick Monk there, perhaps with a footnote explaining the specificities of that particular story's release. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:39, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the length of a story is irrelevant, @DiSoRiEnTeD1 - go check out Vrs and Untitled - two very short stories, each under a word count of no more than 25.
And also, theoretically, a flash-faction short story could be released on Twitter, as it is possible for a story of such a short length to be contained within a Tweet. 16:41, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
Scrooge, please do not accuse me of being off-topic in a discussion I raised.
There is no way that I was able to discuss anything else while Breaking Isolating was still factoring into that argument. I pointed out that I saw it as your responsibility to deal with this “story” (which was in actuality just a picture from another story, with a one-word caption and no evidence of it having been intended to be a story in its own right). Since Breaking Isolating has been dealt with, I am now able to discuss other things without that causing issues. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 20:36, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

(I simply reiterate the massive hole in the argument concerning Doctor Who and the Time War, while noting that "Lockdown Who Extras" says "Exclusive extra content released in conjunction with the Tweetalongs", which, even if the prose stories on the BBC website were intended to be part of Lockdown!, they would instantly fail, as they're not exclusive.) Najawin ☎ 16:48, November 3, 2020 (UTC)


Here is what I think should be done:

  • How The Monk Got His Habit should be mention only on the Doctor Who: Lockdown page as something mentioned by one of the tweetalong guests but not an official release claimed by the Lockdown team.

Finally, I will go through each of the documentary features in turn:

That leaves only two which I am completely at a loss as to where they deserve to be placed; Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery and An A-Z of Impressions with Jon Culshaw!. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 22:04, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

I commend User:DiSoRiEnTeD1's lengthy and precise post immediately above mine, but would also, as regards his earlier post, direct his attention to the fact that the ruling at what is now Talk:Games (NWASH short story) is most emphatically not that it failed Rule 1. Simply that it failed Rules 2 and 3. It is not a T:BOUND violation to mistakenly claim that it failed Rule 1, of course; talk is one thing and editing is another. But it is incorrect.
Also, DiSoRiEnTeD1 when I took issue with your earlier post, it had nothing to do with your focusing on Breaking Isolation. Rather, I took issue with your statement that "(…) with Breaking Isolation removed from the equation the only story [you] could see without a place is How The Monk Got His Habit" when there exists a much more pressing issue than Monk, and one which had already been brought up: the other YouTube webcasts.
But now you have addressed this issue, so, let's see. Under your scheme, we're already allowing ourselves to put things that clearly are extras in the "Extras" section, so I don't see why we wouldn't do the same for Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery and An A-Z of Impressions with Jon Culshaw!. I think it's a toss-up whether we put Monk on this expanded "Extras" list — it's after all basically the same thing as Spoof Scenes, in much the same way that Tests for the Mechanism of Heaven Sent's Confession Dial is pretty much the same thing as Heaven Sent Previsualizations — or if we mention it in-text on the page, but keep it off the "official" table. Either solution works. We both know where we stand there, so I suggest we stop bickering about it and put it up for the rest of the community to decide. It's a relatively minor matter.
The singalongs will most definitely not be merged, though. We can have a page about the "series" on its own terms, but one webcast = one page, regardless of length or narrativity. I mean, that's just common sense, IMO. This Wiki's basic policies must be clear and easy to enforce: "one officially-licensed webcast = one page" is as basic as it gets, and is much simpler to keep track of than lumping some webcast series into one page, and some not. We used to do something like this in the early days of the Wiki — I believe the Monster Files were once all covered on one page — but this fell by the wayside fairly quickly, and quite right too. (This is also the reason we want to have a page for BBC News - Friday 3 April 2020 (documentary). The fact that it was or was not aired on the BBC earlier is immaterial. What we have a page about is the webcast itself, as a webcast.)
But the singalongs are a non-problem. The website gives us a header for them, held to be equivalent to "Minisodes" and "Extras," so if you want us to hew as close to how the website presents it as possible, I don't see why we can't just make a third table/list.
Also, I think you might have mentioned this before, but just so we have the entire proposal in one place: what name are you proposing for the six BBC website short stories' collective page, again?--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:16, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
The difference between Dalek: Spoof Scenes and How The Monk Got His Habit is that the former was claimed by both Emily Cook and the Lockdown website. As far as I am aware, Monk has never once been acknowledged by any of the Doctor Who: Lockdown team (apart from when Emily Cook dismissed it as being something that Peter Harness "mentioned"). Therefore I definitely think that all it deserves is a mention along the lines of "During his appearance as a tweetalong guest Peter Harness revealed scrapped ideas for a television episode and a short story".
While I don't think that the webcasts for the singalong deserve separate pages (literally one of them is only for information on how to get involved...) I think that an umbrella page for the series should exist, and that this page should be the only one linked under a third heading "singalong" (along with the upcoming Christmas Carol singalong series).
Maybe the name for the BBC releases something like BBC Lockdown releases. I'm not really familiar with naming conventions, etc. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 22:34, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to create an umbrella page for Singalong (series), but unless we do the same for "Extras" and "Minisodes" I don't see why we shouldn't link to every individual webcast. Again, that's how the Lockdown! website does it. I'm not sure why you find anything wrong with it, save for this (as I have said, misguided) notion of yours that the content (or lack thereof, as the case may be!) of the webcasts is at all relevant to this issue.
Also, I feel like a broken record, but as has clearly been established already, Cook's comment on How The Monk Got His Habit clearly referred to the unproduced TV story, not to the short story — and the latter is the thing we're talking about here. Consequently, whether it has or has not been "acknowledged by any of the Doctor Who: Lockdown team" depends on whether we deem Peter Harness, in his quality as the guest of honour of the Zygon tweetalong, counted as part of the "team". I say yea, you say nay. We could argue about this until the cybercows come home to roost. As I have said, let's stop talking about it between the two of us and leave the matter of whether it goes in the text, or in-the-table-but-with-a-footnote, to the rest of the community.
BBC Lockdown releases would be a bad idea because it kind of implies that these stories were part of the event known as "Lockdown", whereas the whole point of splitting them into another page would be to highlight that they're not. How do the BBC themselves call it, on their website? That's what we need to look at. What language (if not what title) they use. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:53, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

I once again reiterate my point that the wording of the website does not actually confirm that the BBC releases are not to be taken as part of Lockdown!, but rather they are not exclusively hosted as Lockdown! content. The BBC hosted their prose stories on Staying in the TARDIS, which as noted the original discussion, was originally a slapdash affair that they sort of churned out very quickly. (It's since gotten much better.) Najawin ☎ 23:15, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Have only just seen this comment.
The short stories are still there, albeit quite far down the page. I think that a page for Staying in the TARDIS should be created - all six BBC lockdown stories should be housed on this page, along with information about the puzzles, games, recipes and other things that were released under the "Staying in the TARDIS" brand. Also, the video The Doctors Say Thank You is listed here too. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 01:20, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

The umbrella title for the Long Song singalong should be The Lockdown Longsong - which is the title given to it by the Doctor Who: Lockdown website. Likewise, the upcoming Christmas carol singalong should be given the title A Lockdown Carol.

Here is my draft of how the page should look;

Minisodes

# Title Featuring Tweetalong Author Release date
1 Strax Saves the Day Strax, Vastra The Day of the Doctor Steven Moffat 21 March 2020
2 Revenge of the Nestene Nestene Consciousness Rose Russell T Davies 26 March 2020
3 The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond Amelia Pond The Eleventh Hour Steven Moffat 3 April 2020
4 Rory's Story Rory, Amy The Doctor's Wife Neil Gaiman 11 April 2020
5 Farewell, Sarah Jane Jo, Ace, Gita, Luke, Clyde, Rani, Mr Smith The Stolen Earth/Journey's End Russell T Davies 19 April 2020
6 Shadow of a Doubt Bernice Summerfield, Daughter of Mine Human Nature/The Family of Blood Paul Cornell 24 April 2020
7 The Shadow in the Mirror Thirteenth Doctor, Daughter of Mine
8 Sven and the Scarf Sven Dalek Andrew Ireland 30 April 2020
9 Pompadour SS Madame de Pompadour The Girl in the Fireplace Steven Moffat 6 May 2020
10 The Zygon Isolation Osgood, Osgood The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion Peter Harness 10 May 2020
11 The Descendants of Pompeii Lobus Caecilius's descendants The Fires of Pompeii James Moran 17 May 2020
12 Listen Twelfth Doctor Listen Steven Moffat 20 May 2020
13 Fear Is a Superpower Danny Pink, Clara James Peaty
14 Doctors Assemble! The Doctors An Adventure in Space and Time James Goss 23 May 2020
15 The Secret of Novice Hame Hame, Tenth Doctor New Earth/Gridlock Russell T Davies 30 May 2020
16 The Best of Days Bill, Nardole World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls Steven Moffat 7 June 2020

Extras

# Title Featuring Tweetalong Author Release date
1 Dalek: Spoof Scenes Ninth Doctor, Rose Dalek Robert Shearman 30 April 2020
2 Tests for the Mechanism of Heaven Sent's Confession Dial Heaven Sent 14 April 2020
3 Heaven Sent Previsualizations
4 Sally Sparrow and the Weeping Angel Sally Sparrow, Weeping Angels Blink Steven Moffat 2 November 2020

Singalongs

# Title Tweetalong Release date
1 The Lockdown Longsong The Rings of Akhaten 26 May 2020
2 A Lockdown Carol A Christmas Carol TBC

DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:20, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Singalongs, I think you don't understand. Our pages are not about the events. They are about the individual webcasts that happened to be made about the events. Insofar as we document the "events", we should do so in a completely different part of the page than the one devoted to releases. (Also, why not include the A-Z in "Extras" as I proposed?) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:23, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
I see no need whatsoever to include all of the Long Song releases on a list for this page. A link to an umbrella Long Song series page could be provided (as can be seen on my draft) and then that page could provide a list of all the releases in that series. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 01:34, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that's viable — but by the same token we might as wellc reate Lockdown! Extras, Lockdown! Minisodes, and so on, and link to those. I'm not sure why you want to treat the singalong webcasts differently to the other kinds, is what I'm saying. Your solution is certainly feasible by policy, but it just seems a bit odd. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:38, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Re:A similar misunderstanding, I believe there was agreement on the old thread to create a page for Staying in the TARDIS, but this did not solve our disagreement over whether the stories should still be considered part of Lockdown! or not. So while surely such a page should be created, it's not a solution to the problem we find ourselves in, which is the ambiguous wording of the website and the messy nature of the whole affair. Najawin ☎ 01:43, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
If I had it my way there would only be a single page for all the Long Song material, but you have said that they deserve separate pages and so I have reluctantly accepted that.
I still think that only the umbrella series should be liked to this page however - this will simplify the information to the casual reader. The separate Long Song releases have long titles and there are quite a few of them, this will get even more complicated when the Christmas Carol cover comes. It just looks better and is easier for casual readers to access the information and immediately see that there were two singalongs rather than a bunch of information about how to be a part of the event, etc. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 01:47, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
That's a fair concern. How about splitting the tables via further subtitles? Something like:
===Singalongs===
[Brief overview of the singalongs as a whole]
====The Lockdown Long Song====
[Brief written overview of the Long Song cover]
[Table with all the Long Song webcasts]
====The Lockdown Carol====
[Brief written overview of the Carol cover]
[Table with all the Carol webcasts]
…? This would allow us to keep everything on one page without being needlessly confusing. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:53, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
But, surely we’re going to have series pages for the separate singalongs anyway - so why not just link to those instead of repeating the information on two pages? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 01:56, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Er, no, I'm not sure we should have pages on the singalongs qua singalongs. We could if we wanted to, but there's not that much precedent for making pages about "events" like this, as opposed to tangible releases that are part of them. I'm not even sure we'd have a page on Lockdown! itself if it was just tweetalongs with no associated releases, even if the tweetalongs were officially-backed.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:05, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear I’m taking about having The Long Song (series) which covers all the Long Song webcasts in one place (and then having a similar one for the upcoming Christmas Carol singalong), as opposed to having a Singalong (series). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 02:08, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Hm. I see. Well, we theoretically could do that. But I'm not sure I entirely see the benefit of doing that, when my above proposition for organising the list of webcasts on the Lockdown! page does the same job of clearly delineating the two singalongs. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:13, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
The series pages will be made regardless, as there were a series of several releases posted in regards to the Long Song. Therefore I see no reason as to why the information would need to be repeated on this page - when a link to the series overview page would work just as well. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 08:54, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
I keep telling you, there is nothing certain about us giving those a series overview page. We might. It's a possibility. But it's not at all a done deal. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:50, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Well it should be. There were a series of releases on the same topic and therefore those need an overview page, that is literally what those pages are intended for. I didn’t even think that was up for debate. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 12:09, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
But have they been presented as individual series? You might argue that Singalong as a whole has been rpesented as as subseries to Lockdown!. But the Long Song webcasts and then Christmas Carol webcasts don't seem like further subseries to me, so much as the non-narrative equivalent of "story arcs" within the Singalong series. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:43, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are presented as part of “The Lockdown Longsong” on the official lockdown website. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 12:49, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the T:SPOIL concerns have just evaporated from around another major piece of evidence, pointing in a very direction from the website. I'm talking, of course, about Adventures in Lockdown, which freely mixes BBC website stories with novelisations of Lockdown! webcasts — and also throws in a prose version of WC: Message from the Doctor for good measure! I honestly can think of few stronger arguments for keeping it all on one page in some fashion. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:01, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
At this point this is just a continuation of Thread:273268, which was closed due to length and no admin has given the go ahead for re-opening discussion. My suggestion is that we shelve the discussion for now (as we're potentially in violation of some policy or another by having this discussion), wait until we're back on the forums, and take the temperature of the admin team for reopening the discussion. While I hope given the distance from the original subject and time to cool off we might be more productive and not need 500 comments, the risk of making no real headway due to how inherently slapdash the whole affair has been is still a very real possibility. Najawin ☎ 16:48, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to a further cooling-off period, but, er, Najawin, I am in fact an admin, these days. My participation in this conversation should be understood as a tacit acknowledgement that as the thread closed itself for technical reasons instead of anybody actually making an active decision to close it, and since this is an issue that is of immediate importance to our coverage of an ongoing part current DWU media, it was in fact okay for us to take these concerns here and continue discussing them.
Also, generally, while the Forums remain incapacitated, talk pages can and should serve as the next best thing to discuss urgent issues with specific pages and groups of pages. They're not the place to hold a proper inclusion debate or policy-changing threads, but things like the conversation here or at Talk:Emperor of the Restoration, which, under normal circumstances, could and should have been Threads, are perfectly fair to bring to talk pages. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:03, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
I realize you're an admin, that fact was not lost on me. I was just taking into consideration the rather pointed refusal of admins prior to reopen discussion. If you think the situation has changed sufficiently to do so, by all means. Najawin ☎ 17:07, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I'm willing to entertain arguments otherwise by outside-observes among my fellow admins, if anyone wants to put any forward. But the situation has changed significantly from how it was a few months ago.
First, we originally thought Lockdown! had run its course. Well, no. Surprise, everyone: it's alive and kicking. So it's not a "how do we sort out those twenty-something stories we already know all about", but a "what are we going to present editors with as they add more and more to the pile". That's immediately more urgent.
Second, even by ordinary T:BOUND standards, User:DiSoRiEnTeD1's first post here presented some compelling new evidence, and now even more new evidence has been added in the form of the anthology book.
So I'm fairly confident that this discussion was due for a second attempt. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:12, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
My concern is actually T:POINT, not T:BOUND. Namely, the "single thread" clause. Regardless, I don't actually mind the discussion continuing, aside from, you know, it being on a talk page rather than a forum (which we can't fix at this time). Najawin ☎ 17:18, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

What you fail to grasp, Scrooge, is that while the Doctor Who: Lockdown! and the BBC releases are contained within Adventures in Lockdown that is an anthology book about all of the releases from lockdown NOT all of the releases from Emily Cook’s event which this page is for.

The DWM and the official lockdown website have given us very specific guidelines as to which stories count as part of this event. It completely baffles me as to how that can continue to be challenge, and I actually didn’t think that it still was - I thought the discussion had progressed onto dealing with the documentaries and other things. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:25, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

As Najawin pointed out, the website's wording makes it less definitive than it seemed to start with. And DWM was never very definitive to start with, being that it only cared about webcasts and didn't even include the one prose story we are now certain beyond reasonable doubt should be considered part of Lockdown!: Spoof Scenes. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:31, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
The website has done no such thing, this is a mischaracterization of what the website actually says. The website says the "extras" tab is
Exclusive extra content released in conjunction with the Tweetalongs.
This disqualifies the BBC prose stories not because they're not part of Lockdown!, but because the BBC owns the rights to them and they're not exclusive to Lockdown!. It may be that they're not part of Lockdown!. But this website cannot establish that. Najawin ☎ 17:34, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
That’s absolutely not the case - but regardless, it is your burden to prove that beyond reasonable doubt rather than saying “it may be”.
Also, Dalek: Spoof Scenes is not an original story - it is placed into the “Extras” section. None of the “Extras” releases were covered by DWM. The magazine was covering the stories (now called “Minisodes”) and their list is exactly the same as that of the lockdown website, so the Dalek Spoof not being included is not a contradiction. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:37, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
By definition, no prose stories could have been put in "Minisodes". Hence why Dalek: Spoof Scenes is under "Extras". Nobody's denying that it's a story, but it's not a minisode.
Likewise, DWM was covering the "season" of "webcasts". As such, while it can feasibly be used to rule out the other COVID-era webcasts (e.g. Message from the Doctor), it would not have been its remit to discuss the prose stories regardless of whether they were part of Lockdown!.
And looking at the timeline, the first of the prose stories was, of course, Doctor Who and the Time War, whose release we know was prompted by Cook. As such, assuming all the other BBC website short stories were released as "follow-ups" to Time War, it becomes apparent that the BBC website short stories are a "spin-off" of the mainline Lockdown! releases, regardless of whether Cook personally continued to be involved with them. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:42, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
No, it’s “apparent” that the BBC were inspired to do something of their own after the success of Doctor Who: Lockdown! However, these stories were not part of that event.
From what I recall, the reason that Emily Cook promoted Doctor Who and the Time War was because that story was what RTD was originally going to offer up to the Doctor Who: Lockdown! event (before Chris Chibnall approached him for some material for BBC’s separate event).
Other than this story I can’t see her having promoted any of the other BBC stories? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:51, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

A: You can't just say "nuh uh". The wording on extras is very distinct from the wording on minisodes, "exclusive" only shows up on the former.

B: The "it may be" referred to your position that they're not part of Lockdown!. The website in principle cannot show that the prose pieces are not part of it - the category under which they would fall (certainly not minisodes) has a word that explicitly rules out the BBC prose stories from ever being listed even if they're part of Lockdown!. You need other evidence. Najawin ☎ 17:46, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

She quotetweeted Incoming Message while using a hashtag relevant to the tweetalong. As stated in the thread
Are we really going to pretend that Cook, ostensibly an adult, can't differentiate between retweeting a fan video using the hashtag, constituting an endorsement of this as a fan action within the grounds of the tweetalong, and retweeting an official Doctor Who story using the hashtag constituting an endorsement of this as an official story within the grounds of the tweetalong? Who are we trying to fool here?
You accused this of "speculation". Najawin ☎ 18:06, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
Actually I pointed out that she also used the hashtag on several fan videos - therefore the hashtag alone isn’t enough to confirm the story’s involvement with Doctor Who: Lockdown! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 18:08, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
And as we already said then, all this proves is that unlicensed fan productions can be part of Lockdown! too. Which is also what Cook has always promoted as the essence of Lockdown!: fan engagement. Just because we don't cover those productions, doesn't mean they're not part of Lockdown! just as much as the licensed ones. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:25, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Please can either of you explain - again if you already have, why the six BBC releases should count as being part of lockdown. So far the only reason that I can see is that Emily Cook retweeted one of those six stories - so why should the other five stories be counted? The way I see it Doctor Who and the Time War should be mentioned on this page, as it was originally intended to be a lockdown release anyway, but it and the rest of the BBC releases can be housed elsewhere as they have nothing to do with Emily Cook's specific lockdown event. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 18:30, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

No, you literally said "that would be speculating Najawin" in response to the comment I pasted above.
There are a variety of pieces of evidence that the BBC prose pieces are to be taken as part of Lockdown!.
  1. Connective tissue from a production standpoint.
    1. This refers to the idea that there is at least one release that is a part of "DiS Lockdown!" hosted and seemingly produced by the BBC, as well as at least one prose piece originally slated for "DiS Lockdown!" that was later appropriated by the BBC when Chibnall came a'calling. Respectively these are
      1. Farewell, Sarah Jane
      2. Doctor Who and the Time War
    2. The source for the idea that Time War was originally slated for "DiS Lockdown!" is here, there were concerns about how she would host a prose piece, hence the decision to read Revenge of the Nestene aloud.
  2. The Shadow Trilogy
    1. There's really not much to say here except that this one is cut and dry. You have a BBC prose piece that randomly mentions something that happened in an episode he wrote as if to set it up. Then in two "DiS Lockdown!" related releases he pays off the setup. These are all clearly the same sort of thing.
  3. The involvement of Chibnall in Lockdown!
    1. Really just note Thread:273268#148 and my edit at Thread:273268#213 for the relevant evidence here, as well as this tweet from Cornell, which only works if he thinks that the story in question "counts".
    2. User:TazminDaytime did bring up some concerns related to his lack of explicit involvement with Strax Saves the Day, but given it was retweeted by the BBC, it's not clear that these are defeaters for the point we're making. (And, indeed, if he's not involved, many of these stories would be invalid.)
      1. DWM 551 even calls it "canon", meaning that I think his concerns really just don't work here. (See Thread:269368#6)
  4. Adventures in Lockdown.
    1. A piece of evidence so damning that really we don't need to have this discussion. Not only does it freely mix the two types of stories, is put out by the BBC, but as established at Talk:Adventures in Lockdown, these are literally just the same things as the webcasts, no sprucing up, with Rory's Story apparently just being the shooting script.
The arguments against appear to be something like "Cook didn't promote them", "they don't meet [insert criteria it would be literally impossible for them to meet here, such as Cook being a producer or them being listed on the 'extras' tab which only lists 'exclusive' extras]" or "The BBC is hosting things elsewhere". Which just aren't convincing in comparison imo. Najawin ☎ 20:10, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
So... basically you're saying that because Doctor Who and the Time War was initially planned to be reworked for the Doctor Who: Lockdown! event (before being used for the BBC's separate event) and that [[Paul Cornell[]] referenced his other work in The Shadow Passes that we should count all unrelated lockdown-produced BBC prose stories? That's what I took away from your comment.
The fact that they were all contained in the same book is irrelevant. That book contains lockdown-produced stories, not just Doctor Who: Lockdown! produced stories. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 20:26, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
In an interview yesterday Emily Cook stated that the "BBC have been hands-off" too...[2] DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎
Furthermore, in this YouTube interview [3] Emily Cook states; "You can also find all of the Doctor Who minisodes and extra content that was created before". There is no picking apart the words there, she doesn't use "exclusive". She states that all of the Doctor Who: Lockdown! material is on the website. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 20:38, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
Surely you understand that if I see a swan that is white and then another swan that is white that's evidence for the idea that all swans are white. (Note that I'm using this example explicitly because there are swans that aren't white, and thus conceding the possibility that I'm mistaken. But this is an inductive argument, these things are evidence of the connection between the two.)
The book is in no sense irrelevant. It establishes that the BBC considers the Lockdown! stories as "under their umbrella".
That interview was neither yesterday, nor was it in reference to the stories she was creating, but instead in reference to the tweetalongs themselves.
The BBC has been hands-off. Aside from the odd encouraging message from Chris Chibnall and the publicity machine, Cook has been left to her own devices. “They love the fact that it’s an organic fan thing,” she says.
Original source is here, it's pretty clearly in reference to the actual organization of the tweetalongs. But, interestingly, does further confirm the involvement of Chibnall, strengthening the case of the two being linked.
As for Cook's comment, that was made at 28:09 for those who want to go looking for it, and it was in response to a question about where listeners should go to submit their fan content. I'm disinclined to think she's being tremendously precise in her wording here. Najawin ☎ 20:57, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
You're being completely unreasonable. You've got it into your head that these two separate events are linked. Doctor Who: Lockdown! is Emily Cook's event only - all the minisodes were produced and organised by her, and all the Extra content was sought out by her too. The BBC stories are completely separate - they may have minor ties; RTD having been approached by both events for content, and Paul Cornell referencing his work from one event to the other, but these are extremely minor "ties" and should be reduced to mentions.
The BBC stories / Doctor Who: Lockdown! stories should be kept separate at all costs, apart from on the Adventures in Lockdown which collects all of the lockdown-produced material.
I have no idea why you are so desperate to keep them together. There have been several comments made by Cook which have denied the BBC stories yet you spend time picking them apart, using individual words to try and find loopholes to continue the discussion that should have been resolved long ago! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:06, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

If there have been several comments made by Cook that do this, then it should be abundantly easy for you to find them. Yet you're consistently unable to do so, finding only very ambiguous comments.

Please, do everyone a favor and flesh out your summary for why the two are not related in a step by step manner similar to how I did two comments ago. Use Thread:273268 as a reference if need be. Doing so allows everyone to get on the same page and we can evaluate the arguments sans rhetoric, looking just at the line items and the facts. I think whatever admin who ends up closing this affair will appreciate this. Najawin ☎ 21:15, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly posted comments by Cook but you repeatedly pick away at them with your own flawed interpretations. For example here she is clearly talking about the Doctor Who: Lockdown event;
"The BBC has been hands-off. Aside from the odd encouraging message from Chris Chibnall and the publicity machine, Cook has been left to her own devices. “They love the fact that it’s an organic fan thing,” she says."
However, you have tried to say that she is talking about the tweetalongs only. There is never a discussion about only the tweetalongs, she is talking about the entire event which she founded and has said that "the BBC has been hands-off".
Then there was the comment from YouTube where she talks about all of the Doctor Who: Lockdown! content being found on the official website, but you suggest that she is in fact talking about the fan content (which is completely false as she later goes on to talk about the fan material!).
I will go through them individually, once again. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:21, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

The Doctor Who: Lockdown! event was founded by Emily Cook in March. Originally Who at Home, the event was purely her creation - without any assistance from the BBC. Countless interviews have seen her explain the event's creation - and the fact that she was acting as a fan at the start and never expected the event to receive the reaction that it did. Strax Saves the Day was the first unique release related to the specific "Lockdown!" brand that Cook founded, with Steven Moffat contributing the piece.

To follow this up Cook approached Russell T Davies, who planned to offer his unused prequel to Rose. That same day RTD was also approached by Chris Chibnall who, alongside the BBC, was planning his own project for lockdown-produced Doctor Who (almost a month later at the end of April that project was unveiled as Staying in the TARDIS). As part of Chibnall's project the BBC had already posted Message from the Doctor and Things She Thought While Falling to the BBC website (and social media pages). For whatever reason, RTD decided to offer the prequel idea to Chibnall - which was posted to the official Doctor Who website as Doctor Who and the Time War. Doctor Who: Lockdown! in the meantime received an entirely new short story Revenge of the Nestene (which Cook decided to "bring to life" as a webcast with Jacob Dudman narrating).

Both of these releases, Doctor Who and the Time War and Revenge of the Nestene, were released on the same day but by completely different projects. Incoming Message was also shared that same day - but this seems, like Peter Harness with How The Monk Got His Habit, to be something that RTD did without assistance from the Doctor Who: Lockdown! team (although Emily Cook did retweet this piece).

Chibnall's project continued with four other pieces Press Play, The Terror of the Umpty Ums, The Shadow Passes and The Simple Things. His project was later given the aforementioned name Staying in the TARDIS, and all six of the BBC released stories can still be found on that site to this day. These four releases had no connection to the growing Doctor Who: Lockdown! brand, apart from Paul Cornell minorly referencing his upcoming two-parter in The Shadow Passes.

The Doctor Who: Lockdown! brand continued with fourteen more releases - each one produced and organised by the founder Emily Cook - The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond, Rory's Story, Farewell, Sarah Jane, Shadow of a Doubt, The Shadow in the Mirror, Sven and the Scarf, Pompadour, The Zygon Isolation, The Descendants of Pompeii, Listen, Fear Is a Superpower, Doctors Assemble!, The Secret of Novice Hame and The Best of Days.

To my knowledge the only release that the BBC ever acknowledge within these next fourteen was Farewell, Sarah Jane. The official BBC YouTube channel posted this story, and their social media promoted it. However, this is the only release that both the BBC / Doctor Who: Lockdown! appear to have worked on together therefore it is an exception and shouldn't mean that the six unreleased BBC stories are considered part of Cook's event.

All of these stories were collected in Adventures in Lockdown as they were all lockdown-produced stories rather than Doctor Who: Lockdown! stories. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 22:04, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

So to note, we're not asking about the independence of the watchalongs from the BBC, but instead the content made for the watchalongs from the BBC. So most of the first paragraph is just irrelevant. The only thing that is is the mention of Strax Saves the Day, but there's not a lot of evidence as to whether the BBC was involved or not. (Indeed, as stated, the BBC promoted it and it was referenced in DWM as "canon", so the balance suggests maybe a little bit in favor of yes. But not much either way.)
Your timeline is faulty with regards to what Chibnall was doing. He was collecting prose pieces after creating Message from the Doctor and Things She Thought While Falling, but there was no indication at this time that Staying in the TARDIS was planned. When said site was launched it was a messy, slapdash affair that was incomplete. Prior to this the prose stories were simply kept on the BBC Doctor Who website. Indeed, Message from the Doctor is still not located on the website, nor is United we stand, 2m apart. Similarly, Staying in the TARDIS is not the name of his prose series, but it is instead the name of a hub website that collects a variety of things, and came to house the prose sometime after it was finished.
The idea that the Rose sequel and prequel are completely different projects is question begging and not a statement of a fact, it can be dismissed. While Cook did quotetweet Incoming Message, it's important to note that she explicitly did so using the hashtag used for the current tweetalong at the time.
The four BBC prose pieces having no connection to the rest of Lockdown! is similarly question begging and can be dismissed. (And it also ignores, you know, the book, which is certainly a connection.) (Arguably there's no way for it to reference Lockdown! outside of Cornell, as Moffat wanted to do something very metafictional and no other writers working on it had Lockdown! valid episodes to watch. But that's a digression.)
You forgot Spoof Scenes, which doesn't have her as a producer.
Nobody has suggested that the book Adventures in Lockdown immediately proves that the prose pieces are Lockdown! content, as, you know, we have new short stories as well. It just shows that the BBC considers the Lockdown! pieces as being "not different in kind" to the prose pieces or their own webcasts. (Though they still curated them, United we stand, 2m apart, not showing up, nor Sven and the Scarf, for instance.)
Charitably, this seems to suggest the following arguments of yours, when we dismiss the outright question begging and portions that are irrelevant:
"Strax Saves the Day was the first unique release related to the specific "Lockdown!" brand that Cook founded, with Steven Moffat contributing the piece."
Chibnall and Cook both approached Davies independently, Davies originally intended for one prose piece he wrote to go to Cook, but instead sent it to Chibnall, writing a new one for Cook.
The two were listed under separate locations. [Modification my own to remove question begging]
Chibnall continued his own work, with no mention of Cook's series aside from Cornell setting up his later parts, his own work then being collected on a separate website with its own branding.
Emily Cook was a producer on all the Lockdown! content that continued to be released, which continued sans referencing the prose pieces. [nb, as stated this is incorrect, but as I'm only removing the irrelevant and question begging portions, I'm keeping this argument]
The only acknowledgent [DiS] know[s] about from the BBC regarding Lockdown! here on out is wrt Farewell, Sarah Jane, where they absolutely did work together, but this shouldn't imply that they worked together all the time.
Adventures in Lockdown is not relevant as the stories within were produced/created in lockdown, not necessarily part of Lockdown!
I hope I did a decent job characterizing your position while stripping the question begging/irrelevant portions. Apologies if not. Maybe someone else can comment if they think this is a fair summary? Najawin ☎ 22:46, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
Emily Cook has explained how Strax Saves the Day came about, as I have told you multiple times. It was a collaborative effort between her, Dan Starkey and Steven Moffatt - the BBC has never been said to be involved in that project, and anyway it is your burden to prove that the BBC was involved not my burden to prove that they were not. DWM identifying the story as "canon" could have been because they knew that the story was being reworked into the Adventures in Lockdown book.
I never said that Staying in the TARDIS was created before Chibnall's stories, what I said what that Chibnall / the BBC were creating a project that would produce new material for people during lockdown. The stories were housed on the Doctor Who website but were ultimately placed on Staying in the TARDIS when that project was unveiled.
Other than them being contained within Adventures in Lockdown (which I stress doesn't make them part of the same project, rather just being stories released during lockdown!!!) these are the connections between the BBC releases and Doctor Who: Lockdown!;
* Message from the Doctor - No known connection to Doctor Who: Lockdown!.
* Things She Thought While Falling - No known connection to Doctor Who: Lockdown!.
* Doctor Who and the Time War - Was momentarily considered as a Doctor Who: Lockdown! release.
* Press Play - No known connection to Doctor Who: Lockdown!.
* The Terrory of the Umpty Ums - No known connection to Doctor Who: Lockdown!.
* The Shadow Passes - Minor reference to a Doctor Who: Lockdown! story.
* The Simple Things - No known connection to Doctor Who: Lockdown!.
Those are literally the only connections between the BBC releases and Doctor Who: Lockdown!. How can you argue that they are part of this event? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:17, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
But... Strax Saves the Day isn't in Adventures in Lockdown. Similarly, I in no way suggested that you characterized Staying in the TARDIS as being created before Chibnall's project. Instead, you said, and I referenced
Chris Chibnall who, alongside the BBC, was planning his own project for lockdown-produced Doctor Who (almost a month later at the end of April that project was unveiled as Staying in the TARDIS)
But SitT just isn't identical to his project, they're not the same thing. SitT is a hub website that collects a variety of things, some of which happen to be the prose stories that Chibnall was working on prior to this. I also note that I'm not sure anyone but you has suggested that AiL itself proves that the BBC prose works are part of Lockdown!, there's a completely different argument related to how the BBC is treating the Lockdown! works and a continuity between the two.
Now, on these 6 prose stories and 2 webcasts, I once again note that the authors who even have episodes that are available to be part of the watchalong are Paul Cornell (who had a connection, not that it's all that minor like you're claiming, pretty clear setup/payoff), Russell T Davies (had a connection), Chris Chibnall (probably too busy and none of his episodes are that beloved by the fanbase, didn't even do a tweetalong) and Steven Moffat (let's be serious, Terror of the Umpty Ums is quintessential Moffat. It also makes it impossible for there to be a connection like you're asking.)
So of the people who both did a BBC prose story and a watchalong story, we're 2 for 3, and Moffat sort of has a good excuse, along with Chibnall having a good excuse for not doing a watchalong, as the only BBC prose writer to have met the requirements. Najawin ☎ 23:34, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
RTD’s stories has NO connection, he was simply going to give a story to Cook’s event but decided against it. The only one with a connection was Paul Cornell’s and it was minuscule. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:39, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

Plot connection vs production connection makes no difference to me, though I understand if it does to you. Najawin ☎ 23:42, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. But there is NO connection plot or otherwise. RTD getting approached by both Chibnall and Doctor Who: Lockdown! doesn't suddenly connect the two - that's preposterous! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:45, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
That is decidedly not an accurate characterization of what happened, but I think it's clear that no consensus between us will be reached, so I'll wait for other users to weigh in. Hopefully our comments have clarified the positions at stake here and removed some of the rhetoric. Najawin ☎ 23:48, November 5, 2020 (UTC)
That is exactly what happened. I am absolutely fine to leave the discussion for now, but please do not try to make me out to be a liar. Both Cook and Chibnall approached RTD. RTD had originally planned to give Cook one story, but decided to give it to Chibnall instead and then created a new piece for Cook. That does not connect the two projects in the slightest. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:50, November 5, 2020 (UTC)

Announcement on 'The Fan Gallery'[[edit source]]

Every tweetalong, something new…

There is now a new moving part to the Lockdown! phenomenon: a section on the official website called "The Fan Gallery", which is the medium for the release of Cook's selection from stories submitted by fans in expectation of a given tweetalong. As these stories are released an on official outlet for current Doctor Who media, we must unquestionably have pages on them.

However, I think we should have a long and careful investigation before treating them as valid sources, when it comes to the Rule 4 intent. Are these stories intended to "count", or are they just "freeform opportunities" for the fans? We have precedents for either. Candy Jar Books explicitly say the fan-submitted stories in their very-much-commercial Short Story Collections aren't meant to "count"; at Thread:177985, it was ruled that the language used by the BBC to talk about Mission Dalek ruled it out even from coverage; conversely, The Lucy Wilson Collection: School Children and Death Is the Only Answer are valid.

Until we have forums again on which to discuss this at greater length, stories released on the The Fan Gallery section of the website are to be treated as provisionally invalid. That's not a ruling one way or another, but a cautionary measure.

Also, anything that's not hosted on the official website (such as that Story of River Song video — not that it passes Rule 1 anyway) is not to receive a page, because the BBC aren't releasing it, just giving it some publicity. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:36, November 7, 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is going to be an interesting problem, since I'm not even sure that the individual stories should have pages on the wiki, as I think they fail rule 2. (While I disagree with DiS as to what extent Cook's comments about the BBC being "hands off" are to be taken, I do think that they're to be taken as strong enough that they wouldn't be involved in her hosting of fanfic.) The gallery certainly should. But they're explicitly stated to be fan fiction, so it seems that the discussion of Thread:272468 is relevant. (Specifically the parts related to the "comic of the week" bits.) Lockdown! truly is the gift that keeps on giving. Emily Cook, why do you hate us wiki editors so? Najawin ☎ 20:57, November 7, 2020 (UTC)
This seems like a whole new can of worms, I don't even think that I am going to involve myself. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 21:01, November 7, 2020 (UTC)
@Najawin, if this were Cook's personal blog — if she were posting the stories on Twitter — I might have been more hesitant, but I find it hard to believe the BBC wouldn't have signed off on the creation of the doctorwholockdown.com website itself, thus making it a legal extension of the Doctor Who brand. As such, I do think we should assume these releases to be under a kind of license until proven otherwise. Which proof may indeed come at some point, of course.
Beyond that, while I commend your impulse to look for even more precedents than those I cited, those esoteric discussions of the various possible precedents are really a matter for the future thread. (But to get ahead of ourselves, I would point out that Lockdown is emphatically not running any fanfiction sent their way and then showcasing a particular entry as "story of the week"; rather, they're taking private submissions and only releasing those they choose.)
@DiSoRieNtED1, "can of worm" is right, but it's a good thing you don't plan to 'involve yourself' at this stage because as I said, this is a debate that can really only be held as a proper inclusion debate once the Forums are running again. My post above was an announcement giving temporary guidelines until we find something better.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:04, November 7, 2020 (UTC)

At the very least I think we can all agree that getting the forums up and running as soon as possible is imperative. We've been without them for far too long. Najawin ☎ 21:07, November 7, 2020 (UTC)

Quite so. Also, while I'm here, and again please don't crowd out this announcement too much: this isn't an invitation to pile on more comments, but: this tweet by Cook about one of the Fan Gallery stories lends weight to my instinct to treat them like Short Story Collection (i.e. invalid under Rule 4), by saying the story merely represents a "possibility" for what happens to Ramone after the episode. Meanwhile, this one once again emphasises that it's no free-for-all and there's a fairly rigorous selection process going on behind the scenes. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:09, November 7, 2020 (UTC)

Important update[[edit source]]

Having written one, the oath I took when I presented my admin candidacy prevents me from making an outright ruling on the validity of the Fan Gallery series — although you might argue that conflicts of interest are less of a concern when I'm arguing for a series to be invalidated rather than validated! Nevertheless — I must note that it's unlikely we'll be looking at a validation of these in the future.

Emily Cook has clarified in no uncertain terms that "all these fab short stories (…) can’t been classified as anything “official” within the Doctor Who universe", which is a pretty clear statement of Rule 4 failure.

Depending on the interpretation one takes of this tweet, it is in fact not even clear whether the BBC's license to Lockdown! extends to these stories at all, despite their presence on the "official" website: as fanfiction they seem to fall outside whatever agreement exists between the Lockdown! team and the Beeb. It could just mean they have not given Lockdown! a license to publish these stories in a (forgive the term) "canonical" context, but more than likely the majority of stories will have to be deleted, or, rather, transferred to one of the fanon Wikis (or perhaps to a newly-created Lockdown!-focused Wiki?). Mentions of what happens in them can surely remain in a few relevant BTS sections, however.

Also, a possible exception (but again, being personally involved on the fan side of things, I cannot make a final statement) may be a handful of stories which don't, in fact, use any BBC-licensed element. My own story A Better World only makes use of one explicitly licensed character: Auteur, and for him a commercial licensed was obtained. For all other elements, I pastiched the old Faction Paradox tradition and didn't mention anything too explicitly by name, merely presenting a homage to the events of TV: Turn Left. I don't think I'm alone in the Fan Gallery crew in having thusly presented stories that are homages to BBC Who, but don't actually feature any of its characters: I believe the recently-released A Most Unfortunate Pit Stop likewise features mostly on original characters.

Thus, if and when there is a thread (and again, there will have to be: I cannot rule on what our policy is to be), it will have to be how to treat those few stragglers. But the things which mention the Doctor by name, or any other BBC-owned elements, will stay invalid and more than likely have to be exiled to another Wiki.

It is what it is. But as Cook said, don't let their less-than-official status detract from these stories — it has no bearing on their quality, nor, for that matter, their canoncity! A story can be canon without being valid, valid without being canon, canon without being licensed, etc. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:56, November 21, 2020 (UTC)

Starting by declaring personal arguable conflict of interest as the writer of "Time After Time", I would like to quote directly from a conversation had with Emily personally to clarify the matter; "(a) these stories have not been written under a DW license and (b) the authors are using characters they didn't create themselves so technically they don't have the rights to use."
I think that makes it clear that these stories should not be covered - with perhaps one or two stories being the exceptions where the line is less certain as they may have legal linkage elsewhere to other aspects of the DWU - on this Wiki. I mean, it would hardly be right to consider that my story be covered by the Wiki when, even if this had been under a DW license, I most certainly would have no connection or rights to usage of Patrick Ness' characters with mine.
Again, I do have to sit the conversation out to some degree with my personal involvement, but I would note that personally I think the typical overview table merely listing the stories released, and then at the bottom of this page, we can note their unofficial nature & perhaps link to Scrooge's separate wiki where the current content of the individual story pages can be moved to. JDPManjoume ☎ 16:00, November 22, 2020 (UTC)
Quite so! My only, very slight point of disagreement with JDPManjoume's suggestion is, it seems to me the handiest thing for our readers would be to link from the overview table directly to the Lockdown!-focused "child-Wiki" — rather than leaving them unlinked, and forcing them to go through the search bar of the other Wiki after finding the link to that. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:05, November 22, 2020 (UTC)
Ah, wasn't sure what the rulings were regarding external wiki linkage... but if that's allowed then I'm happy to agree with that idea instead. JDPManjoume ☎ 16:14, November 22, 2020 (UTC)

Further announcement[[edit source]]

In light of the above, I've gone and repeated the old Faction Paradox Wiki experiment as a way to find a safe, well-policed home for Fan Gallery-related content that doesn't quite sit rightly on Tardis proper. Time will tell how much of the prose stuff published on the website will need to be transferred there — but it's definitely the only proper place to cover the films, as, not being hosted on any official channels, these would never have passed our policies anyway.

Even if we were to keep more of the Fan Gallery stuff on the Wiki than I currently think is wise, I was also inspired by Thread:208233#Why_the_FP_wiki_is_good_for_FP_fandom: there is, perhaps, some value in a Wikia project relating entirely to the Lockdown! project, rather than splitting its attention between it (a real world event) and documenting the behemoth of fiction that is "the DWU" from an in-universe point of view.

Being that I literally registered the domain name an hour ago, this Wiki is quite new. None of the customisation or infobox-building is done yet. But if you can work around that, or help me rectify that little snag, feel free to start editing as early as today.

And hopefully, this can let us all keep a clear head about how much of Lockdown! does or does not belong on Tardis, without having to worry overmuch about simply destroying information completely.

I declare the Doctor Who: Lockdown! wiki — open! --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:24, November 21, 2020 (UTC)

Righty-ho! I'm doing some editing over there now! 00:10, November 22, 2020 (UTC)

Clarification from Emily re. website stories[[edit source]]

To quote Emily - I can make this piece of correspondance available offsite if anyone needs me to - "the stories that were published on the official Doctor Who site during the first lockdown were nothing to do with my Doctor Who: Lockdown initiative."

That means that Things She Thought While Falling, Press Play, Terror of the Umpty Ums, The Shadow Passes and The Simple Things should be removed from this page's Stories list & moved to a separate page.

As for Doctor Who and the Time War, Emily explained that it "was released to tie in with the Rose tweetalong but was uploaded on the official Who site because Chris Chibnall happened to ask Russell for a story at the same time" - so first and foremost, it was a Lockdown! story & thus should be kept here. JDPManjoume ☎ 16:10, November 22, 2020 (UTC)

Ah, tremendous! So Time War is both and the rest aren't really part of Lockdown!. It's so nice to finally get clear-cut answers on these things. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:14, November 22, 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Najawin ☎ 16:20, November 22, 2020 (UTC)

Just picked up my copy of Adventures in Lockdown and it states;

"Stories 1-4, 8, 10-11 were first published on the official Doctor Who website as part of a lockdown initiative by Chris Chibnall. Stories 5-6, 12-13 and 15-16 first appeared online as part of the Doctor Who: Lockdown! series of watch-alongs organised and produced by Emily Cook. Stories 7, 9 and 14 were written especially for this collection."

This section of text can also be seen on the "look inside" section of the amazon listing. [4]

Hope this helps. RadMatter ☎ 02:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fan Gallery and their licensing[[edit source]]

As discussed above, Emily Cook revealed that the short stories released in the Fan Gallery were not licensed, therefore, fan fiction. Ignoring that "fan fiction" is a nebulous term and could be applied even to the 2005 revival of the series, I want to point out that A Better World and A Most Unfortunate Pit Stop doesn't use any BBC owned elements, albeit for a few references... but these instances aren't any more of an egregious reference to something not owned by the author, than let's say, certain Bernice Summerfield books that mention the Doctor or the Daleks, or BBC licensed stories that mention things like Iris Wildthyme, Faction Paradox, or the plethora of elements owned by the Haisman Estate. So while the Fan Gallery stories are being removed for the lack of licensing on the BBC's part, A Better World and A Most Unfortunate Pit Stop don't really have any BBC owned elements in there anyway, so they surely meet the licensing requirements, and I believe these stories should be covered on the Tardis Data Core as valid. (If there are any more stories that are like these two, feel free to bring them up.)

18:42, November 23, 2020 (UTC)

I guess now we could argue that now, given that Fan Gallery is intended to be a home for fan fiction, any releases placed there violate rule 2 (but would still be covered, just covered as invalid). That's a substantially more nuanced argument though. Najawin ☎ 18:48, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
However, it has been stated previously that if the Star Trek crossover didn't have the license to the Borg, we'd stil cover it. Rule two is often ignored, because if we followed it meticulously, The Snowmen would be invalid. 19:00, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that's my bad, we always quibble over rules 1 and 4 that I get the other two mixed up. I was thinking rule 3. It might not be considered an "official release". Najawin ☎ 19:05, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
But is it any different to a story released on an author's blog? Or a story released in an anthology of wholly unrelated stories? 19:12, November 23, 2020 (UTC)

Certainly to the first. Likely to the second. The wrinkle comes in the fact that this is a place explicitly for fan fiction, unlike the other examples you're giving. Hence by submitting things here you're doing something equivalent to submitting things to AO3. If we're going to write our way out of this one, it's going to be by arguing that Scrooge and the others didn't know that it was explicitly fan fiction (and I think his earlier comments do demonstrate that he felt they had sufficient license to not be doing "fan fiction style things"), and then trying to say that the thing that makes the AO3 example disqualifying is the fact that everyone knows that posts on AO3 are fanfic and don't have valid releases, but the intent of the authors here wasn't that. But this is a really difficult needle to thread and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Najawin ☎ 19:19, November 23, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the examples I gave weren't really any good, they were just more off the top of my head.
I think you have a point though about the authors not knowing the stories they were writing weren't actually licensed. I would like to mention though, that even if the BBC doesn't consider them part of the DWU, on the precedent of the Vienna inclusion debate, authorial intent lies with the author, not the publisher. 19:25, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
I mean, sure. That's not my concern, I think rule 4 is met, as are rules 1 and 2. It's rule 3 we have to worry about, and whether we interpret posting in a place that's explicitly for fanfic an official release if the authors didn't realize it was explicitly for fanfic because the wording was poor at the very beginning. And I dunno? Maybe? It's a difficult problem. Najawin ☎ 19:31, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. (Sorry if my replies are a little incoherent.) 19:35, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
You know, folks, ArchiveOfOurOwn actually has a large "Original Work" category; it is possible, and indeed downright common, for creators to post original, non-copyright-infringing fiction there. With that in mind, I actually think that if the case ever came up, we shouldn't necessarily balk at a proposition to cover a fully-licensed story that happened to be released on ao3.
At any rate, I can't rule on the application, but I can, as an admin, clarify the general policy: Rule 3 isn't really a matter of authorial intent. That's Rule 4. And by the same token, whether something is "branded" as fanfiction could (or could not) have an incidence on Rule 4.
T:OFF REL is about preventing coverage unlawful leaks and suchlike; if a story has been released, in a non-copyright-infringing way, through the same medium its author and/or editor intended it to be published through, then that is what we call an official release. Again, the Candy-Jar Short Story Collections are a good example of things which the publisher brands as "officially-licensed fanfiction" and which breaks Rule 4 as a result, but not Rule 3, and is therefore covered-as-invalid. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:49, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
I do realize that Rule 4 is traditionally the area for authorial intent to be relevant, this is more the area of "do we take this to be a good faith exception, given the intent of the authors". (Also, I think we have precedent for Rule 3 referring to something else entirely than leaks or subverting the medium the author intended, namely Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire, but I still don't understand the precise reasoning behind that ruling and how to apply it to other cases, so that's just me guessing.) Najawin ☎ 20:18, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
What "ruling" are you referring to here? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:24, November 23, 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire (anthology) doesn't have a resolution yet the page is deleted. I have no clue what happened, but something did. So there was ostensibly some reason for it, just one I've never been able to figure out. Najawin ☎ 20:30, November 23, 2020 (UTC)

Would it clear things up for you if I said that Nate's "final comment" on that talk page is every bit as tongue-in-cheek as the "sources"? Wallowing is a completely different situation in that… and I'm kind of breaking the rules of the meme here, you understand, and I don't like having to do so… there is no such book, published or otherwise, licensed or otherwise. It never existed. It's a metafictional running joke cooked up by FP writers. The situation is fundamentally different from text that does objectively, demonstrably exist but where there are concerns about the "officialness" of the release. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:40, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
Dear lord that is far too confusing, especially for a series that already has a lot of "things that were almost made". Okay, fair enough. (Feel free to delete this entire conversation.) Najawin ☎ 20:45, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
(I note that I am on the spectrum, so that sort of tongue in cheek stuff is something I'm more inclined to take seriously.) Najawin ☎ 20:47, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
I think it'd be against policy to delete the conversation anyway, but doubly so if it were to obscure facts relevant to policy! Don't worry, my reluctance doesn't go that far. And absolutely do not feel bad about not "getting the joke". FP writers like to be intentionally obtuse and it's the whole point of the joke for the hoax not to be obvious to a casual archive-browser. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:43, November 23, 2020 (UTC)
Just to raise a few points of question just to get them into discussion.
Where do we draw the line/what have previous rulings been on defining Charity publications? It occurs to me that it could be argued that The Fan Gallery, as it stands within the Lockdown! website, is part of a fundraising drive for the Film and TV Charity... and though plenty other material on the site was officially sanctioned, with the knowledge that Emily was conducting the Fan Gallery as an unofficial collection of stories to help raise money for that charity - where does the Fan Gallery stand in that sense?
Though we can vouch for the intent "A Better World" in that we have its writer here, do we know that "A Most Unfortunate Pit Stop" was written with the intention of not being fanfiction? As best I understand the line of thinking we're currently on (that Rule 4 applies to authorial intent and not Emily's intent), authorial impression of the gallery and their intent in writing would be key to know. And we cannot presume that without actually checking - I mean, my impression based on what Emily had said was in fact that this was nothing more than charity fanfiction - until I'd consulted this Wiki page, at which point it became a greyer area for me to look at. So we'd need to know both the writer's impression of the project based on Emily's statements alone and their intent whilst writing.
If "A Most Unfortunate Pit Stop" is accepted with the mention of the name Heather not being an issue, is there a arguable case for "Search for the Surgeon" if its writer intended it as not fanfiction since though it names a Nardole, it's rather vague?
I'm trying to think on the name of Fan Gallery and the signposting of sections as Fan Fiction, Fan Art & Fan Films on the website, and whether or not that could be argued as a challenge to writers' perceptions of the project?
Further to all this... if we accept some writers here from a collection of stories within a charity project that mostly features stories overtly featuring unlicensed characters, based on their intent & the subjective interpretation by the writer of the statements made by the creator of said project - does this mean we might need to reassess other charity publications on some rare occasions?
As for other stories, that need looked at - "A Star and a Beetle", likely "Bad Night at the Office" (As I'm not sure we could count one namecheck of a Harold Saxon as something that would need licensing) & possibly "Quantum Physics Lecture"? At the moment though, "A Better World" is the only one that is posing to me as a potential candidate for inclusion.

JDPManjoume ☎ 11:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some things are getting confused here. The proposal was merely to keep some things on the Wiki — but, where authorial intent is vague or unavailable, that doesn't necessarily mean covering them as valid. There could be a setup where A Most Unfortunate Pit-Stop is covered as invalid due to Rule 4 concerns, whereas something like Turn Left Prequel Comic is not covered at all due to Rule 2 concerns.
This is also the first mention in this conversation (or indeed anywhere) of the Fan Gallery stories being "charity works". What Cook has said is that the Fan Gallery was intended as an opportunity for fans to showcase their work to other fans, which is not the same thing at all. The wider Lockdown! event is also used to promote charities, but that's not stopped us covering any of the clearly-licensed minisodes like WC: Farewell, Sarah Jane, so I'm not sure it's really relevant.
Speaking of Rule 2 — it is also the rule infringed in the case of charity works created by copyright-holders. The decision reached on this Wiki was that when e.g. Paul Magrs submits an Iris story to a charity anthology, he is not, actually, making use of his own "commercial license" to the character, because he's not putting her to a commercial use. Thus, as far as this Wiki knows/is concerned, the situation you describe has never come up — there hasn't been a case of one story in a book being commercially licensed to use a DWU character, while the other stories in the same anthology were Rule-2-breakers. It flatly hasn't happened yet.
Whereas yes, in this case, I can testify that the agreement I was able to work out with Mr Black was wider-ranging than just the one free release. I am fully empowered to sell A Better World if I want to, Auteur and all. (I mean, actually, I can't testify to that here: authorial-quotes originating on the Wiki itself are not technically admissible evidence. But in terms of common sense, I just want to provide the facts here. If it is ruled necessary that the evidence in question be officially logged somewhere, I'll always be able to make the same statements on some off-Wiki platform, such as my Tumblr blog.)
Also, the idea with Pit-Stop possibly being okay with Rule 2 isn't that it's "not specific enough" for us to know it's the Heather — rather, I had in mind the precedent set at Talk:Legacies (short story), or with the Cyberman namedrop in An Ordinary Man, that it's alright for a story to namedrop things to which it doesn't have the license, so long as all the elements that are actually and explicitly involved in the plot are licensed. Nardole is very much involved in the plot of The Search for the Surgeon, so I don't think it makes the cut. But if somebody had a story licensed to use Hydroflax exclusively, and it included a one-line mention that one of Hydroflax's victims was Nardole, that would probably be okay. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification of the rationale, and the additional info regarding your license. By that, I'm happy to support "A Better World" being covered on this Wiki. I'll need to keep that decision re. Magrs/Wildthyme in mind from now as that's an interesting nuance to matters.
With that explanation re. Heather, I think there's a case for "Bad Day at the Office" then. Beyond that, I'll leave the rest of the potential arguable ones alone for others better versed in the lines between what does and doesn't work with our policies.

JDPManjoume ☎ 14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dont think it would be fair at all to cover some releases and not the rest. Whatever happens keep them all at the same place.

The brief for the fan fiction was that it should be as close to the episode of the tweet along so, regardless if certain creatives tried to manipulate their stories in order for them to be covered by this site, they were still intended for / tied to a brand that they had no real license for. PoolsideJazz ☎ 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Poolside, that accusation borders on a personal attack on my person and those of any of the other authors under concern. I want to make it clear that there was no nefarious plan to "trick" the Wiki into covering my story — how could there have been, when, as far as anybody knew at the time I wrote it, the Fan Gallery stories were BBC-licensed, and, therefore, covered on the Wiki regardless? My choice to pastiche the FP "Evil Renegade"-style allusion was just that: a stylistic choice. It was completely unintentional on my part that leave my story in a different status on the Wiki from the majority.
It is, regardless, clearly possible for a story to be strongly tied to another on an artistic level, while having no particular legal or narrative connection to it. Mind you, we've never disqualified stories for being "intended for/tied to a brand that they had no real license for", either, or else all the BBV-type releases whose advertising freely said they were "from the worlds of Doctor Who" would be in a bit of a pickle. The Wiki cares about the actual contents of the works.
However, as I said, I am empowered to rerelease A Better World in other contexts, and I probably will at some point; in the meantime the Lockdown! Wiki exists to house information about it and any other "edge-cases". So I don't see that there would be anything too terrible about a complete deletion of Fan Gallery stories for now. If anybody cares to, they can create an inclusion debate for A Better World and any other such edge-case from the ground up, possibly on the occasion of such stories being rereleased in another publication than the Lockdown! website.
(Once again: the above is a suggestion, not a ruling. You're going to need another admin to vouch off on these deletions, or on any retentions; I am not habilitated to make this ruling.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm probably against everything except A Better World being validated. Forgive me if I'm misremembering because there are no forums right now to double check but I recall a thread for two stories in The Dalek Outer Space Book which did not feature any DWU elements. Their validity remained because the publication had the licence to use the Daleks but just chose not to. If The Fan Gallery stories did not have the licence to use BBC elements in the first place, that choice is not there. A Better World is seperated from this particular issue because it does have the licence to a DWU character, namely Auteur.
It might be an option to cover the other non-rule 2 failers as invalid but I would prefer if all The Fan Gallery stories are instead listed on the Lockdown! page with external links to the Lockdown! Wiki where they can be covered in full. Borisashton ☎ 13:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand how anything I said could border on a personal attack? Regardless of your intention while creating your story, any contribution of yours to this discussion has the danger of having a conflict of interest towards your own story and all of your involvement / previous admin rulings could be picked apart.
For example; it could be argued that you allowed clearly labeled fan fiction onto the site in the first place was because you planned to submit your own piece the following week. Then you intentionally sought out a licensable character and limited your in-universe references because you were aware that otherwise your story wouldn’t remain on the site permanently.
While I’m not accusing you of doing this, it is what could be easily argued to call into question any involvement you have had in these discussions / rulings. PoolsideJazz ☎ 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to the phrase "certain creatives tried to manipulate their stories in order for them to be covered by this site"; the term manipulate is widely understood to be pejorative. Although I apologise if I misread your intent. Regardless, I obviously agree about the conflicts of interest here, and have said so several times! My involvement in this discussion has been consciously limited to clarifying general policy, and, where appropriate, to mention facts. But I have said numerous times that I cannot make any definitive rulings here — certainly not about A Better World, and probably not about the rest of the Fan Gallery either.
Besides which, as I said in my latest message, I have no objection to my story being deleted from this Wiki with the rest of the Fan Gallery for the time being. If somebody (not me!) cares to put in the work for such a thread, it can get back in "properly", through an individual inclusion debate, once we have Forums again. Which, per CzechOut's latest announcement, will be very soon indeed, anyway. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossed wires, I wasn’t suggesting anything insidious by “manipulate”. If people did intentionally limit references or secure a licensable character, all the power to them. But I still don’t think that it elevates their material above any of the others - apart from a mention on the BTS section of the licensable character used.

I think the comparison to charity anthology releases is a fair one. Some of those have multiple licensed characters / concepts but because the entire project as a whole isn’t licensed all of the stories are (rightfully) viewed the same. PoolsideJazz ☎ 16:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, sorry again, then. But please see my admin-hat-on clarification regarding charity anthologies. There is no such thing as a "licensed" charity story, because the very definition of a charity story (as we define the term when excluding them) is "a story that's not a commercial product and instead promotes charity". If that weren't the case we'd find ourselves failing to cover the likes of TV: Time Crash. This does not necessarily prevent us from not covering a Fan Gallery story even though it's fully-licensed; this is quite a novel situation. But the precedent of "fully-licensed charity stories we nevertheless exclude" isn't valid because there ain't no such thing. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And yet trailers are invalid because the Wiki deems them commercial. Big double standard here. 16:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Heh! Oh come now, Epsilon, it is no secret that I too think some trailers should probably be deemed valid sources, but that is an unfair wordplay and you know it. "A commercial work" is not the same thing as "a work that is a commercial". The former is merely a legal classification, whereas the latter is, for lack of a better term, a genre. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Obviously all commercial works are just commercials for capitalism and/or the IP itself which the company is selling. Najawin ☎ 16:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, not quite. There are many commercial works that are deemed invalid simply becuase the word "trailer" was used in the YouTube description. Take a look at Ace Returns! (webcast) and The Legend of... the Master? (webcast). Almost identical in content, but one is invalid due to the word "trailer" being used. 16:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I see no conflict between that and Scrooge's comment that
some trailers should probably be deemed valid sources
If by "trailers", we interpret him to mean "things currently considered trailers by this wiki". Najawin ☎ 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin ruling[[edit source]]

To clarify, the essence of a charity work here on the wiki is how it's most often used: to legally distribute DWU content without obtaining a commercial license, most often from the BBC. It's for that reason that any charity work fails rule 2: it cannot be proven that licensing was obtained, because licensing was not necessary. They all swim in that same sea, and it would not be feasible to pick apart the exceptions.

In this case, the main driving force is rule 4. For the series producer to definitively state she did not intend to release these as genuine DWU stories — and for them to be referred to as fan works — together with being unlicensed, right away prevents us from covering these individually. No amount of debating can get the Fan Gallery in general up over that wall. The details of what details can go where, and what to do with the one story that does appear to have licensing, remain to be discussed by those with an interest. Does the Fan Gallery merit a page, or should it be a brief section in Doctor Who: Lockdown!? One thing I can settle is that these pages will be deleted per T:NO FANFIC.

Whether there's wiggle room for one story that's licensed remains to be decided, as that is its own discussion. Thank you all for your involvement in this one.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Now there is an official verdict I'll reiterate my position on the layout of the page. I think it should stay the same with the table under the subheading but with external links directing people to the corresponding pages on the Lockdown! Wiki where they can be covered in full.
Another thing: Some of the pages already transferred over to the Lockdown! Wiki were credited with "taken from the same page at Tardis" or similar. If these pages are to be deleted taking their edit histories with them, is there some way to more properly credit their creators and initial editors? Borisashton ☎ 02:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(If anyone's an admin on both wikis, they can Special:Export here and Special:Import there to conserve page histories before deletion. Any duplicates can always be merged.)
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I've just done exactly that! There remains quite a lot of work to do on the other Wiki to fix e.g. broken links, but as far as Tardis's concerned, I think the deletions and link-changes can now be carried out. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is information about the Fan stories allowed in the BTS of particular characters? There is still some information on Ramone's page which will need removing if not. RadMatter ☎ 23:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who:_Lockdown!/Archive_1&oldid=3110130"