Talk:List of references to other DWU media in live-action and animated BBC stories

So, uh, the concern I have with this page

There's a lot of "creative re-use" in Doctor Who. Like, intentionally or not, a lot of stories have similarities between them, and it has lent itself to accusations of plagiarism in the past. I personally think this is misguided, as art is a collaborative enterprise, but it is something that exists in our community. If we're going to have this page, how far do we go with it? Do we just list the references that the creatives explicitly state that they're making or are made by the same creators? Do we note cool one off ideas like the time vortex? Or do we also note the accusations of plagiarism leveled at Steven Moffat by Lawrence Miles? (Or really, leveled at him by fans of Miles that Miles then repeated on his blog but said were sorta half true.) This is a touchy subject, which is why I think we need to have a discussion here sooner rather than later. Najawin ☎ 00:46, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

Basically, I guess, where do we draw the line at coincidence vs inspiration vs homage vs reference vs plagiarism? Najawin ☎ 02:16, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to decide if something is plagiarism or not. If it's a reference, it's a reference. That said, we shouldn't try to claim, with certainty, that an ambiguous thing is a reference. For example, I wrote that "a double decker bus resembling Iris Wildthyme's Omnibus", rather than "there was a reference to" or "it appeared". Even that might not be clear enough, as it could technically be a coincidence (though an unlikely one, I suspect; in saying that, I am not overly familiar with English buses, so the 22 to Putney Common may actually be, well, common.) Danochy ☎ 02:49, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's not our business to litigate plagiarism. But if we point out supposed references where there are none, that could indicate malice on the part of writers unintentionally, especially depending on the personal history of those involved. The example I mentioned is deeply relevant, as there's some very bad blood between those involved. Do we mention that on this page? Do we note that Miles felt that the two things were similar in some respects? Do we note the similarities and move on, without further comment? Similar issues with The Doctor's Wife emerge, with some of Miles' fans comparing it to Toy Story, while others in the community actually comparing it to Nineveh!, saying it's not that similar to Toy Story. These aren't fun topics, but they come up quite a lot in relation to Miles and Moffat. Both together and independently. Najawin ☎ 03:02, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. I would argue that we should only included adaptations on the page if we have evidence they are adapted, rather than just similar. Notes on similarity (or any "bad blood") belong on the pages in question. This isn't a page for "Things which are similar between the expanded universe and the modern series" it's for proper references only. I'd say it's hard to define a line there, but references are few enough in number that we can take controversial points on a case-by-case basis, I should think. Danochy ☎ 04:45, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

Fair. So should we have a policy for possible "inspiration" like the following? Say I thought that The Name of the Doctor (TV story) was referencing Unnatural History (novel), in that there's a companion who's preternaturally perfect for The Doctor, ends up meeting another version of her who doesn't remember him, there's a time rift that a decaying TARDIS is around, and a situation that is solved by the companion jumping into the rift. I make a new post on the talk page arguing that this a reference in the show to this novel and let people respond to me, but since it's not immediately obvious I don't just go ahead and edit it in.
Does that seem reasonable? (For the record, I have no intention of making such a post - I'm 100% down with the collaborative nature of art and have no idea if this was in any way intentional, this is just an example of how someone would do this.) Najawin ☎ 05:12, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

Rename proposal

"List of external DWU references in BBC television stories"? Najawin ☎ 01:36, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

Hmm… good thinking to trim it odwn, but "external DWU references" is a bit hard to parse at first glance. Also, while I don't imagine there's many people who'd interpret it that way, just saying "in BBC television stories" could theoretically refer to references to the DWU in other, non-DW-related BBC shows (e.g. things like The Lollipop Man).--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:42, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

"List of references made in DWU BBC television stories to things in the DWU not from BBC television stories." :>

I'm pretty sure this thing is just gonna be clunky if we have to be as precise as you're suggesting and we don't use the term "EU". Najawin ☎ 01:54, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

If nothing else — that is to say, even if we relaxed our rule against using the term, which is just a natural extension of T:NPOV — I believe the term EU would still be quite inappropriate if we're going to include Torchwood, SJA, and even bleeding home video minisodes (which aren't even television!) on this thing. If there's such a thing as a Doctor Who Expanded Universe, SJA is clearly a part of it.

How about "List of references to other DWU media in BBC TV stories"? Although that would require we ditch the Brig minisode. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:00, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

I think the Brig minisode should go as is actually, it's not a television story. We need to instead think of it being part of the "BBC production" to count, which is even more complicated for a title. I think that's fine, maybe the wording could be quibbled with a bit, but in broad strokes it works. Najawin ☎ 02:03, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

I think Liberty Hall should stay, as it's pretty much like any other mini-sode, such as The Inforarium or The Night of the Doctor, which are considered part of the TV series. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 02:09, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those things are part of the production of Series Seven and the narrative of Series Seven, but do not agree that they are television episodes, so would also call for their removal from this page by the strict wording of the title. Najawin ☎ 02:13, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Najawin. I don't think any minisodes should be on the page, even the one that are considered to be part of TV seasons. It just gets messy. DVD extras are "Expanded Universe" by any reasonable metric, whether or not they slot into seasons (which Liberty Halls, in any event, does not). What if a BBC novel is ever marketed as "a bonus episode in Series 17 of Doctor Who", or whatever? What then?

IMO, this page is skirting too close to the edges of T:NPOV as it is without giving special treatment to EU things that happen to be live-action. It's a bit unfortunate that we have to leave out things like The Inforarium in the process, but that's the way of the world. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:15, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

And then there's the whole "novelization of tv stories written by the same authors" nuance to the discussion, which, sure, better explains their thought process for references (and could be taken as filling in gaps in the narrative), but also adds to the text in ways that wasn't present in the original. Best to just stick to episodes. Najawin ☎ 02:20, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a rename discussion. I wasn't super keen on the current name myself, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time. I broadly agree with Scrooge's suggestion, although I'm not a fan of the word "other". Perhaps it could be "List of references to non-televised DWU media in BBC TV stories", just to be entirely clear.

As for the claim of T:NPOV, I created this page after an online discussion in which numerous people were looking for an article which lists all these references. Yes, it focuses on TV, but our primary concern here is to serve the fans, and this is a topic which is of interest to many fans. There's also nothing stopping similar such pages being created for other media.

So yeah, I also agree that most home videos and webcasts should be excluded from this list. The only problem I can see with that, is a future where webcasts or home videos might become a mainstream way of broadcasting the show, but that's really an issue for the forums. That leaves broadcast episodes of Doctor Who (Including Shada? The television story originated first, despite being released later, so I feel it should not count as a reference to its novelisation or webcast predecessors) Class, Torchwood, SJA, and K9 and Company. K9 should be excluded, on account of it being non-BBC, and therefore EU. Danochy ☎ 02:45, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

I mean, as I said, I think by any reasonable metric SJA and K9 and Company count as "EU". Torchwood might too, although perhaps the fact that it has (had?) significant following among people not otherwise interested in the DWU might disqualify it. But none of that matters if we're not going to include the term "EU" on the page.

At any rate, one reason I'd insist on "other" over "non-televised" is… what if a BBC TV story ever references a televised non-BBC story? It's not terribly likely or anything — but if an episode of Doctor Who ever name-drops the Korven, this seems like the sort of thing this page should document. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:49, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that is true. I even mentioned K9, I should really have thought of that! I guess "other" is the only option we have, then, unless we wanted to repeat ourselves in the title. The only other option is if we reworded it to instead say "List of references in BBC television stories to other DWU media". I'd probably prefer the former.

One more thing… if we choose not to include references in webcasts or home videos, I think we should also opt to ignore references to those webcasts/home videos which are a part of the television series. For example, it would hardly make sense to count the references to Pond Life or Asylum of the Daleks Prequel which have made their way onto the television. So, just to be clear, I think we should exclude stories which are a part of a series when it comes to both making the references and for being referenced. Danochy ☎ 03:03, August 17, 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit messy, though. After thinking some more on the subject, I propose List of references to non-televised works in live-action BBC stories, which seems like an unambiguous, unequivocal description of what the page currently covers. I suppose the one edge case with that title would be if a minisode references another, also-non-televised minisode, but I'm not sure that situation has ever even come up, if we're talking about references rather than just plain "one is a sequel to the other"-ness. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and renamed the page to that as an accurate reflection of what the page currently covers. But if anybody still wants to discuss altering the scope of the page itself, by all means do. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Edge case: War Council

So here's one for you. The Time Lords' War Council was first mentioned in the BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures novel The Taking of Planet 5 in the context of the War in Heaven, and the Council later appeared in audio in The True History of Faction Paradox. Then The Day of the Doctor showed the War Council in the context of the Last Great Time War. Is this an instance of a reference to the "EU" in a TV story? Or is it a coincidence? – N8 (☎/👁️) 18:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It is well-known that Steven Moffat, who wrote The Day of the Doctor, followed the War arc in the EDAs with interest — although I am not sure he read all of the EDAs. A coincidence strains belief.

There's never going to be an explicit REF source for every reference; if we limited this page to connections which have been officially stamped as Intentional Easter Eggs(TM) by the authors of the relevant stories, it would contain maybe three things. Four, tops. Thus, the only sane way to run this page is negatively. If there seems to be a direct narrative connection between a non-TV story and a later TV episode, it's a reference until proven otherwise.

Therefore, here, in the absence of a hypothetical denial from Moffat, and with the strong circumstancial evidence that Moffat is familiar with War in Heaven lore, I can find no reasonable grounds for excluding this reference from the page. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Tecteun

I made an edit that said Tecteun was the Other because the idea of a third founder did not originate on TV. An administrator removed it. Perhaps a discussion will help to decide whether my edit was justified or not. What do you all think? MystExplorer ☎ 01:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

At best it can be said that Tecteun fills the same role in this specific respect as the Other, but I think it is speculative, and indeed likely incorrect, to claim that the intent is to reveal that they are one and the same. As I said in my edit summary, "somehow a previous life of the Doctor" is as important a part — perhaps more important — of who "the Other" is, relative to "a third founder alongside Rassilon and Omega". So the Timeless Child could equally be said to be the Other according to this somewhat faulty reasoning. No, Tecteun, The Other and Timeless Child should remain solidly distinct pages, in my view, and accordingly, we should not randomly equate them in other parts of the Wiki.

And as I also said in my edit rationale, the Other was first mentioned in Season 25 with its Cartmel Masterplan, not in non-televised media. The name of "the Other" originated in print, yes, but it's not mentioned in Timeless Children, so what's your point if that is your argument? Chris Chibnall outright stated some time before the airing of Series 12 that he was unfamiliar with Lungbarrow, so it's going to take stronger evidence than presented to persuade me that he intended to reference "the Other" as he appeared in print, as opposed to just the Cartmel Masterplan as it existed on TV.

At best, you could get somewhere with the idea of the Triumvirate being referenced (as opposed to the Other as such). But come to that, while there is a "suggestive" short of Rassilon, Tecteun and Omega standing in line, there is not actually any explicit text stating they were a "significant" trio, as opposed to three early Time Lords who stood in a row one time against a dramatic light. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, you know. The identification of Tecteun = Other is misguided, to say the least, given the information we currently have. Najawin ☎ 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

According to this very wiki, the Other is first mentioned in the novelisation of Remembrance of the Daleks, not the televised story. It's been a long time since I've seen it so if there was mention of the Triumvirate, I can't remember it. If there isn't, then I stand by what I said about a third founder first being referenced in other media. Maybe mentioning the Other specifically is a bridge too far but the notion that someone besides Rassilon and Omega is regarded as a founder may be worth noting. MystExplorer ☎ 02:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think our page about The Other is mistaken in this case, then. The "My, did we ever have trouble with the prototype" line — the first reference to the Other — is right there in the TV version of Remembrance of the Daleks, and is again hinted at in Silver Nemesis. You'll note that it already posits the as-yet-unnamed Other as somebody who was working with Omega and Rassilon on spooky Time Lord business, which is no more qualification for "Founder" status than Tecteun gets. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We need to clarify what constitutes a mention as opposed to a hint. The Other has never been referred to as such onscreen but his existence has been hinted at, as you say. So where is the line between something that is only vaguely referenced onscreen but fleshed out in other media? Can it truly be said to originate on TV if there are multiple interpretations as to what is being said in the line you reference? MystExplorer ☎ 02:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the term "Other" is likely first used in Remembrance's novelization. But I stand behind my reference to a third founder of Gallifrey not necessarily meaning the Other (and thus we can reasonably interpret the Doctor's comment in that way). Najawin ☎ 02:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Doubt over a few topics

I have some doubt over a few entries here, specifically ones which could be read as either fan interpretations or a concept being written into secondary media to tie-into a TV story. For instance, Martha Jones first appears in a BBC Novel, which came out before she appeared on TV. Yet we don't list her as the show referencing the novel!

My point is that if a novel references a planet or species and then two months later a TV show name drops those species, it feels a lot more likely that the people in charge of the show invented a filler phrase for an episode then told the people at BBC Books "hey have fun with that"

Also, K9 Mark III appearing in the Annuals has always felt kind of like speculation to me. Can we get some concrete proof of that being the intention? Because it feels a little more like fans saw a few stories where Romana doesn't feature but K9 does, and invented their own explanation for it. OS25🤙☎️ 19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about K9 Mark III, but that's probably a matter for, er, Talk:K9 Mark III, even if whatever conclusion is reached there would also influence this page. That being said, while I agree it probably started out as a fan notion, I wouldn't be surprised if there had since been some official confirmation of the link in some obscure DWM short story or what-have-you. It's a finagly business, identifying K9s.

As for your other, main point… I dunno. In cases where the TV writers explicitly instructed BBC Books to insert mentions of such characters ahead of their involvement on television, with a clear picture of the schedule in mind, then that means that the TV crew intended for fans to first learn of these concepts in the “EU” works, and to recognise their mention on TV as a continuity nod thereto. It's a slightly different phenomenon from TV writers up and deciding to reference preexisting EU tidbits, yes; but it too is a case of the TV crew intentionally “confirming” EU works' validity, and I think that makes them worthy of listing somewhere.

Martha is a weird extreme, though. To be honest, I myself might actually be willing to bite the bullet of letting her have a bullet-point on this page (albeit with clear statements that obviously she was created for TV, and only debuted in print through a scheduling cock-up). But others may have different standards; let's get more opinions. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Though Martha feels like an edge case, I think her appearance in Made of Steel is worthy of being added to this page.

Epsilon📯 📂

22:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the intent behind the creation of this page was to list instances of the production team acknowledging the spin-off media. So my vote would be to only list those examples that unambiguously originated in other media, like the mention of the Eighth Doctor's companions in Night of the Doctor.MystExplorer ☎ 00:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This is true but kind of too broad. To spell out the problem here: we're trying to decide if "Concept X is created for TV, but its actual debut is in spin-off media, and the TV writers then put it in a specific TV story in the knowledge that it has already had its debut in spin-offs" counts as "TV referencing spin-off media". Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, my position is "If Concept X was created for TV, it should not be listed on the page". MystExplorer ☎ 00:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I agree. – n8 (☎) 01:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two possible borderline examples from SJA. The first is when Sarah Jane mentions "Graske activity on Earth a few years ago". This references Attack of the Graske, which this wiki deems invalid. There's some debate about whether it's a video game or an episode in its own right so does it count as a reference to other DWU media? The second is the appearance of Mr. Dread from Dreamland. Dreamland is a TV story but it's not live-action so does it meet the criteria for this list? MystExplorer ☎ 16:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the current policy is that we treat Attack of the Graske as a video game — it's got the "(video game)" dab term to prove it. So I'd say that counts. Conversely however, Dreamland we count as an episode of Doctor Who, so that doesn't count. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Infinite Quest

Should The Infinite Quest be included? The article is about live-action BBC stories and Infinite Quest is animated.BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 00:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, good point actually. I added the story as it is typically treated by the BBC as part of the television series (even if not part of series 3), so I naturally added it.

As such, I think removing it might not be the best course of action, and I instead propose we alter the title of the page? As far as I know, there Re very few animated Doctor Who television stories, even fewer that reference expanded media, so I doubt a tiny alteration would mean a hypothetical bunch of stories would be added.

Epsilon📯 📂

01:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Scrooge MacDuck even said a few replies above this that Dreamland counts as part of the television series and not part of the expanded media.

So if we don't treat it as part of the television series, but don't treat it as expanded media, we'll end up having a few stories in limbo, so I think we need to pick one, and i think we should treat it as part of the television series.

Epsilon📯 📂

01:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If we change the title to "List of references to other DWU media in televised BBC stories", then we would have to get rid of Liberty Hall and Ian Chesteron: An Introduction since those were not televised. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 02:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, but then we'd have to get rid of Class and Night of the Doctor as they were released online, not on television (initially). Also it would make sense to future proof the title as a streaming-only spin-off is likely in these times.

Epsilon📯 📂

02:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How about something like ""List of references to other DWU media in televisual BBC stories"? BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 02:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You know, I was just considering that name!

Epsilon📯 📂

02:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been over a year but I still think the name should be changed.BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 02:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think changing the name is not something that needs to be debated further. The question is who is willing to do it and then do the cleanup this will require. OS25🤙☎️ 01:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. See the rename topic earlier in the page. I don't think anyone is married to the current name, but I don't see a solid consensus on what the new name should be, yet. Scrooge MacDuck

⊕ 01:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I still prefer "List of references to other DWU media in televisual BBC stories". BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 02:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Televisual still excludes Liberty Hall and many webcasts, which I think are worth including. Perhaps something like "List of references to other DWU media in audiovisual BBC stories"? That would include all video but also theatre productions, so that's something to discuss... though it also risks confusion with the Audio Visuals. Alternatively, simply "List of references to other DWU media in live-action and animated BBC stories" would surely cover everything, if a little unwieldy. Danochy ☎ 02:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Unwieldy maybe but it's probably the best option all things considered. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 11:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving to the latter for accuracy's sake, but people can feel free to keep suggesting less cumbersome options if any come to mind. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems fair. Do you want to keep the rename template for a while longer to encourage discussion? Now we have at least an accurate name, I'm of a mind to just remove it, seeing as it hadn't attracted much talk in the last few years as it is. Danochy ☎ 21:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)