Talk:Second-and-a-Halfth Doctor

No deletion

This article should be kept, since other pages have given information that come from "HOMEVIDs". This information is allowed to be shown in the particular articles. An article like this one is not that far from it, and should therefore be kept. --DCLM ☎ 16:05, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that those videos were licensed. Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans had the rights to the Sontarans, The Zero Imperative had the rights to Liz Shaw, etc. Devious is basically fan fiction, and the only reason it has an article is because an excerpt from it was a bonus on the BBC DVD for The War Games. P&P talk contribs 16:28, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

But the characters in the story therefore also appears in that bonus on the "The War Games" BBC DVD. --DCLM ☎ 16:57, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

The BBC released part of this on DVD, thus they partially approved of it when they released it. The kicker I think is that the character should only have info on his page which can be gleamed from the DVD feature -- nothing else. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:53, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

Again, I see why the prop deletion tag is there, but this is a feature that was officially released on a BBC dvd and is considered canon by many fans because of this. It's totally acceptable to allow this page to exist. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 04:36, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Being released on a BBC DVD makes a source valid? So Oh Mummy!, Shada, A Fix with Sontarans, all deleted scenes...they have suddenly become valid on this wiki?

I think, DCLM and OS25, you might have confused yourselves over policy. Licensing is key to validity here. Devious is most definitely not licensed. Therefore, no in universe articles can be written from it, as it is a invalid source. Ergo, this page should be deleted. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 06:03, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

No, it being on an official DVD release does not make it valid. But it also doesn't mean that the page shouldn't exist. Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), Twelfth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death), Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), and a billion others all have pages written from an in-universe perspective. I don't think I'm confused on this one, it seems like common knowledge. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 06:44, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

But the difference is that all of those were licensed. Devious is not. I could write a fan-fiction and distribute it across the entirety of the Internet, but, as it was not licensed, the Doctor of my story would not feature on this wiki. Dr. Who is from a franchise based on Terry Nation's Dalek stories. The Curse of Fatal Death was a parody production based on Doctor Who. The Curse of Shalka was originally an official continuation of Who. Devious was an unlicensed, semi-illegal fan-made production. I hope you can see the difference. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 06:56, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can. I would ask you to stop patronizing me please.

The difference here between your well-circulated fan fiction and Devious is that Devious was released as a mini-narrative on a BBC DVD. So it has been released by the BBC in that form, which we accept not as a valid source, but as a valid source for writing this page. If your fan fiction were to be published on a BBC DVD because it predicted a series 15 episode, the same thing would occur. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 07:50, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies if you feel patronised by my comments, but I can assure you that that is not my intention. However, I feel you are still missing my point.

There is still no actual reason for writing an article on a concept from a fan film. The BBC do not endorse Devious in any way, let alone license it. It is included on a BBC DVD explicitly as an example of a fan production, something which the BBC acknowledge the existence of. It is not included as a mini-episode (if anything, it resembles a trailer for the actual production), and has nothing to do with the ongoing narrative of Doctor Who. If my theoretical fan-fiction were to be included on the official BBC home video release of Series 15, we could most assuredly write an article on it, as we have on Devious. But to then write about its contents as if they are in-universe in any way makes no sense. We have a Devious article, and we may well have a "RAL's Theoretical Fan-Fiction" article at some point in the future. But we have never, and, without the creation of some new policy, should never, create an article on fictional features of an unlicensed production. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 08:15, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

The reasons listed by you here are why the story is invalid. However, I still don't think that it being a fan production released by the BBC is a reason to have all articles on it blockaded as if it were different from Shalka or Curse. The feature is, by all accounts, still a story -- not a trailer. It wasn't clips from the film framed in a documentary, it wasn't a bunch of random clips out of order, it didn't show the behind-the-scenes stuff or break the fourth wall. It had an opening sequence, crew listed, and cards listing the narrative of the missing scenes. And it is incorrect to presume that the BBC had a take on if the story was "canon" (term used outside of wikia stands in situations discussing outer world relations) or not. The most that was done was that the feature was included as a mini-narrative that "fills the gap." We call it invalid because of our own assessments, but it's not outside of the realm of possible interpretations to say that's it "counts." So we have a page on it, call it invalid, and leave it be without conflict. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 08:22, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not presuming anything. All unlicensed productions are invalid on this wiki. No further debate was ever needed. The feature listing calls it an unlicensed fan production. A statement made by the BBC. It hasn't ever been released by the BBC. It's got it's own page. This page, not the one for the short, breaches policy. And according to that page, the film isn't even complete, so how can we make any statements on an unreleased source? This page would need major policy restructuring it to even be considered as a character page needed on this wiki. And you use the word canon, not me. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 09:27, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a story being invalid does disqualify it from being written about it in in-universe valid pages, but pages disqualified for reasons that do not involve technical issues (narrative confusion, etc) still have pages dedicated to them. Once again, these include Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), Twelfth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death), and a billion others. The film has been released by the BBC, despite your statements. The page Devious is about the bonus feature on the DVD. It is not and should not be dedicated to the film in general. The film isn't done and will never ever be released by the BBC, but we're not writing about the entire film. We are writing about the mini-narrative released on DVD. Which is, by all intents and purposes, completed.

The page did need reworking some time ago, and I have cleaned it up to only include info from the DVD bonus feature. There is currently nothing wrong with it.

And I used the term "canon" only to refer to non-wikia interactions with fans and the BBC. Not our policies themselves. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:20, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, I do not understand. If you want to claim that being featured on a DVD produced by 2|entertain, not "the BBC", whoever or whatever that may be, has been officially released by the BBC, then all of the features I mentioned before should be included in our list of valid sources. When I say that our policy does not allow this page, you direct me towards characters from licensed sources, and when I explain that they are from licensed sources, you claim that this is too. Your whole argument hinges on the fact that you believe that being released on a DVD should merit a source licensed, so if you wish to change policy, you must ask the community to do that. I have no quarrel with the wiki featuring a page for the film, but our policies do not allow characters from any old fan-film a page unto themselves. As you do not seem to have an argument based on policy, I would recommend you bring this up for change with the entire community in the forums. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 05:53, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the Devious bonus feature is a valid source, I would suggest that you bring it up with the community forums. I doubt that it will get much traction.

My point is not that the extra must be a valid source -- rather that it's equal to The Curse of Fatal Death in how we should cover it from an invalid standpoint. The two are no different -- in fact they even share props and sets -- in terms of how we should an could cover them as a site. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 15:49, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

The views of RogerAckroyd and PicassoAndPringles are stronger than those espoused by OS25. Accordingly, the article has been deleted. Debate has had sufficient time to breathe, and what cannot be overcome is the notion that Devious hasn't been officially released in its entirety, under the terms of T:OFF REL. This is in no way equivalent to say, Dr. Who and the Daleks, where licenses were obtained by the appropriate copyright holders and the film went into official release. This is bit of partially-completed fanfic that happened to get a little prominence via a partial release as an extra feature on a DVD.

Please note that opening this discussion up on the forums if you don't agree with this decision amounts to a violation of T:POINT.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:50: Thu 12 Nov 2015

Moved from page Talk:"Second-and-a-Halfth Doctor"

A page was created at Talk:"Second-and-a-Halfth Doctor" that is totally unnecessary so I'm moving that discussion here in order to delete the other page. Shambala108 ☎ 22:49, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Are pages like this allowed?

First of all, the film is unmade and secondly it is a fan film. --Xx-connor-xX ☎ 14:33, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Although an article on the fan film itself is perfectly acceptable - considering it features footage of Jon Pertwee in his last performance as the Doctor, and the article is presumably marked as being NON-DWU - it's in no way an official production and we shouldn't have articles on its individual characters. Is this the only one? 23skidoo ☎ 14:51, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the page was deleted (and possibly also create-protected) a while ago. The talk page, however, remains. Shambala108 ☎ 19:12, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

It was released by the BBC, so the character, by the rules, should be covered as far as the BBC have endorsed which means as far as a seen on the DVD release. Denchen ☎ 21:17, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find the discussion where it was ruled we will not ever have a page for this character, but I couldn't find it with a quick search. At any rate, this page will not be created. Shambala108 ☎ 22:26, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

That'd be [[Talk:Second-and-a-Halfth Doctor]].
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 22:33, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Took me forever to figure out the difference between the two pages. I'm moving this discussion to the other page and deleting this one because there's no point for two pages when the original has the final word on the matter. Shambala108 ☎ 22:49, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this page contains User:CzechOut's final ruling on this matter and the potential consequences of bringing this matter up again. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 22:49, November 5, 2016 (UTC)