User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2
XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:210966
I'm aware having read the Valid Sources policy that the Big Finish Sherlock Holmes is currently not considered a valid source. I suspect that was written before the "Worlds of Big Finish" anthology and its crossover that included Bernice Summerfield, Graceless, etc. Just as there is one exception allowed for Dorian Gray, but the rest of the Big Finish series is off-limits, should the Big Finish Sherlock Holmes entry be updated to allow for the one Worlds of Big Finish storyline?
- TheChampionOfTime
The page also doesn't mention the cross-over in AUDIO: All-Consuming Fire.
- Thefartydoctor
TheChampionOfTime wrote: The page also doesn't mention the cross-over in AUDIO: All-Consuming Fire.
Since we're talking about ACF, I'm interested to know how this Wiki deals with scenarios where it's a valid adaptation. I've always treated the Audio Novel Adaptations akin to the Target Novelisations of the episodes. They're almost like a second account of the same event.
BUT, if we're to say PROSE: All-Consuming Fire and AUDIO: All-Consuming Fire are to be treated separately and occurring individually and unrelated to one-another... then how do we explain the fact that we have two almost identical Sherlocks with the same origin story...?
This has always confused me. Are the adaptations treated as alternative realities in this universe? Or are they treated, similar to how I treat them, as basically two different perspectives on the same event. My comment is admittedly quite messy but I hope you gather what I'm saying... I've always wondered how this Wiki deals with them... two practically identical stories.
- AeD
I think generally if there's any substantial difference, it gets covered in a layer of "according to one account"-style language.
Personally, I handwave that stuff away while muttering the words "timey wimey" a few times.
- SOTO
Adaptations are secondary accounts of the original story. Like you say, they're like the novelisations: only really valid when they don't contradict the original story, but you could probably get away with noting differences in this case anyway with "According to another account". Any additional information in AUDIO: All-Consuming Fire is treated just as valid as details from the original novel.
- Thefartydoctor
That's how I've always treated them. So to me, the AUDIO adaptation is a bit like someone else's set of notes. When it clashes, the official "set of notes" is what we go with but there's no harm in going down the "different accounts" route.
- Schreibenheimer
I'm not sure precisely what is being requested here. Currently the Sherlock Holmes page does incorporate the stories from The Worlds of Big Finish. If that was your only goal, then this can probably be closed, unless that information being added was done in error.
EDIT: I see that there is an outstanding inclusion debate in regard to that. I would still suggest closure simply because Thread:168898 encompasses this.
- Schreibenheimer
Now that Thread:168898 has been closed, this one probably should be as well. The Worlds of Big Finish is now included.
- Schreibenheimer
Since it's been a month, just bumping that this should be closed due to already being decided.
- NateBumber
My proposal for how the updated section on T:VS would read:
- The only way Big Finish's Sherlock Holmes is connected to the DWU is because of some crossovers with the Worlds of Big Finish and Novel Adaptations series. But while those specific crossover stories may be valid, the series itself is unrelated to the DWU. (Also, the last thing the DWU needs is yet another version of Sherlock Holmes running around. It's already hard enough to understand who Sherlock Holmes is in the DWU without including all the Nick Briggs stories!)
- Schreibenheimer
You've got a very good point about that needing updating, and I think that's a good way of doing it. Also, the "No. Never. Not on your life," really hasn't aged well.
The Worlds of Big Finish, as per Thread:168898, is also valid, but only as a crossover. Therefore, the Sherlock Holmes series stays invalid.
Tardis:Valid sources will be edited to reflect this.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:211485
So Daleks are in the Lego Batman Movie. We should probably talk about if the story is valid or not.
Right off the bat (Haha, get it?) I know that many people are going to be making the case that this isn't a debate that needs to be had at all. You'll say that it's obviously invalid based off of how silly it is. You'll also likely quote precedent. And all I have to say is that it isn't that simple.
I have to politely ask that no admins reading this post try to close it prematurely with little to no apt discussion. This isn't a clean and easy thing, and it should be left up to no single person to decipher the issue.
On this wiki, we have previously decided that the video game Lego Dimensions isn't a valid resource. To many it would thus seem that it would be a no-brainer that The Lego Batman Movie and all further LEGO films and shorts featuring Doctor Who imagery are also invalid. Simply put, the actual discussion on the topic does not support such a hasty decision.
Reading through the initial mumblings of Thread:176459, it may seem that we deemed the game invalid because "legos are stupid, shut up." This was very much the emotions that were spread by people who had seen little more than promotional box art for the product. The thread was started in July, and it wasn't until September that anyone actually got to play the game. As soon as there were people in the thread who actually knew anything at all about it, the tides of the conversation very much changed course.
The basic findings of the thread was that -- speaking on a story-basis alone -- Doctor Who was treated fundamentally differently than anything else in Dimensions.
If this were a Back to the Future wiki, then we'd easily have been able to call the story invalid based off of how the game treated that franchise. The Back to the Future DLC levels featured an entire re-telling of the first movie. This was the case with many other DLC levels. With Doctor Who however it was clear that they were trying to simply make a story within the DWU that just happened to look a bit like LEGO. LEGO Doctor Who mainly tried to play the stories as if they were set in the real DWU and not a "reboot" version with slightly different characters and jokes. It was almost played like the creators of the level wanted us to forget that everything kinda looked all-Lego-ey, and instead they just wanted us to enjoy a fun adventure with the Twelfth Doctor fighting Davros.
The ultimate reason that the discussions ended with the story being deemed invalid was, by Czech's own words, basically that the video game was a video game.
This wiki long ago determined that most video games weren't allowed because there are multiple pathways that players can take, ensuring that there would be dispute over which is the "correct" way to play. Since we have no mechanism for determining "correctness" (unlike the Star Wars franchise, for instance), we can only really write an article about the game as a product on the market, and not as a valid source for articles here.
Basically if Lego Dimensions didn't have an RPG hub world with each DLC and if the game didn't have so many specific easter eggs and if the game didn't let you play as whoever you want to, it'd be a fully-valid story on this site.
So our findings in the Lego Dimensions thread, if anything, only point towards us counting the Lego Batman movie.
Now many people are going to point towards the fact that Lego Batman is satire. It's been a long-standing rule that in most cases parodies can be easily deemed invalid because they are rarely ever set with the DWU.
An important clarification is that that rule is in place for satire of Doctor Who, not Batman. Lego Batman makes fun of Batman and makes it clear that it's not set in any official Batman universe seen so far. If we were a Harry Potter wiki, a Gremlins wiki, a Wizard of Oz wiki or any wiki but this wiki; then we'd have no pause in deeming the story totally invalid just based on how the featured characters are portrayed. Most of them are clearly unique versions of the characters from their own rebooted timelines. For instance, in the movie Superman has his own history that's different from the comics.
But with the Daleks, they're kinda just the Daleks. No big twists, no gags, nothing breaking from what we would expect from regular ol' Daleks. This basic difference to how Doctor Who is treated can not be emphasized enough.
If there was a Lego Voldemort movie, then the universe would be totally different from the real Harry Potter films. If there was a Lego Superman movie, the universe wouldn't even look similar to any other version of Superman. Same for King Kong, Kite-Man or anyone else in the movie.
But if there was a Lego Doctor Who movie, they'd just do a stand-alone, unique adventure with the Doctor while keeping almost everything in the universe exactly as it appears to be in the BBC TV show. It's an important distinction.
Blocking out all of the non-Doctor Who parts of this movie (and thus the parts that are irrelevant to this discussion), it's hard to easily say "oh, this is a Doctor Who parody. So it doesn't count."
In fact, one could easily make the case that Lego Batman isn't the most silly thing we've ever seen cross our radar. The early 1960s comics treat the Daleks with much less respect, and are much less connected to or concerned with the actual show.
The back-up Titan strips are often just as silly and outgoing as this movie. There are fourth wall jokes in the movie (the opening and closing narration basically) but in the end it's no better than the intro to Before the Flood. Wholloween arguably is much worse than Lego Batman in terms of how far it takes this aspect.
If there isn't much cause to call it invalid, the question would next fall to how we would cover it. This is more difficult, as it's slightly silly to imagine us writing entire pages on Lego Joker and Lego Batman just because there are Daleks in the movie. It is, however, only slightly more silly than writing articles on Spock and Carnell.
This is a first for us as a wiki -- in the past all crossovers we've dealt with as a site have had our franchises plastered over the front page. There was never any confusion about how we would cover Assimilation^2 because it was its own stand-alone storyline with DOCTOR WHO over the top. IDW never had the Doctor wander into a different comic for two pages as a cameo. But if IDW had done this around the same time, it would technically still be a licensed appearance and thus a valid story.
I would like to suggest that this wiki treat the Daleks appearing in this story just like it would Erimem appearing in some random non-Doctor Who audio thing. It's gonna be a bit silly, but we're a wiki built to accept tons of silly stuff and I feel like we'll get used to it somehow.
Thanks for reading this and considering my point of view, I hope to speak to all of you very soon.
- 5.2.105.85
Would this mean that Doctor, Doctor, Doctor would be included?
- OncomingStorm12th
To me, it's a case where Rule 4 is the invalidity reason. These may indeed be intended to be the Daleks. May even be intended to be the very same Daleks we see on The Daleks (TV story), Victory of the Daleks (TV story), The Magician's Apprentice (TV story) et al. but I find it very unlikely that "The Lego Batman Movie" itself was intended to be set in the DWU.
Look, Batman, Superman, the Joker, etc. are on the movie. Would DC Comics (or Warner Brothers, in Voldemort's case) really be allowing LEGO to say that these characters are, somehow, anyhow, part of Doctor Who? LEGO Dimensions (video game) is one thing, because in there is clear cut: a lot of Dimensions "crash" together, allowing characters from one franchise cross into the other. But saying that there is a real Batman, Superman and a Joker on the same universe as the Doctor, the Master and Gallifrey? I think it's not the intention of the movie.
I would see this as more of a cultural reference, like the Fourth Doctor appearing on the Simpsons, or the the Tenth Doctor on Family Guy.
And no, I'm almost 100% sure that even if this thread decided that "The Lego Batman Movie" is valid, Doctor, Doctor, Doctor (webcast) would still be invalid, because that is a direct tie-in to LEGO Dimensions, and not a tie-in to "The Lego Batman Movie"
- OttselSpy25
Just to be clear I was presenting an argument, I don't think it's clear cut.
The idea that the movie wasn't meant to be set in the DWU is a valid point. Or a valid question, at the very least. However, it is extremely important to clarify that this is much different from the Doctor wandering into an episode of The Simpsons because that is not a licensed appearance. This is a licensed appearance.
There will be a page on this movie even if we deem it invalid.
We have to clarify as well that Lego Dimensions as well as the film franchise attached to it exist in a multi-verse, not a universe; this is why this is a very unique case. Gallifrey, the Time Lords, and Missy do not exist within the same universe as Batman and the Joker. But in the film's multi-verse, there is a world out there where they do. And that world has been consistently played to be a direct copy of the DWU. And that world is where these Daleks are pulled from.
Spock, Kirk and the Enterprise do not exist within the DWU. But in a multiverse that Doctor Who happens to be connected to, they very much do.
So the fact that Batman's world is silly and camp is pretty irrelevant. So there's a universe out there where Batman and Superman are real and everything is kinda silly. So what? It's by far not the most crazy thing that we've come across on this site.
- OttselSpy25
5.2.105.85 wrote: Would this mean that Doctor, Doctor, Doctor would be included?
I imagine so. Just as a guess, I think we would ideally operate under a principal of "Everything or nothing," as we have done with the back-up comics.
- Amorkuz
I second OncomingStorm12th.
And this is a good example of why Rule 4 (or rather its current explanation) is too weak. The current stance is that "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4." But this implicitly implies that the story was ever conceived as part of DWU.
The LEGO movie is a perfect example of a story using DWU characters and DC characters and god knows which other characters (I really need to watch it), all this clearly without intending to put it in the DWU or in DCU or any other U. If it would be strange to see this as a DWU story, it would also be strange to expect the authors to explicitly comment on this.
- Thefartydoctor
It's also important to note that regardless of whether or not these were intended to be Daleks, from recollection, the characters never actually refer to them as Daleks. I'm pretty sure they're referred to as "British robots". Doesn't that make them more of an easy joke rather than a character to be taken seriously?
You have to ask yourself- "Why are they in the movie?" Are they a serious threat or a quick, easy laugh? To me it's the latter, and therefore, the intention of the author(s) is nowhere near placing it in the DWU. If you wanted to, you'd at least name them.
P.S. I am planning on rewatching the movie so I'll try to gleam any further information from my second sitting.
EDIT: I'm fully aware that Faction Paradox never named TARDISes and Time Lords, yet intended it all to be set within the DWU... but the LEGO Movie is hardly FP, is it? haha
- OttselSpy25
To quote the thread on the titan back-up comics,
I think you are confusing humor with parody. A story can be humourous without being parodic; just look at anything by Gareth Roberts. In The One Doctor, for example, there is a port-a-potty version of the TARDIS that makes flushing noises when it materialises.
The fact that no one says "Oh hey Daleks i know what those are" comes down the fact that most of them are Batman villains. Them having humour with the situation in having the Joker refer to them as "British Robots" doesn't really disqualify the story from being valid.
I guess you're trying to say that because they're minion characters, they aren't taken seriously. But I disagree. It's clear that the story takes someone like Sauron MUCH less seriously. The only reason the Daleks don't do any more than they do in the film is clearly because they didn't feel like actually hiring Nick Briggs.
- OttselSpy25
The Daleks are, by nature, always going to be the ones that run around and do the most damage while someone like The Master actually does the speeches and the the plotting. There's a reason that Davros was in almost every Dalek story after his introduction. It's only natural that they would serve the militant role that they do in the movie.
- Thefartydoctor
In which case, that further backs up my "Edit". The point in my edit was that you have Faction Paradox (and before I start, I'm not a fan of FP nor do I disapprove of its inclusion, so there's no peddling or bias of anything on my part). FP put a lot of work into its range of books and audios that were meant for the DWU, despite them having no true licence to use certain terminologies. There's a complete oeuvre of work that spans years and the authors actually intertwine their own stories with those with licences.
In this case, we have a movie who uses the Daleks as a light-hearted approach on a "British villain". I get your point but you've kind of said it yourself. If they wanted this movie to take place in the DWU, they'd have least hired Briggs to do a few more lines. The Daleks were evidently not supposed to be taken seriously.
Just to make sure, you and I agree right? I'm all against making this a valid form of narrative. Same goes with anything from the Lego Dimensions range. There are too many crossovers and the characters are dealt with too flippantly. It's more bragging that "we have the Doctor/Daleks" rather than "we're making a Doctor Who game/story".
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: In which case, that further backs up my "Edit". The point in my edit was that you have Faction Paradox (and before I start, I'm not a fan of FP nor do I disapprove of its inclusion, so there's no peddling or bias of anything on my part). FP put a lot of work into its range of books and audios that were meant for the DWU, despite them having no true licence to use certain terminologies. There's a complete oeuvre of work that spans years and the authors actually intertwine their own stories with those with licences.
Just to make this absolutely clear, there's no way they didn't have the rights to put the Daleks in this movie.
In this case, we have a movie who uses the Daleks as a light-hearted approach on a "British villain". I get your point but you've kind of said it yourself. If they wanted this movie to take place in the DWU, they'd have least hired Briggs to do a few more lines. The Daleks were evidently not supposed to be taken seriously.
I don't really see your point. So, by your logic, because the Daleks aren't goofy cartoon parodies with tons of dialogue the movie wanted them to be taken as a joke? I totally disagree. Almost every other villain in this is played to be much more of a parody. The Daleks are just played like the Daleks. They don't conspire with the other villains while laughing maniacally because that's not what Daleks do.
Just to make sure, you and I agree right? I'm all against making this a valid form of narrative.
I mean, have you read any of my posts at all?
There are too many crossovers and the characters are dealt with too flippantly. It's more bragging that "we have the Doctor/Daleks" rather than "we're making a Doctor Who game/story".
I don't think that's an argument we can really back up without any quotes from the creators. LEGO Dimensions does not leave me with the impression of a bunch of people who wanted to use the Doctor without understanding him. Doctor Who is, by no means, treated as a shiny object to show off.
There might be a much better explanation of all this. Maybe they didn't want to spoil the Daleks being in the movie? Putting "Nick Briggs" in the cast would make it obvious to most people that this was the case.
- Thefartydoctor
From what I understood of your post, I gleamed that the use of the Daleks in this movie was licenced. That is what I got from that.
I actually think my point is best summarised by OncomingStorm12th said earlier. I can't think of a better way to put it than a "cultural reference" rather than a serious appearance of a character. In my honest opinion, and it is an opinion that needs to be respected, just as I've respected yours, I group the Daleks' appearance in this movie with Doctor Who Farted.
If my comment about LEGO Dimensions made it sound as though the team behind the game didn't respect the show, that's not what I meant. I fully believe they did thorough research and I also believe that the BBC wouldn't have sold the rights had they thought otherwise. With reflexion, I kind of understand this Wiki's approach on Dimensions, and on retrospect, I don't think Dimensions is going to help us make a decision.
But a conclusion to my own personal opinion is as I've said. OncomingStorm12th put it perfectly. I see this as a cultural reference rather than a joke. This doesn't necessarily make it invalid but it does somewhat affect Rule 4. If you're writing the scene knowing that it's a cultural reference, does that mean you're not taking it 100% seriously, narratively speaking? :)
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I group the Daleks' appearance in this movie with Doctor Who Farted.
I see this as a cultural reference rather than a joke.
Here's a shocker -- I would say that Doctor Who Farted is only invalid because of how its presented in the episode.
If you took it out of the Family Guy episode, edited it into a six-panel comic and printed it in the back of a Titan magazine, there would be nothing stopping it from being valid.
But there's a huge difference between having a fictional episode of Doctor Who in an episode of Family Guy and having the Daleks appear, fully licensed, as characters from another universe for the majority of a movie.
We can easily say that the creators of Family Guy didn't want their story to be treated as valid, because it was presented as a fictional narrative within the TV Show -- much like the Extras sketch. But here we have a full narrative where the Daleks are featured as non-fictional entities. The cases are barely comparable.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: With reflexion, I kind of understand this Wiki's approach on Dimensions, and on retrospect, I don't think Dimensions is going to help us make a decision.
I disagree. I think LD's specific an unique approach to Doctor Who within the game is important to agreeing on how we will go on to cover any other LEGO products featuring Doctor Who characters.
- Thefartydoctor
Anyways, I've given my opinions. Both of our opinions are equally as important as the other. I'm just happy I've had my say in the issue. I wouldn't have gotten involved if I didn't feel urged to. I can understand that the Daleks play a somewhat serious role in the movie in question but I also don't see it as any form of serious narrative from a DWU point of view. I think you could drag any of the writers in and interrogate them and there's a good chance they'd brush it away as "we just wanted to have fun with some Daleks" rather than "we wanted to add to the oeuvre of Doctor Who".
I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, of course, nor would I ever want to. I think this Wiki takes certain things way too seriously. For example, the Baker's End inclusion debate just got crazy because some version of Vince Cosmos wandered into one of the stories. So a spin-off of a spin-off that's met the Doctor a handful of times wanders in and then meets a completely different show and we're supposed to go "yep, why not? The more the merrier!" haha.
That's a big tangent. Those were my opinions. Do what you will with them.
- OttselSpy25
Well thanks for contributing to the conversation! Not enough people do these days.
I agree that the tangents of tangents do get kinda crazy.
I do want to quickly note, however, that "I just wanted to have fun" is almost exactly how Rachael Smith described writing for A Rose by Any Other Name. Hell, I'm sure you could find writers who would describe actual episodes like that. I just don't think that it's solid enough evidence.
- AeD
I don't really have anything to add to the validity debate -- except the opinion that I don't think it should be considered valid -- but, and I can't find the quote right now, I'm 99% sure they are licensed, and there was no legal issue re: calling them Daleks; calling them "British robots" was part of a gag where a character deliberately gets other names wrong, too.
- AeD
Found it: [1]
- OttselSpy25
Thanks AED
“The BBC said we could use the Daleks, and we could’ve called them the Daleks,” he said, explaining that the scripted version of the scene – in which Joker introduces special guest villains like Sauron, the Kraken, and Lord Voldemort – featured the Clown Prince of Crime introducing the Doctor’s major adversary in a quippy way. However, when actor Zack Galifianakis recorded the lines, one of his takes featured a joke in which “he says all the names, and he mispronounced Sauron and Voldemort, and then he said ‘British robots.’” To McKay, a fan of “Doctor Who,” the “point of view that [the Joker] didn’t understand who the Daleks were” struck him as funnier than original line.
- Amorkuz
As much as this fascinating discussion makes me wanna watch it finally, I do not believe it proves in the slightest that the movie was intended to be set in the DWU. I can only agree that it is a cultural reference.
It is quite possible to make a serious sci-fi movie without treating the DWU seriously. For me the idea of bringing all the villains from all the franchises to nuke it out is similar to the rap battle between Groot and Hodor. It is based on multiple mythologies and represents some of their elements faithfully, but it was never intended to be set within any one of those mythologies.
- OttselSpy25
Alright, you can't compare this film's plot to a rap-battle.
It's simply not a "cultural reference" if the characters appearing are fully licensed and are shown in the right context.
The Daleks are a part of the "villain squad" that attacks Gotham. It's not a futurama background gag where the Fourth Doctor is walking around unliscensed. They're there and it's clear who they are.
You can't just call this a "Reference" over an "Appearance" over some marginally irrelevant notes about how many lines the Daleks have and if someone in the movie makes fun of them for two seconds.
It is a licensed appearance. It is explained why they are in this universe. The DWU is explored in the Lego series.
I think an important note is, once again, anything that isn't Doctor Who in this movie is irrelevant to the discussion. This conversation will likely be used in the future to make a judgement on all LEGO media, so it's important that we closely inspect the Who branch of the franchise above all other things.
If they specifically designed the plot of the movie and surrounding media so that it could be explained how the Daleks did arrive in the Batman universe, then it was in some sense meant to be set in the DWU. Let's compare it to Looney Tunes: Back in Action, as someone did in another thread.
Back in Action is set in a universe with cartoon animals living alongside people. The reason it does matter in that case that the universe is different from the DWU is that it's never explained that the Daleks aren't from the universe that they're currently in. They didn't go out of their way to explain how it makes any sense. The Lego products did do that.
The important clarification is that the film is not set in the DWU at all. But we do not literally chose to call things valid or invalid based off of if a story is set on "Earth-5556" or not. The film is set in a universe on a tangent to the DWU, and it's explained how characters from the DWU ended up there. That's what actually matters.
There was a clear-cut effort to make this appearance, and indeed all of the uses of Doctor Who characters, make some resemblance of sense. They wanted us to understand how this all tied in. Thus it sort of is based in the DWU.
Things that this movie is not:
It's not the Family Guy sketch, because the Family Guy sketch is presented as a fictional episode of Doctor Who within Family Guy. It's never presented like we're meant to take it as a real narrative that could have actually happened.
It's not LT:BIN because the Daleks are properly licensed and it's explained how they are in a universe where we wouldn't expect them to be.
It's not a Futurama or Simpsons cameo because it is not an unlicensed joke appearance.
- TheChampionOfTime
Just a reminder that we currently consider a rather silly story where the Doctor goes to a party also attended by Bart Simpson, Captain Britain, the Silver Surfer, the Hulk, Worf, Darth Vader, John Steed, and Sapphire and Steel valid.
- SOTO
Here's some actual quotes from the director, Chris McKay:
- "And because when I played with toys, I'd mash everything together. The first remixing that people do when they're kids is they take Luke Skywalkers and Voldemort and put them in a battle together, that kind of things! [...] To be able to put Agent Smith, Sauron, Voldemort and the Daleks into the movie. All of these bad guys from my childhood. It was a lot of fun." (Source)
- "I'm a fan! The Tom Baker Doctor Who and Monty Python – that was my Sunday night growing up in Chicago, watching those shows. To me, you want to find characters who are internationally known. You want to find stuff that's not just US centric. The Daleks are there for that reason. We could have called them the Daleks, but Zack had an improv, calling them British robots, which sounded funny! That's where that came from!" (same source as above)
- "It's funny, because we make that "British robots" joke about the Daleks, but the BBC gave us the license to be able to use the Daleks, but that’s just a funny joke that Zach (Galifianakis) did in the record and (The Joker) just has that kind of attitude, the American-centric attitude to that joke, which made me laugh, that the Joker would sort of feel that way. You'd be able to namecheck all these other characters but wouldn’t know the Daleks. When I was a kid, I watched Monty Python and Doctor Who on channel 11 in Chicago on Sunday nights. When I was growing up, people wouldn't know the Daleks, but now, there's a lot of kids that grow up on Doctor Who. It may not be the most prevalent thing. I also like doing things that are sort of secret jokes that kids can get, "Oh no, those are the Daleks, of course." They know what they are." (Source)
I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I won't give my personal comments until I have.
- Amorkuz
There are several points that have not been sufficiently clarified in this discussion. And, since I agree that this is going to be used as a precedent, it is important to put all the relevant arguments out there in the open: in a year, none of us is going to remember the details of what we were thinking now.
So the big question is: how exactly are the Daleks in the movie related to the DWU? A multiverse was mentioned, but the exact nature of DWU in it or how Daleks could travel to its other parts was not specified. The reason that I'm asking is because of the jokey name used for them. I would grant the argument that calling them Daleks is not mandatory and can be used for whatever comic relief. But calling them "British robots" is, in fact, treating them differently from the established lore of the DWU. Because
- They are not robots
- They are not British
Were they called "Skaro mutants", we would be having a different discussion. But "British robots" is not a reference to DWU. It is a cultural reference to a TV show produced in Great Britain about robotic looking things. The intended joke is, based on all the quotes above, that the American audience is not going to know exactly what Daleks are. But this intension is ludicrous from the point of view of DWU. There were multiple stories set in the US plus several Dalek invasions on the global scale that affected the US too.
The only thing that could potentially justify calling Daleks "British robots" is Ironsides. If there is source material in the movie connecting its Daleks with those trying to dupe the Eleventh Doctor into confirming their blood purity, please make it.
Barring that, the designation "British robot" is for me incompatible with a faithful representation of the DWU, be it standalone or within a multiverse.
Oh, and one more point. Everyone agrees that the movie is BBC-licensed. However, Rule 4 is completely independent of that (as licensing is dealt with in Rule 2). So let us leave the well-established licensing alone and discuss the DWU-intentions.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: There are several points that have not been sufficiently clarified in this discussion. And, since I agree that this is going to be used as a precedent, it is important to put all the relevant arguments out there in the open: in a year, none of us is going to remember the details of what we were thinking now.
So the big question is: how exactly are the Daleks in the movie related to the DWU? A multiverse was mentioned, but the exact nature of DWU in it or how Daleks could travel to its other parts was not specified. The reason that I'm asking is because of the jokey name used for them. I would grant the argument that calling them Daleks is not mandatory and can be used for whatever comic relief. But calling them "British robots" is, in fact, treating them differently from the established lore of the DWU. Because
- They are not robots
- They are not British
I don't know how to make this more clear. I hate it when people make me explain jokes.
The joke is that the Joker doesn't know who the Daleks are. It is not a fact in the movie that the Daleks are robots from Britain. It is a fact in the movie that the Joker knows so little about the Daleks that he's chosen to interpret them as "Robots or something." It's not actually a fact that they are Robots.
Although, as an important note, please see Destiny of the Daleks
This is very much a nit-pick over a joke that was a last-minute adlib. It is certainly not a moment that you should base your entire argument off of.
- Amorkuz
Yes, we should discuss this joke because, in the absence of the real name, this joke is all that the Daleks represent in the movie. Frankly, there was nothing else mentioned in this discussion that connects these "British robots" to the DWU. It's how they look and that they are called "British robots". How is this different from Daleks appearing alongside a police box called TWODIS in Sesame Street: a famous British cultural icon paraded in front of American children for added effect while shying away from actually naming them despite having the license to do so?
What we are trying to establish is whether Daleks are treated seriously as Daleks whom everyone fears in the DWU or as the funny pepperpots that Brits are mad about. Joker might not know much about them. However, his information (in-universe) should come from somewhere. What makes him call them "British" from the in-multiLEGOverse perspective? The obvious answer is: they are characters from a British TV show. The intent of the joke is the same, as evidenced by the quotes above. If there is a different explanation, it should definitely be part of this discussion.
- OttselSpy25
What matters is authorial intent. Did the authors intend for these to be Daleks?
Oh look, several quotes posted earlier in the thread that prove this to be the case:
SOTO wrote: Here's some actual quotes from the director, Chris McKay:
- "I'm a fan! The Tom Baker Doctor Who and Monty Python – that was my Sunday night growing up in Chicago, watching those shows... We could have called them the Daleks, but Zack had an improv, calling them British robots, which sounded funny! That's where that came from!"
- "It's funny, because we make that "British robots" joke about the Daleks, but the BBC gave us the license to be able to use the Daleks, but that’s just a funny joke that Zach (Galifianakis) did in the record and (The Joker) just has that kind of attitude, the American-centric attitude to that joke, which made me laugh, that the Joker would sort of feel that way... It may not be the most prevalent thing. I also like doing things that are sort of secret jokes that kids can get, "Oh no, those are the Daleks, of course." They know what they are."
- OttselSpy25
Again, you are really really stretching to somehow make this something that it's not. And I don't know why you're doing it. It is just to make the debate "more simple"?
No, the Daleks in the film's multi-verse are not fiction characters within a TV show. There is no substantial evidence to support that claim. It's speculation.
Yes, calling them "British" is a fourth wall joke, but it's an extremely minor one. Extremely.
I could very easily think of a billion reasons for why someone in-universe would get confused and think that the Daleks were British. Britain does seem to be the place that they attack the most...
Three seconds. This is a three-second, ad-libbed gag presenting a simple joke about the Joker not knowing who the Daleks are. It doesn't prove anything about the film's interpretation of the characters or the authorial intent in using them.
You can not say that a villain's significant role in a narrative was meant as a parody based entirely around a three second fourth-wall-stretching ad-libbed joke.
- OttselSpy25
Furthermore, we don't need to speculate on how Doctor Who works within this Multi-verse. We've seen plenty of that in Lego Dimensions. Just because that game isn't valid (for being a video game) doesn't mean that we get to just pretend that it doesn't exist.
No, the Daleks are not TV show characters. That is an insane proclamation with absolutely no backing.
It is still not a Simpsons joke cameo. It's never going to be a Simpsons joke cameo. Trying to make the case that this entire movie is nothing but a Simpsons joke cameo isn't very helpful in the discussion.
- 5.2.105.85
I'm going to agree that it would be weird if this was included. But that isn't a reason for a story to be declared invalid.
The main question is. Is a licensed cameo, a DWU story?
Also, this could be an alternate universe where everything is LEGO in the DWU, how it fits is not our problem.
- OttselSpy25
5.2.105.85 wrote: Is a licensed cameo, a DWU story?
So a quick response to this -- I don't think you could really call their role in this film a cameo. What you're asking is an important question, but the word cameo suggests that they're in one scene with no context. They are in a huge chunk of the movie.
But yes, I think a licensed cameo meant in the same vein as a crossover is absolutely a valid source for a story.
Imagine if IDW had printed a Star Trek comic where the Fourth Doctor showed up and helped them for one scene. They got permission, they gave proper documentation, and it was meant as a legit crossover. Can you really say the story is invalid just because it's technically a cameo?
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote:
5.2.105.85 wrote: Is a licensed cameo, a DWU story?
So a quick response to this -- I don't think you could really call their role in this film a cameo. What you're asking is an important question, but the word cameo suggests that they're in one scene with no context. They are in a huge chunk of the movie.
But yes, I think a licensed cameo meant in the same vein as a crossover is absolutely a valid source for a story.
Imagine if IDW had printed a Star Trek comic where the Fourth Doctor showed up and helped them for one scene. They got permission, they gave proper documentation, and it was meant as a legit crossover. Can you really say the story is invalid just because it's technically a cameo?
You've convinced me. I'm all for this story being valid.
- TheChampionOfTime
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (and I'm not sure if it matters), but the Daleks do say "Exterminate" a few times in the movie.
To discredit a story based on the length of a DWU character's appearance (and in this case Daleks are in like a third of the movie) is ridiculous! The difference between this and
- Do we include all of Star Trek just because there are Metebelis crystals in the Star Trek novel Ishmael?
- Just because there's a TARDIS in Fallout 2, is the Fallout franchise a part of the DWU?
- The words Bad Wolf appear as graffiti in an issue of The Spectacular Spider-Man. Does that mean we believe the regular Marvel Universe is a part of the DWU?
is permission to legally use the DWU thing!
Should we discredit Death to the Doctor! (comic story) for only having "mere cameo" appearances of DWU characters and instead mostly relying on original characters?
What matters is "are these the same Daleks who faced the Doctor countless times across time and space?"
- TheChampionOfTime
- Sidenote: wow, CzechOut really tried to be as extreme as possible with those examples!
- Amorkuz
TheChampionOfTime wrote: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (and I'm not sure if it matters), but the Daleks do say "Exterminate" a few times in the movie.
What matters is "are these the same Daleks who faced the Doctor countless times across time and space?"
Thank you for putting the "Exterminate" on record. That's exactly what I was asking to do: to provide cold hard facts connecting LEGO Daleks with DWU Daleks.
And I absolutely agree that the question is whether these are the Daleks-archenemies of the Doctor. So far very few arguments in favour of this have been presented. "Exterminate" is definitely one of them, especially given the lack of proper naming.
- Amorkuz
To answer OttselSpy25, one does not have to prove they are meant to be characters from a TV show to invalidate the story. That is certainly a speculation. In order to consider this a valid story, one needs to prove, as TheChampionOfTime said that they are intended to be the same Daleks, who were transported to the movie setting directly from the DWU. I can see two arguments in favour of this: they look like Daleks and they say "Exterminate". I still hope somebody would explain how real Daleks got into the movie.
What plays against them being the real Daleks is that they are never called Daleks (across the third of the movie). The only thing they are called is "British robots". And we certainly cannot use "LEGO Dimensions" as a precedent based on the reasoning "it-would-have-been-valid-were-it-not-a-game".
- TheChampionOfTime
In the movie, Daleks are kept in the Phantom Zone, an "inter-dimensional prison outside of the time and space". When characters from Batman's universe fall into the Phantom Zone, they come from one of many different brick-shaped portals that all go to different universes.
Here's the thing about "British robots", the term is only used once and it's a joke. The Joker can effortlessly name even the most obscure and useless baddies from Batman's universe, but when he allies with the multiverse's best villains, he only name two of them.
- Amorkuz
Is there any information about the universe from which Daleks appeared in the Phantom Zone?
- TheChampionOfTime
No
- Thefartydoctor
The point is that this Phantom Zone appears in a form of Limbo. It doesn't really connect to a universe. To my understanding, it exists outside of space-time. The question that we should be asking, how did the Daleks get there? As we're not able to jump to conclusions on this Wiki (such as "the Time Lords put them there"), we're at a loss. What I will admit is that this movie is starting to look more valid as this conversation goes on. Now that I've looked at the Phantom Zone over at the DC Wiki, I've got a better understanding.
If someone from the DWU put them inside the Phantom Zone, it would have to be someone with the powers to break down the barriers of the universe. Would the Time Lords put them there when they have alternate means of keeping them prisoner (such as Genesis Arcs)? Would the Doctor really endanger the peoples of other universes by putting them inside this Phantom Zone? And I'm also struggling to accept the Daleks would find this prison inescapable, unless they were in cahoots with the Joker and biding their time.
But yeah, this is starting to become more understandable now. In my opinion there's a gap in our knowledge. How did the Daleks get from the DWU to the Phantom Zone? That's what we need to know in order to connect it up. Otherwise, these remain parallel Daleks. You can use authorial intent all day long but this question remains unanswered haha.
- TheChampionOfTime
I don't think making theories is the way to go with this. If an explanation is what you're looking for, there's a chance that it is kinda explained in the movie. Once the film gets released on DVD (or whatever else people might use), people'll be able to pause the movie, analyse the frames, and see if one of the Phantom zone portals leads to a recognizable DWU location. Location of the portal = where the prisoners were put into the zone.
Also, the Daleks that appear are the colourful New Paradigm type.
But is a complete explanation required? Authorial intent has it that these are The Daleks and there is an explanation of how they get to Batman's world
- Amorkuz
For me such an explanation is necessary. There are two possibilities:
- These are New Paradigm Daleks, who escaped from the Eleventh Doctor, then get sent to the inter-universal Phantom Zone and from there got to the events of the movie.
- These are Daleks lifted from a Doctor Who episode Victory of the Daleks used to lure fans of another franchise.
Validity is not determined by the intent to use Daleks but by the intent to have a connection to the DWU (just imagine if a porn producer obtained a license to use Daleks). Thus, Option 1 would pass Rule 4, while Option 2 would not. Neither New Paradigm colours nor "Exterminate" distinguish between the option.
For that reason, I would want to see that portal open or an authorial statement by the producing company
- OttselSpy25
Alright, so I get the pull to have an explanation of how the Daleks ended up here, but the movie didn't need to have a flashback explaining it.
The explanation in the movie is that the Phantom Zone connects to several universes. We see several doorways into other dimensions. Every character in the Phantom Zone is from an alternate dimension different from the film's DC world.
Even if one of those dimensions isn't a Who Dimension, we still have an explanation.
Furthermore, I can not stress how important it is that we consider Dimensions when thinking of the authorial intent. That game is what sets up most of these licenses being in the same room, and the writers clearly set it all up to "match up." So you can't go suggesting that something might be the case when that something contradicts with some of the LEGO canon.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: just imagine if a porn producer obtained a license to use Daleks
Please see: Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough
- 82.3.146.201
OttselSpy25 wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: just imagine if a porn producer obtained a license to use Daleks
Please see: Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough
It's just pretend in that though, like Jack Harkness in Miracle Day.
- Thefartydoctor
TheChampionOfTime wrote: I don't think making theories is the way to go with this.
You call it theorising, I call it giving examples. These portals are fine and dandy... but remind me how they got there because I honestly can't remember. Portals need to be opened. Sometimes, admittedly, rifts and wormholes just exist because they exist, such as the famous one that once ran through Cardiff.
I stick by what I said. There's a gap in our knowledge that no-one's willing to fill. If it exists and I've forgotten, please feel free to fill us all in. Those portals... did they "just exist" or did someone make them? My point is a valid one, so responding with sarcasm won't help. :)
- TheChampionOfTime
Sorry, I didn't mean to be sarcastic. In the movie, a Phantom Zone projector is used to create the portals.
- Thefartydoctor
Thanks for the apology. I'm only here to try to be helpful and play devil's advocate. Thanks for clearing that up.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Thanks for the apology. I'm only here to try to be helpful and play devil's advocate. Thanks for clearing that up.
I thought I was the devil's advocate.
Now I'm right confused.
- Amorkuz
Come on, obviously I am the devil's advocate :)
- 82.3.146.201
Amorkuz wrote: Come on, obviously I am the devil's advocate :)
I'm the Devil's avocado.
- Amorkuz
OttselSpy25 wrote: Even if one of those dimensions isn't a Who Dimension, we still have an explanation.
This point is absolutely crucial because an explanation does not suffice to pass Rule 4. Let me quote:
If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed.
It was pointed out in other discussions that DWU is really a multi-verse. However, it may or may not be the same as the multiverse of the movie. And we are not allowed to speculate that it is. Only a direct connection can establish this.
Let me emphasise once again that neither LEGO canon nor LEGO Dimensions is relevant here as they are not (yet) part of DWU.
PS I understand your frustration that the movie did not cover it because it was not crucial to the movie's plot. But it not being crucial to the plot is also telling.
- OttselSpy25
Again, I find it hard to see your point.
You are saying "there's no proof that the two multi-verses are the same." In fact in this discussion and others I have gone into great detail about how the DWU is treated in the franchise. If anything, the burden of proof is on you for proving that the universes/multiverses are different.
And no, the fact that this isn't a Doctor Who movie about why the Daleks are in another universe is not really that telling at all. It's still a series that uses Who creators and characters with license. Again: I have to remind everyone that this will likely be an "all or nothing" principle. The fact that Peter Capaldi isn't in this movie is sort of irrelevant.
- Amorkuz
You explained how DWU is treated in other invalid sources of the LEGO franchise. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your explanations. But at the moment they might affect the LEGO wiki but should have absolutely no effect on this wiki.
Put in simple terms, a connection to DWU cannot be established via sources that are currently deemed not to be directly related to DWU.
- Thefartydoctor
Can I ask a question and get an honest, non-sarcastic, non-anything remark? Let's say they write a new episode of Top Cat and they get the rights from the BBC to use the Daleks as an adversary of Top Cat in one of the episodes? The Daleks enter through a portal of some kind into the Top Cat Universe and wreak havoc. Their plans are thwarted and blah, blah, blah.
Does the licensing of the Daleks (that sounds like a really silly episode of Classic Who haha) make that episode of Top Cat valid? To me, it wouldn't be so because it's set in the Top Cat Universe and not the DWU (which we all know represents a multiverse). It seems to me that this Wiki tends to absorb other universes into the DWU just because there's a license attached to a story. It absorbs the Prime Universe just because of Assimilation2, as a prime example (no pun intended). So, the license would render the TCU a part of the DWU?
I'd just like to know how we sit. And, I'd like to point out I'm saying this only because I care for the Wiki. It wasn't long ago, some people were petitioning to absorb the whole of the Baker's End Universe in because Vince Cosmos decided to go a-wandering into that audio series.
- OttselSpy25
Baker's End is especially a contrived example because Vince Cosmos isn't nearly as relevant to people as the Daleks.
Alright, so to your theoretical example -- would an episode of a cartoon be valid if they featured a licensed crossover that explicitly explained the differences between the two universes and made it clear that the two universes were different?
Pretty much yea. If they were to go that far out of their way to explain why the Daleks are outside of the DWU, then the story is meant to tie-into the DWU.
"Well it's stupid" is not a reasonable explanation of making something invalid.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: You explained how DWU is treated in other invalid sources of the LEGO franchise.
Strawman.
It was declared invalid because of the minor RPG elements of the game. The narrative itself was deemed entirely valid, and since it is part of the LEGO canon, it is very important to deciding if non-video game Doctor Who products in this range are valid.
Once again: Just because we declare something invalid doesn't mean that we get to pretend that it doesn't exist in discussion. Non-valid doesn't mean non-canon.
- Thefartydoctor
Aah, so one thing I've overlooked... when the BBC states "yes, you may use one or more of our monsters from the show Doctor Who", that is therefore a legal crossover. I may be a complete fool but I'd never seen it like that. Looking back at something like The Simpsons Guy, which is a Family Guy episode featuring most, if not all, of the main characters from The Simpsons, it's not just a crossover because two teams have come together to produce it, it's a legal crossover because of the legalities. The "yes, you may use our characters", so to speak.
Didn't one of you say that some people related to Doctor Who had worked alongside the team (outside of Nick Briggs being the voices)? It wasn't just these LEGO dudes making this movie? Can I also ask, theoretically, if this pretend episode of Top Cat had no interference from the BBC or the Doctor Who team and was written solely by the Top Cat team... it's still a crossover in the eyes of this Wiki because of the legalities, regardless of whatever contrary statements that episode makes? Say they were adamant about the Daleks stating their origins from another world other than Skaro? That surely wouldn't be allowed? :P
- OttselSpy25
Did Steven Moffat or Gene Roddenberry write the Star Trek/Doctor Who crossover?
If it's a licensed story it doesn't matter if someone else who had worked on another Doctor Who story worked on it.
That's a fairly preposterous fictional comparison.
EDIT: Was a little too snarky in this one.
- Amorkuz
We do not pretend it does not exist. We absolutely should cover both on the wiki, in cultural references. We should not, on the other hand, pretend it is valid when it was, in fact, deemed invalid. That is the point of view I vehemently oppose: arguing on the counterfactual basis that, were it not a game, it would have been valid so let us treat it as quasi-valid. It was deemed invalid - game over by T:BOUND. It cannot be used for in-universe explanations. Therefore, one needs to search for such evidence in the movie itself.
- Thefartydoctor
I see your point but surely someone looks in on this stuff? Have you heard the hoops that Big Finish has to jump through? During 2009, the BBC refused a Pirate Story planned by Big Finish simply because they had a story coming out with water in it... so they had to change the whole sea to a desert haha. We know now that the story in question was The Waters of Mars.
Someone must have surely metaphorically popped their head round the door to look at script drafts and said "yeah, I like the way this is going" or "no, you can't write the Daleks' home planet is Barcelona".
- OncomingStorm12th
OttselSpy25 wrote: It was declared invalid because of the minor RPG elements of the game. The narrative itself was deemed entirely valid, and since it is part of the LEGO canon, it is very important to deciding if non-video game Doctor Who products in this range are valid.
Once again: Just because we declare something invalid doesn't mean that we get to pretend that it doesn't exist in discussion. Non-valid doesn't mean non-canon.
But that the problem is that "only valid stories can be used to describe an "in-universe" topic". It doesn't matter why LEGO Dimensions was deemed invalid on this wiki. It isn't a valid source for any in-universe article. I must admit I am much more inclined to accept "The LEGO Batman Movie" as a VS now than when this thread began, be we can't do it because of something stated, explained or mentioned in LEGO Dimensions.
- OttselSpy25
The BBC used to be much more harsh on creators in the Pre-2013 years. Back in the day, IDW could barely do any interesting stories due to the threat of over-lapping with the TV show.
They couldn't even do a multi-Doctor story. The Forgotten as as close as anyone would let them go. A story where the Doctor has a hologram dress up as his dead friends so he can go roleplay.
These days people like Titan and DWM can get away with almost anything because the Whoniverse is a lot less strict and allows for fun ideas. The Twelfth Doctor meeting the Delgado Master in the last DWM story would not have been allowed ten years ago. Nor would a sequel to An Unearthly Child or The Enemy of the World, but we've seen comic sequels to both of those stories in the last four years.
So it's not that surprising that the modern BBC wouldn't get antsy about everything.
Furthermore you're claiming that there wasn't BBC intervention or comments with no evidence. We don't have any quotes saying "Oh the BBC didn't even know we were doing this." For all you know the BBC jumped in all the time to give them good stock audio and tips for animating the Daleks. Little is known about the movie's background, so claiming something like copyright negligence without proof is speculation.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: Furthermore you're claiming that there wasn't BBC intervention or comments with no evidence. We don't have any quotes saying "Oh the BBC didn't even know we were doing this." For all you know the BBC jumped in all the time to give them good stock audio and tips for animating the Daleks. Little is known about the movie's background, so claiming something like copyright negligence without proof is speculation.
Actually I'm not claiming anything. Read it back. All I've been doing is asking questions and raising examples. I can't apologise for forgetting the title of that particular audio story. I heard it in a BF behind the scenes from one of the producers. All I've done here is ask and regarding the behind the scenes of this particular movie, I was under the impression that someone had already mentioned in this very thread something of importance and therefore I asked that person to step forward and say it again.
- OncomingStorm12th
Thefartydoctor wrote: I can't apologise for forgetting the title of that particular audio story. I heard it in a BF behind the scenes from one of the producers. All I've done here is ask and regarding the behind the scenes of this particular movie, I was under the impression that someone had already mentioned in this very thread something of importance and therefore I asked that person to step forward and say it again.
I don't know if you might be confusing the plot, but even if you haven't, something happened with Technophobia: something was planned for the story; BBC planned something a bit similar for the TV show, audio story had to be changed.
- Thefartydoctor
OncomingStorm12th wrote: I don't know if you might be confusing the plot, but even if you haven't, something happened with Technophobia: something was planned for the story; BBC planned something a bit similar for the TV show, audio story had to be changed.
It's way earlier than that. It was one of the classic stories. In a nutshell, there's this ship stranded in a huge desert. The original idea for the story was ships disappearing but the BBC said "no water" and they had to change it. So the new story was "let's dump a ship in the middle of a desert". Spoiler: there's basically a huge alien creature under the sand, pulling in the ships and eating them.
God knows what it was. I've been searching on the Wiki... God knows haha.
- OttselSpy25
Well there likely isn't going to be a Doctor Who episode where the Daleks team up with the Gremlins any time soon. So the BBC wouldn't have a real reason to tell LEGO Dimensions not to do that.
Sorry for being so snarky before, usually when people ask questions in this discussion they're trying to make a back-handed point. I didn't realize you were actually just asking a question. ;)
I think the matter of BBC intervention is irrelevant. Rachael Smith likely doesn't get many letters requesting her not to do certain comics, and the good people working at the Beeb probably don't even know that she exists. But her comics are still very-much valid.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: That is the point of view I vehemently oppose: arguing on the counterfactual basis that, were it not a game, it would have been valid so let us treat it as quasi-valid.
Authorial intent tho. That's what matters. That's what we're discussing. What Doctor Who is to the LEGO Media franchise.
So Lego Dimensions does matter.
Furthermore, it was previously decided during the Trek/Who debacle that in a crossover it's fine to include information from outside of the stories that we deem valid. I believe it was specifically brought up as an example that a Phaser would still be a Phaser even if Kirk didn't feel like saying "Oh, this is a Phaser. Just explaining that for the people at TARDIS Wiki."
So we are, in fact, allowed to include basic info about the LEGO Multi-verse presented in stories that we say "don't count." By all accounts, our treatment of The Infinity Doctors is much more bizarre -- in this case we quote the authorial intent in reference to a sequel that doesn't exist.
- OttselSpy25
Again, the reason that bringing the narrative context of LD into the discussion is important is that the Daleks being in this movie is not going to be the last DWU crossover connection in this film series. I wouldn't be shocked if the Thirteenth Doctor (played by Richard Ayoade) were to pop up in The Lego Movie 2. We are looking at a much bigger picture than just this movie.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: I wouldn't be shocked if the Thirteenth Doctor (played by Richard Ayoade) were to pop up in The Lego Movie 2. We are looking at a much bigger picture than just this movie.
Which is why we're asking all of the relevant questions (even if they may seem trivial to you) now. It means that if we can nail the relations between how the LEGO franchise treats Doctor Who material and how the Tardis Wiki treats the LEGO franchise, this exact thread can be used as a basis for further threads. I've gone out of my way to discuss whether this or that matters and whether certain things hinder the validity of this movie... that's not me being stupid (my house is filled with novels and audios that I've read/heard a thousand times), this is me asking the questions and getting the answers.
Frankly, walking into this thread, I was completely opposed to anything LEGO getting into this Wiki. Especially any off-shoot of LD. Now, I'm warming to the idea of this movie being valid. What you said about Rachel Smith isn't really what I was getting at. I'm sure everyone at Marvel/IDW/Insert Other didn't just gain a license and that was the end of it. They must have communicated.
I don't want us to accept this rather timid movie (a bunch of Daleks appearing isn't the worst this Wiki's seen) into our circle of validity and the sequel completely breaks all sorts of rules. What then? Moreover, we haven't discussed whether we're approaching the fact that this is most obviously a sequel itself to The Lego Movie.
Conclusion: we're asking any and all questions now so that when the time comes to summarise everything, we haven't left anything out. So when the next LEGO Batman Movie comes out, or when The LEGO Doctor Who Movie comes out, we'll have a much clearer idea of how to approach/tackle it. :)
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Which is why we're asking all of the relevant questions (even if they may seem trivial to you) now.
I apologize for being very snarky and over-reactive before. Usually when people ask questions like those in these heated discussions, they're trying to make a back-handed point. I didn't realize that you were literally just asking a question.
Reading through the thread again, it's pretty clear that you were being genuine and I was being an idiot. If I didn't answer anything right, be sure to tell me. :_)
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: Reading through the thread again, it's pretty clear that you were being genuine and I was being an idiot.
It happens. This is the internet, after all. It's hard to read intentions through font. If you look back at the Faction Paradox discussions, myself and Amorkus were asking so many questions that were frustrating the FP readers/listeners but we were doing it because we not only wanted to understand EVERYTHING but also we wanted to lay down some sort of template format for how this Wiki deals with everything Faction Paradox, were something from that range or a range similar in situation to ever produce more stories.
It's annoying, I know, but I'm never here to push the conversation back a few steps haha. You'll thank us when the next film or tie-in comic or whatever comes out. Then we can hop back to this discussion and say "that's the conclusion we reached for The LEGO Batman Movie, therefore, let's use that and build upon it". Heck, we'll probably be amending it in years to come. :D
- OttselSpy25
I guess a big note is that if we go with this decision, it is one that we might have to turn back on as more stories come out.
That sounds like a crazy claim to make after all of this arguing for the story to be valid, but if the LEGO Doctor Who Movie is just An Unearthly Child with silly jokes and Lego gags, then it'll kind of turn back the precedent that we have so far.
Again, the only reason that we can do this is that so far the LEGO franchise hasn't tried to rewrite or stamp over any Doctor Who lore. At the same time, I feel like any of our conclusions about cameos and crossovers from this discussion will stay valid as precedent even if we do turn back this specific decision at some point.
But with what we have now I can easily say that I see little to no reason to make the non-GAME LEGO narratives invalid.
- OncomingStorm12th
Yeah, as someone who's also leaning to accept The LEGO Batman Movie a valid source here, I also think this thread will be very important for future LEGO releases with DW characters.
Now, I'll state something that's indeed very obvious, but I feel like it should be here just for the sake's of stating it: even if we do deem this a VS, we definetelly should not add any other sequels (like a possible "The Lego Batman Movie 2") or spin-offs that may come from this movie if the said movie does not contain DWU elements.
So, what I mean is a Death's Head-like situation: Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling!, Time Bomb! and Party Animals are valid here, but anything else with him isn't, because there's no other DW elements there.
Similarlly, if a "Lego Batman 2" comes out, but features nothing from DWU, it doesn't get a page here. And vice-versa: if a spin-off from this movie comes out, and features a DW element, it probably should get a page as well.
- Thefartydoctor
I think you're right. If the next addition to the range mega screws up the continuity (or "canon", if you're that way inclined), then we'll have to revisit this no matter what and redecide whether it's all worth it in the end haha.
From what we've discussed here, and this is just a summary so that we're all on the same page, the Daleks have entered a portal in The Phantom Zone, which is a jail outside of space-time. The portal (or rift, wormhole, vortex...) connects up to the DWU. I take it we're treating this portal as either a natural occurrence or as a man-made structure using a natural occurrence. What I mean by that is the Cardiff rift was a natural occurrence, but the "invisible door" that the Tenth Doctor creates to project through to Darlig Ulv Stranden is man-made using the natural broken barriers of reality.
This connection to the DWU via the portal, the license itself and the authorial intent of these Daleks being the Daleks [source needed] is the reason why most of us find in favour of this movie being valid? How's that for a summary? Any comments regarding this should be bringing new information to the table rather than recycling things we've already concluded.
Also, I reckon we should leave this thread open a while longer for as many people to see the movie as possible. That gives us many more eyes on the situation. And I really hope that neither came across as bossy or demanding. I'm not an admin. I have the same say in this as you guys. :D
- OttselSpy25
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Now, I'll state something that's indeed very obvious, but I feel like it should be here just for the sake's of stating it: even if we do deem this a VS, we definetelly should not add any other sequels (like a possible "The Lego Batman Movie 2") or spin-offs that may come from this movie if the said movie does not contain DWU elements.
Absolutely, I completely agree. Even in the LD debate I was arguing for us to only include levels which included the Doctor.
If a LEGO product does not have anything from the DWU, it's just about as relevant to this wiki as Cyberon.
Thefartydoctor wrote: From what we've discussed here, and this is just a summary so that we're all on the same page, the Daleks have entered a portal in The Phantom Zone, which is a jail outside of space-time. The portal (or rift, wormhole, vortex...) connects up to the DWU. I take it we're treating this portal as either a natural occurrence or as a man-made structure using a natural occurrence. What I mean by that is the Cardiff rift was a natural occurrence, but the "invisible door" that the Tenth Doctor creates to project through to Darlig Ulv Stranden is man-made using the natural broken barriers of reality.
This connection to the DWU via the portal, the license itself and the authorial intent of these Daleks being the Daleks [source needed] is the reason why most of us find in favour of this movie being valid? How's that for a summary? Any comments regarding this should be bringing new information to the table rather than recycling things we've already concluded.
Also, I reckon we should leave this thread open a while longer for as many people to see the movie as possible.Yea, that sounds like what we've agreed upon so far.
As for how long we keep the thread open, I vote that we try to close it down around the same time that the film stops being in the theatre.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: As for how long we keep the thread open, I vote that we try to close it down around the same time that the film stops being in the theatre.
I was thinking the same. I just wanted someone else to say it in case you guys thought it was too short. The thing is, any admin will tell you that these discussions have, in the past, stayed open for years. But in this case, there'll be a gap between "no longer in cinemas" and "out on DVD". And let's be honest- we don't know how long that gap's gonna be. So, once everyone's had a chance to hop on over to the cinema to have their fill, I reckon that's the cutting off point.
But I'd like to hear others agree on that too (especially an admin).
- OttselSpy25
Here's an interesting question: When it comes to media that's packed full of characters, how many should we make pages for?
I'm specifically thinking in terms of Doctor, Doctor, Doctor. For this story, I would suggest pages for the four characters who have speaking roles. No need for a page on Shaggy Rogers just for this story.
This does notably go against the precedent of Party Animals.
Here's an interesting note. The Lego Batman Movie and Doctor Doctor Doctor both having Harley Quinn in them, but they're different Harley Quinns from different universes. So I guess if we made LEGO stories valid, we'd have to have two different pages on HQ...
I'm going to remove the INVALID tags from these two stories -- not because I think the discussion is over, but rather because I don't think that it is at all. This thread is a new discussion and is not challenging any precedent, and usually when a discussion like that happens we neither call it invalid or add it to any in-universe articles until everything is wrapped up. Policy has no stance on the film as of yet, thus it should not be marked as 'invalid.'
- Thefartydoctor
Regarding the invalid tag, don't you think the onus is on us to prove it valid rather than someone to prove it's invalid? I'm just wondering that maybe a non-Who source is invalid first and then proven valid, don't you think? The invalid tag should maybe be left on until a conclusion is met, in my personal opinion.
- Thefartydoctor
And regarding your individual character articles, I believe that this Wiki has a kind of unspoken rule on that. And actually, someone in this comment thread already mentioned it somewhere. I thought we only created pages about the Who characters and about those who directly come into contact with Who characters. That's why we have certain pages for certain Star Trek personnel but not all of them.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Regarding the invalid tag, don't you think the onus is on us to prove it valid rather than someone to prove it's invalid? I'm just wondering that maybe a non-Who source is invalid first and then proven valid, don't you think? The invalid tag should maybe be left on until a conclusion is met, in my personal opinion.
That might seem like the most logical choice, but it just makes more sense to treat this as any other story. This is what we do for most opened validity discussions.
Thefartydoctor wrote: And regarding your individual character articles, I believe that this Wiki has a kind of unspoken rule on that. And actually, someone in this comment thread already mentioned it somewhere. I thought we only created pages about the Who characters and about those who directly come into contact with Who characters. That's why we have certain pages for certain Star Trek personnel but not all of them.
The rule is, I believe, that we create pages for all characters who appear in crossover materials. So if a Star Trek character had a small role in AssimilationxAssimilation but didn't meet the Doctor, we'd still have a page on them. We'd just only have info from the crossover and nothing else.
The question comes down to how many of these characters are relevant to the story. Technically you could have pages on Shaggy, Homer Simpson, and many other characters just based off of the fact that they're in the background of the web-short. But at the same time, I wouldn't go as far as to say that we should pretend that they're not there at all. The page Marty McFly would need to include a reference to the story, for instance.
Maybe we would want to go down the messy, obvious route of just having pages on everyone who appears in the story.
- SOTO
Again, I have not seen this story (I might go to see it tomorrow), but isn't it set in the same "world", to speak broadly, as The LEGO Movie? In which case, it's not even a question of how the Daleks got from the DWU to Batman's world—all LEGO movies are actually a representation of some kid's imagination, as we learned in the first film, and the characters from various franchises involved in the stories are just merchandise.
In other words, when McKay says:
- And because when I played with toys, I'd mash everything together. The first remixing that people do when they're kids is they take Luke Skywalkers and Voldemort and put them in a battle together, that kind of things!
...He's speaking quite literally. The Daleks are there because a kid owns the 21304 Doctor Who set, and it's hard to escape that framework where the "British robots" are not just aliens from a British television series, but in fact actual LEGO Doctor Who merchandise. Again, though, I haven't seen the film, so I may be way off, but it seems curious that this angle has not been brought up here at all.
- TheChampionOfTime
Technically, the Daleks in this film couldn't be from 21304: that set comes with bronze-colour Daleks.
The only connection between the Lego Batman Movie and the Lego Movie is that Will Arnett plays Batman in both. Even then, it's a different Batman with a different history. The idea that the Lego Batman Movie could be make-believe is never even implied.
- OttselSpy25
A solid point, but I think that element has easily become heavily unimportant since the first film, and it's quite quite vague.
I think it's pretty clear that the spin-off media have played off of that aspect and left it up to interpretation. It's hard to play the entirety of Lego Dimensions while thinking "Oh, this is all being done by kid from the first movie, whose father is presumably incredibly incredibly rich. Also this kid knows a lot about pop-culture I guess."
I certainly doubt that they go into every movie with the mindset of that still being true. Lego Batman never references this, and I doubt something like Lego Ninjago will either.
"Damn, the child from the first movie must have spent hours building these sets."
Also, the twist in the first movie is certainly not that it's all in the kid's head. The Pratt Lego is still sentient during the LA sequence, and he even moves. It's just another universe.
If anything, you can probably just interpret the Ferrel-verse as just another universe that LD is connected to. You could even look at it as the franchise's equivalent to stories like The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who. Sure, there's a world where the Doctor/the LEGO people aren't real, and the actions of actors/children in that universe seem to directly effect the actions of the "the main setting," but it's just another universe in the scheme of things. It doesn't really trap the franchise in any way.
I mean it's that, or the kid is some sort of Haruhi-god character who creates entire dimensions and sentient life at his own will. That'd be dumb.
My over-all point is that it's vague, it could mean a billion things, and most of the products in the franchise ignore it.
- OttselSpy25
TheChampionOfTime wrote: ...it's a different Batman with a different history. The idea that the Lego Batman Movie could be make-believe is never even implied.
I actually think it's supposed to be the same Batman in The LEGO Movie and The LEGO Batman Movie. You might be confused, because LEGO Dimensions featured the Batman from the LEGO Batman games and not the films.
- SOTO
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Technically, the Daleks in this film couldn't be from 21304: that set comes with bronze-colour Daleks.
Ha, good point. And maybe it's not stated that this is the same kid's ridiculous LEGO collection in his dad's basement. But it seems to me there's a strong implication that all movies in this franchise are, in some way, supposed to represent a kid's imagination and that kid's LEGO toys. And of course the director's statements tell us that he's at least going for that sort of feel.
But you (OS25) are absolutely correct that it's not so clear-cut even in the first film. Aside from Emmett seemingly having a consciousness outside of the LEGO set in that one scene, though, it is made clear that those minifigs, the bricks and the sets themselves are there precisely because the father bought corresponding LEGO sets. The worlds are built out of those bricks, representing things, like a Western setting, and taking on that life in that capacity, but very much in a multiple-delineation way.
So if there was a Doctor Who world within that movie, I might say that the LEGO representations of DWU characters and worlds (that is, the sets and minifigs come-to-life) are not, them-selves, those worlds and characters from the DWU. If the Twelfth Doctor was in The LEGO Movie as a Master Builder, I would say it's more akin to a Toy Story-esque animation of a Twelfth Doctor toy, than to the Doctor actually having travelled into this LEGO universe, where he's also being played with by some kid who looks remarkably like Louis Moffat. I think it's framed very differently in LEGO Dimensions, which is very much within the LEGO video games range, quite separate from the films, branding aside.
- OttselSpy25
SOTO wrote: I think it's framed very differently in LEGO Dimensions, which is very much within the LEGO video games range, quite separate from the films, branding aside.
But at the same time, it has the same characters and it's supposed to be set in the same saga of stories. They even go out of their way to barely use the "movie" Batman just so the game won't contradict the movie. And since there is now a great precedent for the spin-off media heavily pushing against many of the original set-ups, the first film is clearly becoming the odd-one-out.
As I stated above, while many worlds in the LEGO verse take the "brick" concept to various lengths, the difference in how they treat the DWU is the most notable part. There is nothing that we've seen so far that suggests an attempt to avoid or rewrite the DWU. This is the important thing.
Also, the Doctor isn't a master builder. He in fact doesn't recognise any of the characters in the game when he meets them, and furthermore he clearly has rarely left his universe before he helps the team defeat the Daleks and open the rift (or something like that). Pretty much, he's just the Doctor. In his levels, the only non-Doctory thing that he does is punch things (which is a level system that Dimensions just comes with).
As I said before, there's nothing really stopping us from resurrecting this if they do something crazy with the franchise after this point. But all we can really do is analyze the DWU elements of the franchise that already exist.
- Amorkuz
For the record, I'd like to concur with TheFartyDoctor that my goal is not to defeat the LEGO movie but to ensure that it's potential validity rests on solid foundations that cannot be later misused as a precedent.
Having said that, I am not fully satisfied with the phaser analogy. There, a standard Star Trek object is used in a crossover with DW. It stands to reason that we can take its appearance in a crossover for what it has always been in the Prime Universe. Moreover, the stories naming the phaser have never been and would never be considered for inclusion into DWU.
Here, we are talking about the portal to the DWU and the place of DWU in LEGO universe. It is not a standard LEGO object to treat it by LEGO rules. And these stories have been considered for validity and deemed invalid. That for me excludes the possibility of using their narratives.
Put it differently, the Prime Universe was deemed valid and is covered as far as the crossover goes. We are allowed to use any element of it if it comes in contact with DW elements. By contrast, the LEGO universe has never been deemed valid yet. Hence, no narrative elements from it are currently allowed.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: Here, we are talking about the portal to the DWU and the place of DWU in LEGO universe. It is not a standard LEGO object to treat it by LEGO rules. And these stories have been considered for validity and deemed invalid. That for me excludes the possibility of using their narratives.
We wouldn't really be referencing their narratives. We would never say "Oh by the way, the Doctor met a Batman once." However, the importance of how the universes are set up in the franchise is important enough from an out-of-universe setting that we can use it to justify authorial intent. Furthermore I don't see a problem with us saying something as small as the fact that the Daleks aren't from the Batman universe. That's just about as far as we'd stretch it by this point.
How Doctor Who is treated in Lego Dimensions is going to be how it's most likely going to be treated for every appearance in the franchise. So understanding the game is important to trying to set up a basic precedent.
Saying something as simple as that there is a multi-verse in the LEGO universe isn't really too far against policy.
- Amorkuz
I think you still misunderstand my concern. It's clear from all the discussions that LEGO treats its parts as universes in a multiverse. What is still unclear to me is whether DWU is part of this multiverse. Put in simple terms, if this portal from which Daleks arrived in the Phantom Zone opens, would we see DWU or the room of the boy playing with LEGO? Without this connection to DWU, LEGO remains a multiverse, yes, but disconnected from us at the wiki. And its Daleks remain a mere cultural reference.
And could you please stop bringing up LEGO Dimensions? They are invalid. T:BOUND. We can't use them. They are not going be the basis for anything unless that decision is overturned. If LEGO has another appearance of the Doctor, that other appearance will decide how we treat it. It could be similar to Dimensions. It could be different. Speculating on this topic is useless until (and if) it happens. We have unidentified Daleks on our plate now. Relating them to LEGO Dimensions can only make them less valid, in my opinion. On top of that, I do not see any connection between them and LEGO Dimensions because of the same indeterminacy with the other end of the portal.
- Thefartydoctor
Amorkus has a point. It's been pointed out now something that most of us forgot. This movie is itself a sequel about a fictional world somewhat influenced (though not entirely) by the imaginations of a little boy... Amorkus' concern regards the origins of these Daleks. We all have accepted that they've travelled or were brought through the portal in the Phantom Zone. The question Amorkus raises regarding what is on the other side is a totally valid question. Is the kid's primary universe on the other side? Is the kid's dad's basement in the "real world" on the other side? Or is it the DWU on the otherside? The unfortunate fact is, we can't be certain. And I also agree that we stick with rules. If something is invalid, we shouldn't be using it as a means to base anything on.
- OttselSpy25
I will never stop bring up Lego Dimensions because, for the billionth time, it being invalid doesn't meant that it doesn't exist. We do not need to prove from an in-universe perspective that that the Daleks aren't from a universe where they're a toy. All that we need to prove is the authorial context for why they included the Daleks and their logic.
The fact is, Lego Dimensions does count for the people making the LEGO films. It's how the Whoniverse entered the franchise, and they're not going to contradict it. So we know that they justified that there was a DWU in the LEGO multi-verse. And they said "That's where the Daleks come from."
We do not need to go through any hoops in removing examples or evidence. If your "theory" involves ignoring basic facts about the franchise on a technicality, then it isn't very sound.
If that is the context is that they wrote the Daleks into the film knowing that they were from the DWU in Lego Dimensions, then we can accept that as the authorial intent.
- Thefartydoctor
Note: I didn't say don't bring up the LEGO franchise or its works. I said we shouldn't be bringing up LEGO Dimensions as a source. If someone states "well in LEGO dimensions, the Daleks behave a certain way", we have to say to ourselves "that is our last resort, but for now we look at what we have". Right now, we're in the early stages of this discussion and what I personally find "not sound" is jumping to LEGO Dimensions at the first hurdle. We're a smart bunch of people who contribute a lot to this Wiki. I'm sure we can do better. :)
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Note: I didn't say don't bring up the LEGO franchise or its works. I said we shouldn't be bringing up LEGO Dimensions as a source.
I absolutely agree. We'd never reference LD in-article. But again, it's the authorial intent that the game pretty strongly sets up. That's what we need.
So people who are asking questions like "What if these Daleks were magically pulled from a TV?" or "What if these Daleks are from a universe where they're toys?" are blatantly ignoring LD for all the wrong reasons. Because OF COURSE those things aren't true, no one on the movie thought that was true, and several things in the franchise dispute that.
And again, since LD strongly sets up how people like The Doctor or Davros are going to be treated in the franchise, we can at least glance at them to gleam what the future has in store for DWU appearances in these films. We can't ignore the game, make up random questions, and then expect those random questions to be answered without bringing up the story that features the most DWU material.
LD is still a source for discussing what the creators of this franchise had in mind, and if every silly "what if" question can be disputed by the game, then there's not problem with shooting those down.
- Thefartydoctor
As long as we're not heavily reliant on LEGO Dimensions to prove anything, I have no qualms. Don't forget, not knowing something is also an answer haha. There are many articles where we have multiple accounts. There are other articles where there are gaps in our knowledge. Before The Juggernauts, we had very little idea what had put Davros in his new life support chair in Remembrance. In that audio, we get to find that out. It's fine to say "we don't know yet."
- OttselSpy25
But at the same time, we are discussing what the authors had in mind while making this or any other story in the LEGO franchise. So asking to throw out one extremely important story from the entire debate doesn't make sense.
LEGO Dimensions isn't valid. But it still exists.
- Amorkuz
I'll return to many of the points you made. But let me understand how much of a stretch are we talking about. Since you keep bringing LEGO Dimensions as a golden standard let us, as an experiment, try to use it.
OttselSpy25 wrote: So we know that they justified that there was a DWU in the LEGO multi-verse. And they said "That's where the Daleks come from."
Can you back this claim with evidence? Can you find a statement by the producers that Daleks in LEGO Movie are the same Daleks that appeared in previous instalments of LEGO franchise? We've already established that they are not the same as in the LEGO set. Did New Paradigm Daleks appear in LEGO Dimensions? Did the movie specifically claim any connection whatsoever between its Daleks and LEGO Dimensions? Or is the only connection that they are both made of LEGO and shout "Exterminate"?
I am not going to accept the reasoning that Daleks are Daleks because they are Daleks and any appearance of Daleks in a licensed story is related to DWU. There must be a narrative connection to DWU (please reread the formulation of of Rule 4 quoted above: it's all narrative based). You keep bringing up authorial intent for LD. Well, authorial intent sometimes changes even within one production (see the unfortunate Scream of the Shalka). Is there a statement by the producers that their authorial intent from LD has been applied to this movie?
From the quotes collected so far, I can see the authorial intent of including Daleks to make the movie not US centric.
By the way reading through those quotes, I get the impression that the license to use Daleks in the movie is completely legally separate from the one used previously for LD. And, thinking back, it makes a lot of sense. One is a game license/toy license. Another is a story license. Nick Briggs just recently explained that BF can't do something because, even with their expansive license up to the Eleventh Doctor, they have no license to produce toys. This, of course, only confirms the correctness of the decision to make LD invalid. But it also legally separates the two. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there is very little if any intersection in the actual production crews between LD and the movie. Hell, they didn't even have Briggs voicing the Daleks, which LD did. And the way they talk about BBC giving them the license sounds like people behind the movie are completely unaware of LD.
It's a simple question. How to producers of the movie refer to LD, more specifically, to the Doctor Who part of LD?
- OttselSpy25
Are you seriously asking me to prove that LD and the Batman Lego movie are set in the same canon? Is that honestly something you think?
The burden of proof is not on me to prove that the two stories, obviously set-up to not contradict either other while featuring many of the same characters, are not set in the same canon. The burden of proof is on you to dispute that.
If LEGO Dimensions sets up clearly every piece of this makes sense, you can't say that "Oh they didn't mean for it to count" just because no one in the movie looks into the camera to explain it to you beat-by-beat.
- OttselSpy25
Basically you're saying "Well what if there are two DWUs in this franchise?"
Prove it then. Prove that there's more than one. If you can't, then this is baseless speculation.
- Amorkuz
You see, I asked for a simple thing. There should be millions of these quotes around if anyone before you ever thought of connecting the two. I mean they're promoting the movie right now. They have been promoting it in the UK, right? Just imagine yourself, being a fan of DW, and doing the interviews. You would have never stopped talking how you wanted to be true to the source material. I gave you an easy way to gain an upper hand by beating me with those quotes to death.
You response is very telling for me. When I ask for a quote and get ridiculed for even thinking the quote is needed, it means there is no quote. It means, no member of the cast and crew ever cared about DWU continuity to mention it even once.
And yes, I want this to be explained to me in the movie. Yes, I want Daleks to plot the return to their universe and the final defeat of the Doctor. Incidentally, I want them to kill Joker as impure. Because that's what Daleks would do.
But the rules of this wiki are, as already was mentioned, "no speculation" and "only valid stories count". We cannot speculate what the authorial intent was. We cannot derive it from the authorial intent of LD and LEGO Ideas set, as if there is a narrative or crew connection between them, as if we have a trilogy with common actors and common producers.
And, courtesy of SOTO, there is a quote of the authorial intent behind the Daleks:
SOTO wrote:
- To me, you want to find characters who are internationally known. You want to find stuff that's not just US centric. The Daleks are there for that reason.
The only reason Daleks are in the movie is because they wanted a villain that is not from an American show. This is authorial intent. Let me break it down for you: if 1996 movie pilot were successful and Doctor Who became an American-produced show, Daleks would not have featured in this movie. That's all I need to know about the narrative connections to DWU. There are none. Daleks play the role of a generic foreign villain and are chosen as the most famous among foreign sci-fi villains. It is, essentially, the same reason why villains in the Golden Compass movie spoke Russian and why Hans Gruber from Die Hard had German accent: namely, random choice with a dash of current political climate and cultural cliches.
Rule 4 does not mention a character from DWU. It requires the story to be set up in DWU, period. Perhaps, DWU is behind one of those portals, which would make this part of DWU. I'll grant you that they have established the means of easily connecting to DWU. But they chose not to make the connection. And that's all there is. At this moment in time, the connection to DWU (or to LD for that matter) is purely speculative. It's like Osgood being the daughter of Tom Osgood. It was intended from the very beginning (as explicitly stated by Moffat), it is heavily hinted at in at least three media I know of. But until it is stated explicitly, "beat-by-beat", it belongs to "Behind the scenes" section only. The case of DWU being behind those portals is much weaker.
I've made up my mind. This story should not be valid. There will be no consent on validity. If an admin decides to rule it valid, it will have to be with my dissent (which certainly has happened before with much more experienced dissenters than me).
Unless, of course, new evidence is uncovered, be it in the DVD features, interviews or future releases.
PS And no, we do not have to fast-track this movie to make life easier for future releases. If there even will be future releases, they will have to be judged on their own merits rather than based on somebody being once upon a time respectful to DWU in LEGO Dimensions.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: PS And no, we do not have to fast-track this movie to make life easier for future releases. If there even will be future releases, they will have to be judged on their own merits
Something I said earlier in thread.
And in fact around the same time it was made pretty clear that we intended to keep this thread open until the movie was out of the theatre. That's gonna be another month at least. There will be nothing rushed about this thread.
Are you trying to suggest that we keep this debate open until the next Lego movie comes out in 2019?
Amorkuz wrote: The only reason Daleks are in the movie is because they wanted a villain that is not from an American show.
The Director blatantly says that he loved Doctor Who as a child, and they're featured because they're famous villains. That doesn't make the story invalid.
The fact that they said that the Daleks were also useful because they served as a non-American feature is not the only reason that they got used. Even if it was, the corporate reason for including them doesn't make the story invalid.
If we found a quote from someone saying "We made the 1996 TV Movie to make FOX appeal to British people," would that suddenly be invalid?
Amorkuz wrote: I gave you an easy way to gain an upper hand by beating me with those quotes to death.
You asked for quotes that you know don't exist. People have barely talked about the heavily details of the DWU elements because A) It's a Batman movie with a billion more interesting things and B) it's supposed to be a surprise you only see in the theatre.
Then you asked me to prove that LEGO Dimensions and LEGO Batman exist in the same franchise. They do. There's no debate to be had there.
Amorkuz wrote: It means, no member of the cast and crew ever cared about DWU continuity to mention it even once.
It's not a Doctor Who movie. The director said he grew up watching it. What quote would satisfy you? Someone saying "Oh I watched Day of the Daleks just to make sure I was getting it right"?
Weather or not you think they did the Daleks justice is not relevant to if the story is valid.
Amorkuz wrote:
Rule 4 does not mention a character from DWU. It requires the story to be set up in DWU, period.Well then, I guess we should go back and make Assimilation^2 invalid.
Not period. It includes every story to set in the DWU, question mark.
The intent to have something be set in the DWU is vague, and the rule specifically says "for most products a discussion is needed." Again, there is a clear cut explanation to why and how this film isn't set in the DWU and how there are still DWU elements in place. Thus it isn't not set in the DWU.
Amorkuz wrote: It's like Osgood being the daughter of Tom Osgood.
No it's not. That's a discussion of an in-universe element. It's not a discussion on the validity of a story based on authorial intent.
Amorkuz wrote: ...until it is stated explicitly, "beat-by-beat", it belongs to "Behind the scenes" section only.
So until one of those sequel movies says "Oh, let's stop the narrative and explain a tedious element of the LBM that's extremely obvious if you just pay attention to our media," it's invalid? No. We can't call a story invalid just because you're hung up on how well they explain a plot-point.
We know how this multi-verse works, we know that all of the stories are kept in a tidy canon, and we know how they treat Who media. That is all the authorial context that we have, and at the moment it's all that we need.
There's a world in the franchise that's Doctor Who. That world has Daleks. It's the only world we've seen that naturally has Daleks. So logically, if Daleks appear they are from that world. This isn't something anyone would second-guessed, and it's not something that any interviewer would care enough about to ask. It is not a complex situation.
It's not "Invalid before proven valid." It's "Valid until proven invalid."
- OttselSpy25
So reading through as many quotes as I could find, I think the opposing argument that stands up the most is the "Real world" dimension, which according to quotes I read isn't as dead as you'd expect. Technically this doesn't have anything to do with LEGO Batman the singular-film-that-actually exists, but it could have an effect on how we view the context that they made the movie in.
The quote I read didn't seem to suggest that it was still all about the one kid from the first movie, but it did promise more interactions between the two universes seen in the first film -- particularly with LEGO Ninjago.
My only problem with this is the comment that they "are still figuring out the rules." It just seems to me that all of this is very much a work in progress production, and even then we don't know what they have planned right now. It's a concept they, once again, could go many places with.
- OttselSpy25
So I think I've found the only quote in existence where anyone from the BBC has commented on if the LEGO Doctor Who stuff is supposed to count. And it's both helpful and extremely not helpful.
When asked if the game was considered canon Moffat proclaims “everything is canonical”.
That's helpful because we know that no one has purposefully disconnected the DWU and the LEGO Media about the DWU. It's unhelpful because that's what the BBC always says.
But still, it's good to note.
I apologize for constantly doing double and triple posts, it's just that I have a lot to say on all of this.
- Thefartydoctor
If the LEGO team has said that there are numerous avenues that they could go down, and if they have also said that this is pretty new to them, is it not safer for us to bide our time and not make any decision yet? Maybe a 100% conclusion just isn't possible at this time. We're all fighting different corners and that's because this movie's validity can be interpreted many ways. Maybe we should take a step back, wait for some more people to say things, wait for interviews and behind the scenes on the eventual DVD release, features in DWM... ANYTHING that gives one side of the argument that edge.
Right now, guess what? I'm back at square one. I no longer have an opinion. To me, this movie seems like it's trying to distance itself from the previous LEGO movie. Then again, it's clearly got some of the previous characters in, such as Wildstyle. On the one hand, that portal logically leads to the DWU. On the other hand, it also logically leads through to the kid's dad's basement.
My own, personal conclusion: no-one is winning this debate because there are so many conflicting conclusions that you can reach from the evidence given (or not given). When this happens, we can't just jump and call it valid or invalid. We simply keep this thread open until more information reaches the table. Other threads in the past have been open for literally years before a decision is reached. What d'you say?
- OttselSpy25
On the topic of purposefully leaving this thread open as we patiently wait for the next time a DWU character walks into a LEGO piece of media, I just don't think that's a reasonable request. The problem is we don't know how long that could be. It could be four months or five years -- both are equally believable.
On that note, no I don't think there's a rush to close the thread. However, I do think it's only going to get frustrating how little tips or quotes we really get.
I just recorded a video where me and a friend talk about the LEGO Batman movie for like 50 mins. We bring up that there are Daleks in it twice. There's less than 15 seconds that I had to say about the fact that there are Daleks in a movie I just saw. Despite the fact that we see this as the most important part of the film, to most people it's neither the most interesting or the most relevant. So the DVD might not even mention it more than once or twice, and I doubt they'll say "Oh it's canon/non-canon cool your jets."
The most we might get is someone saying "We get to play with some many characters from so many dimensions!" But in this debate, a quote like that would play to both sides. One side would say "The word play dictates that they're treating them as toys." Someone else will say "The use of the word Dimensions pretty much confirms everything."
If I had to close the debate now, I'd say that we should declare it valid based off of lack of evidence of it being invalid. Then we'd wait for the next time a film likes this features a DWU idea, and then we'd study and new ideas.
Some universes play off of the "LEGO" aspect, and some don't. Some franchises have explicitly made the series out to be non-canon (Portal) while Moffat has said that he won't deny people the right to call it canon (I know we hate the word "canon" but outside this site it's how people say "Set in the Universe"). Sometimes the franchise is being controlled by a kid in his over-rated Dad's basement, and sometimes it's a separate franchise directly connected to the Games products that came out before the LEGO Movie. Even if some worlds are being controlled by some kid sometimes, I doubt the creators of Lego Batman: The Videogame (2008) (a game retconned into the LEGO Movie multi-verse) would accept that idea. Plus, we don't know if that's how it actually works. Even the people running the franchise have no idea how the "rules" work yet.
We're in a grey area, but I think it leans closer to being valid. At this point I'm heavily biased tho.
It really is up to debate.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: If I had to close the debate now, I'd say that we should declare it valid based off of lack of evidence of it being invalid.
You said earlier that something is "innocent until proven guilty". I have to point out that while I've been on this Wiki (and that in itself is a while), that's never been the protocol. When Dimensions in Time was introduced, it was invalid right from the beginning. When Faction Paradox was being debated, that was invalid until proven valid. That's how this Wiki works. That's why when you removed the "invalid" sticker on the movie's article, it was quickly placed back on. It's just how it goes here.
Also, when you bring Moffat's idea of "canon" up, I think we take all of that with a pinch of salt. Moffat's a nuisance because he never takes responsibility, whereas someone like Terrance Dicks did. Dicks went out of his way to write novels and novelisations to clear up plot holes and generally explain canon and continuity. Moffat declares that everything is "canon" and "head-canon" one day and then declares that "there is no canon in a show like Doctor Who" the next. That's why I'd never use anything out of Moffat's mouth as a source. That sounds libellous but frankly, it's the truth.
Like I said, you want this movie to be valid. Amorkus wants it to be invalid. What I'm saying is this: I don't care either way. If it's valid, it's a nice addition to the DWU. If it's invalid, it was nice to see how the LEGO Daleks performed under the physics of the LEGO universe, where you can take your bed apart and make it into a car for the hell of it.
It's good that we have you and Amorkus here to strongly oppose one-another. But the facts are, whether it is four months... or five years... we have to wait for that one gem of a quote that clinches it. If it helps, I can always tweet the writer? :) Don't know how much use that'd be.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: If I had to close the debate now, I'd say that we should declare it valid based off of lack of evidence of it being invalid.
You said earlier that something is "innocent until proven guilty". I have to point out that while I've been on this Wiki (and that in itself is a while), that's never been the protocol. When Dimensions in Time was introduced, it was invalid right from the beginning. When Faction Paradox was being debated, that was invalid until proven valid. That's how this Wiki works. That's why when you removed the "invalid" sticker on the movie's article, it was quickly placed back on. It's just how it goes here.
Dimensions in Time has been invalid since the wiki started because we used to not have valid and invalid tags. It used to be canon and non-canon. DiT had to be challenged when we took under new rules.
I've been here a long time, and precedent is in fact not to declare something invalid until discussion has been had. Even if it was something really obvious, like a story being a parody or being set in the real world, you still have had to had a discussion on it. And until that discussion was over -- no calling it invalid and no adding it to pages.
In this one case, SOTO decided to keep the invalid tag only so people outside of the discussion wouldn't get confused and start adding pages on every character in the LEGO Batman movie. We had that problem during the LD discussion. People were making all sorts of pages when the discussion wasn't even over! It was madness.
Thefartydoctor wrote: Moffat's a nuisance because he never takes responsibility
Alright, I don't think we can prove that really.
Thefartydoctor wrote: Dicks went out of his way to write novels and novelisations to clear up plot holes and generally explain canon and continuity.
And he was terrible at it!
Thefartydoctor wrote: It's good that we have you and Amorkus here to strongly oppose one-another.
I agree. If both of us weren't here it would be a one-sided discussion.
Thefartydoctor wrote: But the facts are, whether it is four months... or five years... we have to wait for that one gem of a quote that clinches it. If it helps, I can always tweet the writer? :) Don't know how much use that'd be.
You could tweet some people, but... The problem is that I don't think anyone really cares. We're used to the TITAN back-up guys having really nice responses, but they at least made a Doctor Who product. The LEGO Batman creators likely spent a long time making every frame of the film special and filled with fun. Who would have the answers to the question "Is this valid?" And the biggest problem here -- about the kid in the basement thing -- that's not something that they're going to spoil. It's something they've been building up for a long time, and even if they wanted to give us answers they note themselves that not all of the rules are worked out yet.
Them not having a response to if it's valid or not doesn't make it invalid -- I must note. Rachael Smith said she had no idea if A Rose by Any Other Name was canon. I believe she directly said "I was hired to make something funny. Never thought about that." Sometimes you are allowed to take "I don't know" as "I didn't mean for it to be non-canon." In this case, the problem is that we don't even have that that.
Again, no rush to close the thread. I'm just against keeping it open until the next Lego movie comes out just in case a Dalek sweeps by.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm going to have to be completely honest with you. This debate ran dry a few comments back. There's no new "proof" on the table apart from that dodgy Moffat quote. Until we find proof, we can't call this movie "valid" without going out on a limb. The thing that'll prove it valid is intent, which has been said three million and one times in the thread (if you don't mind me rounding up slightly). No-one says (or even suggests- I'll settle for inference) that those Daleks are from the DWU, we can't make this truly valid. If we do, we'd be jumping to conclusions. This back-and-forth is getting us nowhere and is incredibly tiresome. That's not meant to be a hurtful comment, I'd expect us all to be getting run down by this tbh.
And for the record, Terrance Dicks did some amazing work. To say he did a bad job is ridiculous. You can have your opinion and I can have mine, and my opinion is that Moffat uses the "there's no canon" card to escape anything he's done. He used to do it all the time in his DWM column. Dick's novels, the best (imho) being The Eight Doctors, I incredibly enjoyed. And it filled numerous gaps. Not related to this discussion, but I just thought I should stand up for him. Without him, the Whoniverse would be a much more confusing place.
I'll become much more active on this thread when one of you finds something that seals the deal. Until then, I don't see this thread serving much more of a purpose. It's just an area for you and Amorkus to agree and disagree and agree and disagree whilst bringing nothing new forward. Again, not meant to be hurtful, just pointing it out.
See you soon. And just a word of advice for the both of you, after looking through your discussions earlier, it seemed like you were getting a little too heated. We all love this Wiki but at the end of the day, it's just a small corner of the internet. When you've written a comment, take a couple of minutes to read it through a couple of times before publishing it. As we've already learnt, things can get taken out of context haha.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I'm going to have to be completely honest with you. This debate ran dry a few comments back. There's no new "proof" on the table apart from that dodgy Moffat quote. Until we find proof, we can't call this movie "valid" without going out on a limb.
I didn't say that we should. I just said that there's no need to purposefully keep it open until 2019. I'm in no rush to wrap up here.
Thefartydoctor wrote: The thing that'll prove it valid is intent, which has been said three million and one times in the thread (if you don't mind me rounding up slightly). No-one says (or even suggests- I'll settle for inference) that those Daleks are from the DWU, we can't make this truly valid. If we do, we'd be jumping to conclusions. This back-and-forth is getting us nowhere and is incredibly tiresome. That's not meant to be a hurtful comment, I'd expect us all to be getting run down by this tbh.
I know this is gonna make you mad, but I have to strongly disagree. We don't need an explanation of how the Daleks ended up there, because we already do have an explanation. There's a DWU world in the franchise, it's the only place we really see Daleks, the Phantom Zone connects to many universes. That's what the people working on this franchise have pretty clearly set up, and I disparage the idea of us expecting the Director to explain this in any article about a film that has way too many interesting things in it.
Also I'm far less invested in this then I put on.
The most sound argument for the story being invalid is the thing about the kid in the first movie and the idea of them not being done with this. We're not likely to get any major spoilers on that, is the thing.
- Thefartydoctor
But I've seen the movie. I know all about the Phantom Zone. We've been through this haha. We even made sure we were on the same page not too long ago. You agreed that we'd all understood it haha! The Phantom Zone being able to connect to so many different universes is actually amazing. It's our strongest reason for making it valid. But, as you've just said yourself, that annoying kid in the first movie means we can't just accept it as fact. We seem agreed yet you keep disagreeing haha.
To me, despite the numerous websites calling this a "spin-off to the LEGO Movie", if we can find an official source claiming that the makers of this movie wanted to make an entirely new reality, then we can ignore that little kid. Another problem is that the Batman in question is the same Batman from the LEGO Movie... but he doesn't have his backstory. So... there are three Batmans... the Batman from the LEGO Batman stuff, the Batman from the LEGO Movie and weird parallel but not parallel Batman from the LEGO Batman Movie who's the same but a little bit different haha.
Tbh, I'd love an admin's take on this because I'm losing the will to live haha. This time tomorrow I'll be in a straight jacket in the Dalek asylum because of this conversation haha.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: But I've seen the movie. I know all about the Phantom Zone. We've been through this haha.
I know I know, haha. Sorry.
I just really disagree that we should expect a quote of someone saying "Yes, Daleks are from DWU, yes." My main point is that there is only one place in the lego Multi-verse that has Daleks naturally. So I can't believe the claim that the Daleks come from anywhere but there.
Thefartydoctor wrote: But, as you've just said yourself, that annoying kid in the first movie means we can't just accept it as fact. We seem agreed yet you keep disagreeing haha.
Yea, it really is the kid. But no one will every explain the thing about the kid because it would spoil all the other sequels.
I'm losing the will to liveOh, see we can agree on stuff
- TheChampionOfTime
Let's just wait for...
- SOTO's opinion
- new & substantial quotes from people behind the movie
- some person to analyse the few seconds of the film where the portals appear and write about the easter eggs online
the Kamishi to be the surprise villians of the Lego Ninjago Movie- something about the film in DWM
- or
- someone to contact the writer on twitter and get a response
- Thefartydoctor
I'll be honest (I know I keep saying that), the LEGO Movie always seemed to me as a way of "testing the waters" to see if anyone would be interested in something A LOT bigger. Had The LEGO Batman Movie been first, I don't think many people would have seen it in the cinemas because they just wouldn't have got it (regardless of LD). I'm going to stick to my word and bide my time. I'll be back if I think that something needs to be added or if something needs to be contested. Until then, I'm just going to watch over this thread.
/ Straightjacket averted /
- Thefartydoctor
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Let's just wait for...
- SOTO's opinion
- new & substantial quotes from people behind the movie
- some person to analyse the few seconds of the film where the portals appear and write about the easter eggs online
the Kamishi to be the surprise villians of the Lego Ninjago Movie- something about the film in DWM
- or
- someone to contact the writer on twitter and get a response
I second this. :)
- OttselSpy25
Love me some Kamishis
- SOTO
OttselSpy25 wrote: Then you asked me to prove that LEGO Dimensions and LEGO Batman exist in the same franchise. They do. There's no debate to be had there.
That's a really interesting position, seeing as how The Lego Batman Movie was itself adapted into a package for LEGO Dimensions. (Which actually forces you to use the regular LEGO Batman minifigure, which is itself meant to be the Batman from the earlier LEGO games, rather than any movie version.)
For the record, I maintain that {{invalid}} should be kept on the story pages for now quite specifically because if considered valid, in-universe content would be created. Batman's page would speak about his interactions with the Daleks. We'd suddenly be talking about the Joker and Two-Face, Superman and Harley Quinn, and then suddenly when all this is deemed invalid, there'd be a lot of pages to delete and a lot of content to be rolled back to a prior state. And as I understand it, there's some crossovers into other non-DC properties, as well.
Now I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm led to believe that Emmett from the first film has a cameo? I think there's no doubt the two movies are connected. In fact, it sounds like there will be some future developments regarding the most metafictional aspects of the film series. We don't have a full view on things right now. I certainly don't, but I'll likely see The Lego Batman Movie tomorrow. Until then, this is SOTO, signing off.
- OttselSpy25
SOTO wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: Then you asked me to prove that LEGO Dimensions and LEGO Batman exist in the same franchise. They do. There's no debate to be had there.
That's a really interesting position, seeing as how The Lego Batman Movie was itself adapted into a package for LEGO Dimensions. (Which actually forces you to use the regular LEGO Batman minifigure, which is itself meant to be the Batman from the earlier LEGO games, rather than any movie version.)
That's true isn't it? Looking into this, it looks like they've falled into the trap of wanting to adapt every upcoming movie into a level... Including a movie within their own continuuity...
I was basing my statement off of the non-DLC story, where they went out of their way to swap out the MOVIE Batman with the 2008 GAME Batman. Also several characters from SLM show up in the main storyline.
SOTO wrote: Now I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm led to believe that Emmett from the first film has a cameo? I think there's no doubt the two movies are connected. In fact, it sounds like there will be some future developments regarding the most metafictional aspects of the film series. We don't have a full view on things right now. I certainly don't, but I'll likely see The Lego Batman Movie tomorrow. Until then, this is SOTO, signing off.
Emmet does not have a cameo, (EDIT: Never mind) but I think it'd be hard to argue that the films aren't connected. Or that the first movie isn't connected to LD. I think the director even said "How Batman changes in this will lead into TLM2"
Although, I will add that TLBM is a strong independant movie that don' need no 'prequel
- Shambala108
There's a scene where some characters are discussing the Infinite Abyss (on which the city is built), and a brief clip of Emmet falling down the abyss in The LEGO Movie is shown.
- Amorkuz
In doing research on the topic, I found another movie where Daleks play more or less the same role as in the LEGO movie: Looney Tunes: Back in Action. They are also henchmen among a pandemonium of characters from all franchises possible. Their appearance is also licensed. There is also no explicit connection to DWU in the movie. The decision for the Batman movie should rightfully apply to Looney Tunes.
- 90.216.60.107
Amorkuz wrote: Their appearance is also licensed.
The main consensus on the thread discussing that movie was that it wasn't fully licensed. Wasn't it?
- Amorkuz
I can't believe somebody would actually make a thread about it. It just shows that standards of validity debates have to be maintained, lest we descend into farce.
I'm not sure there was a consensus in that thread. But the movie was clearly licensed by BBC. I don't think we ever go beyond checking that in validity debates.
- 90.216.60.107
Amorkuz wrote: But the movie was clearly licensed by BBC.
I thought the problem was that it wasn't licensed by the Terry Nation estate. Not the BBC.
- Amorkuz
That's a fair point, actually. As was previously found by AED, the director of the movie (Chris McKay) has "explained why the famous Daleks never receive their full credit on-screen" as follows:
"The BBC said we could use the Daleks, and we could’ve called them the Daleks".
But it seems that we have all forgotten that BBC does not own Daleks.
So I will ask another simple question. And as the one before, it is not a question I have an answer to. Is there evidence that Rule 2 is fulfilled? Did Terry Nation Estate give permission to use Daleks in the movie. Because come to think of it, BBC actually has nothing to do with the movie. No BBC-owned part of DWU has appeared in it. And I am now starting to scratch my head as to why the director was mentioning BBC.
- AeD
I feel like what this thread needs isn't a consensus or a decision about The LEGO Batman Movie, but clear new policy about crossovers, because this is just going to keep coming up.
- Amorkuz
Apparently, I am not the first to ask the question. Some devoted individual claims to have watched the credits twice and could not find Terry Nation's name anywhere. We don't have to take his words for granted, of course, which is why I don't bother with a link. But at this point, one of the supporters of the inclusion really needs to find Terry Nation's name in the credits.
Another hard fact somebody commented on was that some Daleks get cracked open in the movie but exhibit no sign of the Dalek mutant inside. Is that the case?
Because this could easily serve as an in-universe explanation for the "robots" remark. If Joker sees no living thing inside, he is right to call them robots. So would we.
- Borisashton
All I could find relating to the Terry Nation issue shutdown IMDB message board. (http://m.imdb.com/title/tt4116284/board/threads/266033267/) The Google results gave me this quote:
However, the BBC never asked Terry Nation's estate about this, and that...
Then the same result quotes another part of the page:
...cleared again to have their likeness in The LEGO Batman Movie.
Whether this forms anything substantial I don't know, considering it was two parts of the webpage.
Another thing I could find connecting Terry Nation and the LEGO Batman Movie was from a Doctor Who wordpress site (https://mydoctorwhoblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/lego-my-daleks/):
But the best bit for us, the Doctor Who fan, were the references and the appearance of evil “British Robots” (apparently they couldn’t afford the Terry Nation Estate).
The last thing I could find was a reply to a comment section here (http://merchandise.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/the-lego-batman-movie/): One commenter is wondering why they're called British Robots. Here's the response:
It’s for copyright reasons they can use the image but not the name, Terry nation’s estate own the daleks name
None of this is very reliable, but it's what I could find.
- AeD
I linked to a quote from the director about where "British robots" came from -- there was nothing stopping them calling them Daleks, they just didn't.
We don't know the exact details -- though I'd be interested to learn them -- but as far as we know, the Daleks appeared in the film by full legal permission or licensing from whatever copyright owners would have to get involved.
- Borisashton
AeD wrote: I linked to a quote from the director about where "British robots" came from -- there was nothing stopping them calling them Daleks, they just didn't.
We don't know the exact details -- though I'd be interested to learn them -- but as far as we know, the Daleks appeared in the film by full legal permission or licensing from whatever copyright owners would have to get involved.
I think the problem with the quote that you linked to was that the Terry Nation estate was not mentioned and instead the BBC apparently gave them permission. But I do agree that we don't know the full details and the exact wording might have been a mistake on their part.
- AeD
It's perfectly reasonable that all McKay actually knows is that he was allowed to use the Daleks, and that you'd have to ask a Warner Bros lawyer hidden in a dark, windowless office somewhere to get any further clarity about this, but the quote at the very least makes clear: For all intents and purposes, the LEGO Batman Movie was allowed to use (and name) the Daleks.
- Borisashton
I absolutely agree that the LEGO Batman Movie was (probably) allowed to use and name the Daleks. But at the end of the day, the quote about the BBC doesn't outright confirm that the Terry Nation estate gave permission for them to be used. Just the BBC. As you said, we would most likely have to seek out a lawyer to have absolute confirmation.
- SOTO
All those quotes saying they didn't have permission to call them "Daleks" are wrong, at least according to LEGO Batman's director. It is interesting, though, how he says they got permission from the BBC. It is maybe possible that McKay is not informed about the source of their licensing for the Daleks. Or maybe we're not totally informed about the current legalities: maybe, within reason, the BBC do currently have the right to allow productions to use the Daleks' likenesses.
Looking around the net, I'm getting a bit of an impression that (there's at least a popular enough idea that) the BBC owns the Daleks' likenesses, while the Nation estate owns the name. I don't think that is correct, and certainly we're seeing in the quotes above from the director that they did not have to call the Daleks simply British robots. I wish there was more information to be found on the legalities, though. Surely there must be something in the end credits, right? "Daleks used with permission by...", or at the very least a credited by credit.
The Looney Tunes film, by the way, seems way more legally complicated. I don't think it's so clear that they actually had the right to use the Daleks in that one.
- TheChampionOfTime
According to the small print in recent issues of Doctor Who: The Eleventh Doctor, "TARDIS, DALEKS, CYBERMEN, and K-9 (word marks and devices) are trade marks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under license. Dalek image copyright BBC/Terry Nation".
- Amorkuz
Perhaps, even more telling, almost the same small print is present on LEGO set 21304:
"BBC, DOCTOR WHO (word marks, logos and devices), TARDIS, DALEKS, CYBERMAN and K-9 (word marks and devices) are trademarks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under license. ... Dalek image copyright BBC/Terry Nation 1964. Cyberman image copyright BBC/Kit Pedler/Gerry Davis 1966. K-9 image copyright BBC/Bob Baker/Dave Martin 1977.
So, barring a sudden change of the legal situation since the last Titan Comics issue:
- Terry Nation Estate still owns the image of the Dalek (contrary to both popular belief and basic common sense as he did not create it);
- LEGO is well aware of the rightful image owner;
- BBC owns the trademark on using the word "Dalek".
McKay is either not informed about the licensing situation (he's not the first as the Looney situation shows) or was thinking more of the use of the name "Dalek" in that interview, which apparently does belong to BBC.
However, Dalek images used in the movie can, apparently, only be used under license if allowed by the Terry Nation Estate. And this is really easy to determine. As SOTO said, it is either in the end credits or not. And there's no point hoping for the best or speculating as if there's no way of knowing. It's a simple yes/no question that is easy to answer. For the record, I checked the website of the movie and found no mention either of BBC or of Terry Nation.
- SOTO
Of course, the movie was produced largely by Warner Animation Group, not The LEGO Group. LEGO has shown that they're aware of copyright issues. Regardless, since the Dalek image is apparently joint owned by Nation('s estate) and the BBC, does the BBC have the right to allow its use here?
"The U.S. Copyright Office considers joint copyright owners to have an equal right to register and enforce the copyright. Unless the joint owners make a written agreement to the contrary, each copyright owner has the right to commercially exploit the copyright, provided that the other copyright owners get an equal share of the proceeds."
"The Copyright Act of 1976 grants a number of exclusive rights to copyright owners, including:
- reproduction right — the right to make copies of a protected work
- distribution right — the right to sell or otherwise distribute copies to the public
- right to create adaptations (called derivative works) — the right to prepare new works based on the protected work, and
- performance and display rights — the rights to perform a protected work (such as a stageplay) or to display a work in public. This bundle of rights allows a copyright owner to be flexible when deciding how to realize commercial gain from the underlying work; the owner may sell or license any of the rights."
(Source)
So while the Terry Nation Estate could certainly refuse to allow the use of Daleks in any production, it seems (to me) that the BBC are also entirely within their rights to allow for use of the Dalek image, as long as any profit therein is shared equally between the parties. I'm certainly not a lawyer, so not at all an authority or expert on US copyright law, (and UK copyright law plays into this as well,) so I may be wrong, and the Nation Estate maybe does have to give permission for every use of the Daleks. But it seems to me possible that it's legally sound for the BBC to allow this, without the Terry Nation Estate being specifically consulted.
- AeD
And, of course: The Daleks in this movie do not actually look like Daleks, they look like low-res LEGO renditions of Daleks.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: I can't believe somebody would actually make a thread about it. It just shows that standards of validity debates have to be maintained, lest we descend into farce.
if you pay attention, it's clear they were mocking my presentation of this thread in that thread.
I think I pretty clearly explained how LTBiA and this film are different earlier in the thread:
OttselSpy25 wrote: It's simply not a "cultural reference" if the characters appearing are fully licensed and are shown in the right context. Let's compare it to Looney Tunes: Back in Action, as someone did in another thread.
Back in Action is set in a universe with cartoon animals living alongside people. The reason it does matter in that case that the universe is different from the DWU is that it's never explained that the Daleks aren't from the universe that they're currently in. They didn't go out of their way to explain how it makes any sense. The Lego products did do that.
The important clarification is that the film is not set in the DWU at all. But we do not literally chose to call things valid or invalid based off of if a story is set on "Earth-5556" or not. The film is set in a universe on a tangent to the DWU, and it's explained how characters from the DWU ended up there. That's what actually matters.
There was a clear-cut effort to make this appearance, and indeed all of the uses of Doctor Who characters, make some resemblance of sense. They wanted us to understand how this all tied in. Thus it sort of is based in the DWU.
Things that this movie is not:
It's not LT:BIN because the Daleks are properly licensed and it's explained how they are in a universe where we wouldn't expect them to be.
Basically, the creators of LTBiA thought "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if we put Daleks in this universe that we just created?" Meanwhile, the LEGO franchise said "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we brought the DWU into our multi-verse?"
I should note that I've watched LTBiA like a hundred times. It was one of my favorite movies as a kid. Well, it was one of the only movies I owned. And it's important to note that the Daleks are in one scene, not a third of the movie. It's totally different.
Borisashton wrote: All I could find relating to the Terry Nation issue shutdown IMDB message board.
A good effort to find evidence, but you can't quote fan forums so infamously badly put together that they just got closed permanency. Next I'll start quoting random LEGO threads.
The question of if they had the licensing totally worked out is a good question, but as SOTO said there's just likely stuff that we don't know. There could be a very, very long explanation for why it turned out this way. I think it's odd, but I don't think it's proof that these aren't the Daleks or that the stories isn't licensed.
If anything, I think the inclusion of Nation's name on the set's box indicates that they did indeed have the rights to use them.
- Amorkuz
OttselSpy25 wrote: If anything, I think the inclusion of Nation's name on the set's box indicates that they did indeed have the rights to use them.
As already pointed out by me, toy license is wholly separate from movie license. As pointed out by SOTO, the producer of the movie is a separate legal entity from the LEGO Group, which has a toy license.
Thus, Nation's name on the box does not have any relation to the question of whether Daleks in the movie had been fully licensed.
I truly do not understand the idea that when we don't know things, it's futile to even try figuring it out. If we don't know stuff that is important for determining the validity, we better do research. It took just two people on a Sunday to determine who owns the copyright.
- OttselSpy25
A big problem here is that we're taking shots in the dark on several levels.
For one, we're presuming that LTBiA is unlicensed. There are mumbling about this being true, but I've never seen any primary sources to suggest this. I've seen plenty of Who sites say this, but I've also seen plenty of Who sites that say there's a Zygon in Attack of the Graske. There isn't.
Some fan sites say "The BBC didn't ask the TN estate and the TN estate was mad." Then there's people who say "The creators of the movie thought the Daleks were public domain." There's also a story floating around about either of the above options nearly causing the TN estate not to let the BBC use the Daleks for the 2005 show. But the actual transcripts suggest a "creative difference" over the Series 1 scripts. And trust me when I say that these are only two or three of the many stories that were floating around about this story when the movie came out.
We're basing our presumptions on what needs to be in the credits off of a movie which we presume is unlicensed, but we don't have real concrete evidence of if it is or not. Maybe it was licensed, and the TN estate not showing up in the credits of films isn't that weird.
I'm not saying either sides are invalid, I'm saying that they're both based in old school forums and speculation.
- Amorkuz
Yes, I agree that these forums cannot be used to prove any statement, which is why I did not cite them directly or linked to them.
Here are some examples of the Terry Nation Estate (TNE) and its spokesperson Tim Hancock having direct influence on all things Dalek.
There was a recent story in The Sun about the Terry Nation Estate blocking various DVD extras because they didn't want the Daleks to be seen in a certain light.
Originally I had hoped to include wooden Daleks, but objections to that concept raised by the Terry Nation estate necessitated a change to metal and stained glass instead.
"I am absolutely delighted that the Terry Nation estate and the BBC have been able to reach agreement on terms for the use of the Daleks in the new Doctor Who series," said Tim Hancock, agent for the Terry Nation estate. "We look forward to working closely with the production team in the forthcoming months."
It seems clear that not only does TNE have the rights but they are not afraid to demand changes to the final product, thus, exerting a certain control over the production. Regarding the peculiarities of the US copyright law, Titan Comics are also published in the US. As noted earlier they include "Dalek image copyright BBC/Terry Nation" in Dalek-related stories. Thus, it would be very irregular if this notice could be omitted for the movie.
If the notice is present in the movie, the issue is closed. If not, the situation becomes "unusual" and some official confirmation is required that they had a complete license from both BBC and TNE to use Daleks proper.
- OttselSpy25
My only point to make here is that we don't really know if there's a difference between the crediting practices of comics and movies. Are the creators of Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz credited? If not, then there's a chance that they used some sort of strange sub-credit, or that they contractually didn't have to credit them at all.
- SOTO
Back to LEGO Batman, I can confirm that, having sat through the entire credits as I always do, I did not see any reference to the Daleks or to Terry Nation himself. The creators of both Batman and Superman are quite prominent in the first part of the credits, but no reference is made to Terry Nation, J.K. Rowling, or any of the others.
I think I'll give a lengthier reply later, but for now, two of my main points after having seen it:
- They're definitely the Daleks. Whether they're from the DWU, we have to get to, but they're the Daleks, whether that's spoken or not. It's made clear that the Daleks were imprisoned from another world, as villains of that world, so it's definitely a valid (and obvious) interpretation that they came from a LEGO Doctor Who world. The Phantom Zone does belong to some wider multiverse (I believe actually called "universe" specifically in the film), so it's strongly implied that the characters from the various franchises come from LEGO versions of their respective universes.
- That said, not only are none of those characters truly taken seriously, but quite specifically, they appear to be filtered through the imagination (and breadth of knowledge) of an American child. (A closeted American child who plays with ideas of homosexuality in really interesting and imaginative ways, under the radar, or so he thinks.) Voldemort doesn't really go around shouting "Wingardium leviosa!", apparently his only spell, but this kid doesn't know enough of Harry Potter lore to really grasp that. And certain directorial/script choices ("Pew pew! Pew pew!") definitely seem to go with that interpretation.
So I'd say, within the LEGO universe, the Daleks did come from a LEGO DWU, but I'm not sure they actually came from the DWU. In terms of their characterisation: sure, they kill, they know to recite the "Exterminate" catchphrase that perhaps your average American child is already familiar with, though their "robot"-ness is used for one 'laugh': "
He's not worth it." I'm not getting the impression that this film treats the properties it uses as seriously as LEGO Dimensions and other LEGO games do (which is not to say that those haven't always poked fun at the characters, too). So yeah, I am getting more of a "cultural reference" impression, but at the same time, it is explained how the Daleks came to cross from their own universe to Batman's, through the Phantom Zone. There are really points on both sides.While actually watching the movie, I should say, I was leaning more toward thinking these are simply the Daleks, and there is a case to be made for this crossover's validity. But that simply wouldn't be consistent with the general feeling I'm getting that this is set, at least in part, in a child's imagination. If that is the case, this movie most likely fails rule 4. Either way, The Lego Batman Movie absolutely deserves a page. If we go for validity, it has to be discussed which pages can be created based on this--both in-universe, and with regards to the movie's crew and cast. Remember that this is not a "DWU story" in the way that it's a "story involving the DWU in some way", if at all.
- OttselSpy25
I hate to the first person to reply to each and every comment, but I just sometimes can't hold myself back.
I agree with a lot of what SOTO has said. I think it is a very mixed bag, but my main form of contention with his analysis is that I don't think there's ample evidence that this is still entirely within the kid's head.
I think that it's unclear exactly what they meant for that point in the first movie to mean in-universe. We know they're going to explore the "connection" in future films, but for all we know the tangent between the "live action" and "LEGO" movies is much more natural than just the imagination of a kid. By the sounds of it, they're looking to change and expand the rules, not do the same twist over-and-over again. Again, it's clearly not just in the kid's head. It's an actual portal to an actual alternate universe where the LEGOS do not lose their sentience.
I don't see any evidence that they planned this entire movie out as a play-cession of some kid. There's scenes of pools of lava flooding streets, complex bat-robots transforming and flying away, huge sets that no one could actually be able to build in real life... I know the first film has stuff like that, but in that film they at least talk about that aspect. The Lego Batman Movie is self-contained for the most part, and concentrates on exploring the film's universe. Any goofiness comes not from "oh Andy doesn't know much about Harry Potter or homosexuality," but simply from the tone of the film and its comedy.
I think if the creators had meant for the Will Ferrell basement twist to be concretely interpreted across their entire franchise, they would never have connected to something like Lego Batman: The Game (2009). I think it's clear that the bigger picture here is much more harder to gage than just that "Will Ferrell Jr controls every single universe in the LEGO-verse."
- SOTO
OttselSpy25 wrote: I don't see any evidence that they planned this entire movie out as a play-[s]ession of some kid. There's scenes of pools of lava flooding streets, complex bat-robots transforming and flying away, huge sets that no one could actually be able to build in real life...
Fair enough. There seems to be a balance in this film between blatant this-is-at-least-meant-to-remind-you-of-playing-with-LEGOs-as-a-child and things that might go against that, like complex sets and pieces and jokes a child would likely not think up, or even think of, in some cases. And there's even some fourth-wall-breaking at the beginning and end, as you've said above.
It's at once a self-contained universe, so it seems, and a "child's plaything" (You! Are! A Toy!) where Commissioner Gordon has the hilariously non-creative lines of "Thank you" and "Goodbye". And yeah, that's part of the humour of the movie. And I think it's brilliant, personally. But it leaves it a bit unclear for us, at this point, as to whether this is "real" or, as you say, a merely "play-session" we're seeing come to life.
- AeD
Because this is almost certainly going to keep happening, and we're never gonna settle on any of this in any direction, I really feel like the thing to do here would be to have a policy that LEGO narratives, because of their ambiguous nature as possibly being play-sessions come to life, are invalid by default.
- OttselSpy25
While I comprehend both sides to the discussion, I disagree that we should universally close down all discussions on the franchise just because it's unclear in the now.
- Amorkuz
I agree that excluding future stories by default is wrong. But That's not how I understood AED. My feeling was that he proposed, while considering a LEGO story to assume it is a "toy story" by default until proven otherwise.
It's my general qualm with the explanations of Rule 4. They are written for stories that are by default written as DW stories, but may be excluded given sufficient evidence. We do not really have a clearly formulated rule for stories not written for DWU, be they crossovers or something else, which should be invalid by default but accepted given sufficient evidence.
- AeD
(I'm a they, not a he.)
Yeah, that's essentially what I was going for. Unless there's something that actually meaningfully explicitly connects a LEGO narrative featuring elements from Doctor Who to the actual factual narrative of the DWU, we should operate under the assumption that it isn't meant to be set in it, but is instead, as the films are explicitly meant to evoke, a play-session caught on film.
Rule 4 works fine for, say, those Thebes Publishing Erimem stories, right -- do they connect back to her adventures with the Doctor in any meaningful sense? Valid, done, this stuff is pretty clear cut. But that doesn't work when it's a Batman story that you're trying to apply those rules to.
- OttselSpy25
My problem is that we know there's a DWU in the LEGO Verse, and Moffat has said there's no problem with considering them to be the same (well, he basically said that. Kinda). The fact that there are some universes where it sometimes links up to another universe where a kid is playing with toys seems irrelevant to that part of the discussion. I don't think it's 100% their motivations behind every story featured in their franchise so far.
It doesn't matter if it's a Batman story. It's not set in the "Prime" Who universe. Rather it's clearly explained what universe it is and how characters from other universes ended up there.
- 85.255.236.55
How can Lego happen in the DWU...
Once upon a time ghf Doctor was turned into Lego.
Add has his/her points and OtterSpy has his/hers however this is Lego people.
- Amorkuz
On this I must side with OttselSpy25.
There were plenty of mind-boggling transformations in the DWU, including transformations into toys. Amy Pond was turned into a peg doll in Night Terrors; the Eighth Doctor was turned into a ventriloquist dummy in Solitaire; the whole TARDIS crew has been miniaturised in Planet of Giants, to name just the few.
Just the fact of being toys cannot discount the characters from being themselves. What it boils down to (every time) is intent. They could be characters turned into toys.
They could be characters intended to be themselves but represented through toys, which would not be too different from animated images in Dreamland or images in comic stories, which do not match the original characters exactly. In fact, although provided in an invalid game, there is a very simple technobabble explanation ready for any writer to use: a computer virus affected our perception and we see things as 8-bit computer game characters/LEGO pieces/play-doh figures/etc.
Or they could be intended as toys, based on the characters from Doctor Who.
PS I would like to apologise to to all "them" whom I called "he" in this thread and beyond. I meant no offence. Just was too lazy to spend time researching the preferred pronoun.
- AeD
(I'm explicitly neither a his nor a her, IP, singular they or other neutral language, please.)
I think a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is fair when switching styles or media like this -- it's not like we're wondering why Dr Who has stopped moving when he's in comics, or why he's a lumpy CGI man when he's a cartoon -- but you're right, IP, these LEGO cartoons are generally a few more steps removed from the general type of reality Doctor Who exists in than usual, i.e. in the physics of the LEGO world, everything seems to legit just be made out of blocks.
This is one thing while it's still just Daleks -- even if they don't seem to have a little block mutant inside, as was brought up above -- but would increasingly become an issue if we get any further Doctor Who material from the LEGO people.
- Amorkuz
In the absence of in-universe confirmation, I think I found the explicitly formulated intent behind the use of the Phantom Zone:
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: It’s one thing for a movie to throw in a quick cameo or two, but LEGO Batman’s entire third act is crafted around getting these iconic pop culture villains. Tell me about the genesis of this whole idea. CHRIS MCKAY: The Joker needed to up his game and prove himself, and we talked about this being the Joker’s big romantic grand gesture. So in order to do that… I loved the [1978 Richard Donner-directed] Superman and the idea that the Phantom Zone, in our world, could possibly house all of the villains from other LEGO universes. It’s almost like Cabin in the Woods. Or, in Last Action Hero, when Charles Dance says, I can go into all these movies and I can bring out Jack the Ripper or King Kong. When I was younger, watching that movie, I was somehow expecting a scene between King Kong and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I was always bummed it didn’t go there. [Laughs.] But in our world, we can do something like that and unleash all these characters into Batman’s world.
For me this quote settles the question that the creators intended to represent villains from another LEGO universe rather than toys from a child's collection.
Oh, and further in the same article regarding licensing. It does not say explicitly how they got the license for Daleks but it says that they had to employ lawyers in order to get the correct license:
EW: Was licensing a nightmare? C.MK: You need an army of lawyers and producers who are willing to run around and do all the hard work of finding out all the rights-holders. Fortunately, Warner Bros. made a lot of those movies, but for others, we had go to out and get them. I wanted characters from all over the world. I wanted Daleks. ... But even for the actual Batman villains, even though that’s all [property of] DC, someone still has to go out and find it, you know, the guy that wrote Gentleman Ghost into the issue where he first shows up. I definitely kept a lot of coordinators, producers, and lawyers busy on this movie. I’m sure I drove people crazy.
- Amorkuz
Oh, it gets better. This reporter, Marc Snetiker is really asking all the right questions. Can we contact him in the future and ask him to ask appropriate questions of the directors/actors?
EW: The film’s ending doesn’t pull back into the human world like the first film did, but it still sort of winks at the macro idea that we’re watching a movie about physical toys on a table. Do you think that’s going to be a staple of LEGO movies? C.MK: Everyone says this, but for lack of a better phrase, there’s a LEGO cinematic universe that we’re building that has a sci-fi premise, as far as the world that the movies are taking place in for the majority of the running time, and the other world that’s out there. I think over the course of the movies, we’re building out the relationship between those. There’s no mandate necessarily to do that, but we are very actively working to find all of the rules and develop that relationship between the real world and the LEGO world. You’ll start to see it in what we’re doing with Ninjago and what what we’re doing in LEGO 2.
- OttselSpy25
Excellent quote hunting. Good stuff.
- SOTO
(They-sters unite!) So the plot thickens... A lot of new information has been brought up. I'm a bit too bogged up in other work right now to devote time to a more extensive reply just yet, but I'm loving how this is already turning into a debate of Clara Oswald (or Osgood) proportions. Even in Doctor Who proper, we're never quite sure where Moffat (or anyone else) is going, just yet, so we have to just work with what we've got.
In this case, I'm not sure it does quite boil down to "it's all definitely just toys". It might even get a lot more complex than that in future films, and importantly, the people in charge don't even know where they're going with it all yet. Them-being-actual-LEGO certainly plays into the humour this time, but it can equally be read as its own self-contained universe.
Representation in LEGO form does not equal invalidity. I would have given the exact same argument expanded on above: in comic stories, or in Dreamland, there is no narrative explanation for why the visuals are depicted in a certain way, and there's no real reason for it. Unless in the end, it was all just a play session, these are characters who are being represented as LEGO minifigures--and that's just how they look and function in this story, and we accept that.
Oh no! I'm giving a full-length reply! This NB admin will be back in the next issue of... THE LEGO SAGA: DWU EDITION
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: On this I must side with OttselSpy25.
There were plenty of mind-boggling transformations in the DWU, including transformations into toys. Amy Pond was turned into a peg doll in Night Terrors; the Eighth Doctor was turned into a ventriloquist dummy in Solitaire; the whole TARDIS crew has been miniaturised in Planet of Giants, to name just the few.
Just the fact of being toys cannot discount the characters from being themselves. What it boils down to (every time) is intent. They could be characters turned into toys.
They could be characters intended to be themselves but represented through toys, which would not be too different from animated images in Dreamland or images in comic stories, which do not match the original characters exactly. In fact, although provided in an invalid game, there is a very simple technobabble explanation ready for any writer to use: a computer virus affected our perception and we see things as 8-bit computer game characters/LEGO pieces/play-doh figures/etc.
Or they could be intended as toys, based on the characters from Doctor Who.
Like I said, I can object to very little that you've said here. My only qualm is that I'm still not convinced that the DWU within the LEGO muliverse is presented as a "bunch of toys." In the LEGO Batman film universe, for instance, there's a few jokes here and there about the fact that they are LEGOs. That sort of thing. But within all currently presented DWU material, it's basically just been used as a stylistic choice. Asking "Why do they look like LEGOS in this" would be like asking "Why does the Doctor have a weird butt-chin" in A Rose by Any Other Name or "Why does Gabby never look the same in any Titan comic ever?" Because art-style, basically.
EDIT: Ah, SOTO's WAY beat me to it!
- Borisashton
Don't know if this is helpful in any way but I would like to point out that there are small live-action segments of the movie. The characters don't address it though and just carry on as normal.
- OttselSpy25
I don't remember that. We are talking about LEGO Batman, just to clarify.
EDIT: Oh, wait, you mean the jokes where they play scenes from the 1960s Batman. Yea, that is a good point.
- SOTO
The movies Batman watches are also live-action.
- Borisashton
Also the video in which a monkey and a dog are friends is live-action.
- OttselSpy25
Man this discussion keeps reminding me how funny the movie legitimately was.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: Man this discussion keeps reminding me how funny the movie legitimately was.
But not quite as awesome as The LEGO Movie.
- Thefartydoctor
Right, I literally just came back from just rewatching the movie and have two main points to leave with you. Do with them as you wish but I feel I have to make them regardless.
1. You guys may have missed it but there is actually a 'Bad Wolf' reference made. Not useful to this discussion but I just wanted to place it here to win internet points haha. In the scene where the Joker has stolen (and deployed) all of Batman's other vehicles, one of the jets has 'Bad Wolf' graffitied over it.
2. Putting all of your quotes regarding authorial intent to one side... I have to say that I've reached my own conclusion on the validity of this movie. Firstly, Voldemort is present... even though he died in the Potterverse. Simple explanation is that this is Voldemort from the LEGO Potterverse, in the LEGO Multiverse. Don't shun this point. I'm making a parallel to the Daleks. Now, if you watch the movie over again and again and again, I'm sure you'll find other characters from other universe that have met similar fates, yet somehow appear in this movie- I know nothing of the LotR books/movies but I'm sure Sauron can't appear...? The simple explanation is that death is different in the LEGO Multiverse. Nothing stops this Phantom Zone being the LEGO Phantom Zone. The portal through which the Daleks may have come is most likely to be the LEGO Whoniverse, rather than the actual Whoniverse.
You're gonna jump in and say "authorial intent"... the quote above stated "I wanted Daleks". But, the quote is so vague. Does he want the Daleks or does he just want an appearance of any Daleks he can get his hands on because he is in love with the Daleks (as are most of us)? To me, anyone and everyone who was bad appeared in this movie. The Daleks are there just to fill another hole and to tick another box. They're not there to be taken seriously. We discussed earlier in the discussion that a "tongue-in-cheek cultural reference" doesn't equate invalidity, and that's true. But here, I feel a line must be drawn. Inclusion on the fact that they "may be the Daleks" isn't good enough. To me, they're just a cameo among many. Moreover, it's easier for them to be LEGO Daleks from the LEGO DWU. Otherwise, we open up a bigger dialogue- why are the Daleks in the PZ? Who put them there? If you can't answer those questions, or if you're simply unprepared to try... then we can't make this movie valid yet.
Conclusion: I'm not against making them valid. But from a rewatch... there's not enough in the movie and there's not enough in this thread to make me want to include them and the movie itself into the DWU. A lot more is needed. You can sit there and say "an author's not gonna say this, that or the other" and "an author's not gonna write all that detail into his/her movie"... well, that's not my problem. We need hard facts, which state A, B and C. I really don't want this sliding through as valid by the clutching of straws.
- SOTO
Well, we don't deem stories invalid simply for discontinuity, and not everything is always explained. We don't need it to be explained how the Daleks got there, necessarily, for it to be valid, but it would certainly help the case a lot. In this case, though, that's not the only issue. If an episode of Doctor Who gave us no context for how..hang on, we never really know how the Daleks show up again after getting defeated and destroyed entirely the season before. :P We don't need answers to how Davros survived his Journey's End to allow season 9 as a whole to be considered valid.
That said, since this is obviously much more of a fringe case than an episode of Doctor Who, a solid explanation that doesn't draw on speculation, and is actually given in-story, might give this one better grounds for validity. You do make a good point about other continuities. It is clearly Voldemort after Goblet of Fire, after all, and by Deathly Hallows, he's dead. While of course none of that is valid to us, and so is only useful for the purposes of comparison, you do make a good case for all these universes being LEGO universes, specifically, rather than the "originals", or the de facto continuities as seen and written about in books/movies/on TV. In which case, this isn't Voldemort from Harry Potter's universe travelling to Batman's, but rather LEGO Voldemort, from LEGO Harry Potter, and in the same way these aren't the Daleks from Doctor Who, but Daleks from LEGO Doctor Who. It's complicated, at this point, because none of this is yet made clear.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm glad we agree on that latter point. The LEGO Potterverse exists in the games and mini-movies. Whereas the Potterverse is much vaster and much more detailed. This LEGO Multiverse has different physics. You can take apart a bed and turn it into a car, and no-one bats an eyelid. If you knock Voldemort's head off, someone can just put it back on and he's alive again.
I'd like to bring up a suggestion I brought up much earlier. I think one of us was very hesitant to do so. I suggested we wait until the movie is out of the cinema (so that everyone and anyone can have a say). After that, we wait for more information. I suggested earlier that we make this temporarily invalid while we wait for more insight (be it an official interview or a sequel movie). It could take weeks, it could take years. But you can't build a castle without foundations. You just can't cry "valid" because you've run out of points. (This "you" means "one" haha).
Remember: saying "we don't know yet" is also a very valid answer to any factual question. "We don't know yet" doesn't mean that we're stupid or ill-informed. Saying "we don't know yet" allows us some breathing space to go down different alleyways. Maybe in a week, one of us will spot something in a newspaper or in DWM. Maybe in a month, one of us will buy the DVD and see a very helpful interview in the DVD extras. As for now, I honestly don't see that we can positively make that distinction between the DWU and the LEGO DWU.
- OttselSpy25
I disagree. As I said much earlier in the thread, how LEGO treats non-DWU franchises has no relevance to this discussion. And if anything, we should not be calling this invalid simply because it's somewhere in the middle. It's the specific and unique treatment of the DWU that caused us to even have this discussion in the first place, and I would say it's important to consider this as well.
All that we have is that Moffat wouldn't say that the DWU wan't the version in the LEGO franchise, and personally that's good enough for me for now. I don't feel a need to wait on anyone else's quotes.
- AeD
re: Voldemort: I've not seen the film, but could that not have been a Voldemort from earlier in the timeline of the regular flavour Potterverse?
(That said, I think the turn-a-bed-into-a-car physics stuff is more than enough to declare it invalid.)
- OttselSpy25
I don't remember instances of the Doctor doing anything he couldn't regularly do in LD. The same for the Daleks.
Rule of thumb: If you could see it in a Rachael Smith comic, it's not good enough to make the story invalid.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: I disagree. As I said much earlier in the thread, how LEGO treats non-DWU franchises has no relevance to this discussion.
It has every relevance. To say it doesn't is highly neglectful when discussing a LEGO franchise piece of work. You have the LEGO Potterverse and the normal Potterverse. You have the LEGO Star Wars Universe and the normal Star Wars Universe. The difference between the two is that the Laws of Physics are not only different but also, the LEGO physics are massively flexible. There's nothing unique about how the LEGO Batman Movie has treated Doctor Who. It's just another cameo from another villain among tonnes of others.
I have no problem accepting a story where the Doctor enters the LEGO multiverse and has to come to terms with the new Laws of Physics, as long as it's explained as such. But if there's a story set in the LEGO DWU without explanation, then that's the setting: the LEGO DWU, not the DWU. Finito. End of story. And all of these LEGO universes are part of the LEGO multiverse.
We're calling this invalid because there's not enough evidence to make a connection to the DWU. The Daleks are in it... whoop-de-do. The BBC allowed them to use them... so what? If the LEGO Franchise wanted any version of the Dalek (real Daleks, parallel Daleks, LEGO Daleks), they'd still need a license no matter what.
Time to get tough here, I'm afraid. I'll dig my heels in and say that we need a lot more substantial evidence before I'm joining the "valid" side. I've not seen or heard anything of value to place it in/besides the DWU. Sorry, but I haven't.
- SOTO
Thefartydoctor wrote: I'm glad we agree on that latter point.
All I'm saying is your argument makes sense, not that it trumps all other arguments.
AeD wrote: I've not seen the film, but could that not have been a Voldemort from earlier in the timeline of the regular flavour Potterverse?
This Voldemort looks like the Voldemort physically reborn in book 4, and I don't think, before then, Voldemort was capable of unsupported flight. I might have my Potter lore wrong on that one, though.
OttselSpy25 wrote: Rule of thumb: If you could see it in a Rachael Smith comic, it's not good enough to make the story invalid.
Ha, I like this.
AeD wrote: I think the turn-a-bed-into-a-car physics stuff is more than enough to declare it invalid.
But to be perfectly fair, the Doctor has visited so many worlds (and dimensions) with physics far, far stranger than that.
- OttselSpy25
At the same time, I am absolutely not convinced that we have any real reason to call this invalid. We need info on how the DWU is treated exclusively. OF COURSE the LEGO Harry Potter universe is treated differently. We have ample evidence that it's a direct reboot -- with a retelling of the original franchise. We don't have that for Doctor Who.
My original pitch, which most people seemed to agree with, was the LD presented some franchises with the idea of rebooting them while it showed others with the idea of adding on to them. Doctor Who is one of the franchises where they have not tried to retcon any of his adventures, nor have they tried to recreate them. Instead, it's tried to show new adventures in the same basic universe. That's kind of what any non-TV Doctor Who story does.
It just seems like every argument for it being invalid doesn't have enough of a direct connection to hold up in any meaningful way.
- Thefartydoctor
SOTO wrote: All I'm saying is your argument makes sense, not that it trumps all other arguments.
I never stated that. Please don't twist my words, buddy.
OttselSpy25 wrote: OF COURSE the LEGO Harry Potter universe is treated differently. We have ample evidence that it's a direct reboot -- with a retelling of the original franchise. We don't have that for Doctor Who.
It's got nothing to do with LEGO Harry Potter being a direct reboot. We're talking about two separate universes here, reboot or not. One uses the physics of the Potterverse, one uses the physics of the LEGO multiverse. We don't need a reboot or a rehash of Doctor Who in order to have a LEGO DWU.
OttselSpy25 wrote: It just seems like every argument for it being invalid doesn't have enough of a direct connection to hold up in any meaningful way.
I'd like SOTO to correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's invalid before valid. Of course, it's very helpful to provide evidence that something's invalid, so that we can cut to the chase. But, let's face it, the onus isn't on us to prove this is invalid. The onus is on whoever wishes us all to deem it valid to provide some solid pieces of evidence, and right now that's exactly what we don't have. :/
- Amorkuz
Two more points I'd like to add: AeD rightfully said that having a live Voldemort from between books 4 and 7 is not out of question. But on top of that, there is time travel (such as it is) in Potterverse too. With this amount of timey-wimeyness available on both sides, continuity arguments look more and more like unicorns: beautiful but not real.
Second (and this is why I respect TheFartyDoctor for bringing that up even though he didn't think it was relevant), I actually think "Bad Wolf" is relevant to this discussion. It is thin evidence, for sure, but with the general lack of evidence, it is still something.
My question is this: Did "Bad Wolf" occur in LEGO DWU universe? Did it exist there? If it didn't, then this can only be a reference to the real DWU universe (I feel like we should start numbering them, like Marvel does). And this one comes with a predefined explanation: Rose was spreading the words throughout all time and space available. In the absence of an alternative explanation, is it not the only prudent thing to do to conclude that Rose was able to reach the universe the movie is set in?
Also on the intent level, "Bad Wolf" does way more for me than the presence of Daleks. Daleks are trivial in their ubiquity (let Briggs forgive me). Using Daleks as an easily recognisable villain is a no-brainer. But using "Bad Wolf" shows respect for the more intricate lore of the land. It shows attention to details that will most likely be missed by most viewers (even among us, TheFartyDoctor was the only one to bring it up). What I'm saying is that this Easter egg was not made for attracting viewers or boosting box office. The producers did not talk about it, did they? So it seems the only purpose of it being there is to show respect to the parent universe by providing narrative links to DWU (unless once again it did appear in LEGO DWU).
Look at it this way: it was suggested to do a frame-by-frame analysis of the portals in the Phantom Zone to try and discern something recognisable from DWU. Well, "bad wolf" is that something except it already made its way into this universe.
- Thefartydoctor
I appreciate what you're saying and I thank you for acknowledging that seemingly trivial point. The only worry I have is, like you said yourself, did the Bad Wolf Meme occur in a LEGO DWU too? This would be a great anchor to our universe. Bad Wolf in the LEGO Batman Movie would be like the Bernice Summerfield in the David Warner Doctor Who series haha.
You rightfully suggest that this attention to detail is something which works in the favour of the author of the piece. Regarding Lord Voldemort... I'm fully aware of Time Turners. Huge Potterhead over here! But as Hermione once said, and I paraphrase, "Bad things happen to wizards who meddle with time". I don't think Voldemort would be that stupid. This is the same dude who got rid of his nose, eyebrows and hair so that no-one could make a Polyjuice Potion of him...
That tangent aside... why is it unreasonable to just ask for more solid evidence? :)
- OncomingStorm12th
Well, even if I am not myself sold on LD and TLBM being the same universe: yes, there is a "Bad Wolf meme" on the LEGO DWU (or, at the very least, a random graffitis of it through the setting of the game).
- OncomingStorm12th
Oh, and having actually watched the movie a few days ago, I also don't think the Daleks are treated on The Lego Batman Movie the same way they are on The Daleks, Dalek, and so on.
In there, we see them actually laugh, appreciate jokes and so on (unless I misheard their voices in the crowd, but I'm fairly certain I did not). And it wasn't something like a Dalek Caan laugh on The Stolen Earth.
There, Caan is going insane, and all that. On TLBM, the Daleks laugh on the Joker's jokes. I mean, it isn't quite common for Daleks to laugh or appreciate (or even understand) jokes.
Also, they, very willingly accepted to ally themselves with a "lesser species" (the Joker is, after all, human). Didn't they exterminate a Time Lady who could, and openly offered to travel a TARDIS for them?. If DWU Daleks decided to exterminate a Time Lady who could actually offer them time travel at will, why would they accept help from a "mere" human to escape a prison? Doesn't seem the behaviour of the DWU Daleks to me.
- Thefartydoctor
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Oh, and having actually watched the movie a few days ago, I also don't think the Daleks are treated on The Lego Batman Movie the same way they are on The Daleks, Dalek, and so on.
In there, we see them actually laugh, appreciate jokes and so on (unless I misheard their voices in the crowd, but I'm fairly certain I did not). And it wasn't something like a Dalek Caan laugh on The Stolen Earth.
There, Caan is going insane, and all that. On TLBM, the Daleks laugh on the Joker's jokes. I mean, it isn't quite common for Daleks to laugh or appreciate (or even understand) jokes.
Also, they, very willingly accepted to ally themselves with a "lesser species" (the Joker is, after all, human). Didn't they exterminate a Time Lady who could, and openly offered to travel a TARDIS for them?. If DWU Daleks decided to exterminate a Time Lady who could actually offer them time travel at will, why would they accept help from a "mere" human to escape a prison? Doesn't seem the behaviour of the DWU Daleks to me.
I wish I could give a million Kudos to this because, essentially, you've nailed something very important. I never felt during both sittings of the movie that the Daleks were a threat. They let others walk all over them, they had a very human sense of humour and were far too willing to side with the Joker (and his crew). It just felt weird. It's this kind of attitude that makes me lean towards a parallel LEGO DWU Daleks feel. In a LEGO DWU, you could allow for a certain comicky, cartoony, goofy Dalek, which is still a dangerous enemy but also has some Warner Bros. style comedy. Even in The Alliance, the Daleks were evidently in main control.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I'd like SOTO to correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's invalid before valid.
I think you're confused because SOTO said to mark the page as invalid until this discussion is over so that people don't go making pages on it. That happened a lot in the LD debate, so it's a good choice. But that doesn't mean that we're gonna officially say that the story is invalid until proven valid.
I think someone asked if Bad Wolf had appeared in the LEGO DWU, and I'm close to 100% sure that it was in the Lego Dimensions level pack. Not sure how that helps, but it was there.
- OttselSpy25
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Oh, and having actually watched the movie a few days ago, I also don't think the Daleks are treated on The Lego Batman Movie the same way they are on The Daleks, Dalek, and so on.
Yea, but again, that's not really as relevant as you would presume that it is.
In the Rachael Smith Doctor Who comics, Autons and Weeping Angels can talk. A Weeping Angel tries to run a bar, but can't when it gets too crowded and too many people are looking at her. That doesn't make the story invalid.
As I believe CzechOut said in the back-up comics thread, campy canon in the 1960s isn't any better than camp canon in the 2010s.
- OncomingStorm12th
OttselSpy25 wrote: But with the Daleks, they're kinda just the Daleks. No big twists, no gags, nothing breaking from what we would expect from regular ol' Daleks. This basic difference to how Doctor Who is treated can not be emphasized enough.
Well, hold on. From the beginning of the thread you argue that what we see Daleks doing on the movie is what we'd "expect from regular ol' Daleks". Yes, the backup comics are very, very silly (which is why I don't even bother reading them anyway, but they are still valid by community consensus.
One difference, though: on those, we see the Doctor (undeniably the very same we see ever since An Unearthly Child)
As you said yourself, "the important clarification is that the film is not set in the DWU at all". So it is a bit more difficult to prove that the Daleks we see here are the same as these Daleks than to prove the Doctor on this story is the the same Doctor on this story.
We don't get a name (Dalek) in the story, which I agree is not essential, but would be helpfull. The least we "deserve" to consider the Daleks on TLBM to be the DWU unniverse would be similar behavior, which I, and apparently Thefartydoctor don't seem to find similar at all.
- OttselSpy25
What I meant was that, while the Daleks certainly don't go around murdering people and aren't the main villains, I see no proof that they were meant to be some sort of spoof.
What you're asking us to do here is the chose a version of the Daleks that we definitely should compare the film to. You're going off of the new series Daleks and using specific examples to contradict the film. But I don't see how their actions are that different than in Series 5 -- when they work with several other species to try and stop the Doctor. In fact, many would argue that since Moffat hasn't really let the Daleks kill in many years, they haven't exactly be the same. Is Moffat's era invalid now?
Subjective interpretations on if characters or ideas are done can not be used to call a story invalid.
The film's portrayal is far from being as silly as their appearances in the 1960s TVC comics (or whatever name the comic went by when they appeared). My main point wasn't that they're exactly what we should expect within specific continuities, but that there's no evidence that they are from a "reboot" continuity.
If an Auton and a Weeping Angel can talk, a Dalek doesn't need to kill.
- OncomingStorm12th
OttselSpy25 wrote: But I don't see how their actions are that different than in Series 5 -- when they work with several other species to try and stop the Doctor. In fact, many would argue that since Moffat hasn't really let the Daleks kill in many years, they haven't exactly be the same. Is Moffat's era invalid now?
Well, the main difference is: context. the Alliance was "an association [...] formed to stop the greatest threat in the universe, which they all believed to be the Doctor." If there is a chance of stopping the greatest threat in the universe, obviously the Daleks would ally themselves with other species. But to scape from a prison? Well, they have dealt with bigger problems before. Oh, and I can only wish many aspects of Moffat's run were invalid, Daleks included, but that's not on the wiki interests. So, back to what is:
OttselSpy25 wrote: You're going off of the new series Daleks and using specific examples to contradict the film.
Well, of course I am. It's called proving a point. I'm going on previous examples to try and prove I am "right". So are you, and anyone else in any thread. Also, back to the "old series":
Day of the Daleks - Daleks working with Ogrons. Or, better saying, using them. (and I'm sure there are other examples, but this is the only I can remember right now)
Point being: rarely (if ever) the Daleks trusting them. If anything, it is much more a Dalek behaviour to not trust, and betray than to willingly trust and accept help.
- Thefartydoctor
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Day of the Daleks - Daleks working with Ogrons. Or, better saying, using them. (and I'm sure there are other examples, but this is the only I can remember right now)
Point being: rarely (if ever) the Daleks trusting them. If anything, it is much more a Dalek behaviour to not trust, and betray than to willingly trust and accept help.
I'd like to point out that when a Dalek allies itself with another species... either the other species is about to get a rude awakening (such as the humans in Victory when they pulled the old "Bracewell's a bomb" trick), or they're very much in control of the situation, such as in Pandorica, where the Daleks were not subservient to any one species.
In this movie, the Daleks are acting untypical, and frankly rather strange. They're subservient to the Joker. As you both say, nothing strange about that... but you'd expect the Daleks to then take control. You'd expect the Daleks to have something up their proverbial sleeves... but... nothing. They were allied to break out of the Phantom Zone? I'm pretty sure they'd have worked something out themselves haha.
- OttselSpy25
But those are all random on-screen examples of Dalek actions. You're suggesting we put a standard to this story that we have never done to any other story. Almost every non-TV non-audio Dalek story from before 2005 had some weird element that makes you raise an eye.
There's a comic where the Doctor destroys a Dalek with a rock.
There's a story where K9 blows a Dalek up with his laser.
There's a story where two Daleks are in love in the background of a cameo party.
With any other DWU villains, there's even more examples of these sorts of things.
There's a comic where the Voord are turned into the Cybermen and Maranus becomes Mondas.
There's a bunch of comics where Weeping Angels can talk, try to go on blind dates, and try to run bars. There's a comic where an Auton left over from Rose (TV story) is hiding as a mannequin and can also talk. Pretty stupid stuff. Still valid stories tho.
In the first serial with the Daleks, there's a dude who gets "exterminated" and he survives through pure will-power. Never been done again in any story. Does that make the first Dalek story invalid?
I don't think that it makes sense to discount the story purely through frivolous continuity notes.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote:
My question is this: Did "Bad Wolf" occur in LEGO DWU universe? Did it exist there? If it didn't, then this can only be a reference to the real DWU universe (I feel like we should start numbering them, like Marvel does).Fun fact, the DWU used to be one of the Marvel universes. It was 5556 I think. I joked about it earlier in the thread, it's fun to use in an out-of-universe basis just to make debates easier.
I misread your point, and thus I'm going to re-answer it. Your question is "Does Rose Tyler become Bad Wolf within the DWU." The answer is "no," because the LEGO franchise has shown no real interest in re-telling any stories from Doctor Who. And yet, it still references the DWU heavily, which to me makes it seem like it was essentially meant to be set in the DWU.
In LD, references are everywhere -- even to stories like The Talons of Weng-Chiang. I'm not sure if the LD page still has a continuity section, but back when it did it was stuffed.
- Thefartydoctor
This conversation will loop and loop. It's like an endless match of tennis. This debate needs to answer the following question with evidence:
Is there any form of true, real connection between the universe in which the LEGO Batman Movie is set and the DWU? And a true, real connection is a rift, a wormhole, a gateway...
If you're in the yes group, then find that evidence. A screenshot of the movie, a line from the writer's mouth... let's stop going around in these endless circles. If we can't find anything, then we can wait. It's no problem. If you think this Bad Wolf thing is a good avenue to go down, then research it.
But I will reiterate: "The answer is "no," because the LEGO franchise has shown no real interest in re-telling any stories from Doctor Who." -OttselSpy25
^^ I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Just because Doctor Who hasn't got a LEGO series based upon the original, it doesn't mean the LEGO DWU doesn't exist. These Daleks could have originated from a LEGO DWU. There's nothing ruling out a LEGO DWU.
- Thefartydoctor
EDIT: Posted the wrong quote.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote:
Is there any form of true, real connection between the universe in which the LEGO Batman Movie is set and the DWU? And a true, real connection is a rift, a wormhole, a gateway...
I think it's been proven that the Phantom Zone was meant as a multi-universe prison.
A quote posted earlier:
I loved the [1978 Richard Donner-directed] Superman and the idea that the Phantom Zone, in our world, could possibly house all of the villains from other LEGO universes.
So, ergo, someone in the DWU trapped the Daleks in the Phantom Zone. The Phantom Zone connects to all universes. The Batman universe thus connects to the Phantom Zone, and the Phantom Zone is connected to the DWU.
The Bad Wolf references have been listed as a good example that the LEGO DWU basically just wants to be the DWU, but it looks like LEGO. They don't re-tell stories, they don't retcon anything. They take the universe that exists and adds onto it. Bad Wolf only makes sense if Rose Tyler did everything with Bad Wolf.
If LEGO had tried to do a re-telling of someone else making Bad Wolf a thing, then we'd be able to go "oh, this isn't meant to be the DWU." But we don't have any of that. We just have the DWU, but it looks kinda weird. We have Moffat refusing to call it non-canon. I keep making the comparison because it keeps being relevant -- this is no more worthy of being invalid than the Titan back-up comics are.
- Thefartydoctor
"I loved the [1978 Richard Donner-directed] Superman and the idea that the Phantom Zone, in our world, could possibly house all of the villains from other LEGO universes."
"From other LEGO universes"
Does this not answer our question?
- OttselSpy25
At this point LEGO is the corporate franchise name for everything that they do. As I said before, "Legos are stupid, shut up" was the first case ever made, and it didn't last very long.
I can't think of an instance in either LD or TLBM where anyone said "Lego" out loud. I especially can't think of an example where someone or something from the DWU used the word.
I gotta go record a video soon, so I'll likely be dead for a while.
- Thefartydoctor
I don't think that's a plausible reason to deny the fact that this quote specifically states "from other LEGO universes". That's what it says haha. He's saying it because other LEGO universes exist. He knows that the King Kong in the movie isn't from the real universe, he's from his own LEGO King Kong universe. He knows that the villains he's about to insert into his movies will exist in a LEGO format somewhere in space-time.
I honestly think we may have answered our own question but I'd like to get other people's interpretations on this. I think that quote pretty much allows us to believe that we're dealing with a LEGO Phantom Zone here, and not the normal Phantom Zone. Therefore, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that the creatures inside are from individual LEGO universes. There's a fine line between reaching a conclusion and speculation, so I'm going to see what other people say.
- OttselSpy25
I'll allow others to speak, but I am going to again qualify that it doesn't matter to me how the series treats King Kong or Voldemort, because this debate is only happening because of how it treats the DWU -- as I said in the first post, that treatment is different from many other franchises.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: I'll allow others to speak, but I am going to again qualify that it doesn't matter to me how the series treats King Kong or Voldemort
It totally does matter. It's all about getting into the heads of the writers. How they tackle one thing helps us to try to formulate reasoning to support or deny a DWU matter. I understand that there's no LEGO Doctor Who series of games or episodes as of yet... but that's why we look to Voldemort and King Kong to see how they've been treated. No, not exactly the same situation, you're right, but that doesn't mean we run to the 'valid DWU villain' camp. We have to be open-minded here. If Voldemort and King Kong come from LEGO universes, there's a much higher chance that the Daleks do too. That's why you really shouldn't be dismissing them so flippantly. Face it, they share a common adventure here.
But I'll wait for others to comment too.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I understand that there's no LEGO Doctor Who series of games or episodes as of yet...
There kinda is tho. It's called Lego Dimensions, and there's an entire level pack for only Doctor Who.
That forum's precedent is the basis for the entire discussion. The story's lack of any attempt to retcon the events of a Doctor Who story show that they embraced the DWU -- not that they rejected it.
The Harry Potter LEGO games took minor aspects from those universes and re-wrote them. The DW Games took the DWU and added stuff to what was already there; that's why I don't really care that the Lego Harry Potter games don't match the Harry Potter canon. They're not supposed to -- while the DWU levels try very hard to.
- Thefartydoctor
Nono, I meant, there's a LEGO Harry Potter series, which deals with Harry Potter alone. There's a LEGO Batman series, which is Batman alone. The only thing we've had with LEGO Doctor Who is LD, which is a mishmash of everyone together... not really the same thing.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Nono, I meant, there's a LEGO Harry Potter series, which deals with Harry Potter alone. There's a LEGO Batman series, which is Batman alone. The only thing we've had with LEGO Doctor Who is LD, which is a mishmash of everyone together... not really the same thing.
There has been an exclusive Doctor-Who-only level pack tho. Only set in the DWU. If that had been released by any other name (here I am bringing up Rachael Smith again) then you'd easily call it "a stand-alone video game."
It's a huge level with many Doctor Who locations and characters within the narrative levels. There's plenty of references to DWU ideas in there, and the Doctor even notices when things don't add up, in a way that they only would in the DWU. Like he lands outside the big TARDIS from the timeline where the Eleventh Doctor died (You know, in the future of Trenzalore or however it's spelled), and he says "I shouldn't be able to be here." Because the building should only exist in the timeline where 11 dies and 12 isn't born.
That's an attempt to reference an episode of the show while also making sure the character and the audience knows the specific details on the canon around that story.
Granted, it's not explained how he's there. But he still acknowledges the plot point, which you wouldn't do if it wasn't set in the regular non-reboot DWU.
- Thefartydoctor
Then why can't the Daleks have been created in that LEGO DWU? :) "The Daleks in the movie are colourful, therefore they're Paradigm Daleks" isn't brilliant reasoning. I've heard that numerous times in the past week and while I see an ounce of logic there... I just think that also counts as speculation.
Let's just lay all the cards on the table. Right now, you're saying that there're Doctor Who only levels in LD. I've seen playthroughs, they're awesome. And let's say they were valid (they're not, but let's say they are), the Daleks could equally have come from that LEGO DWU after having upgraded themselves into a better model.
Something tells me now that the movie's validity is compromised by this game, some people will start using the game's invalidity to validate the movie, regardless of previous loyalties and opinions? See what I'm getting at? If you're standing by this game, then you have to accept the possibility that the Daleks from the movie originate in a LEGO DWU, which was suggested by the quote you posted a few moments ago... the quote that stated that all the villains were gathered from different LEGO universes, is very plausible.
There evidently is a LEGO DWU somewhere. The fact is... do our Dalek friends come from there?
- OttselSpy25
I'm a little lost here, sorry. Are you asking for proof that the LEGO Daleks come from a Doctor Who dimension? I think we've gone over this, haven't we? I can't remember anymore. I thought we all agreed that they had to be from a DWU.
The game is invalid, but only because of the hub-world and the option to play as other Doctors and basically any character released for the set. Playing as other characters does not change the in-game cut-scenes or narrative, so someone could easily argue that from a production point of view, the cut scenes were meant to be exclusively within the franchise's view of the DWU and the events of the game. That 'someone' is me. The cut scenes were meant to be exclusively within the franchise's view of the DWU and the events of the game.
So we know there's a DWU in this franchise's multiverse. We call it the LEGO Multiverse only because the corporate name that's put next to the logo is always lego. It doesn't mean each universe has to be seen as a kid playing with toys. We know that this DWU has been treated pretty much like they just had the ability to use ideas, worlds, and characters from the DWU without changing them in anything but a stylized appearance. They don't change anything -- they just add more stories into the mix. We know that the Daleks come from a DWU in the Lego-franchise's Multi-verse. We have no evidence that there is more than one DWU in the multiverse. We know that there are references within products from this franchise to DWU stories that the franchise doesn't try to retcon. It just wants to hang out with DWU stories, and just be "one of the guys."
Thus, I would say that we can easily state that the LEGO franchise has made no attempt to retcon any DWU events or ideas. They have merely tried to add-onto pre-existing stories. Thus, I think we currently have all the reason to declare it valid and little to no reason to call it invalid.
...But yea, I'd love to hear from other people on this still.
- Thefartydoctor
It's pretty easy to explain what I was saying. The game is invalid because it's a game. Simple. My original point, that was needlessly nitpicked, was that there's no true "Doctor Who LEGO game or movie or episodes". LEGO Dimensions is not a Doctor Who game, it's a LEGO game with as many characters as they could legally get their hands on.
Then you went on to say that there are a bunch of levels solely linked to Doctor Who, that you yourself had called a "standalone Doctor Who video game" had it been released separately. Had that truly been the case, would you be calling it valid? Not would this Wiki be calling it valid? Would you be calling it valid? Let's leave that point there because there no point discussing something that doesn't exist. That was the avenue that you led me down because you wanted to point out that LEGO Dimensions is apparently now a Doctor Who game. It isn't. It's a LEGO game.
And no, there's isn't a consensus here. I don't make rash decisions. Nor do most people here. I want a solid connection to the DWU. All we've been provided is with is "the Daleks have different colours, they must be Progenitor Daleks" [Speculation], "the Phantom Zone is a multi-dimensional prison so it must logically link to the DWU" [Speculation], "this quote states that the team wanted to bring famous bad guys into one movie" [Misleading- he said "LEGO villains"].
I may sound annoying. I may sound pedantic. But I'm the only one here, it seems, who wants more solid evidence. My point that you don't seem to get is that they're treating most, if not all, other fandoms as separate LEGO universes as part of the same LEGO multiverse. It's a much more logical conclusion to say that the Daleks are also lumped into that category rather than claiming validity with nothing to back you up.
Get true evidence. I've not seen anything yet that has swayed me. I'm a reasonable guy. Go back and read the Faction Paradox thread. Me and Amorkus seemed totally unreasonable on that thread too. After forcing people to actually find evidence and explain things to those who don't partake in FP, we finally said "thank you, you've found sufficient evidence and you've put us in the picture" and we all managed to settle on an agreement. You need people like me, Amorkus and OncomingStorm12th to ask for the hard facts. We're not being difficult on purpose, we're stopping things getting in because people "want" them to get in.
I'd love a Dalek/LEGO crossover. But I'd also love a LEGO DWU. Both ideas sound rather smashing tbh. But it's facts here.
- OttselSpy25
The reason LD is important to bring up is that:
A) It's the most DWU material we've seen from this franchise.
B) It's canon in the eyes of the people who make these films. The DWU in future films will likely match the game.
C) It's only invalid because of minor game mechanics that would make any Doctor Who game invalid. The consensus in the thread was pointing towards it being valid until I realized that there were in-game easter eggs that you could only activate through characters who were, by the logic of the cut scenes, not there to begin with.
D) LD is the modern home of most of the franchise's games. Especially those meant to tie-into the movies. Even the game-equivalent-novelisation was released via the game. There isn't going to be a non-LD franchise-based Lego game for a while, at least when it comes to things like Batman and the DWU.
E) There is never going to be a theoretical non-LD DWU game, because Lego doesn't do non-LD games anymore.
I don't really admire the suggestion that the "problem" is that I can't give you "real facts." I think I'm giving plenty of evidence for my case, and I simply am not able to understand what else you could be asking for. Facts can not be invalidated.
Also, it is not speculation to call the Phantom Zone a multi-dimension prison. It's clearly evident in the multiple doorways we see in the film. The author even said that was the point, and the fact that everyone uses the terminology of "Lego" exclusively from an out-of-universe point of view does nothing but confirm the name of the franchise.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: Also, it is not speculation to call the Phantom Zone a multi-dimension prison. It's clearly evident in the multiple doorways we see in the film. It's not speculation to say that it was meant to link to other universes in this multi-verse because the author said that was the point, and the fact that everyone uses the terminology of "Lego" only from an out-of-universe point of view does nothing but confirm the name of the franchise.
I don't wish to sound rude, because that's not the type of person I ever intend to be... but all through this, it's like you have some filter on. You seem to get half of my point but not the other half. Let me repeat what I said.
Thefartydoctor wrote: "the Phantom Zone is a multi-dimensional prison so it must logically link to the DWU" [Speculation]
The emphasis being on the "it must logically link to the DWU". There is no evidence for that. I'm not stupid, I know it's a multi-dimensional prison. Do you honestly think I sat in that cinema twice and never worked that out? Your link to the DWU is unfounded. It's just a leap that you seem to think is fair. Well, myself and others don't find it a fair leap. It's speculation.
What part of "evidence" is confusing here? I will not accept an invalid source as proof of anything. The game may well be valid in their eyes and that's fine... but outside of intent, it means nothing. When it gets down to the nitty gritty, intent is one quarter of the four little rules. The game doesn't make sense. You die and regenerate in an endless loop. The laws of physics are different there. I might beat the Dalek level as the Third Doctor and you might be it as the Eighth. There's no sense there. That's why I refuse to have Lego Dimensions as proof of anything.
- OttselSpy25
I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not a personal attack, but it's minorly hypocritical. If I've been failing to see half of your points, then surely you've been doing the same to me? This isn't the first time I've justified many of these stances. It's not a bad thing, but you can't put this just on me somehow.
Thefartydoctor wrote: The emphasis being on the "it must logically link to the DWU". There is no evidence for that. I'm not stupid, I know it's a multi-dimensional prison. Do you honestly think I sat in that cinema twice and never worked that out? Your link to the DWU is unfounded. It's just a leap that you seem to think is fair. Well, myself and others don't find it a fair leap. It's speculation.
Alright, let's take that away then. Let's not say it has to be connected to the DWU.
Instead, let's say "The Daleks have to be from a DWU." Confirmed by basic logic and the creator. There's little to no speculation there. Then, by logic, Daleks must have been moved there at some point by someone to the Phantom Zone. Thus the story is connected to the DWU.
And when it comes to if the game's narrative makes sense, you are making the mistake of focusing on the game play (the very thing that makes the story invalid only on this wiki) instead of the in-game story (the only thing in the game that's meant to "count" towards the narrative and thus the events within the franchise). There is no logical reason not to discuss the game when it comes to how the franchise treats the DWU when it is the biggest example of such. It is an obvious precedent of the treatment of the DWU, and excluding how the developers included context and information feel like a technicality.
Treatment is the topic, not validity.
- OttselSpy25
I mis-read a few points on your post, and I want to clarify that it wasn't as bad as I thought it was. Thus I've edited my post.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not only a personal attack, but it's very hypocritical, considering that many of your points I've talked about within the last ten posts.
Being offended by something does not mean I've done something wrong. I've seen admins be far blunter on threads and nothing's been said. When you find yourself making the same comment over and over because it's being misconstrued, it's fair to say that the other person isn't listening.
OttselSpy25 wrote: Instead, let's say "The Daleks have to be from a DWU." Confirmed by basic logic and the creator. There's little to no speculation there. Then, by logic, Daleks must have been moved there at some point by someone to the Phantom Zone. Thus the story is connected to the DWU.
Again, we were talking earlier about a possible alternate LEGO DWU. Those Daleks may be from the DWU. That's acceptable. They could also be from a LEGO DWU, which is also acceptable. What is not acceptable is a DWU being the DWU. What's stopping me starting my own range of books set in a DWU? Who needs a license? It's not the DWU, right?
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: I mis-read a few points on your post, and I want to clarify that it wasn't as bad as I thought it was. Thus I've edited my post.
As my page hadn't refreshed, I responded to the old comment. If none of that is relevant, ignore it. But I stand by the fact I made no personal attack. Many people were offended when the Faction Paradox was abruptly shut down. Does it make them right? haha. That's another debate altogether.
- Thefartydoctor
Could I suggest we wait for more people to enter the frame? We're raising the same points over and over. Frankly, I'd like an admin figure to pump some fresh blood into the conversation. SOTO always knows what to say haha. I need sleep and you said you needed to record? :P
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not only a personal attack, but it's very hypocritical, considering that many of your points I've talked about within the last ten posts.
Being offended by something does not mean I've done something wrong. I've seen admins be far blunter on threads and nothing's been said. When you find yourself making the same comment over and over because it's being misconstrued, it's fair to say that the other person isn't listening.
And I've been making the same comment over and over again. Are you not listening?
Oh, no, if I've been making similar points it's because I'm bad at commenting. Okay. Sure.
Thefartydoctor wrote: Again, we were talking earlier about a possible alternate LEGO DWU. Those Daleks may be from the DWU. That's acceptable. They could also be from a LEGO DWU, which is also acceptable. What is not acceptable is a DWU being the DWU. What's stopping me starting my own range of books set in a DWU? Who needs a license? It's not the DWU, right?
Nothing, if you get the proper licenses for some characters. The Lethbridge-Stewart books are set in the DWU. Zygon is set in the DWU. K9 is set in the DWU.
What's your point?
If anything is speculation, saying that there's more than one DWU in this franchise is total speculation. There's no quotes to support that at all. In-universe or out, movies or video games.
Again, I think we've proven pretty easily that these are Daleks, the Daleks must be from a DWU, there's only one DWU in this franchise, that DWU is treated like the regular DWU, etc etc. I get why you would question these findings, but you're doing so by saying that I haven't proven my point. I think that I kinda have. What do you need? What do you think I haven't given to prove the authorial intent behind all of this?
- OttselSpy25
That's all for me tonight. I use this wiki to goof off from my work, but when it actually starts to mess up my creative mojo I need to take a break.
Talk to you guys tomorrow.
- Thefartydoctor
I'll be honest, you're not seeing what I'm saying. There's no point anybody here continuing to talk or raise points because you won't accept them.
A DWU =/= The DWU
These are indeed Daleks. We agree on something. But are they the Daleks? Or are they alternate Daleks? It's not difficult. You're not proving anything here. You're saying a DWU means the DWU. That makes no sense.
DWU is a multiverse, I get that. It doesn't mean there's any form of connection anywhere with a LEGO DWU. That's why some of us are sceptical. I'm getting frustrated here because I seriously don't understand how you don't see my point of view. For a LEGO DWU to be valid/legit/whatever, there needs to be a fine connection. Saying "they're Daleks" isn't the connection. I'm pretty sure there are parallel Daleks outside of the Whoniverse just waiting to be explored. Had the Doctor never visited Pete's World, those Cybermen would be invalid.
Please see my point. / On the verge of tears here /
- Thefartydoctor
Right I'm just going to leave this debate. I feel it's fruitless. When an admin comes along and reads this, I just want them to know that I'm of the opinion that this movie is to be treated invalid until sufficient evidence is given to suggest otherwise. I don't understand what is meant by a DWU is the DWU. Maybe I'm thick but I don't see how the two are connected.
My point in a nutshell is that there's nothing to state that these are the Daleks originated from the DWU. And there's nothing to state that these are some Daleks from a LEGO DWU. This gap in our knowledge means we can't reach any form of validity as of yet. I also believe that "The Phantom Zone is a multi-dimensional prison" is not evidence for either argument. This Phantom Zone indeed connects to different universes... but there is no evidence to suggest it connects to the DWU or an alternate DWU.
Those are my thoughts. I'm going to step back from this discussion before I rip my hair out haha. I'll be back when there's sufficient evidence either way. Thank you for hearing me out.
- OttselSpy25
I see your point. But your point is the entire point of the thread. I don't think it's a new question. I think it's the only question we've ever been discussing. It's always been "is this DWU the DWU." And I don't see evidence that this isn't the case at all. If they are different universes, I need this to be proven -- considering I've gone down a rather detailed list of reasons that it's meant to be the same world. I don't think I need to prove my point of view any more.
It is definitely no longer a game of "Prove that this DWU is the DWU." The game is now "Prove that this DWU isn't the DWU." I think I've made a reasonable clear case, and I do not need to prove it any more. I call on anyone else to provide reasonable pieces of evidence or proof that they aren't the same, instead of trying to argue that my argument shouldn't exist. Because I have seen nothing too convincing on that subject as-of yet.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: I see your point. But your point is the entire point of the thread. I don't think it's a new question. I think it's the only question we've ever been discussing. It's always been "is this DWU the DWU." And I don't see evidence that this isn't the case at all. If they are different universes, I need this to be proven -- considering I've gone down a rather detailed list of reasons that it's meant to be the same world. I don't think I need to prove my point of view any more.
It is definitely no longer a game of "Prove that this DWU is the DWU." The game is now "Prove that this DWU isn't the DWU." I think I've made a reasonable clear case, and I do not need to prove it any more.
I'm leaving that to the others now. You have my opinions and you have my support on whatever the outcome is. Know that nothing I said was meant in bad spirit. But I will depart stating that if the validity of this story hangs on us proving that the Daleks originate from the DWU, then it is our job to prove that it is the DWU, and not the other way around.
Don't misunderstand me: if sufficient evidence is found and this movie is made valid, then great. It's a fantastic movie and the whole team worked wonders on it. The Daleks are a wonderful addition to it too. I really laughed my [body part] off when I watched it. Just make sure that you're analysing both sides and that you have the ability to step back and truly compare both arguments.
Speak soon and good luck with your recording. Private message me if any developments happen. :)
- Amorkuz
Wow, guys. For one night I leave you alone and you have a Dalek-themed party without me.
Well, since the fun was had without me, let me at least moralise a little and write a long buffer equaliser post. Watching others getting worked up in the heat of the argument and recognising myself brings me to wishing to remind of the following points that we all know in our hearts but can sometimes forget to apply in a particular argument.
First off, I think this discussion is being held at a rather high level with a clearly articulated and scrupulously argued thesis at the beginning, followed by arguments, counter-arguments, fact-finding incursions, interpretational essays and the like. I'm not saying this to pat myself or anyone else on the back. It's just a reminder that we are managing to have a meaningful conversation overall, despite our disagreements and occasional venting of steam. And meaningful it is, I believe, also for those who observe but rarely interfere. Think of them as the jury present at the deliberations of duelling attorneys.
Secondly, after reading a big portion of the discussion without actually participating, I have a definite feeling that all participants largely understand and respect views of each other. Again, I remind this because it is quite common to post counterarguments to what one disagrees with, while implicitly agreeing with other good arguments. I know I often do this, and it must be frustrating for those who made those good arguments without receiving any acknowledgment that the arguments reached their goal.
In fact, in such a rapid-fire exchange, it is quite common to choose just one of the many points made by the opponent and respond to that, sometimes forgetting or having no time to later also go through the remaining points. This can be seen as ignoring those other points and, again, is frustrating. It also happens that I hastily respond to a point but later see that my opponent provided a more nuanced analysis I did not fully processed at the time. If you recognise yourself in this description, chances are your opponent also recognises themselves. For what it's worth, I did not feel any disrespect in the remarks, just sincere frustration with not being understood.
TheFartyDoctor and I have held rather close POVs before, so I hope he forgives me for speculating our positions are still quite close. We do not deny the evidence provided. But we do want more evidence and/or less circumstantial evidence. And the reason for that is (a) for future-proofing and (b) based on the complexity of the setup. Let me expound a bit on (b): there are at least two multiverses in play, DWU and LEGO ones; these multiverses consist of multiple individual universes/realities each, of which we already discussed
- main DW continuity (warped and retconned multiple times)
- child-playing-LEGO world
- real world
- LEGO DWU (= LEGO Dimensions DW levels?)
- Potterverse
- Potter LEGO verse
- Batman DC universe
- Batman LEGO universe.
The relationship between all these 'verses is so complex that the director of the movie is on record saying they have not solidified it yet and will be developing and explicating it further. I think it's fair of many of us to say that we are a bit confused re how it all fits together and are hesitant to jump to conclusions. Hence, our erring on the side of caution and our desire for more connections, preferably, of indisputable kind. I know both TFD and myself have dug our heels on the invalidity side at some point. But always with the proviso that we simply need more evidence.
On the other hand, I may not have clearly stated it before, but I did come to accept many of OS25 arguments. Especially, when it turned out the movie director sees things in much the same light. It was not because I disregarded OS25's opinion that I needed this extra confirmation. The issue for me was that no matter how well thought through and logical a mental reconstruction by one person is, it is impossible to know if it is correct of a different person's state of mind. I've come to accept that these are Daleks. I've come to accept that the creators did care about DWU. In short, based on the discussion had and based on corroborations of OS25's original pitch, I've drifted much closer to validity than I was at the beginning. In other words, the validity arguments are working.
The mutual frustration largely comes, I think, from the fact that, even after 212 posts, we are still unable to bridge the gap between our positions. In a (multiple) last-ditch effort(s) to finally close the deal, we sometimes repeat what we see as our best arguments, causing the ire of our opponents and making the discussion seem to go in circles. But let us not forget that we are moving closer and closer. We have discussed a lot of relevant details. We have discounted some arguments. We have accepted others. It's a spiral at worst.
To finish this long antirant, it would be helpful, I think, to summarise the points for and against validity that are still on the table, to give a bird's eye view of the current state of the argument as it were. And I would like to recuse myself (as seems fashionable these days) from this task as not completely impartial, having made some of the arguments myself. If an experienced user/admin arguee could do that, it would also give us, the main arguers, an idea of where we stand in terms of getting our points across to the community.
- SOTO
It's getting a little heated around here.
OttselSpy25 wrote: If anything is speculation, saying that there's more than one DWU in this franchise is total speculation. There's no quotes to support that at all. In-universe or out, movies or video games.
Again, I think we've proven pretty easily that these are Daleks, the Daleks must be from a DWU, there's only one DWU in this franchise, that DWU is treated like the regular DWU, etc etc.
And that's a well-constructed argument.
TFD, you're saying that there's no evidence the universe they came from is, in fact, the same DWU we all know and love, or if it's some LEGO version like the LEGO Lord of the Rings universe, or Harry Potter. And fair enough: if we didn't have LEGO Dimensions as some degree of precedent to go on, we do sort of get the sense that since there exist in the franchise LEGO re-boots, perhaps the Daleks come from one as well. Rather importantly, though, Batman in this movie is not the same LEGO Batman from the super-successful series of video games. Even down that avenue, can we really say for sure that Voldemort comes from the LEGO Harry Potter games?
I'm not gonna lie, I'm hearing both sides. There's no solid evidence, I'm hearing, that the place the Daleks come from is the DWU, and yet there's no solid evidence, either, that there is an alternate LEGO DWU. Both of you see it as speculation to assume otherwise.
Thus spoke Amorkuz: First off, I think this discussion is being held at a rather high level with a clearly articulated and scrupulously argued thesis at the beginning, followed by arguments, counter-arguments, fact-finding incursions, interpretational essays and the like. I'm not saying this to pat myself or anyone else on the back. It's just a reminder that we are managing to have a meaningful conversation overall, despite our disagreements and occasional venting of steam.
^ And to all else said in that post. I'm always for the empathetic approach: We're all human here. Except me.
I am a LEGO Dalek.[T]here are at least two multiverses in play, DWU and LEGO ones
I mean, yeah. I hadn't thought of it that way, somehow. This all rests on whether the "real" Daleks of the DWU crossed over to the LEGO multiverse, or if they came from some part of the LEGO multiverse which is not the Doctor's universe, as we know it.
By the way, if it means anything at all to this thread, even back in the original LEGO Batman: The Videogame, you could find K9 in one of the levels, and ride around on him. Not actually sure how they had the licensing for that at the time, but it is there.
- Thefartydoctor
SOTO wrote: I'm not gonna lie, I'm hearing both sides. There's no solid evidence, I'm hearing, that the place the Daleks come from is the DWU, and yet there's no solid evidence, either, that there is an alternate LEGO DWU. Both of you see it as speculation to assume otherwise.
I don't wish to be pedantic, and I know I said I'd leave this conversation alone... but you're saying exactly what I said. I said that saying the Daleks came from the DWU was speculation. I also said that we should hold onto the fact that a LEGO DWU was also possible. I never stated that the LEGO DWU was the ultimate, absolute answer.
I never stated I had proof for a LEGO DWU. Nitpick all my responses if you must but you'll find nothing of the sort. Whereas there has been some weird "any DWU is the DWU" frame of mind, which I don't understand. As I said, I may be being thick but that doesn't make sense to me.
I am of absolute agreement with you SOTO. Neither the DWU or a LEGO DWU are able to be proved. So far, they are both speculation. I'm not fighting for the LEGO DWU side, I'm stating it's possible. But when I ask for evidence of the DWU, there's nothing but recycled responses.
SOTO, what is your take on the quote that OttselSpy25 raised that stated:
"I loved the [1978 Richard Donner-directed] Superman and the idea that the Phantom Zone, in our world, could possibly house all of the villains from other LEGO universes.
Director Chris McKay in interview for Entertainment Weekly"It states "LEGO universes".
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I never stated I had proof for a LEGO DWU. Nitpick all my responses if you must but you'll find nothing of the sort. Whereas there has been some weird "any DWU is the DWU" frame of mind, which I don't understand. As I said, I may be being thick but that doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps it would help if I went down the line of things that would make the LEGO DWU not the DWU from an authorial point-of-view.
- If they took DWU ideas and tried to "re-do" them in a completely different way. For instance, if the Doctor Who level pack had a character be revealed to be Bad Wolf, suggesting that Rose's Bad Wolf doesn't exist in this canon. That would be a conceited effort to make the LEGO universe different from the regular one. A LEGO Harry Potter game would do things like this, as did the LEGO Back to the Future game set. But no DWU media has even tried.
- If they didn't have so many references to DWU stories which they never try to LEGO-fy. If they didn't recreate specific locations of specific episodes with the intent purpose of making sequel stories instead of rebranded stories. If there wasn't a reference to something like Bad Wolf -- which can only really refer to one specific story from one specific time.
- If, in the distant future, they tried to make a new non-TV narrative for the Doctor in the films. For instance, if they show 12 dying and regenerating into Hayley Atwell's Thirteenth Doctor in The Lego Movie 2. That would be a deliberate effort to undermine mainstream events.
I'm going to once again say that because the level pack included in the DWU LD game is only invalid because of the "you can play as any lego figures that you have" LD stlke, it's the treatment within the narrative (i.e. the cut-scenes and levels around those cut-scenes) which really matters to precedent and this discussion. So when we see all these recreated sets and all these references to DWU stories with no attempt to change anything significant about the DWU, it starts to seem to me at least that there's no evidence that this DWU isn't the DWU.
Thefartydoctor wrote: "I loved the [1978 Richard Donner-directed] Superman and the idea that the Phantom Zone, in our world, could possibly house all of the villains from other LEGO universes.
Director Chris McKay in interview for Entertainment Weekly"It states "LEGO universes".
As I said above, LEGO is the corporate entity attached to the franchise. The word LEGO has never appeared in either LD or TLBM as far as I can recall. So him calling it the "LEGO Multiverse" or "LEGO universes" seems to only reference the fact that they all take part in this "franchise." And yes, it's clear that the Superman universe in the LEGO multi-verse isn't the same as any other Superman universe. But as I've stated before, that doesn't really matter to me. It's been the differences in how the universes are treated which has made this discussion worth having in the first place.
- Thefartydoctor
Let me just say that I'm not for or against this movie being treated as valid/invalid/set in or linked to the DWU. But as SOTO has pointed out, if person A states "it's linked to the DWU", he needs evidence. If person B states "actually, it's linked to a LEGO DWU", he needs evidence too. There's no evidence for either side here. I'd like to bring this discussion back to its origins. You can dismantle my comments all you like but the fact still stands, there's nothing but speculation running through this conversation (from all of us). I'm happy to sit here and say a LEGO DWU is speculation, which is why I'm only offering it as a reason for why a link to the DWU is also speculation.
All we're waiting for is that one sparkling gem of evidence that proves somebody right and brings us to a perfectly clear conclusion. Nobody here has that. Claiming that we do with confusing jeux de mots is not proving anything. I'd much prefer us to go away, do our research and come back when we have something, rather than going around in circles. We had this exact conversation last night haha. I'm not going down that route again.
- OttselSpy25
I truly admire the belief that someone out there cares enough about us to give us the exact specific quote that we need to call it valid. But as I've discussed before, I just kinda doubt that it's coming. The only meaningful quote on if the DWU is the Lego DWU has been from Moffat.
When asked if the game was considered canon Moffat proclaims “everything is canonical”.
Again, this isn't a LEGO Doctor Who movie. It's a LEGO Batman movie. It's been a miracle that we've gotten as much info as we have, considering how many much more interesting things there are in the movie.
It's been questioned if there even is a DWU in the franchise, and I simply don't think that saying that is speculation from an in-or-out-of-universe point-of-view. We know that there's a DWU in LD, we know that each villain in the Phantom Zone is from a different universe. There's been no doubt that Voldemort is from a Harry Potter universe, etc.
LD is set in the same canon as The Lego Movie and The Lego Batman Movie is also set in the same canon as The Lego Movie. Thus it was meant that the Daleks are from a DWU, there is a DWU in the franchise, we have no proof that there's more than one DWU. So all we need to prove, as far as I'm concerned, is if that DWU is meant to be the real DWU. And right now, other than "Legos are stupid, shut up," I can't think of many cases to be made for this DWU not being the DWU.
- Thefartydoctor
Thanks for understanding I'm not here to be a pain in the derrière. I said previously that it's a win-win. If, somewhere out there, there's an valid LEGO DWU, that's a win because it's such a cool prospect. If these Daleks are from the official DWU and look the way they do just because they're under the laws of physics of the LEGO multiverse, that's also a win because that means that awesome movie is valid in our eyes. I've nothing against any decision made here today or further down the line.
I'd just prefer something that nails it. You'll know what it is when you see it. If you spot something and think "this'll shut TFD's stupid face up" then you know you've found the quote. Until that day, whether it be in a week, a month or a year, I'm not happy in watching this discussion close. Ultimately, it's not my decision but I care too much about this Wiki to see something scrape through haha. I like stories to stride on through. Or as they say in German- "stolzieren", it's a great verb meaning to stroll (with pride).
I think we can all agree that the active commenters here aren't saying "LEGOs are stupid". We weed out those people along the way haha. Anyway, I'm excited to see how this debate unfolds from here out.
- OttselSpy25
I'm not sure how relevant this is to discussion, but I've spent the last several minutes studying the set designs in the Dimensions set and I've come to the conclusion that a lot of them have level elements which don't seem to include LEGO designs at all. The TARDIS interiors, for the most part, seem to only use lego parts for the consoles. Everything else is an accurate 1:1 representation of the actual on-screen console rooms.
The TARDIS on Terenzalore doesn't look like it was build out of LEGOs either. Same for a lot of Skaro and London. It does show a different mentality to the designing of the DWU in the franchise, however you could argue it was just them "cheating," and that they furthermore did this with many levels.
- OttselSpy25
I want to point out that even if TLBM is seen as valid in the end, not all LEGO releases pass the first three rules. The Supergirl/ET crossover, from what I remember, is a lot like the in-character promos that we regularly deem unfit for our purposes.
I'm not even sure about the existence of The Dalek Extermination of Earth (TV story). I can find no source on this existing, but more importantly I'm not sure it passes rule 3. If it does exist, we don't have a copy of it.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: I'm not even sure about the existence of The Dalek Extermination of Earth (TV story).
It was definitely showcased separately, it was screened at an official LEGO event - I was one of the lucky few to see it. That's why I took it upon myself to create a page on it.
- OttselSpy25
I don't not believe you, but we need better sources on this existing. Also, I've removed the images as they're blatantly from the game. We have no idea if they would have re-rendered any of it, or something of the sort.
- AeD
Honestly, does "they showed a cutscene from Dimensions" count as an entity distinct from Dimensions? I'd just rate it a promotional clip.
- OttselSpy25
Yea, but we still have videos on trailers and such.
I would say that if they edited a visual version of the LD side-level and then they released it on Youtube, that story would be valid.
- AeD
Not, at this time, inherently, as the whole LEGO thing continues to be up for debate, obviously -- and yeah, on YouTube, but this was shown once at an ill-defined LEGO event.
- OttselSpy25
Yea, what I meant was under the figurative set-up where we make TLBM valid.
- OttselSpy25
So Nick Briggs just tweeted out
I've just been paid for my gigantic role in the brilliant Batman Lego movie! Hooray! Cough and you'll miss me. ;-) Nice to be there, though.
I think we at some point asked the question of if he had been payed, and I guess he has now.
As far as I can tell, this is the first instance of someone directly connected to Doctor Who actually making a statement about it.
https://twitter.com/BriggsNicholas/status/841213786400911360
- Amorkuz
Actually, I've been wondering if his voice was used at all. It is important for me that it did, albeit, for the record, not for all of the Daleks, as follows from the ensuing Twitter discussion.
Call me a Briggsophile, but, internally, Briggsless modern-day Daleks are just not real Daleks for me. Even Gatiss admitted as much when he cast Briggs to play the first actor who voiced the Daleks, in AiSaT.
- OttselSpy25
I think the part of the movie where it's clearly his voice is where the newscaster is listing off villains and you just hear a loud, iconic EXTERMINATE. I don't think that could be anyone but him. I do think it's stock audio tho.
I agree that it's pretty disparaging as a fan that there are obvious scenes where the Daleks are voiced by other people, but I don't think it's something that we can really use to invalidate the story. If so, this thing has got-to-go...
To me, there's a difference between a story not being up to my standards as a fan and a story not being up to the wikia's standards for validation.
- Amorkuz
To be clear, him voicing some Daleks is an argument in favor of validity.
- Shambala108
Amorkuz wrote: To be clear, him voicing some Daleks is an argument in favor of validity.
Not really, there are plenty of not-valid stories where the "official" actor plays his regular character.
- Amorkuz
You're right. I should have qualified. Generally speaking, the use of original actors is not an argument on its own.
However, in this particular case, in the context of proving the intent of the authors to set the movie in DWU and given the evidence already provided (e.g., interviews), I consider hiring Briggs as an additional (though surely not sufficient) evidence of their intent.
To be even more precise, hiring him to voice the Daleks is suggestive of the desire to keep continuity with the TV and audio DW stories. On the other hand, it seems pointless to do that if we assume the boy-playing-with-LEGO point of view.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Briggs' voice was also used in LEGO Dimensions, meaning that it provides no answer to the DWU within LEGO vs. DWU proper question.
- OttselSpy25
Briggs' voice was certainly in LD, as both the Daleks and the Cybermen.
- OttselSpy25
One of the segments that we cover, which is currently titled Christmas Past despite never ever being called that ever by anyone, is out simply on the terms of the fact that it's an ad. Since the debate on the Sprout ad, it's been a longstanding rule that advertisements are not stories.
Supergirl Meets ET is again basically an advertisement, at least for what I can recall. Same goes for Christmas Gift Guide: LEGO set, which is essentially a modern equivalent to Dr Who and the Turgids. While both have clear narratives, the fact that they are advertising a product totally rules them out under our current rules.
Additionally, The Dalek Extermination of Earth, as far as I'm concerned, might as well not exist at this moment.
So, unless someone disagrees, the only two stories right now that this debate could in any way effect are The Lego Batman Movie and Doctor, Doctor, Doctor (webcast).
- AeD
Is Doctor, Doctor, Doctor really substantially that different from Supergirl Meets ET? They're both short videos meant to entice you into playing LEGO Dimensions.
- OttselSpy25
Well, for one, SME has the cast substantially talking to the audience. SME, unlike DDD, also shows footage from Lego Dimensions. They're really just entirely different segments, and only one really has an actual narrative. The other is half an ad, half a data-file.
SME ends with a frame of the ET Lego set, with the command to "PLAY" the new level-pack when released. The other game ends with a generic "Lego Dimensions" logo, and while "Trailer" is in the title it really isn't specifically advertising any certain product to purchase.
One could argue that DDD is just as much an advertisement as the Tardisodes were trailers for Series 2. Tardisodes were short videos meant to entice you into watching Series 2; but they weren't literal collages of moments from the next episode set to music. That's what a trailer is.
- Amorkuz
Small comment from a recently closed inclusion debate. I believe the inclusion of Mr Men stories sets a clear precedent regarding how similar should a representation of a DWU character be to its televised original to be considered valid. Since the visual similarities between Dr Twelfth and Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor are schematic at best, I believe all LEGO'ness of Daleks in the LEGO movie is now definitively off the table.
- OttselSpy25
I think it's the Dr. Men series that makes me even more convinced that we need to cover stories featuring DWU elements in the LEGO franchise.
Doctor Who is a unique franchise because when most copyright holders get their hands on it, they last thing they would ever want to do would be to reboot it. The creators are never going to say "Let's scrap all this and re-do it." Instead they're going to say "Let's take the universe that's already there and just make a fun story set in that."
So Dr. Twelfth is basically just a regular Twelfth Doctor short story written down a bit for kids and with rather cartoonish illustrations. In the same sense, although I'm not arguing for it to be valid, LEGO Dimensions simply has the Doctor having a regular adventure that he would ever have, and it just happens to look-like LEGO.
I bring this simply as precedent for what we can expect from future LEGO stories. If they were to, say, make a LEGO Doctor Who movie, it would be much like Dimensions or the Dr. Men run. That's why I think we are debating stories that will exist as much as those that already do.
My only thought is that we may need to find a way to cover The Lego Batman Movie as little as possible. This would be the first time we tried to cover a crossover of this size, and my honest first thought is that we simply might not need a page on every Batman villain to appear in the movie.
Perhaps we should consider somehow only covering it in bulk from the first appearance of the Daleks to the last. Maybe we should just suck it up and cover it all in full? I have no idea, and I haven't even considered what our options really are.
But those are just my thoughts.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree that the fact the Daleks are of "LEGO design" is not a reason for invalidation. That's kind of like saying "Peter Davison's voice is deeper on audio, thus his audios don't count". But, I stand by my earlier opinion that we should truly identify the origin of these Daleks, (i.e. - from which "Whoniverse" they hail), before we come to a conclusion about their validity and therefore the validity of this movie. I won't lie to you, I've forgotten which way this conversation went because it was long ago and went on for a while. But I'm assuming I stuck by that opinion. I think I remember stepping away from this as the debate was circling haha.
Has any more evidence come to light? :)
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I agree that the fact the Daleks are of "LEGO design" is not a reason for invalidation. That's kind of like saying "Peter Davison's voice is deeper on audio, thus his audios don't count". But, I stand by my earlier opinion that we should truly identify the origin of these Daleks, (i.e. - from which "Whoniverse" they hail), before we come to a conclusion about their validity and therefore the validity of this movie. I won't lie to you, I've forgotten which way this conversation went because it was long ago and went on for a while. But I'm assuming I stuck by that opinion. I think I remember stepping away from this as the debate was circling haha.
Has any more evidence come to light? :)
No, but I still stand by the fact that we don't have a lack of logic as to where these Daleks came from.
The Phantom Zone is a multi-dimensional prison. Each baddie in there is from another universe.
From the perspective of the creators of the LEGO franchise and not from the perspective of TARDIS, there is only one version of the Doctor Who Universe in the franchise right now. There are Daleks in that universe.
Logically then, the Daleks must come from that DWU, and furthermore are certainly not from a non-DWU.
- Amorkuz
Well, for what it's worth, I'm checking every Batman LEGO movie book I see. They never cover Daleks. It's a bit frustrating.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: Well, for what it's worth, I'm checking every Batman LEGO movie book I see. They never cover Daleks. It's a bit frustrating.
Maybe the Terry Nation estate charges extra for that? lol
- Amorkuz
I suspect they have a per Dalek charge.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm not being funny with anyone here but you can't say "they're from the DWU". Because it's not stated and you don't know that. I've said it before and I'll say it again. All three of us educate the newer editors on speculation and how it's not a welcomed practice on a Wikia such as this. There may be a LEGO DWU out there. There may not be. It's speculation. Making that connection is speculation. And that's fact.
As I said in my comment before last, I'm not here to be a pain in the you-know-where. I'm here to make sure we reach a conclusion built on fact and evidence, regardless of how long it takes.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I'm not being funny with anyone here but you can't say "they're from the DWU".
The DWU is so fickle and hard-to-define. Trying to prove what "The DWU" is is basically literally just like trying to define canon.
Are the BBC books "the DWU?" Are the Sixth Doctor comics "the DWU?" Is Lungbarrow "the DWU?" Is Rose-the-cat "the DWU?" And now, is Dr. Men "the DWU?"
All we can really do is accept that each and every medium scanned the DWU into their minds and then made stories to add to them. The process for creating a BBC novel in that sense was identical to that of creating Dr. Eleventh or most LEGO who products.
- Thefartydoctor
Well you're right to say that the boundaries of the DWU can sometimes be undefinable. However, we can still define them. Every time we're faced with a new medium, such as the Dr Men range, we ask ourselves the most important questions and we thrash out what needs to be thrashed out. It's not about "I don't want this in the DWU", it's about "Do we have all the information necessary to place it in the DWU", and the answer in this context is "No".
Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from. Like I've said, this is a win-win regardless of validity because the Dalek cameo is so badass. But I'd rather do this by the books. And I'm waiting for that one piece of evidence that shuts me up. I'm waiting for that one thing hidden in that one article somewhere on the net or in a magazine that denies me a comeback. Until that happens, we can't reach a consensus. I'm not being difficult, I just think it's awfully rash to say "we allowed Dr Men, so we can allow LEGO Batman movie". By your own words, you were disappointed at people who used "LEGO is stupid" as a defence mechanism. Well I'm not using that. I'm using logic.
And I also think we can learn from the Dr Men example. We can learn that it's not the medium that matters. It's the evidence. And there is no evidence that the Daleks were taken from the Doctor's Multiverse and placed in the LEGO Phantom Zone. :/
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Well you're right to say that the boundaries of the DWU can sometimes be undefinable. However, we can still define them. Every time we're faced with a new medium, such as the Dr Men range, we ask ourselves the most important questions and we thrash out what needs to be thrashed out. It's not about "I don't want this in the DWU", it's about "Do we have all the information necessary to place it in the DWU", and the answer in this context is "No".
Not really. There's a potent lack of evidence that the Dr. Men books are set in the DWU. But there isn't any evidence that the stories aren't set in the DWU. That's the big disagreement here. I can not accept a story being guilty before innocent just because it's a little weird.
I respect your belief that hidden somewhere in the void is the answer to this question that three people on the internet care about and no one else. But we can't keep this forum open perpetually under the pretense that someday someone maybe will give us an answer, and I can't accept calling it invalid simply because "Eh, who knows right?"
- Thefartydoctor
But you know the rules of this Wiki. It is "guilty before innocent". It's invalid before proven valid in cases where it's not clear. Whether you can accept it or not isn't important. That's how the Wiki works. I didn't make that rule, it's a fact that we thrash out the important stuff on the Inclusions debates before making anything uncertain 'valid'.
We can keep this thread open if needs be. If we don't have an answer, then the thread can stay open. There's no time restriction. Furthermore, the idea that we'd "call it valid until we then prove otherwise" just because a thread has gone on too long just doesn't happen. The amount of times a glaringly invalid medium has caused yet another thread about it to reopen... and an admin shuts it because of lack of evidence. If an admin were to shut down this thread, I suspect it'll go the same way as DiT. "No new evidence? Then don't reopen an old thread."
These aren't my rules. These are the Wiki's rules. Moreover, I'm just saying what I've already said since the beginning. There's probably no point me saying them again. I feel sorry for the poor admin who has to read all this, and read me saying the same old same old over and over haha.
- OttselSpy25
Those are not the rules. There is no such rule that states "if something is weird, you'll have to prove that it still counts or else it'll be invalid forever." Indeed, a lack of reasoning to call it invalid basically makes it valid.
There is no place on this website where such a rule is written down, and in this thread when you have made this case I have always disputed this. If there is no strong case for something to be invalid, then it is valid.
Indeed I also feel sorry that we have repeated ourselves several times, although I'm not sure I support your slightly accusing tone. I have listened, and I disagree. Those aren't our rules, as I have said since the beginning.
- Thefartydoctor
Well, I've not called it weird. In fact, the only thing I've done is praise how awesome the movie is. My tone is honestly not "Why won't you listen?". That's a bit of a silly thing to assume when this is an Inclusions debate. Here, I've only ever played devil's advocate and made sure that we cover all bases. Valid is never and should never be the back-up. That's purely illogical. License or no license, without intent to secure it, it's simply not right to say "valid unless stated otherwise". Moreover, a rule isn't necessarily written.
You've spent tonnes of time on these threads, as have I. Admins work like that when they shut these threads down. It's generally "No consensus. No clear evidence. No validity." Again, unspoken rules of the Wiki. Of course, an admin has the right to overrule what we decide if they think we've missed a bit of common sense reasoning. It may be the case that an admin thinks I'm being too nitpicky and rules this valid... I simply don't know.
But call me stubborn, or call me cautious. I'm sticking to my guns and saying that this movie lacks sufficient evidence to be called valid. And I'm also sticking to my opinion that a movie such as this requires evidence to be called valid, license or no license.
- OttselSpy25
I don't think poorly of you for thinking that we need more proof to call it valid, but to put it bluntly, I think we need proof to say that we need proof to call it valid.
The Titan back-up debates spoiled us, because we just have to sometimes realise that the only thing that we're going to be able to use to decide if something is valid is the content itself. In the Dr. Men forum, no quotes from the creators nor behind-the-scenes info was requested or needed. And I simply can not support the idea of keeping this forum on hold forever just because we might one day get half a quote about this from an animator that worked on the movie for two weeks.
I don't think our policies support a "invalid until proven valid" tactic, and I don't support the idea of adopting anything of the sort.
- Thefartydoctor
Well I'd like to thank you for being kind enough to not get angry at my thoroughness. This Wiki is lucky to have people like you and Amorkuz who accept that some people simply want to ensure that everything is slotted into place before a decision is made. Furthermore, I completely understand that at some point we'll all just exhale loudly and moan a bit and we'll actually agree on something.
But as far as threads go, this one's still quite young. I agree that the sooner the thread has been exhausted and concluded, the better. But in this case, I think it's just logical to keep it open for a bit longer. I mean, since the debate grew cold, have any of us actually looked for any further evidence? I bet the searching part ended a while back, but that's just me hypothesising. Maybe it's wrong of me to do so.
I'd like maybe an established admin's view on this so that I know where we stand. I want to know what that admin is looking for out of us. Here's the two of us blindly squabbling and perhaps we've missed something. If it can be rounded down to "we're looking for X", then I know what I'm looking for and, when I get maybe an hour to myself, I can trawl the net.
- Shambala108
Can you please explain what you mean by "established admin"?
- Thefartydoctor
I was referring to an admin such as yourself or SOTO who hasn't had much involvement in these discussions. In fact I was trying my hardest to be very polite. If you wish me to explain on chat, I will happily do so. There is nothing else meant there.
- Shambala108
Nope, I was just wondering what you meant by established.
- Thefartydoctor
If you want me to be completely honest, I was simply seeking guidance from an admin who has experience closed numerous threads, who knows exactly what users like myself and OS25 should be looking for to satisfy the purpose of this thread, and who hasn't played a big part in this thread. That's not too much to ask for, is it? :)
- OttselSpy25
I figured you were referring to the fact that one of the most involved people in this debate is being offered an admin position.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: I figured you were referring to the fact that one of the most involved people in this debate is being offered an admin position.
As I said, I was trying to be polite... but it evidently didn't work, did it?
- OttselSpy25
Nah don't worry.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: Nah don't worry.
If I were in his very lucky shoes, I'd kind of understand what I meant. No offense was meant, I'm really looking forward to having Amorkuz on the admin team. He understands and exercises "assume good faith". Hopefully he'll see I meant no harm here. :)
- 2.31.133.219
The point about wether something invalid till proven otherwise got my attention as for rule four it states that "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4. " which segests tat if we are satisfied that it passes rules 1 to 3 then it is valid till proven otherwise
But it's digressed from the central question.
So let's get back there. Is The Lego Batman Movie valid? No. More than that, it doesn't even deserve a page on this wiki.
I've had occasion now to actually examine the so-called Daleks in the movie, and at no point are they named "Daleks". They are called "British robots", and of course Daleks aren't robots. Also, they only very arguably employ the voice modulation common to Daleks. And, it's really a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo. Calling this an "appearance" is beyond generous.
Moreover, I've carefully examined the credits of the movie, and at no point are the BBC or the estate of Terry Nation given any sort of credit or even mention. Even the "Thanks" section goes by without a shout-out to any copyright holder that this wiki cares about. Additionally, the so-called "Daleks" go by without a word from anyone on the audio commentary.
I've further looked for some kind of behind the scenes interview or anything to substantiatiate a case for the Daleks actually appearing in any sort of licensed way, and I don't see it.
To me, it's very clear that the usage here is done in a way to carefully avoid copyright entanglements. Therefore this is not, as far as it's possible to ascertain with publicly-availalble indicators, an appearance of the Daleks, and there is no cause whatsoever for this wiki to have a page about this movie. The best place for this information is a few lines at Doctor Who parodies. This has already been done, and The Lego Batman Movie now redirects to that page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:211495
I know this'll probably be ignored due to my being an anonymous user, however I have some points on this story's inclusion.
Taking a look at the old inclusion "debate" - you'll see that one point made for this story's non-inclusion is that it is "irreconcilably discontinuous" , this should never, ever be a reason for a story's non-inclusion, or else many of The Master's stories would be dismissed.
Another point is that it is impossible to fit with EastEnders' continuity, again not our problem, this a Doctor Who wiki.
Another point raised is again due to it being set in the fictional land of EastEnders - not important - so is the valid "Mistaken Identity" - in addition to this one of the Virgin New Adventures novels states that this whole story is a dream.
Also Army of Ghosts says that EE is a programme in the DWU, this is actually more beneficial, this gives the Doctor the reason to have this dream.
So there we have a perfectly valid reason why and how this story takes place in DW continuity, it's a dream thus no fleas off Fred.
Another point is no one would in their right mind would accept this as a valid source - so, if you read the Titan backup comics, then you'd see that this is a serious as it gets.
This story is often mislabeled parodic in nature, it's about as parodic as Time Crash bit silly, but mainly serious.
Another point is that JNT and the BBC implicate that it is "non canon" - as this wiki has stated before, the BBC have made no attempt to declare a canon.
JNT has said he doesn't care what people think about its status, which is no different from some VNA authors. He's not said it's "non canon", he's just said that he simply does not care.
Official reference books like the WHOology and The Vault have included it, as well as the official BBC website which even gives it a continuity section.
MY proposal is that we reconsider this piece a valid source as the BBC do, if anyone can think of a proper reason top dismiss it that don't include it being discontinuous, being set in EE and that comment of JNT saying he plainly didn't care - I'd like to hear it.
Otherwise I think we should include this story as no more than a dream, it's what the BBC and official in universe sources do.
- 5.2.105.85
I'm going to also add that many reasons for dismissal is that it's plain and simply just not liked - again, I really don't believe that that's a reason for dismissal.
When thinking of reasons to counter argue, bear in mind my other points, and just pretend that this is a brilliant story, don't let its rubbishness be a reason for invalidness... ever.
- 82.3.146.201
Couldn't agree more with the OP, he/she addresses all the necessary points.
I personally hate Dimensions in Time with a passion. However, this has convinced me that it should be included.
- OttselSpy25
I believe the major reason that it's been declared invalid over the years is that the story has an iffy license. It was made to be aired once and never released, no one was payed for it, etc. It's also why we don't allow images from it, but we do allow images from the broadcasts previewing it just before airing. It's quite bizarre.
Don't be shocked if an admin shuts this down very quickly. I think this is one of the debates that people have had on the wiki the most. Someone tries to re-open it every few years.
A big question for me is that it's impossible to really explain what actually happens in the story. It plays like it's had four writers working independently and not communicating at all. I wouldn't know how to describe it in an in-universe fashion.
- 82.3.146.201
OttselSpy25 wrote: I believe the major reason that it's been declared invalid over the years is that the story has an iffy license. It was made to be aired once and never released, no one was payed for it, etc. It's also why we don't allow images from it, but we do allow images from the broadcasts previewing it just before airing. It's quite bizarre.
Don't be shocked if an admin shuts this down very quickly. I think this is one of the debates that people have had on the wiki the most. Someone tries to re-open it every few years.
A big question for me is that it's impossible to really explain what actually happens in the story. It plays like it's had four writers working independently and not communicating at all. I wouldn't know how to describe it in an in-universe fashion.
I'm agreeing very much with the OP and yourself.
It was broadcast on the BBC, so however way we look at it, it was originally licensed. In the real world dreams rarely have stability. All that need be said in in universe articles is that the Seventh Doctor once had a dream where his companions were trapped and shifting into one and other, I could find myself easily explaining it.
- OttselSpy25
We can't use stories to retcon other stories. It would just be a silly way of running the site. What if a book said that any other story was a dream? We'd just ignore it.
- 82.3.146.201
OttselSpy25 wrote: We can't use stories to retcon other stories. It would just be a silly way of running the site. What if a book said that any other story was a dream? We'd just ignore it.
Yes, but that again would be for example like John and Gillian, where we put "according to one source". The only difference with Dimensions is that there is no already established in universe proof that it isn't a dream.
- OncomingStorm12th
OttselSpy25 wrote: We can't use stories to retcon other stories. It would just be a silly way of running the site. What if a book said that any other story was a dream? We'd just ignore it.
Actually, we do use stories to recton other (to some extension, at least).
By the time The Unbound Universe came out, we deemed Sympathy for the Devil invalid. Considering the events of the anthology, we decided do deem it valid. I'm sure there are another examples, but this is the one that comes to mind right now.
I am neither pro or against deeming DiT valid, but it is a fact we use stories to recton previous ones
- OttselSpy25
That's on a bureaucratic level of deciding if the story is valid or not. I mean when a story retcons random stuff from another story that the writer had nothing to do with.
The Forgotten says that in the TV movie the Doctor lied about being half-human. We include this alongside the equally-possible contingency that he wasn't lying, because the writer of TF had nothing to do with the TV movie.
If a comic said that the events of The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe was entirely the Doctor having a coma, we'd say "you can't do that" and we'd include it with a solid grain of salt.
What I'm getting at is that we can't just decide that DiT is a dream.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: That's on a bureaucratic level of deciding if the story is valid or not. I mean when a story retcons random stuff from another story that the writer had nothing to do with.
The Forgotten says that in the TV movie the Doctor lied about being half-human. We include this alongside the equally-possible contingency that he wasn't lying, because the writer of TF had nothing to do with the TV movie.
If a comic said that the events of The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe was entirely the Doctor having a coma, we'd say "you can't do that" and we'd include it with a solid grain of salt.
What I'm getting at is that we can't just decide that DiT is a dream.
An already established story that is deemed valid, and that was said to be a dream, we'd just ignore it.
However with Dimensions in Time there is a slight difference, this piece of information can help up establish it within the DWU which no other source has tried to do.
Your example is valid already, it has already been explained in the DWU in the story itself. The thing with 'DiT is that it wasn't and never has been explained. That comic example would be additional information whereas this VNA is the only information.
My I also ask, where do you stand OttselSpy25, are you for or against?
- OttselSpy25
Eh these days I tend to sway between sides.
I would love to call DiT valid, I think the copyright argument is just poorly set-up, and I'm sure we could find quotes to change the tides. But at the same time, I wouldn't know how to explain the story. It's super badly written.
It's just hard for me to get super invested in a thread that I don't expect to be left open for very long.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: Eh these days I tend to sway between sides.
I would love to call DiT valid, I think the copyright argument is just poorly set-up, and I'm sure we could find quotes to change the tides. But at the same time, I wouldn't know how to explain the story. It's super badly written.
It's just hard for me to get super invested in a thread that I don't expect to be left open for very long.
If this story was deemed valid, it should go under the subheading "In the Seventh Doctor's Nightmare"
Followed by
This species/individual was once trapped in a time loop in the fictional land of EE. The dream was some what unstable which lead the Seventh Doctor to imagine all his companions were one and the same.
And so on..........
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: Eh these days I tend to sway between sides.
I would love to call DiT valid, I think the copyright argument is just poorly set-up, and I'm sure we could find quotes to change the tides. But at the same time, I wouldn't know how to explain the story. It's super badly written.
It's just hard for me to get super invested in a thread that I don't expect to be left open for very long.
Additionally if this thread was to be closed now, it would be in no-one's best interest as this debate hasn't properly played out. An admin closing it now would go against everything these threads are for.
- AeD
I'm not particularly interested in fighting over Dimensions in Time, of all things, but yeah, I basically agree with OP.
People not being paid to do it, discontinuity with EastEnders, it being weird as heck, etcetera, I don't see anything that means it doesn't pass the four little rules -- it's a story, the BBC owns both Doctor Who and EastEnders, it aired on BBC One, and though I can't speak for authorial or producer intent, watching it, it certainly doesn't seem to me to be meant to be set outside the DWU.
- AeD
And if there's some larger policy that means it won't ever be declared valid, as some in this thread seem to imply, I think we would all appreciate it if an admin could step in and lay the situation out for us without also immediately closing the thread.
- 5.2.105.85
AeD wrote: I'm not particularly interested in fighting over Dimensions in Time, of all things, but yeah, I basically agree with OP.
People not being paid to do it, discontinuity with EastEnders, it being weird as heck, etcetera, I don't see anything that means it doesn't pass the four little rules -- it's a story, the BBC owns both Doctor Who and EastEnders, it aired on BBC One, and though I can't speak for authorial or producer intent, watching it, it certainly doesn't seem to me to be meant to be set outside the DWU.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. The only authorial intent was JNT saying he doesn't care, but authors have said that about their own VNA novels. All I can say that JNT at the time of writing and airing considered it DWU.
- OttselSpy25
I think that if you guys want to tackle policy, you should hunt down some old threads about this. You'll need to directly quote and challenge precedent.
- 5.2.105.85
I'd like very much to add that the authorial intent argument is very flimsy in nature.
JNT when promoting DIT, he stated he decided to make the special when he believed it to be the only available send off to Doctor Who, stating ideas with David Roden about the Master and the Celestial Toymaker appearing in the Doctor's final adventure. Him and David 100% at the time of production and release intended it to be the Doctor's final story and definitely set in the DWU, even when the fictional EE land appeared. It's DW... nothing is real.
It wasn't until 4 years later in a 1997 edition of DWM that JNT (in accordance to the bad backlash from DIT) said he didn't count it to the mythos anymore, whatever that is and that he didn't care what people thought about it. Which implies he didn't mind if people considered it "canon" or not.
This was his way of semi-jokingly defending his piece, and letting fans think what they want.
Which all adds up to him counting it, until fans didn't like it so he just followed the crowd then and said, basically that it's up to the fans whether they count it.
Even if this joking statement was taken as gospel, it wouldn't be enough. Many authors have gone against their VNAs since the revival. Again, this doesn't matter - it's production and release intent. Also David Roden still counts it as part of the "mythos" and even left it in the BBC's official episode guide. This is why many reference guides, like the WHOology, include it in their "canonical" episode list because the BBC's official list tells you to.
Again, if anyone is to bring the authorial intent argument up, we need intent from both writers and it has to be at the time of production or release as our four little rules state.
If Steven Moffat said in DWM that he no longer counted his CIN special Time Crash we'd ignore it as it's not at the time of production or release.
I'd also like to request that when the decision on this topic is made, it is not made by CzechOut as he closed the first thread and clearly disallowed it on the grounds that he hated hit - I don't blame him for this as a lot has changed in 6 years. New rules have been formed.
So if this thread is closed, it can't be on continuity grounds, it has to be authorial intent from the time of release or production.
If the above can not be presented, then this wiki would have to include it.
- OttselSpy25
Very strong defense, good show indeed.
But I think the "licensing" issue is what really has marked it down in recent years.
Because it was made to be aired once, Czech has argued that it isn't really owned by the BBC. Thus, the site has deemed that not only can we not cover it, but we can also not upload images from it; as we have no one that we can cite in the copyright section of the image uploads.
But the more I research into DiT, the less seriously I take these claims. For one, Doctor Who Magazine has used screen grabs from this story several times in the past. I think if there was any legitimate worries about not being able to cite anyone for having created the story, it would have effected an official BBC publication before it hit some crummy fan site. It's pretty clear that the BBC made it, the BBC aired it, and even if they can't put it on TV again the BBC owns it.
It's also been argued that because DiT had no DVD release, every person who uploads images from it must be uploading images from a bootlegged copy. Which... Right. What's your point?
Back when there was a huge gap in between the airing of a new series story and the homevideo release, we would have no problem with allowing off-air screen grabs. Those are just as much "bootlegs" as a copy of DiT. What, is your request that anyone uploading images from the story have their own VHS copy that they personally recorded off-air themselves?
I think I've made it clear in the past that I'm all-for including this story as valid. The authorial intent is there, I think most of the other excuses people make for it are silly, and most of all I think it's only invalid because people are used to it being so.
The fact is that our wiki didn't used to have a valid/invalid system. We had a canon/non-canon system. But when we changed names and banned the word "canon," we didn't bother to take a second look at stories that were "non-canon," but might still be valid.
- 5.2.105.85
The BBC may not be allowed to rebroadcast it but in a following Doctor Who Yearbook where Pertwee appears on the cover. There are many screengrabs to DIT, which 100% that they are still allowed to sell images of it even if they can't sell the video.
Also the contact of DIT agreed that when all the actors involved in the production had died, they are legally allowed to broadcast/release it, but that won't be happening for a long time. Especially as DIT featured children actors. I'm guessing another 50 years legally.
So thanks to this Yearbook with many screengrabs, these images would be allowed on this wiki, so there is no doubt they still own it.
- OttselSpy25
5.2.105.85 wrote: The BBC may not be allowed to rebroadcast it but in a following Doctor Who Yearbook where Pertwee appears on the cover. There are many screengrabs to DIT, which 100% that they are still allowed to sell images of it even if they can't sell the video.
To me this kinda proves that the BBC doesn't have a problem with re-printing images from this story, so we shouldn't either.
- OttselSpy25
5.2.105.85 wrote: Also the contact of DIT agreed that when all the actors involved in the production had died, they are legally allowed to broadcast/release it, but that won't be happening for a long time. Especially as DIT featured children actors. I'm guessing another 50 years legally.
I've never heard this before. Can we get a citation?
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote:
5.2.105.85 wrote: Also the contact of DIT agreed that when all the actors involved in the production had died, they are legally allowed to broadcast/release it, but that won't be happening for a long time. Especially as DIT featured children actors. I'm guessing another 50 years legally.
I've never heard this before. Can we get a citation?
I believe it's in that yearbook, however I can't be certain.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote:
5.2.105.85 wrote: The BBC may not be allowed to rebroadcast it but in a following Doctor Who Yearbook where Pertwee appears on the cover. There are many screengrabs to DIT, which 100% that they are still allowed to sell images of it even if they can't sell the video.
To me this kinda proves that the BBC doesn't have a problem with re-printing images from this story, so we shouldn't either.
In addition to this, this Yearbook talks as if DIT is a so-called "canonical" continuation of the show.
- 82.3.146.201
Are there any other arguments to state that this story is invalid.
Points that can not be made are
- The DWM four years later. See aforementioned
- Licensing It's BBC, they still own it
- Discontinuous and silly Nothing changes, see all the accounts of how the Master left Cheetah World and A Rose By Any Other Name
- EastEnders is a fictional universe in the DWU Read First Frontier and the aforementioned
- It's parodic It's not, a bit silly but no more than Time Crash
- It's rubbish We know - though it's never a reason
- The BBC disowned it They didn't, take a look at the Yearbooks and the WHOology
- 82.3.146.201
OttselSpy25, do you have any more questions on the subject? And do you think the above evidence is enough to convince the opposing side?
- OttselSpy25
82.3.146.201 wrote: OttselSpy25, do you have any more questions on the subject? And do you think the above evidence is enough to convince the opposing side?
I think it's a very strong case. My worries are that an admin might swiftly disagree before closing the thread.
The next logical step is to contact an admin, probably even CzechOut, even if it means the threat of a premature end.
- 82.3.146.201
OttselSpy25 wrote:
82.3.146.201 wrote: OttselSpy25, do you have any more questions on the subject? And do you think the above evidence is enough to convince the opposing side?
I think it's a very strong case. My worries are that an admin might swiftly disagree before closing the thread.
The next logical step is to contact an admin, probably even CzechOut, even if it means the threat of a premature end.
I think the OP should definitely contact him, but I do have to agree that it'd be unjust to close this thread down given the ample evidence - at least without fresh, new evidence any who.
- 82.3.146.201
Having read some of the reasons, the only reason that keeps popping up is that it is discontinuous which in itself is a ridiculous argument.
If Dimensions in Time does not get declared valid, on the reasons that it is discontinuous, people hate it, it's a bit silly, that DWM four years later or negative acceptance and opinion.
- Then the 4 little rules are just there, and not being used. A story can't be invalid because Timothy Tarrent from Dublin hates it.
- Borisashton
Looking at the evidence, I would be happy to accept Dimensions as a dream had by the Seventh Doctor.
- OttselSpy25
Borisashton wrote: Looking at the evidence, I would be happy to accept Dimensions as a dream had by the Seventh Doctor.
Again, we can't do that. It's either valid or invalid.
- Borisashton
OttselSpy25 wrote:
Borisashton wrote: Looking at the evidence, I would be happy to accept Dimensions as a dream had by the Seventh Doctor.
Again, we can't do that. It's either valid or invalid.
What I meant was I would be happy to accept it as valid, but as an adventure happening within the Seventh Doctor's mind whilst he was dreaming.
Sidenote: Would stories like Rescue be considered valid if Dimensions was.
- AeD
I think Rescue would logically go along with it, yeah.
And I don't think the article about DiT itself can be framed as being about a dream the McCoy incarnation had -- that's not what DiT is, or how it presents itself, but if a novel later retcons it as events that only occurred in a dream had by the McCoy incarnation, that's certainly the sensible way to present the information on, say, the article about the Seventh Doctor.
- Borisashton
AeD wrote: If a novel later retcons it as events that only occurred in a dream had by the McCoy incarnation
Forgive me if I'm wrong (because I haven't actually read the book) but doesn't First Frontier establish Dimensions as a bad dream?
- AeD
I haven't, either, which is why I was being vague, but yeah, it seems to.
- OttselSpy25
Rescue, in fact, was never declared invalid. In fact, I strongly recall a debate that went down where we agreed that DiT doesn't make the story invalid simply by featuring the same cast.
By the looks of it, someone just added the invalid tag and gutted the categories without any group discussion, and it's never been brought up because no one cares about this story. Since there's been no group discussion to call the story invalid, I'm reverting the changes.
- OttselSpy25
AeD wrote: I haven't, either, which is why I was being vague, but yeah, it seems to.
But we can't just say "The events of DiT are 100% defo a dream." People are going to have their own interpretations, and sometimes secondary narrative claims are too silly to support all the way. What if our readers don't care about the '90s Virgin books?
A secondary book can not be allowed to definitively decide canon like that. The best bet is to include DiT in articles, while adding "According to some sources, this adventure was a dream."
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: Rescue, in fact, was never declared invalid. In fact, I strongly recall a debate that went down where we agreed that DiT doesn't make the story invalid simply by featuring the same cast.
By the looks of it, someone just added the invalid tag and gutted the categories without any group discussion, and it's never been brought up because no one cares about this story. Since there's been no group discussion to call the story invalid, I'm reverting the changes.
Don't just change things, start a discussion so everyone can participate. All you're doing is perpetuating the supposed error that occurred over three years ago.
- OttselSpy25
Now hold up. Someone added an invalid tag without having a discussion. All I did was remove the tag because they didn't go through the protocols of calling the story invalid. That was the correct thing to do.
- OttselSpy25
Look, it's only logical. We call DiT invalid because of later statements by the authors and because of copyright issues.
We have neither of these for this short story. So it's valid. I am 100% sure this had been brought up and agreed on before. The amount of time between an editing mistake doesn't make it not a mistake -- someone added the tag when no one was looking and it needs to be removed.
- AeD
OttselSpy25 wrote:
AeD wrote: I haven't, either, which is why I was being vague, but yeah, it seems to.
But we can't just say "The events of DiT are 100% defo a dream." People are going to have their own interpretations, and sometimes secondary narrative claims are too silly to support all the way. What if our readers don't care about the '90s Virgin books?
A secondary book can not be allowed to definitively decide canon like that. The best bet is to include DiT in articles, while adding "According to some sources, this adventure was a dream."
Now, I know you know there's no such thing as canon, and if what TARDIS Wikia readers gave a snot about mattered an iota on here, the Master's dang battle of the bands wouldn't be on [[The Master]] half a dozen dang times.
- OttselSpy25
AeD wrote: Now, I know you know there's no such thing as canon, and if what TARDIS Wikia readers gave a snot about mattered an iota on here, the Master's dang battle of the bands wouldn't be on [[The Master]] half a dozen dang times.
Canon is still a word that exists outside of this wiki, and avoiding playing towards it is important.
The closest comparison would be the retcons featured about The Two Doctors. We don't chose one over the other because that would be playing to "choosing a canon."
We can't say "THIS STORY WAS A DREAM" just because some random novel that is equally obscure told us to do that. If we include it, it's as a regular story with the added note According one source, this entire adventure was a dream.
- OttselSpy25
So a few links
Thread:179548 is where Rescue was debated. Barely anyone responded, but there was no real case made for it to be invalid on its own. It was never closed. An important note about Rescue is that it was never considered invalid until someone randomly added the INVALID tag a short time before this forum opened. So no discussion has ever declaired it invalid.
Forum:Is Dimensions in Time canon is where the original debate for DiT took place. As awkwardly noted on the four little rules page, "no one seemed eager to argue in its favor." That's the only reason it ended up being "non-canon."
The debate is so old that it's almost irrelevant.
Thread:125064 is the latest time that DiT has been seriously discussed, and this is where the modern takes pop up. I'm going to look through it later to see if we missed anything, but I'm anxious to because I'm sure I commented in the thread and I was like 14 at the time. There's probably all kinda mean-spirited, cringey posts in there made entirely by me...
EDIT: Oops! I linked to this forum by accident. We all know where that is! ;)
- OttselSpy25
Ah jeeeezz tho I was right about me being really cringey in the past. Man people just did not like me back then at all. Also I didn't know how to spell "course" and yet I used it all the freakin' time.
This is where Czech lays out his ideas and how he thinks they make sense.
His statements are:
1) The characters were not licensed and no one was payed. The story could never be aired more than once. Thus it is not properly licensed.
2) It's a parody because it's a less-good version of regular Doctor Who. It's a spoof because I think it's bad.
3) Fans think it isn't canon. The BBC told fans that it wasn't going to be the main continuation, and it possibly tried to build down the hype. JNT later got super frustrated while being asked to defend it, and basically said "Part of the canon? Is there a canon? We didn't plan for it to be part of some big picture in the end. Look, I don't care. Who gave you my phone number?"
That's the gist of his points, which have been the only reason we keep the story invalid.
Oh, and he also says that because of the "technically non-existent" licensing, we can't allow images because it can't be aired again.
A big surprise is that there are some good counter points raised here. As "Rowan" points out during the debate, "This can't be aired again" isn't a very good argument for not allowing images from the episode. If that's the case, we should delete every single picture printed in Assimilation². There's a comic made to be printed once, and now no-one owns. Neither Titan or IDW can ever print it again.
Instead of responding to any of these valid points, the answer anyone received was "I'm bored" and then the power got shut off.
Czech's final argument seems to be "THIS ISN'T WORTH OUR TIME. LET'S DO OTHER STUFF INSTEAD." It's another argument that hasn't aged well. It's certainly not the foot he should have ended it on, it gives off the tone of "Let me tell you what you're allowed to care about." This isn't a personal attack on Czech, most people in that thread come across as kinda off.
Over all, most of Czech's point are kinda weird. DiT isn't a parody just because some people think that it isn't good. If that's the case, let's go ahead and call all of Series 2 invalid. New Earth is a pathetic imitation of something that used to be good. Total panto in space. So now it's invalid, right? Great, now we can move on to the Peter Davison era. Let's single handedly judge the quality of every story ever made until eventually every page on this wiki has a NOT-VALID tag.
As mentioned beforehand, JNT sounds less like someone sure that his story wasn't meant to be set in the DWU and more like an angry person who's been bothered for years over a thing he did for charity. The phrase "whatever that is" sounds like he's more annoyed with the constant crap he gets about his hard work; I can't take it as a serious assessment of his mindset during production. The comments of the BBC and JNT years after fans personally attacked them for making a TV special has little to no bearing on the immediate authorial and corporate intent.
- OttselSpy25
I'm reading through the 1995 Yearbook. As mentioned beforehand, this is the most important source for figuring out authorial intent because it was published closest to the actual story. Any typos in these quotes are on my end, not the original publications.
One thing I've noticed is that everyone talks about this episode like it's any other. Sophie has a few paragraphs where she talks about changing scene elements to better fit her character. She switched out one of the jacket props because it's not the sort of thing that Ace would pick up, etc.
It was a weird feeling, stepping back in time, and I felt sad that this wasn't the beginning of a new season of Doctor Who.
I suddenly realized that I'd left the rings I'd been wearing in Albert Square on my dressing table at home. I had a quiet word with Ken and he produced a box of rings for me to try just in case anyone spotted the continuity error.
Now hold on. That sounds a lot like a direct statement saying that the people making the episode were worried enough about it being a legitimate episode of Doctor Who that they got buzzed over the continuity of a piece of jewelry.
We remembered the awful time on Remembrance of the Daleks when I lost my one and only Batman earring and Andrew, the costume assistant, had to go all the way to Covent Garden to track down another one while we cobbled together a fake earring with a lump of metal.
There's a direct comparison between how seriously they took RotD and this story. RotD is very highly regarded as a classic.
Also they heavily discuss the trouble they put into productions to make the story 3D. I just doubt that they would have done that if the story "didn't matter."
Aldred also discusses good material that was cut due to time. JNT, in a later publication, detailed how the script was changed often. These two things likely explain a lot of the inconsistencies with the story itself.
A quick note is that I've found no images of the story itself in the yearbook, nor have I found any quotes about the licensing in the book.
A quick note about production was that the story was originally much more straight forwards and serious.
Roden's original draft for a script featured Seventh Doctor, Sylvester McCoy, meeting the Brigadier, Nicholas Courtney, en route to a UNIT reunion – and becoming involved in a battle with a crashed spaceship full of Cybermen. The script was entitled Destination: Holocaust, and featured the Seventh Doctor and Brigadier holed up in a burning church, trying to fight off the advancing hordes of damaged Cybermen.
The only reason they vetoed this was because the BBC wanted an Eastenders crossover and it was also likely to be too expensive. But this history does not seem to suggest a tone where it was meant to be taken entirely as a joke.
The fact that Nick Courtney later "disowned" the story (which he was barely in) and that the Radio Times said "This isn't going to be a pilot for new Doctor Who" has nothing to really do with the authorial intent at time of production.
A lot of the quotes that come out later seem to be entirely fueled by the fact that fans had an outrageously rude reaction to the special. One of the reviews in the Second Doctor Handbook gave it a 0/10. I mean, it's not good... But come on, it's like a 4 at least!
it was never intended to be a part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that means
People act like the first half is the important part. It's not. The second part is.
"...whatever that means." As in, "the idea of a Doctor Who mythos is stupid, and you're stupid for constantly asking me about it."
Translation: Did we want this to be part of a bigger picture Who legacy project? No. Everyone treats it like it needs to be part of a bigger-picture legacy project or it fails on every level. We just wanted to make a thing.
It's exactly how George Lucas talks about the Star Wars prequels. It's not that he hates them or that he didn't want for them to "count," but years of people bothering him over stupid stuff and treating him like a villain has made him cynical of the very basic idea of a "mythos" or a "canon."
If we are going to go around calling stories invalid entirely because people later "disowned" them, then we can get rid of most of the 1960s comics. I can find plenty of quotes calling those "the odd-ones out, non-Doctor-Who-Mythos-adventures."
...the First Doctor's adventures with John and Gillian were more of the fairytale variety rather than the science-fiction and historical adventure of the TV serials. The Pied Piper of Hamelin, the Ancient Mariner and even Father Christmas all make appearances... This all seems a far cry the TV series.
Now that quote is highly picky and deceptive. But so are most of the quotes from JNT in DWM 249 that are so often published on this site.
My agent, however, thought differently -- he thought I should make it my formal Doctor Who swansong. And that was persuasive.
Swansons are not usually thought of as negative. Usually they're epic and exciting.
JNT then talks about picking the writer because he was impressed with some of his other work. He never doubts the legitimacy of the production until it comes to talking about dealing with the fan back-lash.
If you don't like it, fine; if you do like it, that's equally fine. But if you can honestly say that the 30th anniversary of Doctor Who would have been better without it, without its publicity, without its Radio Times front cover, without its colossal audience figure, without its indiviual effect on the final amount of money raised for such a worthy charity, then I feel sorry for you. It was never intended to be part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is... Some of the fan flitterati went mad! Some of the most offensive letters dropped on my matt, articles and letters were published... it was all out-of-proportion.
Basically, this is directly a quote about how stupid the fan backlash has been... And fans have cut it up to justify all of their fan backlash. It is not a quote about JNT's thoughts on the special, and it should never have been used in such a way.
"I don't care, stop asking me stupid questions all the damned time" is not a legitimate piece of evidence to suggest authorial intent. Keep in mind, most of these quotes came from a time when DiT wasn't just an "oddity from the 90s." Back then, it was either the last episode of Doctor Who (pre-1996) or the last episode of "British" Doctor Who (post-1996). So when people talked about the episode, they weren't talking about the episode. They were talking about the fans, and to the fans, and they were trying to get the fans to stop bothering them with stupid questions about a TV special they made for charity.
Imagine if David Tennant was constantly asked questions about this thing. Every show he did, every press conference, every appearance... "Why did you make that Charity thing that contradicts Parting of the Ways?" He'd be publicly trashing it within a week. That doesn't make it invalid.
Onto the topic of copyright.
DWM 234 discusses -- in less than two sentences -- how the special is unlikely to be aired again or released. But there is no real doubt who owns it.
The serial -- with both versions of Part Two -- is held by the BBC on D3.
The BBC. The BBC literally owns it. There is no doubt about that factor.
Alright, that's being a little bit of a cheat. My point is that this quote does not substantiate the claim that the BBC does not own this.
The article itself uses several images from Dimensions. They had no real problem republishing images from the broadcast. If the BBC was going to stop anyone from republishing the work, they'd stop their own affiliates first.
Fair Use is based around using copyrighted material in a transformative manor not found in the original. A key element is giving credit where credit is due as to not disrupt a potential market. But I can think of no real, solid case to be made for this not being owned by the BBC. If anything, we get to worry less about disrupting copyright here -- as you can clearly make the easy case that there isn't even a market for us to disrupt in the first place.
Either DWM is able to use the images through fair use, in which case so can we, or they got the rights from the BBC. In which case, the BBC owns the episode. Cool.
So in closing:
The production of Dimensions of Time may have been hasty and not well-done, but that doesn't mean that it was meant with poor or lack-luster intentions. The writers, producers, and actors at the time meant for it to be taken seriously. There have been few people involved at the time who have directly spoken out against the special, and the significant one was actually talking about the disdain he had for the ant-hype built up by fans. Leave me alone is not a good enough quote to call the story invalid.
It is not a parody (by the actual definition of the word "parody"), it was not "abandoned," and its rarity does not effect whether or not we should include it in articles. Furthermore, the suggested "lack of licensing" has not been a problem for anyone other than us, and there is no proof at all that the story is not or was not owned by the BBC.
I think there's been a heavy "bias" in this discussion in the past, mainly because it was non-canon from the first day that this site was created. If you really strip it all away and look at this story as if it is brand new, there's not a lot of very good reasons to call it invalid.
I want to again specifically ask that this forum not be closed without community discussion: no one admin should be able to decide if we want to talk about this or not.
In every debate on this wikia so far about this story, either the debate has been over canon or it has been simply shut down against the flow of the conversation.
Anyone wanting to close this forum will first need to counter every single point raised against this story being invalid, and then the community should be able to respond for or against these points.
Dimensions in Time, as far as I can see, has no real reason to be treated as it is. This forum needs to either end with an actual reason agreed upon by the broader community, or it needs to end with the story being valid for the first time in this site's history. If neither of these things happen, it should not be closed.
- OttselSpy25
Also, it's been heavily hinted in this thread that we should treat DiT as a "dream," as per the suggestion in one of the books. I think precedent leans against this.
The actual quote is:
I once had [a nightmare] where all my old foes chased me round a soap opera
That is not specific enough to connect it to DiT from an in-universe perspective. If statements that vague got us off, the Shalka Doc would be an alternative timeline and the Unbound stories would have been validated entirely by The 100 Days of the Doctor.
Storm in a Tikka, which just treats it as a regular adventure, is much more up-front and direct about its meaning.
- Borisashton
I couldn't agree more with the points you've (OttselSpy25) made in your last few posts.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: I'm reading through the 1995 Yearbook. As mentioned beforehand, this is the most important source for figuring out authorial intent because it was published closest to the actual story. Any typos in these quotes are on my end, not the original publications.
One thing I've noticed is that everyone talks about this episode like it's any other. Sophie has a few paragraphs where she talks about changing scene elements to better fit her character. She switched out one of the jacket props because it's not the sort of thing that Ace would pick up, etc.
It was a weird feeling, stepping back in time, and I felt sad that this wasn't the beginning of a new season of Doctor Who.
I suddenly realized that I'd left the rings I'd been wearing in Albert Square on my dressing table at home. I had a quiet word with Ken and he produced a box of rings for me to try just in case anyone spotted the continuity error.
Now hold on. That sounds a lot like a direct statement saying that the people making the episode were worried enough about it being a legitimate episode of Doctor Who that they got buzzed over the continuity of a piece of jewelry.
We remembered the awful time on Remembrance of the Daleks when I lost my one and only Batman earring and Andrew, the costume assistant, had to go all the way to Covent Garden to track down another one while we cobbled together a fake earring with a lump of metal.
There's a direct comparison between how seriously they took RotD and this story. RotD is very highly regarded as a classic.
Also they heavily discuss the trouble they put into productions to make the story 3D. I just doubt that they would have done that if the story "didn't matter."
Aldred also discusses good material that was cut due to time. JNT, in a later publication, detailed how the script was changed often. These two things likely explain a lot of the inconsistencies with the story itself.
A quick note is that I've found no images of the story itself in the yearbook, nor have I found any quotes about the licensing in the book.
A quick note about production was that the story was originally much more straight forwards and serious.
Roden's original draft for a script featured Seventh Doctor, Sylvester McCoy, meeting the Brigadier, Nicholas Courtney, en route to a UNIT reunion – and becoming involved in a battle with a crashed spaceship full of Cybermen. The script was entitled Destination: Holocaust, and featured the Seventh Doctor and Brigadier holed up in a burning church, trying to fight off the advancing hordes of damaged Cybermen.
The only reason they vetoed this was because the BBC wanted an Eastenders crossover and it was also likely to be too expensive. But this history does not seem to suggest a tone where it was meant to be taken entirely as a joke.
The fact that Nick Briggs later disowned the story (which he was barely in) and that the Radio Times said "This isn't going to be a pilot for new Doctor Who" has nothing to really do with the authorial intent at time of production.
A lot of the quotes that come out later seem to be entirely fueled by the fact that fans had an outrageously rude reaction to the special. One of the reviews in the Second Doctor Handbook gave it a 0/10. I mean, it's not good... But come on, it's like a 4 at least!
it was never intended to be a part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that means
People act like the first half is the important part. It's not. The second part is.
"...whatever that means." As in, "the idea of a Doctor Who mythos is stupid, and you're stupid for constantly asking me about it."
Translation: Did we want this to be part of a bigger picture Who legacy project? No. Everyone treats it like it needs to be part of a bigger-picture legacy project or it fails on every level. We just wanted to make a thing.
It's exactly how George Lucas talks about the Star Wars prequels. It's not that he hates them or that he didn't want for them to "count," but years of people bothering him over stupid stuff and treating him like a villain has made him cynical of the very basic idea of a "mythos" or a "canon."
If we are going to go around calling stories invalid entirely because people later "disowned" them, then we can get rid of most of the 1960s comics. I can find plenty of quotes calling those "the odd-ones out, non-Doctor-Who-Mythos-adventures."
...the First Doctor's adventures with John and Gillian were more of the fairytale variety rather than the science-fiction and historical adventure of the TV serials. The Pied Piper of Hamelin, the Ancient Mariner and even Father Christmas all make appearances... This all seems a far cry the TV series.
Now that quote is highly picky and deceptive. But so are most of the quotes from JNT in DWM 249 that are so often published on this site.
My agent, however, thought differently -- he thought I should make it my formal Doctor Who swansong. And that was persuasive.
Swansons are not usually thought of as negative. Usually they're epic and exciting.
JNT then talks about picking the writer because he was impressed with some of his other work. He never doubts the legitimacy of the production until it comes to talking about dealing with the fan back-lash.
If you don't like it, fine; if you do like it, that's equally fine. But if you can honestly say that the 30th anniversary of Doctor Who would have been better without it, without its publicity, without its Radio Times front cover, without its colossal audience figure, without its indiviual effect on the final amount of money raised for such a worthy charity, then I feel sorry for you. It was never intended to be part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is... Some of the fan flitterati went mad! Some of the most offensive letters dropped on my matt, articles and letters were published... it was all out-of-proportion.
Basically, this is directly a quote about how stupid the fan backlash has been... And fans have cut it up to justify all of their fan backlash. It is not a quote about JNT's thoughts on the special, and it should never have been used in such a way.
"I don't care, stop asking me stupid questions all the damned time" is not a legitimate piece of evidence to suggest authorial intent. Keep in mind, most of these quotes came from a time when DiT wasn't just an "oddity from the 90s." Back then, it was either the last episode of Doctor Who (pre-1996) or the last episode of "British" Doctor Who (post-1996). So when people talked about the episode, they weren't talking about the episode. They were talking about the fans, and to the fans, and they were trying to get the fans to stop bothering them with stupid questions about a TV special they made for charity.
Imagine if David Tennant was constantly asked questions about this thing. Every show he did, every press conference, every appearance... "Why did you make that Charity thing that contradicts Parting of the Ways?" He'd be publicly trashing it within a week. That doesn't make it invalid.
Onto the topic of copyright.
DWM 234 discusses -- in less than two sentences -- how the special is unlikely to be aired again or released. But there is no real doubt who owns it.
The serial -- with both versions of Part Two -- is held by the BBC on D3.
The BBC. The BBC literally owns it. There is no doubt about that factor.
Alright, that's being a little bit of a cheat. My point is that this quote does not substantiate the claim that the BBC does not own this.
The article itself uses several images from Dimensions. They had no real problem republishing images from the broadcast. If the BBC was going to stop anyone from republishing the work, they'd stop their own affiliates first.
Fair Use is based around using copyrighted material in a transformative manor not found in the original. A key element is giving credit where credit is due as to not disrupt a potential market. But I can think of no real, solid case to be made for this not being owned by the BBC. If anything, we get to worry less about disrupting copyright here -- as you can clearly make the easy case that there isn't even a market for us to disrupt in the first place.
Either DWM is able to use the images through fair use, in which case so can we, or they got the rights from the BBC. In which case, the BBC owns the episode. Cool.
So in closing:
The production of Dimensions of Time may have been hasty and not well-done, but that doesn't mean that it was meant with poor or lack-luster intentions. The writers, producers, and actors at the time meant for it to be taken seriously. There have been few people involved at the time who have directly spoken out against the special, and the significant one was actually talking about the disdain he had for the ant-hype built up by fans. Leave me alone is not a good enough quote to call the story invalid.
It is not a parody (by the actual definition of the word "parody"), it was not "abandoned," and its rarity does not effect weather or not we should include it in articles. Furthermore, the suggested "lack of licensing" has not been a problem for anyone other than us, and there is no proof at all that the story is not or was not owned by the BBC.
I think there's been a heavy "bias" in this discussion in the past, mainly because it was non-canon from the first day that this site was created. If you really strip it all away and look at this story as if it is brand new, there's not a lot of very good reasons to call it invalid.
I want to again specifically ask that this forum not be closed without community discussion: no one admin should be able to decide if we want to talk about this or not.
In every debate on this wikia so far about this story, either the debate has been over canon or it has been simply shut down against the flow of the conversation.
Anyone wanting to close this forum will first need to counter every single point raised against this story being invalid, and then the community should be able to respond for or against these points.
Dimensions in Time, as far as I can see, has no real reason to be treated as it is. This forum needs to either end with an actual reason agreed upon by the broader community, or it needs to end with the story being valid for the first time in this site's history. If neither of these things happen, it should not be closed.
Agreed.
- 81.106.187.243
I think an admin should make a decision, now.
- OttselSpy25
That's not really how debates work.
- 81.106.187.243
The debate has been ongoing for months, I personally believe people are too biased to declare this valid and this thread is being put on the back-burner.
- 5.2.105.85
I have to agree that the longer this thread is left open, the less interest people will show.
- OttselSpy25
It's just a debate many people wanted to have in the first place. Having one person decide it suddenly isn't really the answer either -- in fact, I'd say most admins would rather just not deal with this one at least until S10 is closer to being over.
There are just bigger issues in the air right now.
- CzechOut
Before I close the thread, I wanted to address some of the -- to my mind -- rather unusual stipulations that have been given here so far.
First, there was great fear when this thread was opened that the thread would get immediately closed. That didn't happen. This forum thread has had a reasonable period of time in which to breathe and attract followers. It would not be true or even remotely fair to say that closing the thread would now be premature.
Still, in the more contested debates, participants sometimes disagree over what constitutes a reasonable time limit. Some people will say that the thread should be closed in a few months -- others will cry foul if you wait even a few days.
The important thing to understand about the entirety of the Tardis admin team is that we're really all volunteers, including me. We close things when we have time in our schedule to do it, and when, in our judgement, there's cause to do so.
Relatedly, it's mightily unfair to say that admin "decide it suddenly", just because it may be their first post to a thread. As has been pointed out in other threads, we post-to-close around here because we're trying to act judiciously. In a perfect world -- and there are times when we just don't have the staff to live in a perfect world -- it's better when the judge isn't the prosecuting or defence attorney. They listen to both sides and then make a pronouncement.
It's quite sensible to work that way. It's not always possible, but it is quite sensible.
This is especially true for inclusion debates, which are meant to find an answer. These aren't discussions so much as debates intended to answer the question, "Hey, can we use <insert story here> to write articles around here?" And so at the end of the debate it's up to the closing admin to just decide who won the debate. Other forums at Tardis don't necessarily operate on this principle, and therefore they may have a more conversational style.
So our decisions are not sudden, even if they arise from a singular post. I know that PnP, SOTO and Shambala, just to name the more frequent thread closers, spend a tonne of time working out the consensuses that are drawn in these forum threads.
At the same time, to continue the judicial metaphor, we don't have enough people to have a full appellate system. Sometimes, the same person who ruled on a decision one year may rule on the re-ask years after that. Indeed, there are often great reasons for that. You can't expect all admin to be equally excited about all topics. Nor can you expect all admin to actually own the resources necessary to settle the question from a position of knowledge. Sometimes, as in this case, a particular admin will have put in a lot of research on a particular topic. And therefore they are most qualified to rule on the case.
This year -- for whatever reason -- we've had scores of inclusion debates re-opened. The inclusion debate system was never created in the anticipation of having so many cases opened at one time. Even if every admin dedicated themselves 100% to settling all these open cases, you'd still get some repetition of admin. And let me assure you that there is considerable "inclusion debate" fatigue, at the moment, so we're nowhere close to admin working at 100% on inclusion debates.
Further, it's completely unreasonable to hold a gun to admin heads and say, "You must answer this point and that point and the other point -- or else your close is unacceptable." No, in order to be even mildly effective, we need the flexibility to decide which points are important enough to comment upon, and which to leave to one side. We also require the freedom to introduce a point not yet remarked upon if it is salient to the conversation. Trying to require that the decision be made on a particular basis just isn't realistic. All you can expect is that we admin will try to render a sensible, carefully-considered position.
Finally, it's important to see admin as people whose minds do change over time. I look at the 2012 thread about this, and I'm distinctly aware of the passage of time. Remember, 2012 was a period of transition for us, where we hadn't yet emerged from the notion of "canon". If you base your inclusion arguments on canonicity then narrative discontinuity (or: how crap a story is) is a valid argument against it. That is not how we do things now, and so I don't feel at all bound by those statements from early 2012.
Participants to this thread have not established that DIT passes our four little rules.
Doesn't pass rule 4[[edit] | [edit source]]
Let me start with rule 4. Authorial intent, at least on JNT's part, is pretty clearly that it's not meant to be part of the DWU. As quoted upthread, JNT's feelings from DWM 249 -- "It was never intended to be part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is..." -- are completely different to, say, Steven Moffat's feeling about Time Crash.
When asked directly in DWM 389, "Is it canon?" (remember, this was a time before Paul Cornell's influential essay had stripped "canon" from our vocabularies), Moffat said this:
- "Oh. [Laughs] Yes, absolutely. Time Crash emphatically happens within the ... well, people can make up their own minds about what's canon, but it's intended by us to actually happen ... unless you don't want it to."
The difference is striking and immediate. Some have pointed out that there needs to be some corroborating statement from David Roden, but there is no such rule. DWM 324 easily establishes JNT as the primary author of the work, both through his actual writing and the impact of what he saw as "production realities" on the script. So his feelings control.
Doesn't pass rule 2[[edit] | [edit source]]
More obviously, though, DIT fails rule 2.
As is clearly laid out in DWM 324:
- "It was understood by Equity, the actors' union, that the show would only receive a single broadcast in the United Kingdom and would not be commercially exploited. None of the cast and crew were paid for the work on the show."
Since the story was not commercially licensed, it fails rule 2. Though directly proven by the above quote, it's also been in evidence more recently.
While DIT was once included on the BBC's official episode guide, that guide is now archived, and cannot be found but by knowing the direct link to it. The episode guide currently being used on bbc.co.uk/doctorwho the goes straight from Survival to Doctor Who (1996). There is no Dimensions in Time there. And in looking at the newly launched BritBox service, DiT isn't mentioned -- though the site mentions every other serial, even when it is not currently available for streaming.
Those pesky DWM images[[edit] | [edit source]]
Though I think that's more than enough to invalidate DIT, I also want to take the time to look at an argument upthread. I'm not sure it's been argued before in precedent discussions about DIT, so it deserves some attention now.
That there are BBC-copyrighted still images of actors from the DIT shoot in DWM does not mean that the BBC fully own copyright to the production itself.
The images you see in DIT are publicity photos, either posed or taken from the shoot itself. They are merely, for example, Peter Davison in the Fifth Doctor's costume, not the Fifth Doctor himself. Thus, even if we declared DIT valid, T:IUI would prevent us from using the available images in in-universe articles. Put another way, a publicity photo is not a narrative, and only stories count around here.
Moreover, when DWM have a big feature about a CIN special, they almost always run information about how to donate to Children in Need. So even in DWM the images aren't really being used commercially; they're being used alongside a charity appeal.
That would not be the case here at Tardis. We're obviously not going to put up a CIN appeal midway on, say, the Fifth Doctor's article just cause we wanted to use a publicity image from DIT! Because of the very delicate copyright situation, it makes our own use of images from this thing more difficult than images from other productions. I just don't see the value in potentially exposing us to a DMCA takedown situation over DIT.
Just fanfic[[edit] | [edit source]]
And so we're finally at this: DIT is a full charity event. What do I mean? Nobody got paid for anything. Unlike The Five Doctors and Time Crash, which were also CIN "events", neither the actors nor the crew were paid. Again, DWM 324:
- The serial -- with both versions of Part Two -- is held by the BBC on D3. Because it was made for charity, it is unlikely to be issued on video or DVD; the programme-as-completed documents read: "N.B. This material can never be used on air again."
In other words, DIT is fanfic.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:211544
I know, I know, it's silly - but it is a licensed appearance of the Daleks, with full permission from the estate of Terry Nation.
Rule 1 - It is, without a doubt, a story. Rule 2 - Licensed by the estate of Terry Nation. Rule 3 - Released, for sure. Rule 4 - What's up for debate, I suppose.
The daleks aren't joking around they're not a parody, they're just....daleks being daleks. Valid?
- OttselSpy25
I can't help but wonder if I'm being mocked here...
Anyways, I've actually heard for several years that they didn't have the rights to use the Daleks. Isn't the story that they thought the Daleks were public domain, and the TN estate almost didn't lend the BBC the rights because of this?
- OttselSpy25
Taken from Wikipedia:
The alien cyborgs yelling "Exterminate them!" are Daleks from the British sci-fi series Doctor Who; more precisely, the models used are from the non-canon films Dr. Who and the Daleks and Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 AD (distinguishable from the TV versions by the "vapor spray" weapon, although there seems to got circle-shaped death-Ray with it). It was at the insistence of Steve Martin that Daleks be used in that scene. This was the cause of a minor legal issue as the Daleks are owned by the estate of Terry Nation and are not in the public domain as was assumed.
- TheChampionOfTime
Full permission? If I remember correctly that really isn't the case. A quick search on google found:
EDIT: Whoops, I took too long and ended up just repeating someone else. It should be noted that the current wikipedia page for the movie does not contain any information about Daleks, instead OttselSpy's quote comes from the Dr Who Collectors wiki, who copied it from wikipedia sometime long ago.
- OttselSpy25
The problem here is that most of these quotes don't have a solid source. Mainly because no one cares about Looney Toones: Back in Action.
- OttselSpy25
If this post was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comparison to the LEGO BATMAN thread, I can easily justify the difference.
RULE 4: If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed.
Lego Dimensions and the tie-in films are all set in a multi-verse. Looney Tunes Back in Action is set in one universe, where Looney Toones are real but are only actors.
So there is a Doctor Who world in Lego Dimensions and it's pretty much just the regular ol' DWU, with no retconning or changing of events. This world is where the Daleks come from.
They are trapped, at the start of the film, a space-jail connected to most of the universes. All of the people in the jail are then sent to Batman's universe.
This means you can at least try to argue that there's an attempt to explain why the Daleks are there. They try to make things make sense. They try to make it work within the DWU.
You can not say the same thing for LTBIN, which does not have its own multi-verse. The fact that cartoons walk around and exist in the universe does matter, because it's the only universe in the film. If the Daleks had been teleported in from Earth-5556, then we'd have another discussion at hand. But they weren't.
Now I'm not going to pretend that the Batman thread is going to end with it being valid. It likely won't. But this thread is about LTBIA, which is most certainly invalid.
- AeD
I don't think this is fundamentally any different from Daleks showing up on, say, Family Guy for a quick gag, and should be treated the same.
- 5.2.105.85
UNlicensed thus this story will never count. I 100% believe that this thread is intended to mock The LEGO Batman Movie one.
- OttselSpy25
Oh, wait, I thought of another thing.
Looney Tunes Back in Action is a meta-media movie. The characters are actors, and they produce cartoons, just like in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. So it's not even the real Looney Tunes universe that's featured, so it's hard to believe that it's meant to actually be the Doctor Who Universe.
- Bwburke94
I see no way LT:BIN can qualify under rule 4, even if the copyright problems are ignored.
It did need a separate thread (because putting it in the Lego Batman thread would be distracting), but given the nature of the work and the evidence we have at the current time, it was likely never meant to be set in the DWU.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:211580
I brought a similar case up earlier with the pages about Doctor Who spoof The Lollipop Man on Doctors, but there's another number of pages on this wiki that I believe are fundamentally similar in nature, and should probably be deleted, with their basics added to the page Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe.
- Doctor Who Farted (TV story)
- And by extension, Seth MacFarlane, and Joe Vaux, who are only relevant to Doctor Who by way of this 1 minute cutaway gag.
- The Invasion of Bash Street (comic story)
- Alan Digby, who wrote it.
- Five Galactic Guest Stars (TV story)
- And Larry Grayson, and Tony Hawes.
- The Harry Hill Show special (TV story)
- Extras: The Special (TV story)
- Surprise Surprise! special (TV story)
- David Peta, David Peta's dad, David Peta's mum. (Seriously?)
- Master of the Universe (TV story)
- Clown Court special (TV story)
- The Robot Reveal (TV story)
- Mind My Minions (webcast)
Obviously: All of this is up for debate.
- TheChampionOfTime
I think there's a case to be made for keeping BBC-licensed skits involving DW actors playing their DW characters or the TARDIS set. At the very least, Clown Court special (TV story) was included on the DVD for Delta and Bannerman and has just as much a right to be here as any other special feature.
- 85.255.232.125
I completely disagree, unlike the lollipop man, these all feature oficially licensed appearances of DW characters.
- Thefartydoctor
In my opinion, this is a Doctor Who Wiki. Everything Doctor Who, whether valid or invalid, obviously deserves covering to some extent but taking away individual story articles and leaving just a long-winded article is not the answer. It's only a handful of fans like myself who would actually enjoy scrolling through such a long article like that.
In conclusion - keep the above mentioned articles but continue to add them to the Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe. Allow readers of that article to click on, let's say, Doctor Who Farted (TV story) and read more about it. The Doctor Who Farted article page is where you put bits of behind the scenes, such as Tennant's feelings on returning to the role, MacFarlane's experience of having Tennant in the booth, references (like the doors opening the wrong way)... you wouldn't add that on Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe for each individual story.
BBC-licensed skits that are just DW can get a page, but we don't need a page for, say, every Simpsons episode that features a DWU appearance or reference.
As a compromise, if someone cares to undertake the project, we could split Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe to several pages by decade, with all of them linked from Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe.
In general, the decision for each "story" should be made on a case-by-case basis, either on the talk page for Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe or by asking an admin.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:212141
I am really confused. The Corridor Sketch is explicitly said to be a parody and, at the same time, is in Category:Doctor Who spin-offs. How come it's valid? I couldn't find a discussion on it. Could someone point me to that?
- TheChampionOfTime
I don't think anyone thinks it's valid. It doesn't have an invalid tag for the same reason An Adventure in Space and Time (TV story) doesn't have one. It's not a parody of Doctor Who, it's a parody of the crew behind Doctor Who. Unlike the vast majority of parodies, it does not contain any characters who are on some level meant to be characters from Doctor Who.
That said, if The Fiveish Doctors Reboot (TV story) has an invalid tag, so too should The Corridor Sketch.
- Amorkuz
Thanks for a clarification.
Hmm. This is a bit dangerous, IMHO. I would put an invalid tag on all of them. I am doing some dab pages and often pop up to a story page just to check whether a story is valid. I wouldn't want to read the whole page to figure that out.
- TheChampionOfTime
It's not a very good sketch anyway.
- Amorkuz
Yeah, looked sketchy to me.
- SOTO
Does this answer your question? [7]
It definitely should have an invalid tag, by the way.
- SOTO
To be clear, AAISAT doesn't have one only because it already has a docudrama tag (tophat), which is an equivalent to {{non-fiction}}.
- OttselSpy25
I feel like it just comes down to us needing to have a debate on it. I've seen plenty instances of stories obviously being invalid, the tag can't be put on until there's a single bit of consensus.
I have nothing to say against it being invalid. It seems pretty open-and-shut to me (in the sense that it's easy to figure out, not that the forum needs to be closed down).
- SOTO
I don't really see the need to discuss every story that is obviously not intended to be set in the DWU. Sometimes, a story just breaks rule 4, and there's no discussion needed unless someone wants to contest that with new compelling evidence to the contrary. Don't mistake the recent surge in inclusion debates for a need to discuss each and every story.
In this case, The Corridor Sketch fails already be being a parody. We don't need to discuss every parody. If it falls under "parody", which has been discussed, it can be safely assumed to be invalid, without extraordinary evidence suggesting otherwise.
- OttselSpy25
I was just guessing that because it took me super long to get this story to be deemed invalid. I think that discussion was open for a year or two.
- Shambala108
SOTO wrote: I don't really see the need to discuss every story that is obviously not intended to be set in the DWU. Sometimes, a story just breaks rule 4, and there's no discussion needed unless someone wants to contest that with new compelling evidence to the contrary.
^ This.
Don't mistake the recent surge in inclusion debates for a need to discuss each and every story.
^ And especially this.
I really was simply confused by the contradictory messages in the categories and the lack of the "invalid" tag. I did not mean to open any new debates.
Perhaps, I should have used the Reference section for asking about the decision on inclusion. Maybe, it still makes sense to move this thread to reference section now, in order to avoid the temptation to open more debates on similar topics. Once again I apologise.
I am very happy that this story was never considered valid as it is clearly not.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:212365
So I've noticed recently that there's a trend of calling stories invalid simply because they're connected to stories which are also invalid.
For instance, many stories in Short Trips and Side Steps are treated this way. This book features sequels to stories which are famously goofy and ignored by fans.
Now when it comes to things like Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor, that's a story set in an entire canon that we haven't seen clarified as an alternate universe. So of course it's invalid. You can't just go around calling some Peter Cushing stories valid for no good reason.
My problem comes about when there are sequels and prequels to stories which were called invalid not because of rule 4, but because of any other rule. Dimensions in Time was declared invalid because it was asserted that it had improper licensing. A Fix With Sontarans meanwhile is invalid because it bleeds into a fourth-wall breaking ending. The Doctor becomes Colin Baker in the middle of the segment with little-to-no warning.
But there is no question of the licensing of Storm in a Tikka or Rescue. Nothing I've seen of Fixing a Hole suggests that it ends a fourth-wall leap, nor does Bill Cosby walk into the story.
At least one of these sequel/prequel stories was marked as invalid in a forum many years ago, but at that time there was no such thing as "validity." The question raised then was "Is this story canon?" And you could argue that if DiT or AFWS isn't "canon," the sequels must also not be canon. The problem is that if you then remove all of the "canons" and replace them with "valids," that reasoning doesn't make any damned sense.
The page for Fixing a Hole aptly states:
"As a sequel to A Fix with Sontarans, this story doesn't fit into the broader Doctor Who continuity..."
This is broadly archaic and irrelevant. No one on this wikia has cared about "continuity" in at-least half-a-decade.
Just wanted to quickly add that this has nothing to do with the Lego Batman thread, it's just a coincidence that two different instances of sequels being deemed invalid for irrelevant attachments have peaked my brow.
- 95.147.32.223
You have a good point but my question is do these stories make sense without the invalid story although you can say the events happened but not as dipicted in the invalid story one thing about braking the fourth wall if a fix with sontarans is invalid because it broke it then why is the feast of steven or the comic the fourth wall valid as both brak it quite casually
- OttselSpy25
There's a difference between breaking the fourth wall and addressing the reader and morphing the segment into the real world in the middle without any break. If you want to debate that administrative decision, start a new thread.
For the most part, these sequels aren't built heavily on the original in terms of context. Rather they'll mostly just re-use characters and settings. So stories will use 6 and Tegan or 7, Ace and K9. Rescue merely shows how the Rani met her companion in that story, while the other two stories listed just show adventures after the stories that we have deemed as invalid.
I've read through the stories, and even the Short Trips PROSEs seem to take the characters very seriously in writing about what happens next. This is an important distinction to discussing what the authors meant in writing these stories.
- OttselSpy25
Does anyone disagree with this?
Can anyone think of any other stories that would be affected by a change like this?
Sorry to sound so antsy, it's just super frustrating when I think I have a solid case but most users don't have much else to say! (￣ヘ￣ )
- TheChampionOfTime
The only thing I have to say is that I really support this.
- AeD
Yeah, I basically agree with this -- if a valid story can't make another story valid by default by connecting to it, then surely an invalid story can't make another story invalid by default, either.
- OttselSpy25
Are there any other examples of this we should talk about? Or is it just these three?
EDIT: Searching through all of the "NON-DWU" stories cat, it looks like it really is just these three.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: Are there any other examples of this we should talk about? Or is it just these three?
EDIT: Searching through all of the "NON-DWU" stories cat, it looks like it really is just these three.
There is Dermot and the Doctor the mini-episode on the NTA 2011 - that was deemed invalid because of Dimensions in Time.
- OttselSpy25
That's a solid point, the talk page doesn't seem to make a very strong case for it. But I think we would need a much longer debate on that specific story. Lots of odd moments and such.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote: That's a solid point, the talk page doesn't seem to make a very strong case for it. But I think we would need a much longer debate on that specific story. Lots of odd moments and such.
Yeah, maybe when this thread and the DIT thread have died down.
- OttselSpy25
I've searched through all NON-DWU story pages several times, and I've come to the conclusion that the only three stories declared invalid solely on this basis are Storm in a Tikka, Rescue and Fixing a Hole. If no one can make the case for any of these three stories to be invalid, I move that we try to close this thread within the next two weeks.
Right now the discussion seems pretty unanimous.
- Shambala108
Five people (out of the whole wiki) agreeing is not unanimous, especially when two of the five are unregistered users.
- OttselSpy25
It's not as if the lack of opposing thoughts had been born entirely out of a lack of interest from editors. It's just that these stories were made "non-canon" in the days of old and it's pretty obvious in today's age that there's no real strong case for them not being "invalid."
People aren't posting in the thread because there's not much else to say -- even those who have agreed have simply said "I agree" before they've moved on. If someone wants to post an opposing side in the coming weeks I think that'll be a change of direction. But I don't see a point in keeping open a thread simply because we're used to waiting for a strong debate. There isn't one to be had here.
Even you, the first person to challenge anything that I've said, are posting not in disagreement with the thread but with me wanting to close the thread. You clearly didn't have anything to add to the actual debate, or else you would have posted something about these three stories. You are, in a sense, proof that there are people who are reading this thread who haven't posted simply because they don't disagree with it. They feel that if their opinion has already been said, they have no real reason to post. So we're waiting for someone to disagree so that we can make the forum long enough to justify setting a precedent.
How about this then? Old school debate style. Why don't we do a poll? All people have to do is comment "Yes" or "No" to each of these three stories being valid or invalid. Then people will be able to come and cast their ballot without worrying about if they're re-treading ground.
One last thing. The definition of "unanimous" is "(of two or more people) fully in agreement." So if five people take part in a debate and five people agree then it's pretty unanimous.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: People aren't posting in the thread because there's not much else to say -- even those who have agreed have simply said "I agree" before they've moved on.
There are probably lots of reasons why people aren't posting in the thread: real life issues; lack of familiarity with Tardis:Valid sources; general fatigue over the massive number of validity threads in the last few months; etc. etc. etc.
Even you, the first person to challenge anything that I've said, are posting not in disagreement with the thread but with me wanting to close the thread. You clearly didn't have anything to add to the actual debate, or else you would have posted something about these three stories. You are, in a sense, proof that there are people who are reading this thread who haven't posted simply because they don't disagree with it. They feel that if their opinion has already been said, they have no real reason to post. So we're waiting for someone to disagree so that we can make the forum long enough to justify setting a precedent.
Don't put words in my mouth or claim that my actions mean something specific. You may be sure I am very well aware how little my contributions are wanted on these validity threads. That is the only reason I'm not posting my opinion. However, as an admin I do have a responsibility to make sure the rules are followed.
One last thing. The definition of "unanimous" is "(of two or more people) fully in agreement." So if five people take part in a debate and five people agree then it's pretty unanimous.
Sure, five out of five on this thread are unanimous but you five users are not the entirety of this wiki. Like I posted above, two of the five haven't even bothered to register on this wiki.
- SOTO
I think I can speak for the whole admin team when I say we're all quite tired of dealing with inclusion debates right now. Don't confuse our silence with passive agreement on the position taken in this thread. The same goes for other users in any discussion. Silence is not itself a stance.
- OttselSpy25
"Unanimous" as a phrase was a reference to the fact that there has been no differentiating opinion in the thread. That is still true. It is still a fact that the debate so far has been unanimous. As in, no one has disagreed, and these days if people didn't agree with something they would tell you about it.
I have said only one thing: if this debate has not had any new opinions or thoughts in two to four weeks, then there is no point in keeping the thread open. This is not a controversial topic, evidenced by the fact that the biggest controversy has been about why there hasn't been any controversies. If we let it sit while we patiently wait for someone to disagree because someone has to disagree apparently, then in four years we're all going to remember that this thread was ever a thing and by then we have to start all over.
If we wait for the figurative person who disagrees to suddenly feel like posting, then years will pass us by.
Silence is indeed not a stance, but if you decide not to have a stance then we don't need to wait around for you to eventually pick a side.
I referenced your disinterest in the thread up to the point where you wanted to question if it was unanimous (it was, and is; because right now we're not even debating the actual topic of the forum) because it proves that even you only posted a differentiating opinion to something that has almost nothing to do with the question at hand. The people who agree have nothing more to add -- the people who disagree don't seem to exist right now. I do not see the point of keeping this open more than a few weeks past this point in the conversation if it keeps going this way.
I would not say this about a forum that had different sides or opinions inside it. I have not said this about the LEGO thread. But if a forum is created, no one manages to disagree, and no one can even think of a solid argument for someone that would disagree, then there is no problem with closing the thread down after something close after a reasonable amount of time.
If someone has any good reason that Storm in a Tikka, Fixing a Hole, or Rescue should be invalid, then I'd love to hear their point of view. But if in three weeks no one has thought of anything, we don't need to wait. Right now, there is no reason that they're invalid. They just are because.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: "Unanimous" as a phrase was a reference to the fact that there has been no differentiating opinion in the thread. That is still true. It is still a fact that the debate so far has been unanimous. As in, no one has disagreed, and these days if people didn't agree with something they would tell you about it.
Once again, you are making assumptions about why people aren't posting. Given the personal attacks in several of the previous validity debates, it's no wonder people are shying away.
At any rate, you want a dissenting opinion? Here's mine.
I have not been convinced by any arguments above that a sequel/prequel to an invalid story could be itself valid.
And, given that we have hundreds of valid stories that are missing plot summaries, there are at least dozens of pages that could use images, there are dozens of orphaned pages, hundreds of articles needing proper citation, etc. etc. (see Tardis:To do list), I see no good coming from the incessant re-opening of closed debates that we've had recently when there is so much other work to be done on the wiki.
Also, I don't think it's particularly fair for the person who starts the thread to be calling for its closure, especially after only a week.
- OttselSpy25
Shambala108 wrote: I have not been convinced by any arguments above that a sequel/prequel to an invalid story could be itself valid.
Be more specific.
The best I can do is explain my stance again then.
Dimensions in Time is invalid because of its hard-to-decipher licensing. It is not invalid because of any narrative elements. Rescue does not hold any such issues. Neither does Storm in a Tikka. Thus it shouldn't be retroactively invalid.
A Fix With Sontarans has been declared invalid because it's hard to tell when the in-universe narrative ends and the real-world curtain-call starts. Fixing a Hole does not have this issue. Thus it shouldn't be invalid.
That's pretty clear-cut dude. If anything, I need logic to support the idea that these stories aren't valid. We don't work with canon anymore, we can't keep using the same tactics as if we do.
And, given that we have hundreds of valid stories that are missing plot summaries, there are at least dozens of pages that could use images, there are dozens of orphaned pages, hundreds of articles needing proper citation, etc. etc. (see Tardis:To do list), I see no good coming from the incessant re-opening of closed debates that we've had recently when there is so much other work to be done on the wiki.
"Go do something else" is not an argument I take seriously. Also, I do take part in most of those activities. I just also do this, and I do this the most often because it's the thing I have the most free time to do.
I re-opened the debate because the original debate was wrong.
I started the "original debate." (It was only on FaH, thus the quotation marks) It was my debate and I was wrong. I was the only person who argued for these stories to be invalid, and now I think that I was wrong. You can't close down a valid discussion just because "Oh, we should stick with the rule we made up back when we thought canon was a thing. Man, I was so smart when I was 14 years old I should stick with the decision I made back then."
I mean, I agree for the most part that these re-opened discussions are dry and not worth dealing with. The Shalka forum really has served no purpose. Other ones have legitimate points, which is the real reason no one wants to touch them; because that's more trouble.
Also, I don't think it's particularly fair for the person who starts the thread to be calling for its closure, especially after only a week.
You see, I didn't actually fully want that to happen I just figured it would be a way to get people who disagreed to post.
It kinda did and kinda didn't. I still get the feeling that you're more upset about the "unanimous" thing than anything else. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have the debate before the idea that the debate is wrong.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: It kinda did and kinda didn't. I still get the feeling that you're more upset about the "unanimous" thing than anything else...
Please stop assuming that you know how I or anyone else thinks. I kept away from this debate because most people, especially you, don't want my participation. But I certainly have my own opinion, and you forced my hand when you decided that the entire wiki agrees with your proposal.
- OttselSpy25
I did not say that the wikia agreed with my proposal. I said that if in a few weeks no one has voiced a dissenting opinion, there is no need to keep the thread open. We do not need to keep this discussion out in the air for two years if no one actively debates the suggested change.
A "lack of opposing opinion" is what made Dimensions in Time "non-canon" years ago, and that reason stands strong on the page for the four little rules. So my simple reasoning was that if in a long period of time there has been no one who has voiced any concerns, we had no reason to close the thread down.
I gave a dammed time limit. I gave a time limit. I at no point said that the forum was over and we needed to close it down that second. Was my time limit too small? Yea. But I stand by it.
Shambala108 wrote: ...most people, especially you, don't want my participation.
... I don't remember who you are.
Aren't you assuming a lot about me right now?
Presuming what I think of you, presuming why I'm making statements, presuming what I mean by believing such and such things...
All I've said is that there is no real controversy in calling these three short stories from the past valid, and no one ever had a good reason to call them invalid.
If you want to keep them invalid just to save a slight annoyance on your end, I have just one request. Change NONVALID back to NONCANON. Because if we keep these stories outside of the range of valid stories, then we're still living by silly rules that we made up back when we practiced in canon and continuity.
If a thread is kept open for a long period of time and has no detractors at all, there should be no problem with closing it down after a month or two. And this thread is one of those threads, because only you have debated for us to not debate the issue.
Again -- if you don't like that we haven't consulted "the wider wikia sleeping for reasons other than the fact that there isn't much to add to this debate" then just make a poll and leave the thread open for a month. Mark it so that people logging into TARDIS get notified about the thread, and let people contribute as they will.
In refusing to deal with these things while they pile higher and higher, you just make it more annoying to deal with the inclusion threads. Creation of these forums are not going to slow down simply because no one ever wraps them up. There's only about four threads currently open which have any clear controversies, and most of the others have had no proper attention.
I will not stop fixing problems on this site just because you think I have better things to do with my day. I will not debate on if this topic needs debating, because it does and that-is-that.
If anyone has something to contribute to this discussion about if Storm in a Tikka, Fixing a Hole or Rescue should be invalid; I'd like to hear it. But if that is not the case after a long period of time, we can start to close down shop.
- OttselSpy25
I realise that I have failed to present my opinion in a comprehensible and approachable manor in the past several posts. I apologise to those whom I offended with my carelessness. I can see how my "Vents" were simply teetering on personal attacks and breaks of T:POINT. It's even more rediculous that I asked such things merely few days after starting the thread back-up.
Please allow me to re-present my opinion.
1 Only stories count. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. Our four little rules: the most important creation for this website, which details what we use to decide if a story is valid.
Now, as far as I am concerned three stories are being debated here, although a fourth story is important enough to the discussion to bring up later. The three stories up for debate are all short stories: PROSE: Storm in a Tikka, PROSE: Rescue, and PROSE: Fixing a Hole.
Let's go down our rules for these stories, then.
Rule one: All three of these are stories.
Rule two: These are all licensed stories, that use concepts that they are allowed to use.
Rule three: The stories have all been released.
Rule four: (the important one)
All three of these stories were meant to be set within the DWU. No question about it. No question at all.
If you take time to read Fixing a Hole or Storm in a Tikka, you’ll find that they’re both very serious discussions of Doctor Who lore and characters. The long and detailed analysis of the Doctor’s relationship with Tegan or the Seventh Doctor’s encounter with an ancient alien god seem like totally common and in-lore character pieces. Each story only has one frivolous element that has lead to them "not counting".
In the case of Storm in a Tikka, there is only two lines that make it currently invalid.
I'm rather afraid that we've landed back in Walford... The Rani's TARDIS must have left a residual time trail.
Now, you just stand still, Ace. You're going to get paint over everything. K9, have forty winks, then go and fetch a towel. We've just been invited to take part in a quiz show, and we're not exactly looking at our best...
The first quote is of course a reference towards the events of Dimensions of Time, and the second is towards Search out Science. Both of these stories are, as per recent and detailed community discussions, invalid.
In the case of Fixing a Hole, the story is meant to represent the “gap” between A Fix with Sontarans and any story where Tegan is not travelling with the Doctor. Again, A Fix with Sontarans has gone down as one of the most assured examples of a story being invalid on this site.
However, this has absolutely no relevance towards us deciding if these stories (connected to others merely by brief references and winks) was meant to be set in the DWU.
The personal view of the canon of the DWU owned by any of our editors has no relevance towards if we should consider if something is valid. If you think that Dimensions is Time isn’t canon, cool. If you think that the John and Gillian comics aren’t canon, good for you. If you think that Lungbarrow isn’t canon, that’s your right. But we shouldn’t use this to make any sort of rule about if a story should be valid or not.
Never forget this: Dimensions in Time isn’t invalid because of its pesky writing or odd continuity. It's not invalid because a bunch of fans decided that it wasn’t canon and their word is law. It’s invalid because no one was payed, and thus none of the production was properly licensed.
A Fix with Sontarans isn’t invalid because we don’t like idea of the TARDIS having a “red button.” It’s not invalid because it’s silly that Gareth Jenkins wears the Doctor’s costume. It’s invalid because halfway-through the Doctor turns into Colin Baker with no transition, and Jimmy Saville walks in as if it’s his show again.
So in both of the above examples, rule 4 is entirely irrelevant. They are eliminated before we even have to talk about a Doctor Who Universe or the concept of a “Canon.” So in other words, as far as we are concerned, DiT was meant to be set inside the DWU. Same for AFwS. Thus, we do not accept their alleged non-canon-ness. So have a story reference or accept them should never automatically make it invalid simply by bringing the stories up.
What you think of a story has no bearing to this debate. What matters is the authorial intent of the authors. And when it comes to titles as clear as "Fixing a Hole", it's pretty obvious what the intent of the authors was meant to be.
Consider something like Spiral Scratch. Much like many other stories in the BBC books range, the book attempts to suggest that each and every different Doctor Who range ever created is set in a completely different universe. In that book, Mel sees a series of different versions of the Doctor from the Multi-verse, including two wearing blue coats and one with a penguin. This is the book’s way of saying “Hey, if this contradicts anything it’s because we’re doing our own thing here.” The book wants you to accept that the BBC novel range is a totally separate universe from the DWM comics and the Big Finish audios featuring the same characters.
Does that make it invalid? No, because even if it isn’t meant to be set in your vision of the Doctor Who universe, it still meets the criteria of rule 4. If a story takes any element of the DWU (weather it be the TV show or a combination of any set of ranges put together), copies it, and then makes a new add-on based on their envisioned take on the universe, then it’s set “within the DWU.” Or at least, the DWU as viewed by the author.
So the fact that one writer said “A Fix with Sontarans is a part of my DWU and I want to write about it” is just about as relevant towards if the writers of the BBC books thought that Frobisher and Real Time were canon in “Their universe.” In other words, in the scope of this wikia, it doesn’t matter at all.
Let’s talk about another story that is a sequel to something so invalid that we don’t even have a proper page for it. AUDIO: Frozen Time is a direct sequel to the Audio Visuals story Endurance, where a figure named Lord Barset accidentally discovers a lost Silurian settlement. In Frozen Time, his grandson attempts to find their lost expedition as well as his noted “Lizard-Men.” At least to books by Gary Russell]] also mention the events of Endurance.
I have yet to see anyone attempt to claim that Frozen Time is outside of our wikia’s scope because we don’t consider its source valid, nor that it has to be invalid because Endurance “isn’t canon”. The difference between this story and the three stories being discussed is obvious: people like Frozen Time. They don’t like the other stories discussed here. That's the sole difference.
Here's another extremely relevant example of the hypocrisy presented here. PROSE: Face Value is a sequel to a play. Said play is The Ultimate Adventure. Said play is invalid, because all plays on this website are invalid and for a good reason. No one has a copy of this play. It stopped existing when it stopped being performed.
And yet, Face Value is totally valid. Sure, since then the play has been adapted into a Big Finish audio, but that has no relevancy to the debate of the short story because it was released after Face Value.
In a world where the play was never adapted, Face Value would still be valid, because it's a stand-alone adventure only loosely connected to the play. So is Rescue. So is Fixing a Hole. So is Storm in a Tikka. So how did these ever become invalid in the first place?
I’ve tried to back-track where these stories started being called invalid, and ignoring threads that use the word “canon” instead of “valid,” the only one I’ve been able to hunt down is Thread:136969, where a user states that PROSE: Rescue should be invalid because Dimensions in Time is a dream in one of the novels. He suggest that it lacking the invalid tag is simply an effect of no one having noticed yet, and that there must be no one out there who would argue that it is valid. He basically asks if anyone disagrees. Czech closes the thread, certainly citing precedent beforehand, with
Yes.
I agree with the user who started that thread on only one issue: the main problem here is that far too few people actually want to concern themselves with this issue, and thus the question of if these three stories should "Count" has been left up to presumptions rather than actual modern-wikia debate. I can’t force people to care about this, so if you don’t I’m sorry. But I care about policy and consistency, and there is no reason that these three stories can't be valid.
- JagoAndLitefoot
I entirely agree, the use of elements from an invalid story should not mean that the resulting story is invalid, just that it doesn't make the source automatically valid. It's not as if it's any different from e.g. the Star Trek crossover. If we consider Jean-Luc Picard to be valid despite from obviously originating from an invalid source based on his appearance in Assimilation2 then I see no reason not to consider Cyrian valid based on his appearance in Rescue despite him first appearing in an invalid source.
- Bwburke94
Just because a story references a previous invalid story doesn't make that story itself invalid. It would take a tortured reading of rule 4 to claim that.
- Pluto2
I hate to necropost, but I agree that there's really no reason to consider Rescue, Storm in a Tikka, or Fixing a Hole invalid based on the fact that they refer to invalid stories. That's dangerously close to moving from an invalid/valid distinction to a non-canon/canon distinction. And I don't like such a concept at all.
I've read Storm in a Tikka. It's really its own thing, as supported by OttelSpy25's quotes provided.
- 171.33.193.136
I've read Storm in a Tikka too. It's very good. But, more importantly, it has absolutely nothing to do with either Dimensions in Time or Search Out Space aside from briefly giving a mention to both.
- NateBumber
I just realised that, despite my liberal up-thumbing of comments here, I've never actually commented. So here it is: I can't think of a reason why these three stories should be "guilty by association" of being nonvalid just because they have connections to invalid stories. There are plenty of other stories that are perfectly valid on this wiki, despite referencing nonvalid ones: examples that leap to mind are Whatever Happened to Iris Wildthyme?, which repeats wholesale a joke from Scream of the Shalka; and The Taking of Planet 5, which gives an origin story for the Tersurons seen in The Curse of Fatal Death. The validity of those stories has never been challenged, and while I don't believe it's necessarily true, the double-standard certainly seems like a violation of T:NPOV.
In general, I strongly oppose the idea that stories should be disqualified from this wiki on the grounds of their connections, implied or explicit, to stories that are nonvalid for other reasons. So yes, Storm in a Tikka and Fixing a Hole and Rescue deserve to be covered as valid on this wiki.
I hope this thread can reach a long-awaited resolution soon.
PS: Has anyone else had difficulty with the forums swallowing their messages when they hit "Reply"? This is the second time it's happened to me in the last week; thankfully, this message was much shorter than the last one I lost.
- OttselSpy25
The forums have swallowed some of my most intense and in-depth work. Honestly, I would suggest writing your replies in Google Docs and then posting them here.
- NateBumber
Good idea. Thanks!
- JagoAndLitefoot
Or just copy them to clipboard before hitting "reply" just in case.
- OttselSpy25
Could an admin please look into this?
- OttselSpy25
OttselSpy25 wrote:
I agree with the user who started that thread on only one issue: the main problem here is that far too few people actually want to concern themselves with this issueEver moon that passes while this thread sits unresolved proves this quote more thoroughly.
- Borisashton
I was surprised to see that I never chimed in on this debate since I've been following it for a while. Anyway, I completely agree that these sorts of stories should be considered valid for the reasons presented in the original post.
- OttselSpy25
I am still, frankly, waiting for anyone who has anything to say against these stories being valid. This "guilty-by-association" method, applied inconsistently, has no real place on this wiki.
If anyone disagrees, then I'd love to hear the case for why Frozen Time and Face Value deserve to be invalid. Or most of the stories in Short Trips and Side Steps, for that matter. Let's have policies that are enforced across the board, policies which are measurable and scientifically consistent and are not based on dated fandom ideas of "canon."
Either all stories that reference or connect themselves to "invalid" stories are invalid by association, or this policy has no merit. Either Frozen Time and Storm in a Tikka are both equally valid adventures, or their coverage needs to be equally purged. There is no space in-between available.
- Shambala108
I'm tempted to close this thread and force a do-over because of the blatantly false facts the OP keeps posting. Specifically,
- "For instance, many stories in Short Trips and Side Steps are treated this way. This book features sequels to stories which are famously goofy and ignored by fans." (First post, later corrected, but then...)
- "If anyone disagrees, then I'd love to hear the case for why Frozen Time and Face Value deserve to be invalid. Or most of the stories in Short Trips and Side Steps, for that matter." (bold emphasis is mine)
These statements are obviously incorrect for anyone who would take the trouble to search through the Short Trips and Side Steps stories. Only two of the twenty-one stories are invalid on this wiki, and the OP even concedes that one of them deserves the designation ("Now when it comes to things like Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor, that's a story set in an entire canon that we haven't seen clarified as an alternate universe. So of course it's invalid.").
If you want this issue to be considered, you must not misrepresent facts for those who may not know how to research what you say. Otherwise this thread will be closed just as others have been when the opening statement is so fallacious.
And I am still waiting to hear just how a story that is a prequel or sequel to an invalid story can be valid. It's still part of the invalid story - a continuation of the story. And I don't need a re-quote of the four little rules...I want adequate reasoning for how "part" of a story can be valid when another "part" is already invalid.
- JagoAndLitefoot
How is the reuse of characters from an invalid story in a new story set very much in-universe different from Big Finish reusing characters and other elements from Audio Visuals, or Sherlock Holmes and Captain Picard appearing in valid stories (that reference previous Holmes and Star Trek stories!) without making all the Holmes and Trek series part of the DWU? "Rescue" actually relies on Dimensions in Time less than "Assimilation2" does on The Best of Both Worlds.
- OttselSpy25
I think many of your posts above this are simply misinterpretations of my posts. There is no ill-will intended. Additionally, I think your threat to close the thread over minor errors in the discussion is without precedent. On my talk page, you furthermore threaten to delete my posts based on these disagreements, which is again without precedent. If you disagree with a statement I make, I would generally like to hear why.
My point was that the entire purpose of Short Trips and Side Steps is to create sequels to "weird" stories in the Doctor Who franchise. Countdown to TV Action and Face Value are both key examples of this. Both valid. Yet Storm in a Tikka isn't? That's inconsistent. That's my point. I amend the word "most," I should have said "some." "some of the stories in Short Trips and Side Steps."
I do not take the point back. I stand by it completely. Stronger now than before. I furthermore think my example of Frozen Time is another perfect example of the hypocrisy shown by this rule.
Basically, I got one word wrong. I did not present something that wasn't true, I just flubbed my delivery. One word should not be something to result in the closing of the thread or the deletion of my posts, especially not when the rest of the sentence is totally fine.
Shambala108 wrote: And I am still waiting to hear just how a story that is a prequel or sequel to an invalid story can be valid. It's still part of the invalid story - a continuation of the story. And I don't need a re-quote of the four little rules...I want adequate reasoning for how "part" of a story can be valid when another "part" is already invalid.
That's a strongly inaccurate account of this discussion. If it makes it easier to understand, let's say it like this: these are hardly even sequels or prequels. They can be and should be viewed as stand-alone adventures. They just happen to somehow reference the events of stories which are invalid for reasons entirely outside of their "continuity." Can we really say that Storm in a Tikka has to be invalid because at the start the Doctor mentions an adventure involving the Rani's TARDIS? Or that Rescue can't count as a story on this wiki because it features a character from Dimensions in Time? Where would we stop? If a story referenced the events of Fixing a Hole, would that be invalid as well? What if another story was a sequel to the story that referenced Fixing a Hole? That's a logic trap. An all-consuming loop that would eventually end with most of the site being consumed. That's why we don't discuss or cover canon on this site, because it ends just like this. So I think we should stick to our guns, think not of canon or stories being connected to each other, and that we should allow our editors to cover these stand-alone adventures no matter what other stories the authors choose to reference.
That's not a consensus I'm trying to claim, I'm not speaking for anyone else. It's just my strongly-held belief that we need to allow these stories for the sake of having a properly-functioning wiki.
JangoAndLiteFoot's point above is a perfect summation of this discussion. Surely the Star Trek crossover references Star Trek stories that we consider non-valid? It's even a semi-prequel if you look at it a certain way. Thus, it must be a part of stories which we do not cover. Should it then be invalid by association? What about all of the stories which feature Death's Head? They follow up from where stories left off, they are sequels to stories we don't cover. Then should all Death's Head comics be invalid? Is Follow That TARDIS! a prequel of sorts to the comic series which followed with the two main characters? If so, then that should be invalid as well!
Let alone the works of Big Finish and other companies, who constantly do these very same things. Basically, this rule makes no sense and has never been consistently enforced. That's why it's being openly questioned by so many editors.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I support Ottselspy's immediately-above argument wholeheartedly. Perhaps he got a few facts wrong earlier, but that does not invalidate his main, factual points:
- There's a marked inconsistency between some stories which reference non-valid ones, which are considered valid, and others which, in some cases, have even fainter references, yet are considered non-valid "by association"; so that regardless of whether we decide that "invalid by association" is a correct approach to take, there is a honest-to-Rassillon mistake in the Wiki and something will need to be done to square things up;
- The concept of "continuity" is a veiled comeback of "canon" and is not how the Tardis Wiki works, and the only justification for "invalid by association" cited thus far, that I could see, relies on the idea of continuity.
- Scrooge MacDuck
To elaborate on that second sentiment, as I've been led to think in more depth about it on another thread: my understanding is that the notion of "invalid" as we've come to understand it, distinct from the notion of "canon" or "continuity" is a matter of whether a story counts as an account of the DWU or not. The corollary just because a work is ruled an invalid source doesn't mean we rule that we know for a fact its events didn't happen.
An invalid TV story is no different from info from the Brilliant Book or an interview with Steven Moffat; in all three cases, the situation is "someone said something about the DWU, but they didn't do it in the way we count as a DWU-story, so we can't state it as fact".
Hence we shouldn't be any more surprised when a valid story references fact from an invalid one, any more than we would be surprised if a new TV episode was found to be congruent with a statement in itself invalid made by the showrunner in an interview. Let alone declare anything invalid on that basis.
The best not-continuity-based-per-se argument that I can see for the "invalid by association" idea is reasoning along the lines of "When writing of Fixing a Hole, Samantha Baker had to know that A Fix with Sontarans was an invalid story, therefore knowingly making a sequel to it is inherently a statement that their story breaks Rule 4". But I think that's a very uncharitable way to look at an author's mindset. More realistically, a sequel to an invalid story is to be taken as a tacit statement of "perhaps Dimensions in Time/Search Our Space/whatever wasn't created with the intent of being set in the DWU, or wasn't licensed to say anything definitive about the DWU, or sumthin'; but I choose to believe that events identical to it did happen in the DWU".
This is precisely the situation with any stories that reference the Audio Visuals or other fanmade productions (i.e. Vampire Science being in continuity with the author's earlier fanfilm Time Rift); without questioning the lack validity of said fanmade productions as such, the authors, all while very definitely setting their new licensed work in the DWU, put in nods letting the viewer know that these events or ones close to it did happen in their conception of the Doctor Who universe. I don't see any call to render The Sirens of Time invalid just because it has the AVs’ Temperon, or kick out Vampire Science for including Brigadier-General Kramer.
Yet now, because the invalid stories being referenced are non-DWU licensed productions, rather than fanmade, this changes things? Why?
- OttselSpy25
Does anyone else have any examples they want to go over? Just so we've covered all our bases in the theoretical idea of this being policy, and so we can understand the nitty-gritty details of how this might work.
- OttselSpy25
Does anyone have any new questions or thoughts about this discussion?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Only that I stand by what I wrote three posts ago. Valid stories reference previously-established, but Four-Little-Rules-breaking, facts all the time. It is weird that we don't bat an eyelid at a story referencing Time Rift (invalid due to Rule 2 break) yet apparently very much do at a story referencing Dimensions in Time (also mostly invalid due to a complicated Rule 2 break, IIRC, though some people also argue that it breaks Rule 4 according to one interpretation of some JNT statements). Just because an author's headcanon happens to not include with what we call valid, shouldn't mean the stories they make on this basis are to be treated as invalid, so long as the author wasn't trying to set them outside their understanding of the mainstream DWU.
This holds true even when the invalid story is invalid due to a Rule 4 break. The Gallifrey Chronicles, as many know, references Death Comes to Time’s Tannis; as has been recently restated, DCtT is firmly invalid. Yet no one's seriously proposing to make The Gallifrey Chronicles invalid on this basis, are they?
I feel, by the way, that we should point out there are a few currently invalid-by-association stories that would stay invalid because in their case, it's blindingly obvious that setting themselves after the invalid story is not a statement that the invalid story is “canon” in the author's view, but rather that they are setting themselves in that invalid story's own continuity.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference: the whole point of Storm in a Tikka is to try and make sense of the invalid works it's referencing in the context of the regular DWU, whereas Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor does not claim to be anything more than a sequel to the Peter Cushing Dalek Movies, set in their universe.
- Imamadmad
Butting back in again with my entirely unqualified viewpoint because procrastination, it seems the only argument against this proposal is the one raised by Shambala about if these stories would still be whole stories as per Rule 1 if the invalid story didn't exist. Please correct me if that's wrong. This is just my interpretation of what's been said. This is also my interpretation of the four little rules which may in itself be incorrect, but this is how I interpret them in this context.
So, basically, are these stories still whole stories under Rule 1. If the invalid stories were never produced, are these three stories still coherent stories? Or, to put it another way, if a reader/viewer/consumer of media hadn't read/viewed/consumed any invalid material, would these stories still make sense as stories? If the answer is no, then the material is not a story in-and-of-itself.
I'll make a couple of hypotheticals based on Series 1 to demonstrate the idea, using Series 1 as I can make a fairly safe assumption that everyone here has seen it. Imagine if you will that The Empty Child was ruled invalid for whatever reason. The Doctor Dances, as the second part of that two parter, does not make sense without its first half. Therefore it is not a full story, breaking Rule 1, and therefore would not be valid.
However, if Spearhead from Space were ruled invalid for whatever reason, that wouldn't make Rose invalid despite the use of the Autons. This is because the Autons were introduced in Rose in such a way that wasn't reliant on having seen Spearhead to understand what the Autons were or any other aspect of the story. Indeed, the episode was designed as an introduction for people who'd never seen an episode of Doctor Who prior to that episode. As the episode stands entirely on its own without needing to have seen the earlier episode to make sense as a coherent story, it is indeed a story in its own right, passing Rule 1 and still being valid.
Leaving the hypotheticals and returning to the case at hand, it seems from what people are saying that these three stories in dispute are still coherent stories even for those who hadn't seen the invalid stories, making them whole stories in their own right. If they are whole stories in their own right, then they pass Rule 1, and the other rules all seem to pass for other reasons mentioned by others. If however those stories don't make sense as stories if the invalid stories weren't consumed first, then the stories aren't whole stories and would fail Rule 1. Again, I've not actually read/viewed/consumed these stories so I can't pass judgement on whether this is the case, but based on what has been said by others, these three stories do pass.
Shambala, have I correctly covered the case here? If not, can you please correct me?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Interesting idea, but one to which OttselSpy already replied upthread:If it makes it easier to understand, let's say it like this: these are hardly even sequels or prequels. They can be and should be viewed as stand-alone adventures. They just happen to somehow reference the events of stories which are invalid for reasons entirely outside of their "continuity." Can we really say that Storm in a Tikka has to be invalid because at the start the Doctor mentions an adventure involving the Rani's TARDIS? Or that Rescue can't count as a story on this wiki because it features a character from Dimensions in Time?
Now, I haven't read these particular two short stories, but it also seems that Ottsel has, and they're saying, as a reader, that these are standalone adventures; not quite as unconstrained from the invalid stories as Rose vs. Spearhead, perhaps, but… you know what'd be the best comparison? The Web of Fear vs. The Snowmen. The Snowmen very specifically refers to The Web of Fear and ties into it narratively — if you're looking for that tie-in; but as a matter of empirical fact, millions of non-fans watched the Christmas special and enjoyed it perfectly well despite not having the faintest idea Web of Fear existed.
If we were dealing with ‘second part of a two-parter’ scenarios, I'd see your/Shambala's point, but according to the person who's actually read the stories we're dealing with, at least two self-explanatory, whether because the tie-in is subtle or because the events of the invalid property are summarized.
It feels appropriate to note that Vampire Science not only reuses a character from Time Rift, but features a summary by her of Time Rift’s events, and explicitly paints part of the Doctor and Sam's arc in Vampire Science as a thematic answer to Seven and Ace's in Time Rift.
- 86.164.12.223
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: The best not-continuity-based-per-se argument that I can see for the "invalid by association" idea is reasoning along the lines of "When writing of Fixing a Hole, Samantha Baker had to know that A Fix with Sontarans was an invalid story, therefore knowingly making a sequel to it is inherently a statement that their story breaks Rule 4". But I think that's a very uncharitable way to look at an author's mindset. More realistically, a sequel to an invalid story is to be taken as a tacit statement of "perhaps Dimensions in Time/Search Our Space/whatever wasn't created with the intent of being set in the DWU, or wasn't licensed to say anything definitive about the DWU, or sumthin'; but I choose to believe that events identical to it did happen in the DWU".
Agreed. I feel that arguing that making a sequel to an ‘invalid’ story in and of itself demonstrated an intent on the author’s part that Orr stories be set outside the DWU, is simply as case of projecting our wiki’s rules onto Doctor Who writers. Not everyone in the world follows our wiki’s ‘four little rules’. The writers of those stories mostly likely wouldn’t care less about ‘valid’ or ‘invlaid’ stories even if this wiki did exist when they wrote their stories. Quite sinply, as had been said, they consider Dimensions, Fox with Sontarans, etc. to ‘count’ as Doctor Who, and don’t think any deeper than that. There is no intention to set their stories in an, alternate ‘invlaid’ universe, and. I’m sorry to say, you’d probably get a reaction along the lines of ‘what on Earth are you gibbing in about?’ if you tried to explain to them the rules of ‘validity’ and why their stories are ‘really invalid’, and how they actually intended them to be such.
- 86.164.12.223
Imamadmad, I’ve read Storm in a Tikka. It was pretty good. But my subjective opinion of it is irrelevant. What matters is, despite reading it before seeing either Dimensions or Space (I’ve sen them now), I still understood and enjoyed it. Somebody lucky enough to have no clue that either exist could enjoy it! It is a very loose sequel, but what is more crucial is that it is a sequel at all. Not a ‘part two’ a sequel. With a beginning, middle and end. In other words, a story. Following on as it does from a story that nearly resolved itself, it’s not like it has to ‘finish the story’. I haven’t read the other stories discussed here, so I can’t comment on them, but Storm in Tikki is a loose sequel, and furthermore I would argue t that it wouldn’t matter even if it were a direct sequel (which it isn’t) or even if it relied on the plot of Dimensions for its own to make sense (which it doesn’t), because more importantly, it tells a story that has a beginning, middle, and an end, and thus is is standalone as far as we’re concerned. Unless we want to make The Gallifrey Chronicles/Vampire Science/The Sirens of Time/All-Consuming Fire/etc. invalid also?
- Scrooge MacDuck
There you go again, Imamadmad and Shambala. More evidence from people who read them that these short stories are as stand-alone as any other story, continuity references or not.
- JagoAndLitefoot
If anything, I'd say that Assimilation² (which I have read) probably relies directly on Star Trek's "The Best of Both Worlds" more than "Storm in a Tikka" appears to on "Dimensions". Same can probably be said of other crossover stories, which often assume you're already familiar with the characters/universes crossing over.
- Shambala108
Before I post my comments, I want to clear up two major misconceptions.
- First, there is more to Tardis:Valid sources than just the four little rules. It's misleading to assume that all you have to do is run down a checklist to therefore declare something valid or invalid. I suggest a careful reading of that page (and for good measure, Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2 is useful for User:CzechOut's attempts to explain our policy to a doubting editor).
- Second, despite what some people upthread seem to think, it is important to get your facts straight before posting. There were a few inclusion debates where a poster withheld information detrimental to his/her cause and/or posted false information. That is not the case here, but it's important when making your case that you are careful not to post, however unintentionally, inaccurate or misleading information.
Thanks for your attention.
- Shambala108
Also, I found this: Thread:179548, which deals just with Rescue. I'm closing that one, since it's pretty much dead and it's being covered here, but for anyone interested, be sure to read the arguments posted there.
- Shambala108
I've found (re-found?) a couple of decisions made by User:CzechOut regarding two of the three stories up for consideration here. At Thread:136969 and Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon? he made pretty short work of declaring these sequels invalid.
- Shambala108
I am finding a lot of interesting things here. This thread started because in 2017 the OP changed the tags/prefixes on Rescue and Cyrian to valid, and those edits were reverted: Thread:136969 in 2013 declared this story invalid.
Per Tardis:You are bound by current policy, we require community discussion to change a story's validity status (and sometimes to determine a new story's status, depending on the circumstances).
- Shambala108
And there seems to be an assumption that I haven't read these stories. In fact I've read two of the three stories under consideration (and have read 95% of the Short Trips stories). Not really sure why it matters, but there it is.
- NateBumber
I think we need a "Please don't over-post in the forums" rule ;)
Shambala108 wrote: First, there is more to Tardis:Valid sources than just the four little rules. It's misleading to assume that all you have to do is run down a checklist to therefore declare something valid or invalid. I suggest a careful reading of that page (and for good measure, Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2 is useful for User:CzechOut's attempts to explain our policy to a doubting editor).
I'm rather surprised to see an admin say this. Are you sure this is the current consensus among admins? I can think of countless inclusion debates that have been waged, lost, and won based on the four little rules and the four little rules alone, so it seems funny to me that all of a sudden there are undefined extra considerations that no one has taken into account. I've just re-read that seven-years-old talk page about "canon policy" and it seems to me like CzechOut's responses are actually reaffirming the four little rules: note in particular how his explanation of Dimensions in Time's invalidity hinges entirely on its licensing issues rather than anything to do with Rule 4.
With that in mind I think the case for the "guilty by association with Dimensions in Time" stories is actually stronger than I previously thought, since they clearly don't have the same rights issues, and there's no risk of being infected by any Rule-4-sy "non-DWU"-ness. In other words: since (eg) Rescue is a story by itself (independent of any other), officially released, and fully licensed, the only possible rule it might be breaking is Rule 4, that it doesn't belong in the normal Doctor Who universe. And I suspect the original (albeit wholly unexplained, per Thread:136969) logic behind its exclusion was indeed that, since it was set in "the universe of Dimensions in Time" (an invalid story), it fails this rule. But Dimensions in Time doesn't break Rule 4 either; it's only invalid because of Rule 2! It actually is set in the Doctor Who universe, so by extension, so is Rescue, and therefore Rescue satisfies all four of the conditions for validity. QED.
This isn't an endorsement of the "Referencing/featuring characters or concepts from a non-DWU story makes a story non-DWU" chain of logic, though; as I've mentioned previously, everything from The Gallifrey Chronicles to Opera of Doom! would be invalid in that case. I'm just guessing as to the logic that went into the original decision. Regardless of whether sequels and prequels are more broadly re-valid-ified across the wiki as a whole, Rescue at the very least doesn't deserve its invalid tag by any argument.
(Btw, CzechOut, if you're reading this: "I know of no fan who genuinely believes, without proviso, that Dimensions in Time is a part of the stories they consider canon." Here's an exception for you, from a perhaps-recognizable username no less!)
- Shambala108
NateBumber wrote: I think we need a "Please don't over-post in the forums" rule ;)
That's off-topic; you would need to bring that up in a new thread (and not in inclusion debates).
And you misunderstand me and the policy. It's not "undefined", "extra", or "all of a sudden". It's a clarification of the simplified four rules. I'm not saying every user does this, but many think it's just a matter of checking off the four rules, and since they don't read the policy, they gloss over #4. They also tend not to read our definition of what a story is (#1).
Keep in mind that as an admin I always post what might seem like more information than necessary on these forums. The forums attract a lot of new users (for example, there are four different IP addresses in this thread), and most regular users assume familiarity with the wiki when they post; I just like to clarify for new users.
- NateBumber
Shambala108 wrote: That's off-topic; you would need to bring that up in a new thread (and not in inclusion debates).
Just a joke, sorry for the confusion! I guess I see what you mean about new users; just the way you phrased the reminder set off alarm bells in my head. It's not that the checklist is insufficient, it's that the items on the checklist are rigorously defined in the rest of the document. Mercifully it seems like everyone is using the correct definitions in this thread, at least. Hope you're well!
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amen to restating the full extent of the validity rules for the benefit of new users; having educated myself in Tardis's policies and politics in part through reading through the Matrix Archives, this practice was of great use to me when I started out.
I think Nate hit the nail on the head regarding the Dimensions in Time/Rescue tangle, at any rate. It has been found that it wasn't licensed properly by our standards, which is the root of its invalidity; and there is that off-the-cuff "it was just a bit of fun" comment from JNT, which can be strenously qualified as evidence of a Rule 4 break, but wasn't deemed solid enough for that in the linked debate, and, for my money, is if anything proof of a Rule 1 break. Therefore, the situation really isn't too different from Big Finish plays referencing Audio Visuals, Vampire Science building off of Time Rift, etc.
Shambala: the assumption, inasmuch as there was one, was more a nebulous feeling, based on the fact that what Imamadmad described of your own argument seemed not to hold when confronted to the testimony of the users who had read the short stories. It certainly wasn't an accusation, at any rate. But if you've read them, great! One more first-hand testimony! Would you support the interpretation given earlier that they are complete stories to the same extent as The Snowmen, Vampire Science, and (very good point of reference!) Assimilation Squared?
- OttselSpy25
Specifically, I think JNT's "bit of fun" quote was defensive in nature. He made an episode of Doctor Who without pay, knowing it might be his legacy, tried his best to make it good despite horrible production issues... And then he faced the wrath of the fans, and probably was tired of hearing about it. We certainly shouldn't use that to claim that the episode was intended not to "count in the DWU", or that episodes which reference the episode must also be invalid.
One day I feel we're going to have a situation where something like this happens on a longer scale. What if, for instance, a TV episode jokingly referenced DiT? It's not too unlikely, we'd had references to Doctor Who being the character's name and him being half-human in the past five years. A reference to a story we don't consider valid is only one bored writer away. Would we then invalidate that TV episode on the grounds of it "being set within the same universe of a NON-DWU story"?
The answer is "no," we would never do that because it makes no sense. It would be us implementing a weird idea of canon into the site and wouldn't even be seriously considered. It's the same here. Trying to say that any story that references one we don't cover must be invalid by association is fanon speculation, and I stand by that.
- NateBumber
A perhaps-relevant quote from the aforementioned Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2:(emphasis his)
CzechOut wrote: The only sane policy for determining valid sources is one firmly based on out-of-universe considerations only.
In other words, as long as a story is (1) properly licensed and (2) non-parodic, it shouldn't matter what characters are in it, even if they originate from Dimensions in Time, Star Trek: The Next Generation, or any other invalid story. This is a clear and consistent application of the rules as they currently exist.
- Imamadmad
Let me be clear here that I wasn't advocating for either side of the argument here in my last post, but simply trying to codify what I could see as the only real argument specifically against it that I'd read so far in this thread.
Now, I've read all those pages and discussions that User:Shambala108 brought up, except for the archive*, along with way too many old forum posts from around the time the four little rules were created. As far as I can tell based on information from others in this conversation and the ones read, there are no reasons under current policy to exclude these three stories.
A little history here for context. The four little rules seem to have been developed during a major redo of Tardis:Canon policy between June 6 and June 8 2012. Before that, the "Canon policy" (note that it was canon, not validity) was basically a list of approved and not approved publications and concepts for use on this wiki rather than a list of generalised rules to follow. This means that the inclusion debates for each not-obvious story were largely based on precedent and the preferences of those taking part in inclusion debates rather than being able to refer to actual criteria as to what is or is not allowed.
To sum it up nicely, according to User:CzechOut in Forum:BBV and canon policy, the policy for inclusion prior to the June 2012 rewrite was this:
We must draw a line in the sand and say that if it doesn't legally exploit a copyright, it's not something we cover. Otherwise, we have no firm definition of what we cover.
As you can see, that policy is quite different from what we have now, with legality of the use of characters and concepts the only formal inclusion criteria. (Interestingly, this was also the case for the first day of the big rewrite, before what is now known as rules 3 and 4 were added on the second day, finally rounding out the four with the current rule 1 on the third and final day.)
Now, as to where the four little rules specifically come from, I can't exactly say as I can't find any forum discussion where they were discussed. I'm not sure if this is because such an explicit discussion didn't exist or just that my forum trawling skills have failed me tonight. ** However, the rules are now codified at Tardis:Valid sources and therefore, unlike in the time prior to June 2012, we now have a solid set of principles to use to evaluate whether or not a story is valid.
Why is this important? Well, the earliest of the discussions brought up by Shambala, Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?, the one in which these stories were de-canonised in the first place, concluded on 11 January 2012, about 5 months before the rewrite and therefore before the basis for the current validity policy was introduced. Notably, Fixing a Hole (short story) was deemed invalid on the basis of it being canon with an invalid story.
While canon was a legitimate argument for validity back in early 2012, this is no longer the case in 2019 as the concept of canon was officially abolished in June 2012 with the rewrite. This wiki does not care about contradictions and inconsistencies that would break a particular canon, such as the circumstances surrounding the Doctor's birth. This wiki does not care about canonical information from invalid sources, such as the life and times of Jean-Luc Picard outside that which happens in Assimilation² (comic story). All that matters under current policy is validity, a concept primarily determined by the four little rules. As per Tardis:You are bound by current policy, the validity of this story needs updating to fit current policy.
Now let us look at Thread:136969 which outlawed Rescue (short story). Practically no discussion took place regarding this story. I'm assuming this was because of one of two reasons, although as I'm not a mind reader and as one word answers leave little in the way of interpretation, these may be wrong.
Firstly, it may be due to the precedent of Fixing a Hole (short story). As I have discussed, this precedent is no longer valid under current policy and therefore the ruling is also no longer valid if this was the reasoning.
Alternatively, due to the lack of description in the initial post regarding the extent of the Dimensions in Time (TV story) content within Rescue (short story), CzechOut may have been given the impression that the stories were more closely linked than others have been clarifying here, again leading to a ruling based on inaccurate information.
Thread:179548, which again discusses Rescue (short story), hits many of the beats already brought up here. There's nothing really new to take out of that which has not already been discussed here. It's basically just re-iterating the point that, despite using ideas that were present within Dimensions in Time (TV story), the story doesn't rely on Dimensions and, as there is no canon, narrative connections between them can't be enough on their own to exclude the story.
I haven't found any other discussions relating to Storm in a Tikka (short story) but I'd imagine it'd be much of the same.
Considering we're re-evaluating these stories under current, post June 2012 policy, it's worth noting this line from Tardis:Valid sources:
Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4.
Do any of these stories have "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence" contradicting their validity, or is it all just narrative continuity nods to invalid stories? Remember that invalid doesn't mean non-canon, ie it doesn't mean that the events didn't happen. It just means that we don't have a primary source to state that the events definitely did happen. Referring to stories or adventures that we don't have a primary source for in another story is relatively common in valid media, such as Rose discussing a trip to Woman Wept with Mickey in Boom Town (TV story) or Clara discussing kissing Jane Austen in The Magician's Apprentice (TV story). I don't see how this is any different from a policy standpoint.
So, let's start from the beginning and look at the rules that do count towards a story being valid or not in 2019.
- Rule 1: Are they stories? Yes
- Rule 2: Are they fully licensed? Yes
- Rule 3: Have they been officially released? Yes
- Rule 4: Is there "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence" that the stories were not supposed to take place within the Doctor Who Universe? No
- Do they contain elements relating to the existing Doctor Who Universe? Yes
- Are they charity publications? No
- Are they deleted scenes? No
- Do they break the boundary of in-universe and out-of-universe like the Tom Baker narrated Shada or A Fix with Sontarans? No
- Do the stories differ between encounters as a stage play would? No
- Are they adaptations of existing valid sources akin to a novelisation? No
Looking at the rules for validity present in 2019, these stories pass them all. It is true that these stories did not pass the test back in 2012, but the rules have changed since then. As User:Josiah Rowe said back in 2012:
we should remember that although precedent matters, and the opinions of the people who're actually willing to do the work matters even more, consensus can change. None of us should be so wedded to established [...] that we can't reconsider it.
We are allowed to change our minds when the facts change. In this case, the policy changed to rule out classifications of canonicity and gave us a solid set of rules on which to base our discussions of whether or not a story is valid. The precedent set is out of date. It's time to reevaluate it based on 2019 facts.
TL;DR: Existing positions are based on old policy. Under current policy, these stories should be re-validated. Let's wrap this up.
Yes this is long. Yes it is almost 3am. Yes I should be pouring the hours spent on researching and writing this post into the New DWA. Yes I'm procrastinating. Yes you can ignore me if you want. I've not been an active part of this community for years now, so I know my opinion carries little weight. But I do have experience on the policy front, and one of the main things I have learned from that is that, if you don't make an active effort to close out a discussion, it will never be done, only peter out into a state of inaction. I believe there's enough evidence presented to close out this discussion in favour of re-validating these stories. If you disagree, please give specific evidence as to why, in reference to existing policy. Otherwise, this discussion will end as previous discussions on the matter have, with inaction that neither reinforces nor overturns the existing position.
* I didn't read it because of the amount of talking 41 did on that page. 41 (who these days edits with an IP starting with 197) is a person who wore out my patience years ago and I have only recently been freed from his presence due to the closure of Doctor Who Answers on Wikia. Trying to read his posts is like fingernails on chalkboards to me personally, so I just can't read that discussion, no matter how informative it may be.
** If anyone else is curious/procrastinating, the closest I can find to discussions triggering the change in policy are Forum:BBV and canon policy, Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time, and Forum:Iris Wildthyme: should she stay or should she go?. Interestingly, several of those discussions refer to in-universe story contradictions as part of their arguments for/against certain story inclusions. That just goes to show how much the policy has shifted between then and now!
- OttselSpy25
I'm looking at this thread again, two and a half years after it started, and I'm trying to think of a new witty argument to make. I'm scouring my head for all the strange corners of this site and this franchise for parallels to bring up. And I'm at sort of a loss?
I haven't really seen any evidence in this thread that there's a scrap of a good reason to keep these pages invalid that doesn't go against every policy we try to stand by today. To make these stories invalid, you have to be able to make the case that they're not canon. But we're not allowed to do that. I really beg of anyone who disagrees to post their grievances, because I really do want to keep this discussion going but I'm not sure what else to argue because I can't imagine the points of someone who could disagree. No disrespect, that's just the point that we're at right now.
Again, no offense, but at this stage the argument we seem to be facing is "There might be a nebulous, unwritten rule that these stories break." I don't really know how to respond to that?
- Scrooge MacDuck
No witty new argument, but a witty new example: presumably due to Nation getting his wires crossed, the account the Fourth Doctor in Genesis of the Daleks gives of the failure of the Daleks' invasion of Earth is actually the one in the invalid Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D..
- Borisashton
Linking into that, The Road to Conflict was intended to lead into Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. not The Dalek Invasion of Earth. The Road to Conflict (as a prequel to an invalid story) has been valid along with the rest of The Dalek Chronicles for years without any problems arising.
I'm yet to see anything that suggests covering Rescue or Fixing a Hole would be any sort of a problem by our wiki's rules.
- OttselSpy25
That's a really good example Borisashton, good find!
- Scrooge MacDuck
If we add any final nails to this coffin it's going to look like a bloody Varga plant. But all the same:
I have been rooting around the old forums and old policy decisions to find more data to show that it is in full accordance with our validity policies for sequels to works considered invalid to be valid if there is no independent rationale for their specific invalidity.
Firstly, here is admin User:Josiah Rowe at Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2#Canon. Says who?, defending and explaining the switch from the old canon policy to the current "valid sources" system.
Now, you can say that by abandoning the word "canon" and shifting to a valid sources policy, we're trying to have it both ways: we don't make canonical claims, but we still get to draw lines about what does and doesn't "count". But that's just an inevitable part of the game we're playing here, trying to make a single coherent fictional universe out of nearly 50 years of stories by hundreds of different writers. When we list valid sources here, we're not making any claim about Doctor Who as a whole. You can still say that the Master and the Monk were the same person if you like. We're just saying which sources we're going to use here.
Here, Rowe puts in words what I and others have referred to several times in the course of this debate, namely the fundamental different between "invalid" and any concept of "non-canonical": a story being invalid means we can't cite it as evidence that X happened in the DWU. However, it doesn't mean that we can say X didn't happen.
With the specific "Master = Monk may still be true for all we know, it's just not stated in any valid source" example, the post references one of the great über-invalid works of licensed Doctor Who fiction, namely The Doctor Who Role Playing Game. It too is interest because it was pointed out as "non-canonical" already in the most prehistoric state of Tardis:Canon policy (back when it acted as the ancestor of Tardis:Valid sources, rather than the explanation of "Doctor Who does not have a canon" that it is now). And even back then, it was taken as read that this should have no incidence on the "canonicity" of stories which then reference events and facts from this invalid material.
Some material from the FASA game was incorporated into Virgin Publishing's Missing and New Adventures series. Such info should be cited to the NAs/MAs in which they appear, rather than the FASA materials.
In other words, even though concerns about "canon" are just about the only viable reason to disallow sequels to invalid stories (so long, of course, as they pass Rule 1 — that is to say, make sense as complete stories in their own right without needing to have experienced the original), the Wiki already considered references to invalid material perfectly okay even back when it thought the DWU had a canon.
And of course, even though Storm in a Tikka and a handful of its bedfellows were eventually made invalid in contradiction with this earlier status-quo, it is worth noting that the Wiki certainly didn't apply this "new decision" to the example cited in the old canon policies, namely references made to FASA material in the VNAs and Missing Adventures. I don't think there has ever been — nor should there be — a serious proposal to make Lords of the Storm invalid for relying on the FASA game's backstory for the Sontarans, or indeed for Genesis of Evil to be invalidated by its being in large part a retread of elements from The Dalek Dictionary.
This thread is nearing its third anniversary. I hope I have made clear the extent to which
- invalid stories being referenced, as if they had "happened", by later stories, does not make the sequel/prequel invalid by the spirit of Tardis:Valid sources, and that this has been the case from the earliest days of our validity policies;
- Storm in a Tikka, Fixing a Hole and Rescue are, even now, the exception and not the rule on the Wiki in being doomed to invalidity by their references to stories which aren't even invalid because of Rule 4, but rather because of Rule 1 or Rule 2.
I know our Admins & Caretakers are busy people, but three years is three years, and while the final call remains an admin's to make, I see little room for doubt left.
- 92.40.174.88
Yes, I agree with this. I’ve read Storm in Tikka, and it’s definitely its own story that one can easily assume to take place in universe not including Dimensions or Search. It’s not like it’s part two of a three-part story, or even a trilogy!
- Scrooge MacDuck
More nails for our Varga-plant coffin: Peter Harness just revealed as part of Doctor Who: Lockdown! that The Zygon Invasion very, very nearly had a direct and unambiguous continuity reference to Dimensions in Time (TV story). ([1], [2]).
The line was cut in the end, but we could very well have gotten the Twelfth Doctor reminiscing about "that thing with Big Ron" on BBC One in 2015, right alongside references to other multi-Doctor stories such as The Three Doctors. I hardly think we would have called The Zygon Invasion invalid if that had come to pass. So why should short stories be invalidated for exactly the same "crime" of setting themselves in a timeline where Dimensions in Time happened?
Note also that Harness's wording provides direct evidence of what I said earlier about what goes on in the mind of a writer who references a famously invalid or "non-canonical" story in their new licensed DW work: namely, that they're trying to "bring the earlier story into canon", not make the new story equally non-canonical. Of course, the Wiki doesn't acknowledge the "bringing the earlier story into canon" part of the equation, as well it shouldn't lest we find ourselves covering Time Rift and the whole of the AudioVisuals as valid sources, which I don't think anyone really wants. But the point is, the intent is that the new story is set in the DWU, very much so.
Around about here, there used to be a scene in which I went continuity mad and tried to make sure that “Dimensions In Time” was put into the Doctor Who canon.
Of course, Harness is talking about "canon" here, which we never do. But I think it's fair to say that while something can be "non-canonical" but still be valid, the creator of a story saying it's "Doctor Who canon" implies that it's also, by definition, set in the DWU.
- Epsilon the Eternal
To be honest, I'm completely bemused as to why this hasn't been wrapped up yet. Each of the three stories passes all of the criteria, so I just do not understand why Shambala is so adamantly refusing to comply with the wiki's own tried and tested rules, while hypocritically allowing similar stories of the ilk to be deemed as valid.
And for crying out loud, it's ridiculous how this much thought is going into these stories anyway! The world will not come to an end if a valid story references an invalid one. The world won't die if the wiki covers an invalid one. They are just stories, here to entertain us.
Also, I own a copy of Short Trips: Past Tense, so if you need another person to support Fixing a Hole, I can happily supply info.
It's been over three years since this thread was started, it's been virtually unanimously agreed that these have no true reason to be thought of as invalid, so please, please just wrap it up and validate these stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Epsilon, while I share your belief that there's little left to say in this thread, admins are busy people. User:Shambala108, whom you single out, is also not the only active admin on the Wiki; as a matter of fact, I recall User:SOTO has been keeping an eye on this debate but keeping out of it, which I take to suggest they might be intending to close it when they get the chance — whereas Shambala has, for her part, been quite active in the deliberations, and thus is prevented by good form from closing the thread unless there is no one else willing to do so.
- Epsilon the Eternal
I referenced Shambala on the basis that she was pretty much the only admin contributing to this thread. I understand if the admins are busy, but in three years I'm sure they would've had an opportunity to rectify the validity of these three short stories.
And I do hope that the matter is resolved with the stories finally being classified as valid, as opposed to this thread being truncated with the proceedings being ignored.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Epsilon the Eternal wrote: I referenced Shambala on the basis that she was pretty much the only admin contributing to this thread.
Ah, I see. Well, as I said, you've got the policy backwards — to avoid conflicts of interest, it's preferred that admins who didn't take an active part in the threads be the ones to close them, though it's not a hard-and-fast rule.
- Shambala108
@User:Epsilon the Eternal, the other issue is that any time I close a forum thread, I get a barrage of complaints on my talk page. Maybe other admins are trying to avoid that and leaving all the closings to me?
- Shambala108
And I still don't get how a sequel (or prequel) to an invalid story can be considered valid? By definition, sequels and prequels are continuations or parts of a story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Shambala, I doubt it. As I said, I'm getting the feeling that User:SOTO was revving up to close this one; I know they've reread the relevant stories recently. I've pinged them on their talk page to confirm this.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Shambala108 wrote: And I still don't get how a sequel (or prequel) to an invalid story can be considered valid? By definition, sequels and prequels are continuations or parts of a story.
…not really? You're thinking of "Part 2". But that's not what a "sequel" is, or at least it's not the definition we've been using when calling Fixing a Hole a "sequel".
But a sequel in the sense this thread is talking about is just a story whose events refeference something that happened in an earlier one. Which happens all the time — as I've pointed out before, Vampire Science is as much a "sequel" to the unlicensed fanfilm Time Rift as Storm in a Tikka is a sequel to Dimensions in Time.
A sequel, as understood on this thread, can be, and is often read without any knowledge of the original. In other words, it passes Rule 1, if that's what you were worried about.
(An alternative title for the stories this thread is about might be Stories which reference invalid stories, if you're going to be a stickler on the sense of "sequel" you're using.)
As for Rule 4, the point made over and over again in this thread is that writers of stories which reference invalid ones don't have to know that we, on the Wiki, with our arbitrary Wiki-focused rules, have declared the invalid story outside the DWU. When Vampire Science references Time Rift, it's not setting itself outside the DWU, it's seeking to "canonize" the earlier fanfilm. So in most cases it also passes Rule 4, though certainly a story can be a sequel to an invalid story and also fail Rule 4 on its own terms.
Let's just await SOTO's response and (hopefully) closing argument.
.jpg)
I have indeed been looking all this over and taking into account the latest developments. And, after careful examination of the stories brought up in the opening post, I am able to bring this thread to its logical conclusion. References or connections to past stories which have been disqualified from validity for reasons which do not apply to the newer entry do not make them automatically invalid.
(Equally, it should be noted, assertions made in valid stories do not retroactively change the rule 1/2/3/4 violations of past sources--outside very special cases in the forums, anyhow.)
This is because validity is not primarily determined by continuity. Any illusion of having one easily traceable continuity for Doctor Who has long been shattered. Instead, our one rule to do with DWU continuity is about intention. Just as contradictions between stories mean little to these rulings, continuity nods to stories that don't count here don't swallow the rest of the narrative whole. If it can be established that the same problems don't plague the "sequel", and if it's not clear that the writer(s) of the newer work actually intended a non-DWU setting, then it should be considered on its own terms.
Remember, our determination of invalidity is external: we should not take it as given that authors share our same point of view, writing in a time before this site existed. (Short Trips and Side Steps brings us a really interesting case: included in these Side Steps is a "step sideways" into the continuity of Doctor Who's TV Comic and TV Action runs, which are not so alternative to us.)
Long-time editors will know that references to stories that we call invalid are nothing new -- there is nothing here that hasn't been seen in, say, Face Value, The Tomorrow Windows, First Frontier or Vampire Science. What we do is note only what can be gleaned from the valid story, as though the adventure referenced took place entirely "off-screen", like the reference to Woman Wept discussed above. For Tikka, this would be that the Doctor and Ace encountered the Rani in East London. For First Frontier, which we already cover, it's instead that the Doctor once had a dream in which he was chased around the set of EastEnders. In both cases, Dimensions in Time remains invalid, no problem.
The stories[[edit] | [edit source]]
So, with one possible exception: in the cases brought up in this thread, issues of licensing in one case, or narrative inscrutability in another, do not carry over into the newer works that they inspire.
Short Trips and Side Steps[[edit] | [edit source]]
Fixing a Hole does not break the fourth wall, as did the "story" it quickly references. Storm in a Tikka is fully licensed, and does not rely on the stories it has wedged itself between. Each stands on its own. A Fix with the Sontarans places Six and Tegan together, but, aside from a brief description of how Tegan felt about her unwelcome return to the TARDIS, which intersects with Fix, Fixing a Hole very much departs from.. whatever Fix was. Outside background is not necessary to justify a TARDIS team (we don't even know what version of K9 travelled with Ten and the delightful Rose-the-Cat). Rather than falling into the same traps, Fixing a Hole takes an idea suggested by Fix as its premise -- that Tegan might show up in the Sixth Doctor's TARDIS -- and builds something new from it, something which seems to pass all four rules.
On the logic established above, now we have no canon, these two have no reason to remain invalid. Neither falls apart if you don't understand the reference, because they tell their own stories, and they're taken seriously as character pieces. They're good to go.
- Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor is currently under discussion in a separate thread, The Cushing Conundrum. Further comments should be directed there. It is beyond the scope of this thread to resolve that one.
David Roden[[edit] | [edit source]]
Rescue, on the other hand, will require further examination before it can be deemed valid. This is in part because it was written by David Roden, who is implicated in the rule 4 ruling of Dimensions in Time. It may be that Roden and JN-T, co-writers on the special, held different views, and that the very existence of a short story by Roden that takes DIT seriously indicates he intended this to be set in the DWU. But on the face it seems that the disqualifier for Dimensions in Time might very well apply to this one. It also does not benefit from the context of Short Trips and Side Steps, which gives us points of comparison to work out that the writers intended to bring obscure works into the DWU by way of their references. It might also be that Rescue relies too heavily on its unlicensed source material.
This is up for discussion in its own thread, if anyone familiar wants to argue for validity.
Future cases[[edit] | [edit source]]
What this means for stories not yet brought to the forums is that referencing a past story which we call invalid does not on its own make the new source invalid. However, any evidence that problems with the "original" apply just as well to the story that calls back to it will most likely mean it'd meet the same fate. Also, any indication that the writer seriously thinks setting their new story alongside, say, The Curse of Fatal Death, would make that story "non-canon" would likely point to rule 4 invalidity. Generally speaking, these stories should also stand on their own as narratives. If they depend entirely on the previous invalid story in order for you to understand the new plot developments, we may not be able to cover them as valid sources. But original fiction that treats invalid stories as if they happened are not automatically invalid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:212507
I know, you've probably just been sick in your mouth but, if you hang with me, I can explain.
On this wiki, video games with alternative endings are not allowed as valid sources, even if the BBC consider them so.
My proposal is that any narrative video game with multiple endings are reconsidered, in the in universe articles we could just put "according to one account...".
E.G. Begins
According to one account, the Graske was once put in suspended animation for an unknown period of time, along with all of the people in his captivity. (GAME: Attack of the Graske)
However another account stated that the Graske was stopped and all of the individuals in his captivity were freed. (GAME: Attack of the Graske)
E.G. Over
If we settle at this many a sources would fit correctly in the in universe articles.
To understand my proposal, it is that any video game with multiple endings are covered but go into a "According to one account..." section which would be no different to how we treat discontinuous sources.
Stories such as Doctor Who and the Warlord, TARDIS Tennis, Attack of the Graske, Worlds in Time and Whodle would become quite rightly valid sources but using the "according to one account" classic routine.
What do you peeps think?
- 5.2.105.85
Then again,maybe Worlds in Time will still fail but the other ones certainly won't.
- OttselSpy25
Attack of the Graske partially fails because one of the characters is the audience.
But I still think it's important to set up new ideas for further coverage of stories, and for the most part this idea makes some sense.
Whodle fails because when you die you regenerate.
I think this concept would work with stories where there are a couple different endings that you can find. But, in the case of Doctor Who and the Warlord: "There were several puzzles to complete with two hundred fifty different locations in each part."
Woa, is that more than 200 different ways to play the game? Eggggghhh we can't do that...
I'll give you TT I guess. But I feel like we'd need better examples to set any kind of "trend."
- OttselSpy25
I've made my opinions on 'WiT' clear in the past, how it's not an RPG and how we could have covered it, but now it seems totally too-late to re-discuss this issue.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:212631
Note: Please take it into account that I didn't watch (almost) all of Series 8 and 9. It seems that people really hate Missy/Mistress/Master for some reason and I just want to know why. Some of these people say "Turning The Master into a woman totally killed the character." if you are one of these people, please don't respond to this thread.
- Shambala108
This is an archived board, and we don't allow this kind of discussion on the forums. Please take this discussion to Howling:The Howling.
EDIT: Two admins at once, whoops. Either The Howling or Discussions is fine. (Even though I've moved it now again, to The Green Death, just so those reading this are informed, it was originally posted in Inclusion debates.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:213311
I've been looking through other sites which have catalogued Doctor Who comics, and it seems to me that there's a missing story that we don't cover which definitely has the Seventh Doctor. The The Incomplete Death's Head has previously been waved off as simply all of the previous Death's Head comics printed in a new volume, but between each story is actually a new narrative.
Basically from what I can find The Incomplete Death's Head is actually a sequel to Time Bomb!; the Death's Head story-line which featured a crossover with such iconic DWM characters as Josiah W. Dogbolter and Hob. Time Bomb! ends with Dogbolter and Hob rushing towards their personal bomb shelter when Death's Head detonates a thermonuclear blast. It was presumed by many fans that this had killed the pair, but in this comic it's revealed that it actually threw them across all of time and space.
In the new story-line, Hob tries to form a database of Death's Head's memories and life so that he can find Dogbolter once again. Hob has also clearly been rebuilt, and is much larger and more threatening. This is the plot mechanic that is used to present previous stories featuring the original Death's Head. Characters will essentially watch previous comics, either from monitors or from within the Matrix-like device that holds the memories.
Hob has built his base on the planet Maruthea, which has been constructed within the Time Vortex. This is also the "planet" featured in Party Animals. There is a very good reason for this plot element; Party Animals is set during the events of The Incomplete Death's Head, specifically during the eleventh and twelfth issues. The Doctor even directly invited Death's Head II to the infamous "party" at the end of the story.
There's even some clever tie-ins to PA. In the frame to the right, you'll notice that the Seventh Doctor is entering the party. Next to him is one of the Penguins seen at the start of PA. Later, when people from the party begin to enter the same room as Hob, Captain Britain is one of those who attends. And when Hob is spying on the bar fight, we briefly see a quick glance of the only other appearance of the Doctor native to Party Animals.
This means that the entire storyline featured inside The Incomplete Death's Head is a sequel to a DWU comic set during a DWU comic with a DWU villain and it's set on a DWU planet in the DWU vortex.
In the first issue of The Incomplete Death's Head, Death's Head II (who is the "rebooted" Death's Head. Google it) arrives at this base and is uploaded into the Cyberspace device which holds his past adventures. While Tuck (Google it) tries to help him escape; she's confronted by Hob, who reveals his identity.
In issue 12, The Seventh Doctor arrives on the first page with Death's Head I and several other Marvel characters of notoriety who were all present as the party in Party Animals. Death's Head II escapes from Cyberspace just in time to help his younger counterpart attack and destroy Hob. A brief time later, the Doctor explains that he brought the two incarnations of Head together to defeat a lingering threat from Head's past which would have eventually destroyed him. Death's Head II wanders off with Tuck into space (or whatever) and the Doctor is left with the unconscious Death's Head I, who will remember none of the encounter.
It seems to me that this adventure has not been included on this wikia simply because it occurred to very few people that it actually exists. It gets to the point that I totally imagine that the writers of The Stockbridge Showdown ignored the story not out of spite, but out of actual lack of awareness of it even existing.
I don't think that there's an argument to be made that we shouldn't include the linking segments from this anthology series. Lucky for us, there is a title for this section of the comic: Connections (comic story). The question of if the other comics are now valid is the complex question...
- OttselSpy25
Now the problem is that there are several non-DWU stories included in this DWU story. The following non-DWU comics are shown, in their entirety:
- High Noon Tex
- Here's Death's Head! (Dragon's Claws 5
- The Deadliest Game (Marvel Comics Presents 76)
- Priceless! (The Sensational She-Hulk 24)
- Death's Head Revisited (Death's Head 1)
- Contractual Obligations (Death's Head 2)
- High Stakes (Death's Head 3)
- Plaguedog! (Death's Head 4)
- Sudden Impact! (Death's Head 6)
- Shot By Both Sides (Death's Head 7)
- Clobberin' Time! (Death's Head 9)
- The Cast Iron Contract (Death's Head 10)
While a few of these are just put at the end with no real context, most of these are played with a direct point. "Here's a story that shows this or that," etc.
Death's Hand I and II enter a memory, which triggers the entire She-Hulk storyline Priceless! This is an original frame, only printed within The Incomplete Death's Head and nowhere else. As much as it's hard to admit, one can't comprehend the plot of this DWU-based story without every flashback included within it. If you cut out the She-Hulk comic, then the narrative just isn't complete.The main plot often directly bleeds into them via extra panels not included in the original publications. In issue 12, Death's Head directly transitions from a flashback set in Party Animals to one in Priceless! within about two pages. Extra moments from both stories are shown within the same timeframe. Can you really cut out one of those two without disrupting the flow of the storyline?
There's two ways to look at this:
- We can separate all of these stories from the narrative of the comic itself, allowing for us to cover the main story but not the flashbacks.
- We can not justify separating the flashbacks from the main story, and all of the above comics must now be treated as valid sources.
I'm leaning towards the second option.
The thing is, this is a DWU comic set on a DWU planet with a DWU villain, and in the comic the characters view images from their own "universe." When a character views the events of a past comic and then discusses the comic in new scenes, it's done under the presumption that "This all happens under one roof."
How are we to talk about what happens to Tex, who is talked about in the main story, without including the comic about Tex that is shown in the flashbacks?
Trying to only cover Death's Head and his crew talking about stories they just watched would be like trying to cover the court room sections of Trial of a Timelord while calling the rest of it invalid.
I feel like there's going to be a push against this idea solely because Death's Head has been this wikia's favorite example of how to cover an oddity in the DWU. "Look at how we did Death's Head. That's how you do it." But making all of these stories valid, including the dreaded Fantastic Four comic, would muddy all of that up.
But Muddy is really what you have to deal with when you deal with a site as expansive as ours. You can't crack 60 thousand eggs and expect there not to be a mess or two.
A few of the comics that they show aren't really that relevant to the story and are actually never brought up again. But on this wikia we've been known to practice the rule of "all or nothing." And it seems to me that there are flashbacks that are essential to understanding the story, and thus it's hard to justify cutting all of them out.
But yea, that's all I have to say about that.
- Shambala108
You know you can't open a topic for discussion and then take action when there has been no discussion. If your personally chosen admin hasn't responded to you, ask another. I suggest User:CzechOut.
- OttselSpy25
This forum isn't about if Connections is valid. Connections is pretty clearly valid. The Seventh Doctor is in it. Our rules support it, and this debate isn't about it.
This forum is about the flashbacks in Connections. AKA, every other story but Connections. If you wanted to personally talk to me about my inquiries outside of this forum, as you are now, you should have posted it on my talk page. There is no point in derailing a public debate just to prove a point.
Let's stay on track.
- TheChampionOfTime
After going through this handy summary of the entire story, I'm surprised to say that I agree that all of these flashbacks should be considered valid. It seems that about three quarters of them are set in the period of Death's Head's life that began in The Crossroads of Time and ended in Time Bomb! in which he was stuck in the same era as Keepsake. Basically, it expands upon 8162.
The rest of the flashbacks appear to be either stuff set on some alien planet or stuff set in some sort of alternate timeline where the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, and She-Hulk exist in 2020 instead of "present day".
I'd say go the "The Worlds of Big Finish route" and cover the entire story.
- OttselSpy25
Dammit.
I just spent ten hours writing the longest post of my life. I explained the plot of the whole story, linking segments and reprints, EVERYTHING! I detailed every pixel of this comic, and when I pushed 'publish' nothing happened. I can't believe this, ten hours of my life just GONE. Ugh.
Hopefully it just got caught in a spam filter or something. Doubt it. Either way, I'm not rewriting all of that.
Look, if anyone has any questions about the comic just ask. I think that's what these debates are missing -- questions.
- OttselSpy25
So I just spent ten hours writing the longest post of my life. I explained the plot of the whole story, linking segments and reprints, EVERYTHING! But sadly when I clicked 'publish', it just didn't work. Well, back to the drawing board.
Here's a nice little gallery of images that I had gathered to explain the plot of the comic in full.
It's Clobberin' time
Untitled linking segment.
Priceless
Untitled linking segment.
Untitled linking segment.
Most of what you're seeing here is a reprint of an older Death's Head comic. However, the woman in the bottom left hand corner is Tuck, the protagonist of the comic who spends all of the text on the planet Maruthea. Because of moments like this, it is near impossible to separate the "linking segments" set on Maruthea and the regular "flashbacks."Now my unpublished post (which easily hit 500 words) was meant to describe as many aspects of the story as possible, going down the plot from front to finish. Because I do not have this version anymore, I wanted to simply transcribe a few important notes.
First of all, I came to question my original conclusion that the "linking segments" were all called Connections isn't exactly correct. in fact, issue 2's set of linking comics have the title Mind Meet!, while all the other issues refrain from naming their comics. If anything, it would appear that all of this series is meant to be seen as one narrative.
It's important to note a moment in issue 2 of the series where Tuck's commentary on that story is seen during the reprint, see right image. When considering if we should separate the linking strips from the rest of this publication, the real question becomes if we even can. Under what surreal authority can we call one panel out of a page valid, but nothing else? Again, imagine trying only cover the Trial scenes in Trial of a Time Lord. Having to write about what the Sixth Doctor says about what he's being shown without being able to tell the readers what he has been shown, or trying to only discuss a frozen image on the trial monitor without discussing the video directly before that moment.
If one is against acknowledging that this comic illustrates things like She-Hulk, the Thing, and Iron Man (albeit a 2020 incarnation named Arno Stark) exist within the DWU, you have to keep in mind that even if we were only to write about the linking segments of this comic, we would still have to have pages on all of those things, given that they all appear in the transitions from the new scenes to the reprints. Or is the expectation that any of the above pieces of imagery are invalid, while everything around them are valid?
Thirdly, I should note that one of these comics serves no connection to any of the linking segments at all -- instead, the comic serves as (essentially) a back-up comic. In fact, despite it being split over two issues, the comic pretends as if no one saw either section. That story would be The Deadliest Game.
Because I feel as if it's a relevant quote, I thought I might bring up a point that CzechOut made in another thread, that being Thread:217351 -- dedicated to two Dalek annual stories which had no DWU connection.
CzechOut wrote: However, they are a part of the fictional "Dalek Chronicles", so the conceit of the annual is that those two stories were of interest to the Daleks.
In the same sense, all of the stories printed within The Incomplete Death's Head are part of a fictional "Death's Head Database", so the conceit of the mini-series is that these stories are all of personal interest to Dogbolter's assistant Hob -- who is stationed within the DWU Time Vortex on a DWU planet, saving recordings of events from within his own universe in an attempt to find Death's Head. It's important that most of these stories are presented from within the DWU, at a screen on a DWU planet in the DWU vortex.
[As a quick disclaimer, I know for a fact that me using this as a parallel is not a representation of Czech's take on this particular situation. I speak for no one. However, CzechOut is an amazing authority on comics throughout the last 55 years, and we'd all be very grateful if he chose to take part in this debate.]
- Pluto2
I'm in favor of validity as well. You can't really separate the linking material from the comics with Marvel characters.
- NateBumber
Yknow, I've been thinking about this forum, and I've read through your sandbox, and maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I'm still a little bit not totally on-board with the idea? Like, in your sandbox, it seems like you've suggesting pages about every Marvel character every created: do we really need pages on Scarlet Witch, Doctor Octopus and Doctor Doom?
- OttselSpy25
Well my logic there was that because this is the exact same party seen in Party Animals, we needed to cover it the exact same way. When you look at a page like Sapphire and Steel, you can see where I got the idea to do such a thing. I figured that if we were going to mention on the Party Animals page that there are two Daleks in the background kissing, then we should mention when Apocalypse wanders into the background of a Seventh Doctor’s comic, given that it’s literally the same party.
- TheChampionOfTime
As the person who created Category:Individuals who have been to Maruthea (and Captain Britain, John Steed, and Sapphire and Steel), this matter is quite interesting to me. For the sake of clarification, you are suggesting pages for Marvel superheroes who have only background appearances in this story, yes?
- OttselSpy25
The way I see it, if it’s notable that an Alpha Centauran is bartending in this DWU comic, and we would see it as notable if a Star Trek alien was featured in Assimilation² (even if they weren’t named), then it’s equally important that a Marvel character had a cameo role in this heavily-DWU-based Marvel comic.
If it's important that the Master can be seen for one panel in Party Animals, then I think it's equally notable that Doctor Strange or the Hulk or Rocket Raccoon were at that exact same party for an equal amount of screen time (and I mean literal screen time, because the party is mainly seen on a screen).
- OttselSpy25
Captain Britain, a non-DWU character, kicking ass in Party Animals.Note that Captain Britain and the Hulk both appear in and have pages due to Party Animals. In fact, they are the only two (background) characters to appear in both Party Animals and TIDH. If we're going to have a page about Captain Britian because of his role in PA, we should be consistent about it.
- NateBumber
OttselSpy25 wrote: It’s equally important that a Marvel character had a cameo role in this heavily-DWU-based Marvel comic.
I understand that it's very DWU-based, but you yourself say it's a Marvel comic. Can you elaborate on that, or clarify exactly how much of the Marvel universe you want to cover? All the stories with Death's Head in it?
- TheChampionOfTime
NateBumber wrote: I understand that it's very DWU-based, but you yourself say it's a Marvel comic. Can you elaborate on that, or clarify exactly how much of the Marvel universe you want to cover? All the stories with Death's Head in it?
Sorry if you were wanting to explain this OS25, but I can't help but give my 2 cents. As I have already pointed out in this thread - this wiki has already encountered many such a situation.
We cover the entirety of The Worlds of Big Finish because even if two of its parts do not feature any characters that originate from the DWU, the story would be incomplete without them. The stories are part of an overall narrative that is very much a part of the DWU, a narrative that would be missing plot points without them.
Example that isn't really relevant, but I already wrote it and I want to show off George Challenger.
Even though George Challenger has encountered the Eighth Doctor, Iris Wildthyme, and George Litefoot and been mentioned in a The Paternoster Gang Investigates story, we don't cover The Lost World (Conan Doyle novel).
This thread is only requesting coverage of the stories compiled in TIDH, stories pertinent to the DWU. Everything with Death's Head that wasn't published in TIDH should be of no interest to the wiki.
- OttselSpy25
To expound, most of what has been said about Death's Head in previous forums (however little it that is) still stands in terms of the logic presented.
This falls down to two mentions, both linked in T:VS, which happen to have been scribed by CzechOut himself.
Yes, if you follow the Death's Head character from start to finish then you have a connection between the Marvel UK Transformers to the mainstream Marvel universe. Since the Seventh Doctor is integral to the story of the original Death's Head (he's the one that shrinks DH down to humanoid size with the Master's Tissue Compression Eliminator, and he's the one that dumps DH off on top of the Baxter Building) there is a kind of oblique "crossover" between the DWU and the MU. However, it's not a crossover at all, in any sort of business sense. The Doctor was always a part of the Marvel Universe, from the moment Marvel acquired the license. They were just mixing and matching Marvel UK characters. Many comic scholars postulate the existence of a single entity called the "Marvel UK universe" — which I'm sure today has a numerical designation in the way that Marvel like to number their universes — to which the Seventh Doctor and DH mutually belong. Thus, if they are part of the same universe, there really is no basis for the term "crossover". You can't crossover if you're part of the same universe!
Later, in Forum:Iris Wildthyme: should she stay or should she go?, CzechOut uses Death's Head as an example of how it might be dangerous to cover all of a character's stories simply because of a loose connected to the DWU (note that this quote is sort-of confusing, due to it being used as an argument against a series which is currently valid on our site).
Like Tardis1963, I think it important to define with very slightly better precision what this wiki is about. For instance, it could be easily argued that the entire Marvel Universe is, in Josiah's words, one of the "interesting side-steps and discontinuities of the larger world of Doctor Who-related fiction", because we see the Seventh Doctor land on top of the Baxter Building in the pages of Death's Head (1988). Do we then add articles for the Fantastic Four here? Do we cover all of Death's Head's adventures here? I guess we could, but we haven't. We've limited ourselves, more or less, to those DH stories that have the Doctor or characters that originated in DWM. [Most of this is phrased as rhetorical. For every one of the above questions, imagine him immediately responding "No, this is a bad idea."]
I would not argue that Death's Head, outside of the boundaries of this publication, is by any means a "DWU character." Someone on the talk page for Head once suggested that we cover information pertaining to Death's Head III, due to some sort of retcon at the end of his story line connecting him to the original. There is no need to do such a thing, since this was not mentioned in any story of his that has any relevance to the DWU. In fact, it wasn't even mentioned until after Marvel lost the rights to Doctor Who.
Allow me to clarify that we use the judgement of something being a Doctor Who Universe story simple as a gauge to see if it was meant to be a companion to Doctor Who itself. A story can be set in the same universe as the Doctor through various connections and still not be meant to be a DWU story.
If this anthology didn't exist, there would be no need to re-discuss if we need to cover the Death's Head stories which feature She-Hulk or the Fantastic Four, because we have clear policy about what we do with "extended-crossovers".
The issue at hand is that TIDH is an in-universe collection made by a DWU character of events significant towards this DWU adventure. These once-irrelevant comics have evidently been reprinted as a part of an in-universe publication or database. They are now connected to the DWU simply because they are being shown as something that Hob views as important to finding Dogbolter. To quote Czech again:
However, [these otherwise non-DWU stories] are a part of the fictional "Dalek Chronicles", so the conceit of the annual is that those two stories were of interest to the Daleks.
Again, the conceit of this mini-series is that these otherwise non-DWU stories are all of personal interest to Dogbolter's assistant Hob.
- NateBumber
That all makes sense to me, and I freely admit that I'm playing devil's advocate at this point; I think I mostly agree with you so far that the stories should be covered in the way you describe. But I also know that, according to precedent, being narrated by a Doctor Who universe character isn't enough for a story to be considered valid, a la Tales from the TARDIS. I think that precedent makes this pretty open-and-shut, tbh.
- OttselSpy25
That's about the closest you can get to a parallel to this case, but it's still pretty far off. The reason that we don't consider TftT a valid source is that they're little more than Stan Lee comics reprinted with a single panel of the Fourth Doctor introducing them.
The reason that's different from TIDH is that no one is going to make the argument that a single panel of the Fourth Doctor saying "Hey, check this out" is a story. No one would ever suggest that we cover only the panels of the Doctor introducing the story and nothing else. Given that the linking storyline of this anthology is instead a fully-fledged narrative on its own, it's a totally different situation. If we were somehow forced to cover the initial panel of the Fourth Doctor introducing Tales from the TARDIS, then we would also have to cover all of the stories inside as well.
There's a big difference between a non-DWU reprint that plasters the Fourth Doctor over the front page and an anthology that shows a series of stories as preserved on a DWU-planet by a DWU-villain, who is defeated due to a plan created by the Seventh Doctor.
Thank you for playing Devil's advocate, it's been very helpful Nate. :)
- RingoRoadagain
Sorry if a statement has been made by an admin, but I would like to say that in my opinion everything in The Incomplete Death's Head should be considered valid: It would be very subjective to consider which of the reprints are relevant to the story or not.
I also think that it would be a good idea to make a table with all the stories Death's Head I and II appear in and state which are valid or not (as we did with BBV Productions releases). I remember that I tried to create a page named "Death's Head - list of appearances" about it, but it was quickly deleted since so few of those were unambiguously considered valid at the time.
As for characters that only appear here, I agree with OttselSpy25: I think we can create pages for those, like we did for Star Trek characters from Assimilation.
- Bwburke94
I'd like to make an argument against the validity of TIDH. Namely, the nature of TIDH itself as a reprint of the original comics.
If TIDH were valid in its entirety, it would change twelve previously-invalid comics to valid. This means that those twelve comics would be validated by a connection to a later story, a state we have tended to avoid in the past.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: I'd like to make an argument against the validity of TIDH. Namely, the nature of TIDH itself as a reprint of the original comics.
If TIDH were valid in its entirety, it would change twelve previously-invalid comics to valid. This means that those twelve comics would be validated by a connection to a later story, a state we have tended to avoid in the past.
Erm, so? It's not the end of the world. And we've done it before with the David Warner Unbound audios (of course, we've since declared that whole series valid, but my point still stands). Retroactive validity is a thing sometimes.
- Bwburke94
My point is this:
Everything we've used retroactive validity for (unless I'm forgetting something?) has had a clear link to the DWU at release. The individual comics, in their original form, had no link to the DWU, so I see no way past the Rule #4 roadblock.
- Pluto2
We're discussing these comics in relation to TIDH only. Not the original run. Just the versions printed as part of TIDH.
- Bwburke94
Pluto2 wrote: We're discussing these comics in relation to TIDH only. Not the original run. Just the versions printed as part of TIDH.
We certainly allow reprints of legitimate DWU comics, but in those cases, the comic itself was changed.
In TIDH, the change is to the narrative outside the comic, which is used as a framing device. There is never any claim that these stories take place in the DWU; the claim is that they take place in the Marvel UK universe, which has long been established on this wiki as different to the DWU.
- Pluto2
Erm, no, it hasn't?
The reason why Marvel isn't covered is because it has minimal relevance to Doctor Who.
- Bwburke94
Perhaps I may have worded it badly, but my point stands. Do you have a counter to my Rule 4 assertion?
- OttselSpy25
The logic about justifying the difference between the Marvel comic universe and the Doctor Who Universe (which, realistically, was indeed intended to be the same fictional multiverse at one point) is that most of these stories were still only meant to have a loose connection, and that it's most logical to interpret things like the Sleaze Brothers appearing in DWM as a crossover, since the was how it was meant to come across.
To explain it better, something like the Iris Wildthyme series is intended to have a clear connection to other Doctor Who stories, and they pretty clearly meant for someone like us to point those connections out. Meanwhile, a connection between the Doctor Who universe and most of the other Marvel stories is likely coincidental -- they would never imagine us trying to rectify the shared universe to that extent.
The issue here is that the linking segments are set in the Doctor Who Universe -- without debate. It's set during a Doctor Who Magazine comic on the same planet, and the main villain is a Doctor Who Magazine character, and the Seventh Doctor shows up at the end. And the plot surrounds that villain, who again is Hob, collecting date files about events which have taken place in his universe (which is the Doctor Who Universe). By extrapolation, this is the only Marvel comic that tries to discuss the implications of the Doctor Who universe being the same as other Marvel comics -- meaning that to properly cover it, we essentially need to be able to discuss the stories that Hob has kept on file.
- OttselSpy25
Bwburke94 wrote: Everything we've used retroactive validity for (unless I'm forgetting something?) has had a clear link to the DWU at release. The individual comics, in their original form, had no link to the DWU, so I see no way past the Rule #4 roadblock.
TO me, this would be like saying that Frankenstein's appearance in Doctor Who (1996) is to be ignored for not being created to be connected to the special. The Incomplete's Head is one complete story that, while being a comic, recycles "stock footage" to further tell that narrative. As far as I can see, if the linking segments are set in the DWU, and if they are meant to be connected to Doctor Who in such a way that someone wanted us to find the connections present in the story, then we can't just cut around them (especially since the segments stop being named after issue 2).
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Everything we've used retroactive validity for (unless I'm forgetting something?) has had a clear link to the DWU at release. The individual comics, in their original form, had no link to the DWU, so I see no way past the Rule #4 roadblock.
TO me, this would be like saying that Frankenstein's appearance in Doctor Who (1996) is to be ignored for not being created to be connected to the special. The Incomplete's Head is one complete story that, while being a comic, recycles "stock footage" to further tell that narrative. As far as I can see, if the linking segments are set in the DWU, and if they are meant to be connected to Doctor Who in such a way that someone wanted us to find the connections present in the story, then we can't just cut around them (especially since the segments stop being named after issue 2).
Surely you don't claim that Frankenstein is part of the DWU?
- OttselSpy25
Of course not, my point was that cutting around a scene isn't reasonable when discussing the validity of a story.
Once again, this is a comic where the characters (on Maruthea) interject in the middle of flashback pages. Is your suggestion that we instruct users to cover one panel in the middle of a page and nothing else?
- Bwburke94
No, I suggest that we cover TIDH (the individual comics) as non-valid.
- OttselSpy25
Bwburke94 wrote: We certainly allow reprints of legitimate DWU comics, but in those cases, the comic itself was changed.
As discussed above, the comic was indeed changed in the reprints to fit with the new narrative. If we can accept that there are different versions of stories like Shada, some of which are not valid, then I see no issue with only covering this one version of these stories.
- Bwburke94
How does this differ from Frankenstein?
- OttselSpy25
Bwburke94 wrote: No, I suggest that we cover TIDH (the individual comics) as non-valid.
Surely you mean that we "don't cover TIDH as non-valid," because we can't cover something like this as non-valid. That just doesn't make sense.
Presumably, you're trying to say that the linking segments alone should be valid and the parts without modern narration shouldn't be valid. My point was that there are, again, instances of new narration in the middle of the flashbacks, so it's not as if you can just split up the scenes set on Maruthea and the flashbacks.
Bwburke94 wrote: How does this differ from Frankenstein?
It doesn't, because we don't try to pretend that Frankenstein wasn't shown in the TV movie. Sure it was shown as media and not a flashback, which I'm sure is your main point, but it was still shown in the same way that these comics are "shown." The original version of Frankenstein isn't valid on our site, in the same way that the only valid version of these comics is the version printed in TIDH.
- RingoRoadagain
I think that, for this thread, we should consider TIDH as one single big story (which should definitely be valid IMHO) that also happens to contains sequences from other comics inside rather than a collection of reprints. The question about whether or not the original prints should be valid might be better reserved for another discussion.
I see it like how the valid The Five Doctors TV story repurposed parts of the original Shada: this part was unquestionably valid in this context, but it didn't mean anything about wether or not Shada (TV) itself was valid. (or like how the valid Zagreus reuses audio from the fan story Devious but the later has its own debate about validity nonetheless)
- OttselSpy25
I would interject that a second debate would not really be needed -- there's no point to consider if we should cover earlier versions of the same story. We just shouldn't, because those were not printed with the framing of a DWU story -- but when illustrated as "flashbacks" in the middle of a DWU comic, then we should cover them (but only the version printed in TIDH).
- OttselSpy25
This post is frustrating because I've said so much, but more than a year later I'm still coming by, adding additional thoughts just trying to get any action. Ah well.
- Chubby Potato
I’m new to the discussion, but I also believe they should be considered valid. I’ve been reading the comics and such. Another idea is to simply link all the Marvel characters to the Marvel wiki, but here and in general we run into another problem. Doctor Who and Marvel have very different concepts of canon, as do their respective wikis. DW has no canon, so we define it on our own. Marvel however, has a number for each reality and everything takes place in a reality. (e.g. Main universe is Earth-616, cinematic universe is Earth-199999.) On the Marvel wiki realities without official numbers are given temporary numbers. Unlike this wiki, the Marvel Database takes creators’ words out of universe as canon.
So here’s the information: Anyone from the comics in DWM while it was published by Marvel is in their version of the DWU, Earth-5556. For their purposes it doesn’t matter if this is indeed the same continuity as the TV show since that’s not Marvel. For this wiki’s purposes the TV show, the comics, and any other stories are considered “canon”.
There also is Earth-5555, which is the reality the Doctor leaves Death’s Head in in The Crossroads of Time. This is set in 8162, and other Marvel stories like Dragon’s Claws take place in this world. But it also appears Keepsake, a DW character, is from this world since he meets Death’s Head while he is stranded there. I haven’t read Dogbolter’s other stories, so I don’t know if he was already set in 8162. But he meets Death’s Head in Time Bomb! and clearly doesn’t travel between realities; the conclusion here is that either Josiah W. Dogbolter and Hob are originally from Earth-5555, or they priorly met the Doctor in his native universe in comics such as The Moderator and these are parallel versions from Earth-5555.
So Earth-5555 has both things originating from DW and Marvel, even if they never cross over. I believe the strips should be considered valid, at the very least the connecting strips. There’s “Connections”, “Minds Meet!”, 9 untitled stories, and the final one, “The End... Yes?”. (Today I listed these on the TIDH page, and created a page for “Connections”.) And also Death’s Head II and Tuck sometimes narrate the Archived stories.
If we consider these valid, we should write on Death’s Head’s page about how he had a second form, but how he came from his first to second body is entirely outside of the DWU and has no crossovers at all so that would have to be excluded.
At the end of the last comic in TIDH the Doctor reveals he was the one who originally sent Death’s Head to the Transformers universe (Earth-120185).
Additionally even if these comics weren’t reprinted in TIDH Keepsake’s Vulture sticks around with DH for a while.
And to further complicate things in the Eighth Doctor comic The Glorious Dead Esterath tells the Doctor he has never left his own multiverse.
Here’s a useful page (skip down to the part concerning where does it fit):http://www.marvunapp.com/list/app8162.htm
- RingoRoadagain
We don't need to include all of the marvel universe (although I believe all of the Incomplete Death's Head definitely should).
We already managed to cover the cross-over with Star Trek without including all of it.
- 104.200.142.247
My page on “Connections” was labeled invalid for now because of this thread. Are we at a consensus that at least the linking strips (“Connections”, “Mind Meet!”, 9 untitled stories and “The End...Yes?”) are valid? If so we should put info about DH II on his page.
- Chubby Potato
Oops that right above was me accidentally signed out.
- Amorkuz
Reminder: Consensus on an inclusion thread is determined by an admin (usually one not participating in the discussion proper). Until this thread is closed, no edits depending on its outcome are allowed.
- Chubby Potato
Okay, but I what I meant was is the purpose of this thread to decide the matter of the reprinted strips being valid (and the original already are) or are both the linking strips and reprinted the problem? I think we can somewhat include the reprinted strips in the pages for the linking ones. (e.g. “After watching [events of reprinted strip] on the archive, Tuck notices...) That way we don’t have to go in detail on those reprinted strips. We can say that the archive showed Death's Head fighting the Iron Man of 2020, but we don’t have to write all about the events of that.
- OttselSpy25
I like the idea of that, but i have trouble imagining what we would consistently say is enough coverage of said event. Surely, based off of your reasoning, we still need to mention the comic in Iron Man? We'd still need to mention Death Head's flashback on a page like She-Hulk. Again I bring this frame into the discussion. The girl in the lower-left-hand-corner is Tuck, a character in the linking narration. The rest is a flashback to an earlier comic. Can we really tell our editors that one panel on this page is set in the DWU, and that the rest of the flashback isn't? No, no we can't. This isn't two different stories occupying the same page, it's one story borrowing a scene from another.
To restate the issue of this thread: The Incomplete Death's Head is a Trial of a Time Lord-esque comic where Death's Head views stories from his past and comments on them. The linking segments are set on a DWM-planet with a DWM-villain and a featuring appearance by the Seventh Doctor. The question is, simply, can we cover Death Head's comments on his memories and the transitions into his memories without covering the memories themselves? Could you write pages on the events of Trial of a Time Lord if the only version you had was just the courtroom scenes?
Frankly, I think it would be very hard to divorce the linking elements of The Complete Death's Head from the regular parts while still covering said linking segments. Especially considering that the flashbacks and the "linking" connections intertwine so seamlessly that, at one stage, the narration is seen over the comic itself. This is a DWU story set on a DWU planet with a DWU villain who has collected a series of stories that he views to have taken place in his universe.
Here's my suggested solution: we made one page for this entire comic's story. Just The Incomplete Death's Head (comic story). There, we'll cover the entire thing as one narrative, including the flashbacks. That way, we won't have to worry about the mess of giving all the stories included their own pages, but we can still accurately cover this blatantly DWU comic story.
- Chubby Potato
I think that would work. And we could cover the reprinted strips, but would never really need to use the details from that part of the story on other pages except the page for Death's Head. Again, I’ve listed the 12 stories separately on the page for The Incomplete Death's Head and already have made pages for the first two. This could easily be lumped into one page. The only problem is making it work with the page for the comic book itself, and each respective issue. I suppose we could break it up using sub-headings.
- Chubby Potato
Oh, and it’s also worth mentioning Hob is watching this from the DWU, but Death’s Head’s adventures do not take place in the same universe, rather the same multiverse. (Parallel universes are mentioned when he travels between the two.) Death's Head was created in a dimension called Styrakos, transported (this is later revealed to be done by the Doctor) to Earth-120185 (Transformers UK universe) and had his Transformers adventures there. Then he met the Doctor in the Time Vortex (so the DWU/Earth-5556), and was dumped in 8162 (Earth-5555) where he continued as a bounty hunter and met the Dragon’s Claws, Keepsake, etc. He met the Doctor again when he was hired by Dogbolter, and was sent to the mainstream Marvel Universe (Earth-616). The Fantastic Four sent him to Earth-8410, a possible future of Earth-616 taking place in 2020. Whatever happened next is irrelevant to us as it wasn’t reprinted. He eventually went back to Earth-616 and met She-Hulk, and later ended up on Maruthea where the events of the linking strips take place.
- OttselSpy25
Chubby Potato wrote:
I think that would work. And we could cover the reprinted strips, but would never really need to use the details from that part of the story on other pages except the page for Death's Head.... No, we really couldn't. We have no policy in place for having pages be valid exclusively for certain pages. We can't say "This story is valid, but only for use on Death's Head."
As for the whole "multiverse" thing, that's really a debatable and often (in this era) inconsistent topic. For instance, the Spider-Man crossover with Transformers treats those worlds as one-and-the-same. It could even be argued that this comic only treats the Transformers events as an alternate universe to rectify the fact that they didn't own the licensing anymore and couldn't use or show the events or characters. Anytime that two IPs from that era would meet or cameo, there was no interest in saying "Well, how did you cross over into this universe?" Basically, trying to bring in reference book "universe" notes into stories which pay those details no interest isn't necessary.
But that entire debate isn't even really relevant to this topic. Doctor Who Universe is a term we use to represent the idea of being connected to Doctor Who. It's more of a multi-verse, and the idea of there being multiple multi-verses is alien to us and based on speculation.
In short, when we see Hob searching through the history of Earth and Death's Head being sent all-over by time machines there is almost no hint of him crossing universes. As you've mentioned earlier in the thread, him meeting with Josiah W. Dogbolter shows no hint of him having entered another universe.
Thank you for taking part in this debate, it's good to know that someone still cares about this topic.
- OttselSpy25
Chubby Potato wrote: Again, I’ve listed the 12 stories separately on the page for The Incomplete Death's Head and already have made pages for the first two. This could easily be lumped into one page. The only problem is making it work with the page for the comic book itself, and each respective issue. I suppose we could break it up using sub-headings.
For future reference, as per our own rules it's best to not create pages for stories still being debated. I see your logic -- the linking segments are set on Maruthea, thus they must be DWU. But it's still a lot less messy to wait until consensus.
- Chubby Potato
OttselSpy25 wrote:
Chubby Potato wrote:
I think that would work. And we could cover the reprinted strips, but would never really need to use the details from that part of the story on other pages except the page for Death's Head.... No, we really couldn't. We have no policy in place for having pages be valid exclusively for certain pages. We can't say "This story is valid, but only for use on Death's Head."
I didn’t mean we should use the details from those stories only on one page, but that it would be unnecessary to go into great detail on other pages. Doesn’t mean we couldn’t or shouldn’t.
- Shambala108
Before proceeding further, everyone should make themselves familiar with Thread:223085.
- Chubby Potato
As for the multiverse discussion, I thought it was worth mentioning for reference, for admins or people new to the discussion. While it actually is mentioned in TIDH that these are parallel universes, most of the info on them I used comes from Marvel handbooks (some of which do include and discuss the DW universe), not the comics where they happen. Do we consider this a valid source?
I think it might be worth creating a new thread on specifically how the DW multiverse overlaps with the Marvel multiverse, especially since they seem to share the 8162 reality. If I did so, where would I create that thread?
- OttselSpy25
Handbooks are certainly not valid, especially when they're not Doctor Who handbooks. To put it simply, handbooks often just get elements of stories blatantly wrong. Furthermore, this wiki is a handbook. It would be quite toxic if we took other handbook's misinterpretations of elements to be of note. So we cover elements exclusively from narrative works.
"I think it might be worth creating a new thread on specifically how the DW multiverse overlaps with the Marvel multiverse, especially since they seem to share the 8162 reality. If I did so, where would I create that thread?"
There is no need, because there is no defacto and accepted "Doctor Who Multiverse." You can't really say "The Star Trek crossover is set in the Star Trek multi-verse and not the Doctor Who multiverse," because we have no real concept of when stories aren't set in our Doctor's multi-verse. If the Doctor discusses another universe in this comic series, trying to claim that universe exists outside of the Doctor's own multi-verse is blatant speculation based on material outside of the narrative text. Furthermore, you would have serious trouble finding any comic in DWM or the Death's Head series that ever mentions this, so you really don't have much footing to make a debate out of it.
Most of the Marvel rules about which stories happen in what universes came into being long after these pages came to be. So the text of any reference book outside of this publication has no real role in this forum.
- RingoRoadagain
If memory serves this alternate universe was the Transformers one. And it's the only story that is not part of TIDH and which they carefully avoid getting in into details, so if memeory serves we only know that it is the universe were Death's Head was before meeting the 7th doctor in DWM.
I guess we can put the marvel nomenclature in behind the scenes section. Or maybe even as the article name since we sometimes use behind the scenes names for that, imo it's not much different that using names from the credits of an episode.
Anyway, I think that should be debated on its own discussion page rather than here.
- Chubby Potato
Okay, the info I provided from the handbooks was meant to help people understand, and should go behind the scenes. Instead it got us derailed in a multiverse discussion that has nothing to do with the actual narrative of the comic. So here I will narrate the info of the interdimensional travels only as it is said in the comic, which would go in the Plot section of a page.
Death's Head was created in a realm called Styrakos. He left this realm for a planet called Scarvix. He then was taken by unknown means to “a parallel universe where a massive war was raging between two robotic races”. He was pulled into the gravitational well of a collapsing planet, which flung him into the space-time continuum and he met the Doctor at the Crossroads of Time. The Doctor dumped him on Earth in the year 8162 where he met Dragon's Claws and continued as a bounty hunter. After being hired by Josiah W. Dogbolter, the Doctor took him to New York 1989. The Fantastic Four put him on the Earth of 2020 where he battled that era’s Iron Man. He stole a time-bike from the Time Variance Authority to get a vase from She-Hulk thirty years in the past. Eventually he went to Bonjaxx’s party on Maruthea, and battled Hob with his future self. The Doctor revealed it was him who had transported Death's Head to the robot universe, and had come to Maruthea not for the party but to prevent a paradox.
- NateBumber
Chubby Potato wrote: So here I will narrate the info of the interdimensional travels only as it is said in the comic, which would go in the Plot section of a page.
Frankly, I don't think any of this is relevant to the inclusion debate at hand. If the story features an alternate universe, once it's valid, we can make a page for the alternate universe, or discuss it on the talk page. After it's valid.
For what it's worth, I still stand by the proposal as stated in the OP.
- OttselSpy25
While I'm frankly relieved that this debate is seeing any new questions or posts at all, I frankly have to also agree. This is very much more the sort of stuff to discuss on the talk page after-the-fact, not here. And I again must state my case that most of this universe stuff was retconned later and has no real role on this site.
- Chubby Potato
My apologies. I’m new to the forums. I wanted to state the facts to help, as this is a topic that really interests me but I got off topic. I basically wanted to clarify how Marvel “canon” worked for people who were unfamiliar. To make things clearer should I delete the universe business in my above comments or at least make an edit? Now I understand that that info is to wait until this thread is decided.
- Amorkuz
No apologies are necessary. Any relevant information is valuable as long as it does not derail the main topic. (Also please do not delete anything. If others commented on your posts and you change them, what is left is a mess.)
- Chubby Potato
Okay, thank you.
- OttselSpy25
It's no problem at all Mr. Potato. You're doing absolutely fine, and frankly I was a million times worse when I started out, and we're all grateful to continue the discussion in general.
- Chubby Potato
Thank you all for your kind words.
So here’s the problem. It’s rather obvious the Fantastic Four don’t share a universe with the Doctor. If he were to travel to 2020 he wouldn’t find Iron Man either. But we’re never given this info in a Doctor Who related narrative, only in Marvel comics and even worse, handbooks. From a narrative standpoint, we only “know” the Doctor is from a different universe from the handbooks; we only know She-Hulk and the FF take place in a separate universe from the Doctor because of the continuity from their respective comics, which the Doctor never appears in. There’s only three times in TIDH where alternate realities are mentioned at all, and they don’t have to do with the Doctor. 1. Death's Head left the realm of Styrakos. 2. The “robot universe” is said to be parallel. and 3. more vaguely, when Reed Richards sends DH to 2020 he says specifically “I’ve unleashed Death's Head on the Earth of 2020!” (Explanation for the last one: the 2020 reality is “an alternate future for Earth-616” according to Marvel. They can happen from natural divergence or time travel. If you need further explanation see here: http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Glossary:Alternate_Future)
I guess our only other helpful note is that Marvel is fictional in the DWU. In fact Bill even mentions Mr. Fantastic in Smile, and there’s also The Return of Doctor Mysterio, among other things.
- OttselSpy25
Well the topic of continuity itself really has no place on this wiki, or at least not the validity debates. There's always going to be discrepancies between two stories on any topic, and trying to find one accepted "canon" to write of it futile. For instance, we cover Spock as both a fictional character and a real person from an alternate universe.
On the topic of what universe(s) these stories are set in, as you've said above the stories themselves really act as if these are all one "continuum." As I noted before, many of these "universe" rifts were invented long after-the-fact by Marvel reference books, and because we choose not to cover these our coverage of these stories really has no need to pay attention to any details not mentioned on-the-pages themselves. Either way, I once again think that this has nothing to do with if this story is valid or not. I will go ahead and disagree with your argument that these comics must be set in separate universes because of "continuity." If no one ever says "He's crossed into another universe" then we can't and shouldn't conject that this has happened.
- Chubby Potato
I’m not quite sure what you mean, but if you’re saying we should ignore the universe traveling and save that for Behind the Scenes, I agree. The only parallel universe discussed in TIDH is the “robot universe” (Transformers). What I meant by continuity is, for example, we only know Death's Head met She-Hulk in 1989 because it was originally printed in the series of She-Hulk comics. I was just a bit confused how we would handle the Marvel characters if the reprinted strips are valid. From what I understand, we’d include information on both Iron Man being fictional and how he interacted with Death's Head.
- Amorkuz
Half of famous fictional characters appeared in some DW story (often retconned in some way). Many real-world people turned out to be aliens from space according to a DW story. If there are two incompatible accounts, we use "according to one account..."/"according to another account..." trick. This is not a problem. Proper DW stories are not really much better at keeping their own continuity intact over the past 55 years than they are at keeping continuity with outside stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
NateBumber wrote:
If the story features an alternate universe, once it's valid, we can make a page for the alternate universe, or discuss it on the talk page. After it's valid.You… can have pages about non-valid material, though (see the pages about the Curse of Fatal Death and Scream of the Shalka Doctors, for example). Even if The Incomplete Death's Head is declared non-valid we could still have a page about that parallel universe, though some would argue it might be rather pointless trivia.
Amorkuz wrote: Half of famous fictional characters appeared in some DW story (often retconned in some way). Many real-world people turned out to be aliens from space according to a DW story. If there are two incompatible accounts, we use "according to one account..."/"according to another account..." trick.
Quite.
Besides, between the fact that a story explicitly showed Sherlock Holmes getting transformed into a fictional character after having really existed, and the now-famous "Every story ever told really happened" line, I think it's more or less an established bit of Whoniverse lore that most fiction was probably real at some point in some timeline. And that's without even going into the Land of Fiction!… The point is, it's very easy to make this work in your headcanon if you want to with minimal continuity-twisting. (Not that we can do that on the Wiki, obviously; just saying.)
- OttselSpy25
Anyways, the main point here is that it's very useless to try and pull outside information to infer elements of continuity. Even saying "This She-Ra comic is set in 1989 because of comic XYZ" isn't necessary, because we would only cover the comic printed in TIDH. Trying to pull information about "universes" and what-not is even more unnecessary.
He points out that a comic story having no relation to the DWU at its first publication should never become part of the DWU. And he is completely right. Part of this ruling is that the original versions of all comics "reprinted" in TIDH remain invalid. I put "reprinted" in quotation marks because these comic stories have been modified (see examples in images upthread) to dovetail with the linking narration of the TIDH comic series. In other words, these stories are not merely referenced by a DWU story, which would not have resulted in their validity. No, these stories are retold within a DWU story. And there is a long history of retellings in the DWU, starting from Homer's Iliad retold in the First Doctor TV serial The Myth Makers and all the way through to the movie Casablanca retold in the Eleventh Doctor comic story As Time Goes By. Note that both stories appeared well before Doctor Who and, hence, could not have anything to do with DWU at their first release. Simply put, it does not matter whether things happening to the Doctor originate from history, from real-world fiction or are original. Only the DW-story version is considered part of the Doctor Who universe, whereas by T:NO RW neither real events nor real-world fiction is acceptable.
It might be hard to recognise this particular case as a "retelling" because the reprints are almost identical to the original comic stories. But this is immaterial. After all, we do not deny validity of the documentary coverage of the Moon landing in Day of the Moon because it is accurate (minus the Silence inserts obviously).
Thus,
- The original versions of all comics "reprinted" in TIDH remain invalid. (By extension, any other non-DWU Marvel UK comic stories remain invalid. This also applies to other comic stories directly referenced by asterisks in TIDH.)
- The new versions printed in TIDH are valid.
- The new versions of stories already valid (e.g., Time Bomb!) do not change their status: they remain valid.
- Given the lack of titles for later parts of the linking narration, the whole linking narration should be considered one story and called The Incomplete Death's Head (comic story) (cf. the similarly nameless The Story of Martha (short story)) and split into named sections according to names given in TIDH (cf. The Lost Dimension).
- Any character appearing in TIDH is fair game for creating a page, under the name used in the story (if any) or under the most recognisable name (otherwise). But the information on these pages should, as always, be restricted to in-universe information, i.e., information from TIDH.
- All numerical info about Marvel universes can only be used in the BTS sections. No assumptions about travel between parallel universes are to be entertained, except when there is narrative evidence of inter-universal travel. The presence of an Iron Man in 2020 is not going to be more disruptive than the presence of Cybermen in Antarctica in 1986, or of a CyberKing in Victorian England, for that matter.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:214032
- Thecoolone19970
made with photo shop
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:214342
Just wondering why this is marked as invalid
- Borisashton
There is currently a discussion about FftF going on at Talk:The Pilot.
- OttselSpy25
2.26.183.189 wrote: Just wondering why this is marked as invalid
It's simple really. It shouldn't be.
A Friend from the Future is, basically, a prequel story. The reason that it has confused the admins is that, basically, it's set in the middle of the episode and not the beginning.
Many might presume, based on the fact that it was an attempt to preview Bill's role in the show, that this is meant to be a clip from the episode. And thus, if it wasn't used, it's an invalid source. AKA, because it wasn't used it's a deleted scene. This has little logic.
Here's the facts: The Pilot was designed from the top to bottom to match up to the (already released and accepted) Friend from the Future. FftF came first, was created first, and was meant to tie-into the following episode in every way.
SOTO's statement on why we can't include it is that "This was never intended to actually be part of Bill's story." However...
Interviewer: Steven, did you always plan to re-use Friend From the Future, at least partially? Moffatt: I wasn't sure at all. Well, I mean, because I'm such a Doctor Who fan... and I need everything to fit... in continuuity... and I stay up awake at night until I can figure out how... UNIT dating [works] (that's an obscure one, and I have fixed it)... I knew it had to be right at the beggining because of the way she was talking, so... And we edited the whole scene in, and it didn't work, because suddenly you were being introduced to her again. You already knew she was like that, and the whole point of the scene [was to introduce Bill's personality], so we just had the very beggining of it, just a glimpse, so you know where it fits. And for die-hard, slightly strange excessive (and let's be honest, there's 7 or 8 of them in the audience of Doctor Who, like myself) that's where it fits. You can all sleep at night now."
Two things that we can gleam from this. Number 1, this short was a completely different production from the actual episode. It was made before it. Thus, we can not see it as a deleted scene. Much like any TARDISode or Prequel, it was a separate product released ahead of time and created on a completely different production block.
Two, it indeed was meant for us to be able to cover it. And in the actual episode, this is obvious. They put Bill in the same costume, they put them in the same situation, they have the Doctor EXPLAIN things in the episode that happen in the short, and they show the beginning and the end of it. If someone has better counter-evidence than Moffat telling us "it fits," I'd love to hear it. But I doubt anyone does. Because it's valid. Clearly.
EDIT: I listened again, and I somehow missed the bit about them briefly considering putting it in the episode. People might use this to claim that it's a deleted scene, but it's obviously a separate product released beforehand and Moffat admits that people still know where it "Fits."
- OttselSpy25
Borisashton wrote: There is currently a discussion about FftF going on at Talk:The Pilot.
Well then move it here. To the inclusion debates, and not the talk page of a story that isn't the one we're talking about. ;)
- Thefartydoctor
To be fair to SOTO, I can easily see what they mean by their comment. I don't mind if one novel has slightly different dialogue than its audio adaptation, for example. They're both valid and they're both treated as two sides of the same coin. And if we're taking FftF at face value, that's how it should be treated. However, there's conflicting information. In FftF, the Doctor states they need to go "back" to 2017. In The Pilot, there's no such timing. In FftF, Bill is far more intrigued by the Dalek and asks the Doctor a barrage of questions. In The Pilot, she doesn't.
It certainly doesn't make it invalid because, as you say, it came first and the intent was there for it to be worked into an episode of the real series. However, to ignore the fact that there are differences that offer up some problems, is not how inclusion debates work. I think FftF is troublesome and more disagrees with The Pilot than agrees with it. The altered set, the highly altered dialogue... if you're to ask me my opinion on the validity, I'd say that my opinion lies with invalid due to the fact that writers can change their minds. The scene was indeed adapted... but it wasn't included as was originally suggested by Moffat. Just my opinion, and I ask it be respected, as I respect yours.
It just seems more logical for Moffat to draw a line under it, write The Pilot as a fresh start and leave it at that.
- OttselSpy25
That may seem more logical to you, but it's not the quote that we actually have. We clearly have Moffat discussing the fact that FFtF did happen and that the episode was designed for it to be there.
I don't really recall the set being heavily inconsistent either. In fact, it kinda looks exactly like the set that we later see the "Dalek" in.
I respect your opinion in that you have the right to have it, but I don't think it really has that much bearing. So far, the best evidence we have against it being valid is that the dialogue almost kinda doesn't match up if you look at it sideways. Either way, how well you think it fits has nothing to do with if it was meant to fit. Moffat wrote it to "fit," so as far as this site needs to be concerned it fits.
I too can see where SOTO would come to his conclusion, but more importantly I can see how he's mistaken.
- TheChampionOfTime
The difference in how the Doctor responds to Bill asking about Daleks is one thing, but I certainly think there are some things which connect the two. There is a definite gap in The Pilot where Friend from the Future is set. The Doctor and Bill go from hiding at a corner with a Dalek on one side and the Heather-thing on the other to being at the end of a hallway with the Heather-thing close behind. Friend from the Future fills this gap.
Also, Moffat takes the time to set up the fact that the Psychic Paper will alert the Doctor to anything attacking the vault. This never amounts to anything in The Pilot, but Friend from the Future has the Doctor looking at the paper before announcing that they have to go back to 2017. Furthermore, it is mentioned later on in The Pilot that the Doctor received a false alarm on his psychic paper (something about a student sneezing, I think).
- Thefartydoctor
As I said: Writers have the ability to change their minds. It's also logical to note that the scene in FftF ends abruptly with them returning to the future... the Dalek seen in The Pilot is used much more, as an attempt to eliminate Heather. When Heather is finally neutralised, that's the end of the scene. That's another, and much more important, deviation between the two scenes. The context is lacking in FftF and this lack of context is the main reason why the whole scene had to be rewritten.
P.S. On the setting front, I was talking about the ends of the corridors. The Dalek-Movellan War is happening in The Pilot, and in FftF, it's fairly calm (even though they're being targeted by a Dalek haha).
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: It's also logical to note that the scene in FftF ends abruptly with them returning to the future...
No it doesn't. It ends with the Doctor saying "We have to get back to the future [as soon as possible]." Then they get backed into the hall by a Dalek. That doesn't contradict The Pilot, indeed it supports it.
Thefartydoctor wrote: The context is lacking in FftF and this lack of context is the main reason why the whole scene had to be rewritten.
citation please. The scene wasn't re-written, it just wasn't put in the episode. There's not an equivalent version in the episode itself. There's a gap where this story goes. You can't claim that the scene was changed or not included for a specific reason without proving that. We, in fact, have a quote by Moffat detailing what was meant of the scene and what happened to it in the end.
Writers can indeed change their minds, but clearly Moffatt didn't. He meant for it to count by the time these two stories had came out, and thus we have all the authorial intent that we're ever going to need, alongside all that we're ever going to get.
I'm gonna blurt out something amazingly crazy right now: weather or not you think the two stories fit doesn't matter. Moffat says they do. So they do. There is no point in arguing if Moffat did his job well enough.
- SOTO
Though I hadn't yet seen that Aftershow thing when I made my comments, I did base what I said not just on what we saw in the 'trailer' and in the episode, but on comments made by Moffat before the airing of The Pilot. I'd have to dig for exact quotes, but one was essentially to the effect of:
- I'm not sure if we're going to work it in to the show. [Something about being obsessed with continuity, and essentially "does it really matter in a show about time travel, with alternate timelines, etc."]
The other quote that came to mind was from the Space channel's InnerSpace segment from last December, where the interaction went basically like this:
- One of the interviewers: So we saw Daleks in that trailer scene with Bill. So we can assume the Daleks...
- Moffat: You can assume all you want, man.
Anyway, all of that is really a side note. I would dig for sources if it was truly important. The main point is that it doesn't seem to me at all, from other interviews I've seen, that it was always the intention to incorporate this scene into the show itself. Moffat saw it as a possibility, and perhaps expressed a personal wish to fit it in somehow...He did use some of that dialogue, so it's not gone to waste, and those who saw the original promo can enjoy the connection. But let's be real. The Friends from the Future dialogue was intended to be broad on the plot, and it still fails to actually make much sense within the context of The Pilot itself. "2017 needs us" was really way to advertise that series 10 is coming out in 2017. The whole thing reeks of the hypothetical, and it simply does not fit in to the real story, if you take FftF in its entirety. We already know what Bill's first encounter with the Daleks looked like, as we saw it in The Pilot, and it was not quite Friend from the Future.
That said, I'll revisit the statements made by Moffat in the Aftershow and give these arguments some consideration. This thing was made before the episode began filming, and, to be frank, it's literally just the audition script performed in costume and on a minimal set, with Daleks. It's a preview to the character and the new actor playing her; I'm not sure that it holds as a story on its own, and I don't think it was ever intended to be that. "Generic scene from an episode of Doctor Who done to showcase new companion" does not sound to me like a story intended to be valid.
On a side note, you're not truly suggesting Friend from the Future be the first appearance listed in Bill's infobox? That would be a logical result of this suddenly being made valid.
- SOTO
I'm interested to know if DWM 511 has something to say on the matter.
- OttselSpy25
SOTO wrote: On a side note, you're not truly suggesting Friend from the Future be the first appearance listed in Bill's infobox? That would be a logical result of this suddenly being made valid.
Factually speaking, it is her first appearance. Makes things more clean if you ask me.
Now as Moffat notes above, he didn't always know if he was going to incorporate the short into the episode. He probably wanted to have his options open, and furthermore he also probably just wanted to troll people who asked for spoilers about episode one.
The important thing is that, by the time both episodes had aired, he had clearly decided that the two needed to "fit," and had had designed this to be the case.
And again, if you think Moffat did a good job making the two fit is totally irrelevant. The important thing is that they were meant to go together, not that it worked.
- Thefartydoctor
Actually we're both wrong. He says "We need to get back to the future. 2017 needs us." Those words are exact. We mustn't paraphrase in these debates. However, I'm also wrong because I forgot it ends with them being cornered by the Dalek with no means of escape. My memory evidently served me wrong, thinking they were rushing away.
I don't remember this "pocket of time" that CoT is talking about so that requires me to find the clip again. The thing that you need to realise Ottsel, and I mean this with all due respect, is that intent of the writer isn't everything. It's one corner of validity debates. If intent of writer was everything then we wouldn't have a whole page dedicated to the "rules".
It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. I'd love this to fit in objectively and give us a time period for The Pilot. If I can find this gap that CoT talks about, then I'd jump ship and agree with you both. I'm scouring numerous react channels now because I'm too lazy to sit through the whole thing. Bear with me.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: The thing that you need to realise Ottsel, and I mean this with all due respect, is that intent of the writer isn't everything. It's one corner of validity debates.
Kinda is tho. Kinda is the basis for most debates. Almost every single one of recent memory.
We have never, not since the days of "canon" at least, called a story invalid because it contradicted another story. It has always been about what the author intended.
When we talked about the Titan back-up strips, did we talk about how they were silly? We sure did, but that ended up not mattering at all. Because the authorial intent was for them to count. So they're valid.
Lungbarrow fails to correctly tie-into many stories within the Virgin and non-Virgin series of DW stories. Is it invalid because of that? No, because the authorial intent was for it to count.
In the inclusion debates, we mainly ask four questions: #1 is "Is it a story?" #2 is "Is it licensed?" #3 is "Was it released?" and #4 is "What was the authorial intent?"
It is a story, it was licensed, it was released, and we have the authorial intent.
I respect your wishes to figure out how Moffat did or did not make it "fit," but to me none of that matters at this point.
- Thefartydoctor
I think SOTO hits the nail on the head when they mention the "2017 needs us" referring to Series 10. It does reek of vague writing with a vague script. If it genuinely fits into a bubble of time within The Pilot, then hurrah, we have a time setting. But, tbh, "2017" was Moffat's way of referring to Series 10. It's obvious. It's not really my opinion because it's clear as to what it references. As I promised, I'm going to find the Dalek War footage and see what happens again, but FftF totally seems like more of an advertisement than a preview/webcast/whatever.
- OttselSpy25
The definition of what we call "an advertisement" in the case of something being invalid is not "Any product meant to make you want another product."
Look at the Tardisodes. Those were all meant to entice you into seeing series 2. Are those ads? Are those invalid on the principal of encouraging the viewer to see another product?
When it was decided that trailers were not stories, it wasn't done under the idea that we could stretch that definition as far as possible.
Right now I'm getting both on my computer, and I'm going to try and figure out how it goes and I'll explain it in detail.
- Thefartydoctor
Here are the things that I'll give to Moffat in trying to make FftF fit in:
1. He separates Nardole from the Doctor and Bill, giving him a task to perform. This explains (in-universe) why he's not present in FftF. 2. I see what CoT means by "pocket of time", as the Doctor and Bill leave the Dalek and Heather to fight it out between themselves. In the next scene, it reuses "What's that thing?", "A Dalek.", "What's a Dalek?", "Never mind. It's a Dalek." and then cuts to them running down a corridor... so, no, it doesn't contradict the main scene. We just have to assume that Moffat jumped the rest of the conversation because it would slow down the episode.
The only differences I see are as follows: 1. Despite the protestations here, the corridors do have their differences. Behind the Doctor and Bill, there's a war zone strewn with bodies. In FftF, there are no bodies and the scene is fairly calm. But this is rather minimal. 2. When they're approached by the Dalek, they're in another corridor completely. They've left the previous corridor. So in order to explain that- we'd have to jump to conclusions (which borders on head canon, which isn't a valid form of proof on this Wiki)... Heather took over the Dalek and then went on to pursue the two of them? The reasoning makes sense, but the scenic issues just don't when you try and place where they're running to (and from). Dialogue is removed yet a scene change is added.
The scene is then nicely sealed up with Nardole returning rather seamlessly. No explanation as to how he escaped the Dalek, but that's for another day.
None of what I've observed here is paraphrased, made up or head canon. I have the scene in front of me. I can see FftF being valid. But I totally disagree with the thought that the writer's word is law. Because it isn't. Writers can happily suggest ways in which things fit together but at the end of the day, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. And regarding the whole contradiction not equalling validity thing, we're on the same page. We've shared discussions regarding this on here before. You'd be teaching your granny to suck eggs by trying to reteach it to me.
- TheChampionOfTime
Thefartydoctor wrote: 2. I see what CoT means by "pocket of time", as the Doctor and Bill leave the Dalek and Heather to fight it out between themselves.
Kinda insignificant thing: I never said "pocket of time".
Personally, I think the Psychic Paper seals the deal as to FftF occurring within TP. It's set up in TP, paid off within FftF, and then jokingly explained within the second last scene of TP.
- OttselSpy25
You did a great job researching there, this is obviously something that's hard to piece together.
I agree that the writer's word isn't always law, but at the same time it shouldn't be used in an inclusion debate to decide if the story is valid or not. There are many stories by Terrance Dicks that contradict everything that he's ever written, for instance. Mostly his novels.
We should note these discrepancies on the page, and perhaps in some cases on the character pages (bts?) but otherwise I don't think you can all those problems anything but production errors.
- Thefartydoctor
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Kinda insignificant thing: I never said "pocket of time".
Ironically, despite what I was saying about the "minisode", I was paraphrasing you.
Like I said, I see it fitting. I take my fez off to Moffat for what he tried to do in fitting it in. He did a good job. And it's up to the dedicated fans to intertwine the minisode and the scene in the episode. There are discrepancies, as anyone with eyeballs can see but then again there are discrepancies in singular episodes in Doctor Who, such as in Doomsday where one Dalek presents itself twice.
There are only two things that bother me personally, but before I say them, I'll point out so I don't get destroyed by people as being an egotist- my opinion is just my opinion. This debate isn't concluded because of anything I say haha. And I understand that. I'm no way trying to make your minds up for you. The two things that bother me are: a) the timing/setting issues regarding them running from the Dalek and then facing the Dalek in another corridor, b) the nature of Friend from the Future. As you rightly said, a Tardisode isn't an advert but it kind of behaves similarly to one. What's at the heart of FftF? Throwaway scene without context? Genuine scene from a future episode that hasn't been written yet?
I'm sure we'll work these out very soon.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: What's at the heart of FftF? Throwaway scene without context? Genuine scene from a future episode that hasn't been written yet?
I know I'm retreading ground here, but I would easily compare it to something like Prequel (The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe).
I think it was a short narrative to introduce the companion to the fans, and I think Moffat liked it enough to make it part of the actual narrative. It's a special case, but I don't think I would call it an "Advertisement."
- Thefartydoctor
What poses a difference to Prequel (...) is that there's no continuity problems. As it's the Prequel, it's suggested that he goes from there, straight to the events in The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe, but I do understand what you mean. It's an enticement, like in Disney movies when that smoke cloud comes out of the pie to draw you in haha. Maybe I'm stubborn but I'm just waiting for someone to say something on either side that just makes 100% sense, rather than being happy with ninety something.
- OttselSpy25
It's a nasty business, but sometimes no one has answers for questions like those.
Future Imperfect is set before The Invasion and ends with the Doctor being sent into the events of The Three Doctors. And yet, in that story, the Doctor recognizes UNIT. The Eight Doctors has many of these "midquel" adventures, and most of them have notable continuity issues. It's a standard at this point.
- SOTO
What's being referred to upthread with the psychic paper?
- TheChampionOfTime
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Moffat takes the time to set up the fact that the Psychic Paper will alert the Doctor to anything attacking the vault. This never amounts to anything in The Pilot, but Friend from the Future has the Doctor looking at the paper before announcing that they have to go back to 2017. Furthermore, it is mentioned later on in The Pilot that the Doctor received a false alarm on his psychic paper (something about a student sneezing, I think).
- SOTO
Ah, never mind, I found the original mention:
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Also, Moffat takes the time to set up the fact that the Psychic Paper will alert the Doctor to anything attacking the vault. This never amounts to anything in The Pilot, but Friend from the Future has the Doctor looking at the paper before announcing that they have to go back to 2017. Furthermore, it is mentioned later on in The Pilot that the Doctor received a false alarm on his psychic paper (something about a student sneezing, I think).
- Thefartydoctor
The false alarm was a student being sick, I think. Not as though the difference matters :P
- Danniesen
I'm just gonna say that the very few first seconds of FFtF has a scene put in from Into the Dalek, which has multiple Daleks pursuing, however afterwards only a single Dalek is following the Doctor and Bill. In The Pilot, there is only one Dalek pursuing them from the beginning.
- OttselSpy25
Ehhh, sort of.
Here's how the set-up for the episodes go when you put them together:
- In The Pilot, the Doctor tricks a Dalek into a confrontation with Heather. He and Bill run down a corridor adjacent to this.
- Again in The Pilot, we cut to Bill being chased by a Dalek as he tries to shut them into one part of the ship.
- We don't know how many corridors Bill and the Doctor have run through at this point. It could be two and it could be fifteen. So it's not a discrepancy for them to be hiding from more Daleks.
- In Friend from the Future, we see the Doctor and Bill hiding from a group of Daleks. They discuss what a "Dalek" even is, and they are cornered by one of the "Daleks."
- This also happens in FftF (it's a lot of the same footage, just color corrected), and it's revealed that the Dalek is Heather in disguise. Nardole says "I've sealed the area, all the Daleks are quarantined."
The only discrepancy, as noted above by TFD, is that one of the area behind the corridors in The Pilot is more heavily detailed. In FftF, it's just a wall. In The Pilot, it's another area that catches on fire.
It's heavily important that we look at the reasonings for why we would call a story invalid and we ask ourselves "would this apply to any other story?"
Time Crash is another example of a televised "mid-quel" that has horrible continuity. It very poorly attempts to set itself within the end of Last of the Time Lords, and a lot of stuff doesn't work.
If this story is invalid for doing the same thing, then so is Time Crash; alongside any other "middle-of-story-stories" that aren't done very well.
In fact, if you look closely, the very continuity errors we're describing here are also present in the episode. Columns disappear, corridors materialize, walls go missing; all in the same scene. So if FftF is invalid for visually contradicting The Pilot, is The Pilot invalid for contradiction The Pilot?
- SOTO
The thing is that Time Crash fits into Last of the Time Lords quite nicely. You can watch it all in sequence, and it still makes sense. It's a seamless edit. The comparison with Time Crash was brought up in our Slack discussion. And I can sort of see this working as one continuous narrative, as well...Except at that point in the story, having to go back to 2017 makes little sense, unless the Doctor just assumes that Heather has been taken care of? There are no Movellans, so if it does fit in with the valid narrative, as some sort of "midquel" as you've said, there's something quite particular about how it ignores the current action entirely.
Anyway, though others disagree, I do get a sense that Steven Moffat tried to bridge the two sources in a way that they're not totally incoherent. I agree that continuity errors happen all the time within a singular story, but the real question is: is this a valid story of its own right? What's this thing really intended to be, and what does it translate to for us in practice?
- OttselSpy25
As far as I see it, Friend from the Future wasn't created to be put into an episode (which is why one shouldn't see it as a deleted scene). It instead was a "Special" that was created as a stand-alone, meant to be enjoyed as its own thing. Thus it isn't a "trailer" or a "preview."
The eventual decision to make it part of the final story, and to even tell the fans "that's where it fits. You can all sleep at night now."
You could see FftF as the A Town Called Mercy to The Pilot's The Power of Three. While I'm not against noting minor discrepancies in dialogue and pacing, I think it's highly irrelevant to these forums.
Covering this story would be just as easy as covering a story from The Eight Doctors or Time & Time Again. I really don't think it would be a huge trouble to deal with at all -- if anything, it's less intrusive than those stories.
- TheChampionOfTime
SOTO wrote: Except at that point in the story, having to go back to 2017 makes little sense, unless the Doctor just assumes that Heather has been taken care of?
Unless the Doctor considers the safety of his vault more important than dealing with Heather. If I haven't made this crystal clear yet, in FftF he only says "we've got to get back to the future" after his psychic paper alerts him.
- Thefartydoctor
Guys, go and watch The Fan Show - The Aftershow on YouTube with Pearl Mackie and Steven Moffat. The intent is pretty clear. Moffat goes into more than enough detail to explain why we only see some of the scene and explains, from a nitpicky fan way, how it fits into the timeline.
- Thefartydoctor
I can answer two points raised here from that interview with Moff. Firstly, OS25 states that it wasn't intended as to fit into The Pilot. That's not entirely true. According to Moffat, when asked by Crystal if it was always intended to be there, he said that he wasn't sure. If he could fit it in, he would, otherwise he'd scrap it. As a fellow Doctor Who nitpicker, Moffat tried his utmost to make it work.
The second point is what CoT is saying about guarding the Vault. And it's a perfectly reasonable back-up to the Doctor's comment about "returning to 2017". The Moff explains that the Vault, which is this series' arc, is vitally important. The Doctor has to guard it with his life and never to leave for a second. He goes on to ask "why would you ask the most irresponsible man in the universe to guard the most important vault?". So, yes, I agree with CoT. It's most plausible here that the Doctor is remembering that he's "promised" (as was stated in the episode) someone that he'd stay at St. Luke's and guard that vault. And thus, he feels the need to return at once.
That's my take and none of this is really my opinion. It's taken from the interview and also it's just putting the two sources together and coming up with the most logical answer.
- BananaClownMan
Personally, I see FftF fitting into The Pilot quite well, for reasons already covered in this discussion; Bill asks what a Dalek is from The Pilot, the Doctor goes into detail in Friend from the Future, and then Bill is satisfied enough with the answer to not ask any further questions for the rest of The Pilot.
- OttselSpy25
So is anyone currently apposed to FftF being valid? More specifically, does anyone disagree with any of the recent points brought up?
Not trying to suggest anything, just trying to legitimately understand the current atmosphere of this debate.
- Thefartydoctor
No, I think that Moffat's attempt at clearing it up on The Fan Show: Afterparty leaves us with a clear understanding of how it all fits together. Any "production errors" are left as such, as all stories have their mistakes. Looking forward to having this as part of the official timeline.
- JagoAndLitefoot
I wasn't sure but after this discussion I'd say it should be considered valid.
- Danniesen
I just can't see its fitting into the episode itself.
- Thefartydoctor
I know what you're thinking right now but when you see it, it makes so much sense. The interview with Moffat is really helpful.
- Danniesen
I've already seen it. Still can't see it fitting.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Just War (audio story) and Just War (novel) fit each other even less, yet both are valid stories.
- OttselSpy25
I can't see how the Children in Need Special and The Parting of the Ways fit together. The dialogue doesn't match at all.
- 5.2.105.85
Danniesen wrote: I've already seen it. Still can't see it fitting.
That doesn't matter, if Moffat says it's part of continuity, then it is.
- Danniesen
He never said this short specifically is part of the continuity. He said he would try to fit the clip into the episode.
- Danniesen
Besides, if you watch the clip and that scene from The Pilot, you spot various differences.
- OttselSpy25
I'm sure that you can, and you can also spot them in the episode. Nitty gritty of continuity is irrelevant to the substance of the authorial intent.
- 5.2.105.85
That's like making different parts of Spearhead from Space invalid because they don't match.
- AeD
"But it doesn't fit" has never, to my recollection, mattered that much when talking about Doctor Who -- it's not like we disqualify Spearhead from Space for not meshing with prior statements about the Doctor clearly only having the single heart, or half the UNIT years for being set in two different decades at once.
- 5.2.105.85
AeD wrote: "But it doesn't fit" has never, to my recollection, mattered that much when talking about Doctor Who -- it's not like we disqualify Spearhead from Space for not meshing with prior statements about the Doctor clearly only having the single heart, or half the UNIT years for being set in two different decades at once.
How very true.
- Danniesen
It's never at all stated he only have one heart, so that statement is invalid. Plus all of Spearhead from Space do match eachother so that's another invalid statement.
To my knowledge you can't compare the UNIT dating controversy to this.
- Danniesen
What I think he meant was that he would try to re-make the scene as closely as possible for the episode, not that he would put that specific trailer into the episode.
- OttselSpy25
File:The Pilot Bill.jpgBut the two products do share footage.
Nah, Moffat's pretty clear on what he meant, and there are indeed shots that exist in both the trailer and the episode. Moffat didn't "Reshoot" the moment used in both episodes, he just colour corrected the old footage.
I get if the short doesn't personally fit into your own canon, but I don't think that's heavily relevant to these forums.
- Danniesen
Alone that fact that specific shots are both in FftF and The Pilot should be a pointer towards that the scene was re-made for the episode, making it clear that FftF is not in itself a scene in The Pilot, but the events were re-made for The Pilot, which makes FftF invalid and not ITSELF a part of the story.
- OttselSpy25
Back in the days of cliff-hangers at the BBC Television Centre, there were plenty of examples of pre-credits sequences that didn't match up to their respective recaps and that sort of thing.
Essentially, one shot from FftF was re-done for The Pilot. It's the shot of the Doctor and Bill running and turning after a Dalek blast lands in front of them. Certainly it's brief second of discontinuity, but that in no way invalidates the existence of the story.
Moffat's executive intent was that fans would be able to "sleep" knowing where the one story was meant to fit inside the other. That's the basic definition of the authorial intent to have something set inside the Doctor Who Universe. You can't sweep all of that under the rug simply on the basis of a discrepancy between the end of a corridor.
Danniesen wrote: Alone that fact that specific shots are both in FftF and The Pilot should be a pointer towards that the scene was re-made for the episode, making it clear that FftF is not in itself a scene in The Pilot, but the events were re-made for The Pilot, which makes FftF invalid and not ITSELF a part of the story.
But before you suggested that The Pilot recreated FftF. You can't recreate something and use footage from it as if it happened. And sure, it's not perfect, but that's no reason to call it invalid.
Again, by that logic, Time Crash is a recreation of Last of the Time Lords. Time Crash, in fact, doesn't fit with LotTL, was not meant to be in LotTL, and it has continuity errors.
- Danniesen
A recap of the previous episode's ending is different from this.
I'm in no way saying it wasn't due to fit in the other, but the story itself had many obvious differences to the scene in The Pilot, besides some parts being left out. The trailer fits into that part of the episode, but it isn't a part of the story itself. Think of The Doctor's Meditation (for example). If the story in that prequel was re-made for the purpose of being put into the episode The Magician's Apprentice, the entire prequel itself would become invalid due to the entire storyline becoming part of the final episode itself.
- 5.2.105.85
Danniesen wrote: A recap of the previous episode's ending is different from this.
I'm in no way saying it wasn't due to fit in the other, but the story itself had many obvious differences to the scene in The Pilot, besides some parts being left out. The trailer fits into that part of the episode, but it isn't a part of the story itself. Think of The Doctor's Meditation (for example). If the story in that prequel was re-made for the purpose of being put into the episode The Magician's Apprentice, the entire prequel itself would become invalid due to the entire storyline becoming part of the final episode itself.
If the scene was included in the finished product, then it would be a mere preview. Except it isn't, Moffatt did this on purpose so the mini-episode could fit in. He says it's "canon", then it is, the fact this is being debated is bewildering.
- OttselSpy25
Danniesen wrote: A recap of the previous episode's ending is different from this.
It's kinda not.
I mentioned above (albeit slightly after I posted) that this same problem can be noted in Time Crash.
Here's the thing: it's "all or nothing," any rule we make up to call something invalid has to be used for each and every single example of that being a thing. So if you're going to use that logic to call FftF invalid, then we're also gonna have to call Last of the Time Lords invalid.
Not to mention the many stories, such as The Eight Doctors and Time & Time Again, that are based on the idea of setting themselves in the middle of already-existing stories. Do we call those invalid? Or, indeed, the stories that they are set in the middle of?
Danniesen wrote: I'm in no way saying it wasn't due to fit in the other, but the story itself had many obvious differences to the scene in The Pilot, besides some parts being left out. The trailer fits into that part of the episode, but it isn't a part of the story itself.
First of all, it's not a trailer. If it were to be a trailer, it would feature footage from a product that already existed at the time of creation. It didn't, so please call it a short.
I'm having a very hard time figuring out what you're saying right now. Gonna quote you again...
The [short] fits into that part of the episode, but it isn't a part of the story itself.
So what you're saying is that despite the fact that the short fits into the story, it isn't part of the story... Because they don't talk about the water girl? Or what?
Danniesen wrote: Think of The Doctor's Meditation (for example). If the story in that prequel was re-made for the purpose of being put into the episode The Magician's Apprentice, the entire prequel itself would become invalid due to the entire storyline becoming part of the final episode itself.
I don't think that's true. If The Magician's Apprentice had shown different moments from The Doctor's Meditation while also using a few shots from The Doctor's Meditation, it would be perfectly valid.
The Doctor's Meditation is a terrible example, because it has so many different parts that you could totally use a lot of that in the actual episode and the prequel would still be valid by means of it being meant to be a separate product.
I think I kinda see what you're saying, but it's hardly enough to over-ride "Moffat says it counts."
- Danniesen
No. If The Doctor's Meditation was re-made into The Magician's Apprentice, it would make the prequel itself invalid, as the story itself would be put into the episode.
- Danniesen
OttselSpy25 wrote: Again, by that logic, Time Crash is a recreation of Last of the Time Lords. Time Crash, in fact, doesn't fit with LotTL, was not meant to be in LotTL, and it has continuity errors.
It would not. Because Time Crash is not a recreation. The first scene and the last scene are re-made as closely as possible. Time Crash is specifically fitting into the scene in which we see the Master's burning corpse. The first and the last scenes are made really really true to the previous and following stories. Friend from the Future is made with many obvious differences from the scene in The Pilot (not including the left out dialogue).
- 5.2.105.85
Danniesen wrote: No. If The Doctor's Meditation was re-made into The Magician's Apprentice, it would make the prequel itself invalid, as the story itself would be put into the episode.
No... it wouldn't.
- Danniesen
Yes it would. Really.
- OttselSpy25
Not really.
If The Magician's Apprentice used a couple clips from the prequel or showed what the Doctor was doing while Bors was running around fetching water, it would still be valid.
I think it's counter-productive to now argue over the validity of a thing that doesn't exist.
I think you're trying to say that Friend from the Future is the source material and The Pilot is the adaptation.
If that is the case, then what you are looking for is something like COMIC: Planet of the Rain Gods, the original opening scene to TV: The Doctor's Wife. In that case, it was an original story (PotRG) that was adapted into a different story entirely (TDW)
Here's the difference: there's an equivalent scene in The Doctor's Wife that's totally different from the one in Planet of the Rain Gods. The writer has said that the two are not meant to co-exist. It's a deleted scene, and thus it is invalid. Indeed, he didn't say "it fits," nor did Moffat.
Friend from the Future is not a deleted scene, and Moffat has told us that "it fits." The man might have been a bit silly in believing that we would take his word and allow ourselves to get some sleep over the matter...
Here's a better comparison:
Friend from the Future is Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans, the homevideo release.
The Pilot is Shakedown the novel.
Terrance Dicks took the homevideo, and write a beginning and end to it in Shakedown the book. In the same sense, Moffat took Friend from the Future and wrote a beginning and end to it in The Pilot. If the Shakedown VHS never happened, the Shakedown novel doesn't make any sense. If Friend from the Future didn't happen, The Pilot doesn't make any sense.
Let us again remind ourselves that there are plot points in The Pilot that only make sense under the context that Friend from the Future also happened:
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Moffat takes the time to set up the fact that the Psychic Paper will alert the Doctor to anything attacking the vault. This never amounts to anything in The Pilot, but Friend from the Future has the Doctor looking at the paper before announcing that they have to go back to 2017. Furthermore, it is mentioned later on in The Pilot that the Doctor received a false alarm on his psychic paper...
So indeed, it is part of the story and it was meant to "fit in" and "count."
- 5.2.105.85
Danniesen wrote: Yes it would. Really.
Look, Moffatt has said it's "canonical". To even try to debate this is bewildering.
Let it be valid, why does it matter. It's just a children's show, it wouldn't affect you even if it were a valid. Live and let live.
Seriously though, everyone should think why something Doctor Who shouldn't be valid, it's a tv series, it's silly really that we care.
Why would not including it affect anyone's enjoyment of the wiki.
- OttselSpy25
5.2.105.85 wrote: It's just a children's show, it wouldn't affect you even if it were a valid. Live and let live. ...it's silly really that we care.
That's pretty clearly a bend of T:NPA, please refrain from attacking someone else's mindset in these forums.
- 5.2.105.85
OttselSpy25 wrote:
5.2.105.85 wrote: It's just a children's show, it wouldn't affect you even if it were a valid. Live and let live.
...it's silly really that we care.
That's pretty clearly a bend of T:NPA, please refrain from taking attacking someone else's mindset in these forums.
Didn't mean for it to seem the way, no harm intended.
- Danniesen
5.2.105.85 wrote: To even try to debate this is bewildering.
Let it be valid, why does it matter. It's just a children's show, it wouldn't affect you even if it were a valid. Live and let live.
Seriously though, everyone should think why something Doctor Who shouldn't be valid, it's a tv series, it's silly really that we care.
Why would not including it affect anyone's enjoyment of the wiki.
There is a reason discussion pages like this exist. We need to debate things sometimes to reach an agreement on this Wikia about certain things. Such as this.
- OttselSpy25
Danniesen wrote: Friend from the Future is made with many obvious differences from the scene in The Pilot (not including the left out dialogue).
Again, not really. It's meant to fit in during the scene of Nardole being chased by the Dalek. The only differences between the two scenes is in the shot of Bill and the Doctor turning. In one the hallway ends in a wall, and the Doctor is on the right side of the pair. In the other, the Doctor is on the left and the hallway leads into another room. In both cases, they are blocked by a sudden, erupting ball of fire.
That's a discrepancy so small that it would be hard to describe on a page like Twelfth Doctor without writing a really awkward sentence.
- According to one source, the Doctor was on the left side of Bill, while another put him on her right side.
No one would ever write that. If it's something that amazingly small, then it isn't enough to call the story invalid.
- 5.2.105.85
Danniesen wrote:
5.2.105.85 wrote: To even try to debate this is bewildering.
Let it be valid, why does it matter. It's just a children's show, it wouldn't affect you even if it were a valid. Live and let live.
Seriously though, everyone should think why something Doctor Who shouldn't be valid, it's a tv series, it's silly really that we care.
Why would not including it affect anyone's enjoyment of the wiki.
There is a reason discussion pages like this exist. We need to debate things sometimes to reach an agreement on this Wikia about certain things. Such as this.
Sorry for that.
- Danniesen
OttselSpy25 wrote: If Friend from the Future didn't happen, The Pilot doesn't make any sense.
The Pilot isn't dependent in Friend from the Future to make sense.
OttselSpy25 wrote: Let us again remind ourselves that there are plot points in The Pilot that only make sense under the context that Friend from the Future also happened:
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Moffat takes the time to set up the fact that the Psychic Paper will alert the Doctor to anything attacking the vault. This never amounts to anything in The Pilot, but Friend from the Future has the Doctor looking at the paper before announcing that they have to go back to 2017. Furthermore, it is mentioned later on in The Pilot that the Doctor received a false alarm on his psychic paper...
That's not true. In The Pilot, on their way off-world Nardole asks the Doctor about the vault and the Doctor pulls out his psychic paper and says he will get a message if there's any trouble.
- Danniesen
5.2.105.85 wrote: Sorry for that.
That's alright. Moving on.
- OttselSpy25
Danniesen wrote: The Pilot isn't dependent in Friend from the Future to make sense.
That's not true. In The Pilot, on their way off-world Nardole asks the Doctor about the vault and the Doctor pulls out his psychic paper and says he will get a message if there's any trouble.
No, it is true.
- In the Pilot, before the Dalek scene, the Doctor says that if the Vault is attacked his Psychic paper will get a notification.
- In FftF, the Doctor gets a notification on the psychic paper and says that they have to get back to 2017.
- In The Pilot, the Doctor says that the notification was a false signal. The vault registered a sick student as a biological attack.
The inclusion of the final button doesn't make sense if you don't include the middle one. Indeed, even you admit the existence of the first one. That wouldn't have been included if not to explain the events of FftF.
"It fits," Moffat says. We have an example where it certainly was meant to fit. And the most I've heard for why it doesn't fit is "the corridors look kinda different."
Also, we're not going anywhere else in this conversation without acknowledging the relatively solid Shakedown comparison. Shakedown the novel re-works the plot of Shakedown the homevid story, and indeed adapts a story before and after it. It's all or nothing, so what is your take on that situation?
- Danniesen
I don't really have any particular knowledge outside the TV series. I know the plots and ideas and characters of some of them, but I have only really knowledge of the TV series.
- Danniesen
Idk, it just doesn't seem to be valid in my eyes.
Indeed at the point where they turn around to face the Dalek, they stand in eachother's place in the other story.
- OttselSpy25
OttselSpy25 wrote: The only differences between the two scenes is in the shot of Bill and the Doctor turning. In one the hallway ends in a wall, and the Doctor is on the right side of the pair. In the other, the Doctor is on the left and the hallway leads into another room. In both cases, they are blocked by a sudden, erupting ball of fire.
That's a discrepancy so small that it would be hard to describe on a page like Twelfth Doctor without writing a really awkward sentence.
- According to one source, the Doctor was on the left side of Bill, while another put him on her right side.
No one would ever write that. If it's something that amazingly small, then it isn't enough to call the story invalid.
- OttselSpy25
Danniesen wrote: Idk, it just doesn't seem to be valid in my eyes.
I'm sorry, but that sounds like the definition of a head-canon. We don't cover canon, and if our editors think something is canon isn't relevant to if we cover it.
- Danniesen
I know that. I didn't say that. There's no reason to tell me what I already know.
- Danniesen
I still hold on the fact that a scene from Into the Dalek was used. Specifically Rusty, who had his gun modified. No such Dalek appears in The Pilot.
- OttselSpy25
Danniesen wrote: I still hold on the fact that a scene from Into the Dalek was used. Specifically Rusty, who had his gun modified. No such Dalek appears in The Pilot.
Again, that's a continuity error. It's heavily irrelevant to the story's inclusion. I agree with you, and you should add that to the 'notes' section of Friend from the Future (webcast) if it's not already there, but I just don't think that point invalidates the story.
- Danniesen
It is probably admin that has the final say, so they should probably come in to conclude what is done.
- 2.31.133.219
I think it should be valid the shots not matching perfectly is not a reason not to include as storys like the dedley assign ,mark of the rain the the runerway bride and numerous episodes from the 1960s have recaps that don't mache the episode before plus from Moffat description and behind the seance info released so far they where made separately with the relevant part of the pilot written around what happened in frend from the future
- Thefartydoctor
Can I ask, if this Inclusions debate concludes with FftF being valid (which I agree with due to the points mentioned above by both OS25 and other contributors), would we finally be able to set The Pilot in 2017? :)
- TheChampionOfTime
I've said it once, I've said it twice, I'll say it a third time: the line about getting back to 2017 has been retconned to refer to a sick student activating the vault's alarms while the Doc, Bill, and Nardole are away. The validation of FftF would definitely confirm the Pilot to be set in 2016/17.
- Thefartydoctor
Some of us don't have that memory span, so chill. It was just a question. A lot of contradictory things gets said from different people on these threads. What one person says isn't the be all and end all. At the end of the day, it's the admin's discretion what is and isn't allowed. The admin will come up with any technicalities, if needs must. :)
- TheChampionOfTime
Thefartydoctor wrote: chill
Apologies, I wasn't aiming to sound frustrated or angry.
This thread feels like it's going to be closed soon, so I felt the need to raise the - in my opinion quite important - point. It's something that just hasn't been mentioned much in this thread.
When it comes to the 2017 business, Tardis:In-universe perspective clearly says that all narratives have equal weight. In FftF the Doctor says he has to go back to 2017, in TP the Doctor says that he thought he had to go back to the Vault. Not all episodes of Class specify themselves to be set in 2016, but the fact that some of them do is enough to say that all of them do. Similarily, one story indicating Bill's native era to be 2017 should be enough to say that all stories set in Bill's native era are set in 2017 (unless, you know, there's something to indicate otherwise).
As far as I'm aware, the only technicality that overrules Tardis:In-universe perspective is the one for adaptations, and if anything's an adaptation in this situation, it's The Pilot.
- OttselSpy25
My only thought is that we can't say across the board that the entirety of The Pilot is set during 2017 for one very simple reason -- directly before the second Heather sequence is a part set at Christmas. Either S10 is set in the final week between Christmas and the new year or everything up to the second Heather sequence is set in 2016.
So it's best just to reference the date for the scene where Heather is absorbed by the oil forwards.
- Danniesen
We also have to calculate the Doctor's timeline into this.
I mean Class is definitely in August/November 2016. The first scene of TRoDM is in the early 1990s, setting the latter part in 2016 (but not sure when). Would that put the first part of The Pilot in 2016, then Christmas 2016 and then onwards to 2017?
- OttselSpy25
I think that's going a bit too far. My only point was that we can only accept that all of the scenes in the final act (Heather going into the puddle, Bill telling the Doctor about the puddle, them investigating it, Bill going home, etc) are the only parts that we can definitively call "2017."
Timelines are speculative and we try to avoid them, and we certainly shouldn't try to put all of the media in the last two years into any sort of "order." Indeed, my only singular point is that it's hard to say when 2017 starts in The Pilot.
- OncomingStorm12th
Actually, validity aside, we don't truly need FftF to define the year in which The Pilot happens.
I just came across a part of The Shining Man (novel) where Bill, the Doctor and Charlotte are talking, and Bill says "Sweet. They were coming out in August, so it’s not far off when we left. Is it still 2017?", to which Charlotte answers "Of course it is". That said, The Pilot definitely happens on 2016/2017.
- Danniesen
Thank you. Now we can bury that. Whether you see FftF as canon or not, we can for sure say it takes place in 2016-2017.
- 2.31.133.219
Why was the date even relevant to frend from the future being valid to being with
- Danniesen
Because in Friend from the Future, the Doctor says "2017 needs us".
- OttselSpy25
Thought this is off-topic, with this very specific quote from the book, we can ascertain that the 2017 sections of series 10 take place before August.
Thus, and I'm basing this partially off of if FftF is valid, all of The Pilot up to after the Christmas "Bill looking at her Mum's pics" scene is set in 2016, while the rest (Heather staring at the puddle to the credits) is set in 2017.
- Danniesen
Basically what I thought, and this is already put on the pages.
- OttselSpy25
As a quick note, we can only say that The Pilot itself takes place in 2017 at all if FftF is valid. If not, all we truly know is that Series 10 at some point takes place in 2017. There's still a one-week-gap in-between Christmas 2016 and January 2017 where the rest of The Pilot could take place.
This, of course, is disproven if one accepts FftF.
- 2.31.133.219
OttselSpy25 wrote: As a quick note, we can only say that The Pilot itself takes place in 2017 at all if FftF is valid. If not, all we truly know is that Series 10 at some point takes place in 2017. There's still a one-week-gap in-between Christmas 2016 and January 2017 where the rest of The Pilot could take place.
This, of course, is disproven if one accepts FftF.
I don't think so as electionnal establishements will Be closed over the two weeks that include Christmas and the new year meaning that the post Christmas part of the episode makes the most sense if it takes place after the new year
- OttselSpy25
That's still hefty speculation though, using non-narrative information to fit together a "timeline."
Unless FftF is to become valid, it's best just to not state the date for any period after the post-Christmas sequence, and that means through Smile.
EDIT: As Knock Knock gives us a clear date of 2017, the period that we can't properly judge currently is after the Christmas 2016 sequence through the end of Thin Ice.
- 217.43.40.225
I don't see why this should be considered invalid. It's not the first time a story has been set DURING another. For example, should we now count the Class story Detained as non-canon? Oh, and to the people complaining about the differences between this and the televised story, does that make Planet of Giants part 3 non-canon? The cliffhanger to part 2 clearly shows all the water disappearing down the sink (every last drop!) but in part 3 the plug is put back in before very much of the water runs down the plughole.
- 217.43.40.225
Besides, we already count other contradictory adaptations of stories as canon (somebody else already mentioned 'Just War')
- OttselSpy25
217.43.40.225 wrote: Besides, we already count other contradictory adaptations of stories as canon (somebody else already mentioned 'Just War')
Just a reminder, we don't muddy ourselves with canon. We only deal with validity. :)
- 217.43.40.225
OttselSpy25 wrote:
217.43.40.225 wrote: Besides, we already count other contradictory adaptations of stories as canon (somebody else already mentioned 'Just War')
Just a reminder, we don't muddy ourselves with canon. We only deal with validity. :)
What's the difference? Anyway, I think that this is valid, it's a regular TV minisode (not a webcast, despite what the page title says) with nothing particularly off about it.
- Amorkuz
The difference between how canon is used by other communities and our division of stories into valid and invalid ones is explained at T:CANON.
However, it is not entirely correct to call this a "regular" TV minisode given that such minisodes are anything but regular. For instance, Series 9 only contained two minisodes, both attached to the same full-length episode, which, incidentally, also happens to be the first regular episode of the series. Coincidence?
- 178.101.202.82
But both of the series 9 minisodes are valid and frend from the future was a tv story
- OttselSpy25
I think that Amorkuz is just saying that there's little "common" or "regular" about TV minisodes these days.
- Flabshoe1
So when will Friend from the Future be accepted as valid? It seems like everyone's concerns with its validity have been answered in this thread
- OttselSpy25
I was trying to keep up an air of "This will be sorted eventually," but I've come to the conclusion that this thread is wholly wrapped up and should be closed. If anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear why.
- Thefartydoctor
I think one of the Aftershow episodes on YouTube featured a fan video which places the minisode into the episode as a clarification for fans. Obviously, that video does not have licensing, and the Fan Show can't speak on behalf of the Doctor Who team... but I just thought it was interesting. It's almost like when DWM showcases a fan video or drawing. If this helps, then great. If it doesn't, just ignore it.
- SOTO
Just out of curiosity, has anyone else seen this? Was it on The Fan Show? The Aftershow? Just give the name of the video place, or, if it's uploaded here, the link to that file.
- SOTO
OttselSpy25 wrote: I think that Amorkuz is just saying that there's little "common" or "regular" about TV minisodes these days.
I cannot speak for Amorkuz, but I believe he meant regular as in "regularity", not "commonality".
- Amorkuz
I was simply repeating the description of a "regular TV minisode" and noticing that minisodes appear so rarely nowadays that no pattern or rule can be devised about them. This was not an argument against validity. It was an argument against a particular way of determining validity that would make any minisode valid by default.
- OttselSpy25
I kinda agree. Minisodes are so rare that each one comes out through completely different circumstances. There's little connections between a TARDISode, a Series 9 prequel released in the theatre, and a Microbit storyline.
- Thefartydoctor
- Thefartydoctor
I was starting to think I'd imagined it hehe
- OttselSpy25
Hey, just so you know, we have a policy against posting video links on the site. It would be better to delete the links and simply state the titles.
The title is David Suchet and Mike Bartlett - The Aftershow - Doctor Who: The Fan Show.
It's already uploaded on our site, under File:David_Suchet_and_Mike_Bartlett_-_The_Aftershow_-_Doctor_Who_The_Fan_Show.
- Amorkuz
There are several points that baffle me.
1. Why do we keep discussing what Moffat said regarding The Pilot in the inclusion debate on Friends to the Future? If continuity does not matter and it is a stand-alone story, then the postfactum intents should not matter. What matters is the intent of Moffat and director Lawrence Gough regarding Friends to the Future at the time of its shooting.
2. Regarding this intent, I don't have a quote from Moffat at the time. Here are the quotes from DWMSE 45
- "they just asked if I'd mind coming in to shoot this promo teaser" (director Gough)
- "I was told we were shooting the promo" (costume designer Hayley Nebauer)
- "Shooting the trailer was absolutely mental" (Pearl Mackie)
In other words, everyone involved in making of it were shooting a trailer/promo teaser.
3. But what I really don't get is how is it a story, a stand-alone story? What is the narrative of this stand-alone story? Literally nothing happens. There was a lot of retconning upthread, but that's not how stories are supposed to work. As everyone kept saying, inconsistencies with other stories should not matter. But this promo teaser does not make sense on its own. There is no beginning, no connection to any other story in existence at the time (and for almost the next full year), no explanation for Bill's presence, and no ending. Nothing happens: it's just dialogue that gives zero new information. It's all done to introduce the character of Bill. The Doctor and an unknown female run away from the Daleks, then talk, then the Doctor says 2017 is waiting for them, they run and are confronted by a Dalek---is not a story. It is a teaser trailer as the production team rightfully called it. It does not make sense by itself from the in-universe perspective.
4. Perhaps, the argument was that FftF forms one story with TP? But for that they are too far away from each other timewise, and, despite what many were saying, they do not fit. Not on the production level, on the very content level. In the promo teaser, Bill and the Doctor are chased by the Daleks. When a Dalek confronts them at the end, it says: "Humanoids detected". This is a perfectly Dalek thing to say. But in the actual episode this was not a Dalek, it was Heather in a Dalek shape (of course, Heather did not yet exist during the shooting of promo teaser). Why would Heather, whose whole purpose is tracking down Bill call her a Humanoid? It made no sense. Accordingly, Moffat changed it to something more appropriate to Heather. In my opinion, this one phrase precludes considering the promo teaser and the episode to be the same story.
- OttselSpy25
- Continuity doesn't matter, by any means. One could argue that Moffat was, at best, unsure about if the story was going to "count" at the time. However, by the time that The Pilot aired, he straight out said that it did count, which really should have closed the debate from day one. If the BBC or Moffat tells us that something counts or "fits", then it just does. If the BBC turned around right now and told us that something that we call "non-DWU" counted, then it would be valid. That's just how it tends to work.
- The definition of a "teaser" or a "trailer" can be all over the place, and that is an important distinction to make. Just because something was made to tease another product or entice someone into watching something else does not mean that it is a trailer. By the loose definition of "trailer" supplied above, every prequel or prelude since Tardisode 1 should be invalid.
- It is heavily questionable how Amorkuz has chosen to define what a "narrative" is. The phrase "Literally nothing happens" is literally totally wrong, given that things do happen in the story literally. While it might have made some more happy if the short included a whole Sherlockian plot entirely unique to the story, two people being chased by Daleks and discussing what a Dalek is is still a story. If TV: Prologue is valid, then so is this.
The question of if it was truly stand-alone is also basically not even a debate. It was a stand-alone, in fact, for just under a year. Are you asking if it makes sense without The Pilot? The answer is no. But, again, none of the Tardisodes make sense without Series 2 either.
It is a story. If you want to argue that it's not a story, then make a forum on how every prequel or prelude ever released isn't a story. Otherwise, it's a story.
I also want to remind everyone that there is dialogue in The Pilot meant specifically to explain something that you only see in Friend from the Future. Without Friend from the Future, The Pilot doesn't make sense. You can't have one without the other. Not having Friend from the Future specifically hinders our ability to cover The Pilot. - You see, I'm baffled here. You just argued that it should be invalid because it's one with The Pilot, and now you're saying that it should be invalid because the Pilot has too little to do with it? It's one or the other! Or rather, neither.
The fact that this story was later retconned by the episode which sought out to explain its plot in an extremely minor way has nothing to do with if it should be valid or not. The argument that it had a different production block is also irrelevant, since shots from FftF were used in the Pilot. If anything, all people credited for working on FftF need to also have their info credited on the Pilot's page.
And for the fiftieth time it must be clarified that subjective observations about continuity errors in Doctor Who have no place on our site, and thus have no place in our validity debates. We can not tell people that a prequel short is invalid entirely because of a minor continuity nit-pick that very few people actually care about.
I think this has gone on far too long, a lasting sign of the main problem with these forums. I had entirely forgotten that it was still open, because we had reached a consensus and people had agreed that it was time to close it months ago. Yet here it still is, open, a continuous sign that there's no point in even opening a thread on this site because it has almost a 0% of ever being closed.
Friend from the Future is a short televised prequel/prelude that serves the exact same role as any Tardisode or 11th Doctor prequel. There have been almost no arguments given in FftF that wouldn't also apply to those two groupings of stories.
Friend from the Future is one of the least-controversial stories for which we have had a debate on in recent years, it being valid would not even lead to the creation of pages on anything within the story. There's no hazardous side-effects or precedents which would happen by making this valid. By all accounts, making the Dr. Men series valid has more of an impact. And I am frankly frustrated that we are still doing this.
Here's the ultimatum: Moffat says it fits. The entire opener of Series 10 was designed so that it would fit. Our job as a wiki is to describe stories that were meant to fit. There is no debate to be had about how well it fits. It doesn't matter how well it fits. The point is that it was meant to fit. If you don't think it fits, then to you it isn't canon. But that has no bearing on if it should be valid or not on this site.
.jpg)
So it's important to examine what Moffat actually said in episode 1 of The Aftershow. He does not say it fits. He says quite clearly at around the 4'05" mark, that he "wasn't sure at all" whether he was going to reuse Friend from the Future. He then says he tried to fit it in. And when he did, he put the whole thing in, and "it didn't work". It had to be edited to make sense. That means the production team made editorial decisions about what to keep and what to throw away. .
We honor those kind of choices around here. The full Friend from the Future is best considered a deleted scene. And this wiki has long held that deleted scenes don't count.
So Friend from the Future, in its entirety, is invalid on that basis alone.
However, I take on board Amorkuz' points about production intent at the time of shooting "Friend". DWMSE 45 does indeed establish this as a promo in the minds of key produciton personnel. DWM 511 tells us definitively that it was Pearl's audition scene that got filmed. It was thus never meant to be a true story, just a scene. And DWM 500 tells us that the BBC explicitly commissioned it as an "announcement" of the new companion, which Moffat then described as "a funny little moment". So even if you think that it doesn't matter at all how it was treated by the makers of The Pilot, it's still not a story and therefore invalid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:215070
There's a new series of licensed Mr. Men/Doctor Who mashups by Roger Hargreaves. Including one that's been animated and read by Michelle Gomez:
File:Dr. Twelfth (Read by Michelle Gomez) - Doctor Who
Of course we should have pages for them but should we treat them as valid stories? I watched the video and generally it's a silly children's story, but aside from the animation style, it's still pretty much an in-universe Doctor Who story.
- CzechOut
There's really no issue here. They're valid, if of limited use to us. The clear precedent is K9 and the Beasts of Vega and others in that series.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:215101
So, a couple of days ago there were a few Doctor Who/Mr. Men crossovers released. From what I can tell Dr. Eleventh and Dr. Twelfth are unaffected by what I'm about to say as they are just any old story written in a Mr. Men format.
But some of these releases feature a character called Walter the Worm who is a character from the original Mr. Men books. After doing some research I found out that the original series of books were set in an entirely separate fictional universe called Misterland. Does the fact that Walter the Worm is a crossover character from a separate universe invalidate certain stories in the Dr. Men series? The stories which would be invalidated by the change would be The Daleks Chase Walter the Worm, Dr. First and Dr. Fourth.
By the way, as I am writing this I saw Thread:215070 but it didn't address any of the points I have just made.
- OttselSpy25
That's a rather good question, but in truth the inclusion of Walter is likely meant as little more than a cameo, or indeed just to get people excited for the new books. I would need quotes on how he appears within the books to really make a decision, but right off that bat I'm simply not absolutely sure.
If, for instance, the worm appears solely as a background character, then I don't think it invalidates the story. We would need a huge shift in how the books are written to over-rule them for including one character.
- Borisashton
The character only appears in a cameo and is not mentioned by the text of the book. It should be said that for the most part he appeared in this way in the original Mr. Mens. (i.e in a Where's Wally kind of way where sometimes he could just be seen peeping up from a hole in the ground).
These are his three appearances in Dr. First and Dr. Fourth: The Daleks Chase Walter the Worm is available to view in its entirety on the Doctor Who Facebook page.
- File:Dr First Walter in hole.JPG (Dr. First)
- File:Dr Fourth Walter in hole.JPG (Dr. Fourth)
- File:Walter chased by Daleks.JPG (Dr. Fourth)
- Amorkuz
Wait, but wasn't it discussed very recently that we don't really care how many additional universes are involved and which characters from them are there. These are stories involving the Doctor, right? So DWU. They are licensed; they are stories; they are released. A story involving any of the Doctors cannot, IMHO, be intended to be set outside DWU in any reasonable sense of DWU, however restrictive.
Put it another way, the fact that Walter the Worm belongs to some other universe is, strictly speaking, out-of-DWU information. All we know is that it met some of the Doctors. I would say this is no different from the Doctor meeting Robin Hood, who is also a literary character, or meeting Gulliver in the Land of Fiction.
And of course, there were plenty of crossovers on a much larger scale, such as Assimilation² involving a big chunk of Star Trek universe.
- Borisashton
Amorkuz wrote: Wait, but wasn't it discussed very recently that we don't really care how many additional universes are involved and which characters from them are there. These are stories involving the Doctor, right? So DWU. They are licensed; they are stories; they are released. A story involving any of the Doctors cannot, IMHO, be intended to be set outside DWU in any reasonable sense of DWU, however restrictive.
Put it another way, the fact that Walter the Worm belongs to some other universe is, strictly speaking, out-of-DWU information. All we know is that it met some of the Doctors. I would say this is no different from the Doctor meeting Robin Hood, who is also a literary character, or meeting Gulliver in the Land of Fiction.
And of course, there were plenty of crossovers on a much larger scale, such as Assimilation² involving a big chunk of Star Trek universe.
I wasn't aware of this. Can you point me in the direction of it?
- OttselSpy25
I agree that using out-of-universe information to justify why a story can't be valid is pretty odd. If the element isn't represented within the story, it's heavily irrelevant to the discussion.
- Amorkuz
Finding this discussed on a closed thread will require some research. And I hope it might not be necessary. Because as much as I like to discuss general practices of the wiki, they are also more likely to lead to an extended discussion. I promise to get back to you on this. But in the interests of making a decision easier to achieve, let me instead use a concrete analogy.
What we have is a character not even named in the book, based on what Borisashton said. So, clearly, no talk about some parallel universes or "Misterland" specifically is present in the stories, which are, after all, intended for 3-7-year-old children. In other words, a reader might recognise a familiar reference, but the characters in the story are completely oblivious to it being out-of-place. Right?
Well, meet the comic story Party Animals, where the Doctor(s) meet Bart Simpson, Captain Britain, the Hulk, the Silver Surfer, a Ferengi, John Steed and Emma Peel to name the most famous of the franchise crashers. Although I do not own this comic, I would assume that, as with many comic stories I've seen, there is zero attempt to explain where all these Marvels and Co appeared from or, indeed, to point out that they are out-of-place.
Despite all that, the story is valid, without causing the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe to sneak into the DWU, mind you. Sometimes the Hulk is just the Hulk.
While many of these character pages are not yet created, look at how Bart Simpson is treated with regard to the comic story Space Invaders!: "individual resembling Bart". If he's not named, we are not even sure it's him.
I'll try to find more examples if need be. But this is a better match than Assimilation.
- Borisashton
Okay, fine. With that comparison I'm happy that the stories are valid. Although, it still seems weird that the Daleks would seemingly randomly chase a worm. Anyway, that's no reason for it to be invalid. We'll see if the second batch in August can offer anything new.
If you could get back to be with a link to that thread at a later date that would be much appreciated.
- OttselSpy25
Borisashton wrote: Although, it still seems weird that the Daleks would seemingly randomly chase a worm.
Why, the Daleks hate and fear all life that is not like their own! And on a planet so distraught by war that plant-life becomes like glass and you need pills to avoid radiation sickness, I'm sure a worm would really freak them out...
- Borisashton
Yeah, fair enough.
- Does the fact that Walter the Worm is a crossover character from a separate universe invalidate certain stories in the Dr. Men series? The stories which would be invalidated by the change would be The Daleks Chase Walter the Worm, Dr. First and Dr. Fourth.
Not sure we needed a second thread beyond Thread:215070 to determine validity of these (delightful!) li'l kids books. Nothing in this thread challenges the decision in 215070. All these Dr. Men books are still valid.
As OS25 originally surmised, this is just a cameo by Walter. It's actually a cameo in the truest sense of the word -- a wordless, unnamed appearance.
So it threatens nothing.
But we also don't extend out further into the Mr. Men "universe" and say that other stories involving Walter are then valid topics for articles on this wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:215192
Is this worth noting on the episode page for Smile?
https://brianofmorbius.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/god-is-in-the-detail-10-02/
- OttselSpy25
Definitely not.
Rampant speculation which is clearly bordering on parody. We should not, by any means, say that Smile foreshadows the return of Rose Tyler and Meta-Crisis just because of sideways Is on a map.
- "Further proof, as if any were needed, may be found in the fact that ‘Noel Edmonds’ may be rearranged to form ‘End old me, son’ – and it is from this that we may conclude that THE THIRTEENTH DOCTOR WILL BE PLAYED BY MICHAEL TROUGHTON."
This is the Doctor Who equivalent to the Paul is dead theory.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:215775
Right, so a bit of a weird one. I think (in theory) the episode The Beta Test Initiation of The Big Bang Theory deserves a page. Or more specifically the scene in which the characters are watching an episode of Doctor Who.
As Sheldon and his mates are explicitly watching an episode of Who (that is easily identifiable as Silence in the Library I think it is more than just a cultural reference and deserves a page on this site. It would be ridiculous to cover the whole episode so maybe we could go half in half out where only the Doctor Who segment is covered, like LEGO Dimensions.
As I said above, in theory, I believe it should be covered. The Big Bang Theory is not a BBC programme and I haven't been able to dig up anything on a licence given to the show to use the music from an episode.
Also, this is a thread about inclusion on the site, and not validity. It is pretty clearly invalid. Unless, someone has a good reason to argue it takes place in the Meta-fiction universe or another parallel universe.
- OttselSpy25
To me, this is a staunch "no." We can't have a page on every cultural reference to Doctor Who, especially as New Media more and more becomes a thing. I'm not even convinced that we need pages on every BBC segment about the show, and half of what we do have we might not need. So that's a "no" on adding a page about a Big Bang Theory sketch about Doctor Who from me.
Regarding the (offtopic to "Inclusion debates" and, hence, secondary) question of creating a page for this invalid story, as stated by OttselSpy25 upthread, it is not the policy of the wiki to create separate pages for cultural references, however extended. I can only add that their proper place is Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:217351
So it's been a rather long-standing practice on this site that when secondary monsters are licensed out to collections of stories (such as Bernice Summerfield in Decalog 5: Wonders) we only count the stories which feature said DWU concepts, instead of every story in the book.
With this in mind, I wanted to bring into question why two stories from The Dalek Outer Space Book which have nothing to do with anything from the DWU are currently covered on this site as fully valid stories. These being The Sea Monsters and The Unwilling Traveller. In this case, I not only am going to argue that these should be invalid, but that their pages should be deleted from our databases.
Keeping in mind that I do not consider 'The Orbitus to be part of my analysis, do to it at-least featuring Dalek technology.
Now because the Dalek annuals and comics have become so highly regarded as an essential part of the history of the show, many would likely forget that they are no different from the Auton films of the 1990s or the K9 TV series. In that, they were not published by the BBC, and they only exist because of a specific license pertaining to one race of villains from the show. Thus, when a story fails to feature even the suggestion that the writer intended for it to be set in the same universe as any element every featured in the DWU, then it almost usually fails rule 4.
Consider as example Tales from the TARDIS, back-up strips that were simply reprints of Stan Lee comics with narration by the Fourth Doctor. It's been pretty consistently decided that because these stories are wholly unconnected to anything other than the initial panel of the Doctor, they are invalid. So invalid that none of the individual stories feature any pages outside of the link towards the main series.
It should be noted that in the case of this book, there is already one story featured inside which does not have a page: a Chris Welkin-Planeteer comic story which is a reprint of a newspaper comic. All three of these comics (Sea Monsters, Unwilling Traveller, and Welkin-Planeteer) are printed in a row -- seemingly to put all of the non-Dalek stories in the middle of the book.
Just to recap the stories:
The Unwilling Traveller features a burglar who breaks into an institute only to be sent into the future, and then the past. He eventually ends up back home, and is arrested for breaking and entering. No reference is made towards the Daleks or even Sara Kingdom.
In The Sea Monsters, disruptions in a reactivated machine cause the fish in the sea to grow and evolve, and the fish are eventually killed by an H-Bomb.
Unwilling is very hard to defend. In the case of The Sea Monsters, however, it can be noted that the suits (and the people in the suits, although they have different names) are identical to those featured in The Dalek Trap. However, we have no indication that both of these stories feature characters from the same operation or organization. All we can really say is that they wear similar space-suits, keeping in mind that these suits are identical to those featured in classical Dan Dare strips. I doubt one could justify using a rather common looking space suit to claim that a story was based in the DWU.
Based off of how little attention these stories have actually received on this site, I imagine that obscurity has mainly driven them to be included. If not, I'd love to hear the rationale from people who want them to be included.
- CzechOut
Yeah these stories are dumb. To be fair, though, there's not gonna be an awful lot of interest even in the stories that do have Daleks. The book comes from a wholly different age of storytelling.
All I can say is that the book as a whole is copyright Nation by special arrangement with the BBC. It's claimed to be "based on the Dalek Chronicles discovered and translated by Terry Nation". These two stories are a part of that license, and that fictional claim, unlike "Chris Welkin -- Planeteer". So that's why these stories were included on the wiki, but "Welkin" wasn't. They are original stories to this publication, presumably approved in some way by Nation himself.
Having the articles is preferred because it allows us to explain what their plots are, and so to highlight that they're not obviously connected to Daleks. However, they are a part of the fictional "Dalek Chronicles", so the conceit of the annual is that those two stories were of interest to the Daleks.
From a real world perspective, consider what Nation was trying to do with the Daleks at this point. He had/was about to withdraw them from Doctor Who to use them to launch his own franchise with them. This annual was sort of the first salvo in that failed campaign. These two stories were the equivalent of "backdoor pilots" for potentially new franchises from the Dalek platform.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:218739
anyone else notice this little girl is psycho? she literally threatened her mother by saying "or do you want me to draw you too.... mom" with an evil sideways glance. meaning she knew full well what she was doing and kept doing it intentionally.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:223157
So guys what do you think,are there any Afterlife worlds,realms and dimensions in Doctor Who Univeres wich are ruled by actual and real deities,mystical entities and magical beings,but not ALIEN ones.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:224324
I just came across the talk page for this audio story. It discusses the validity of the "story", which should really be discussed in this board. I'm posting the conversation here as a starter.
from Talk:The First Doctor: Volume Two trailer (audio story):
- Ok guys; I know the trailer was unusual, (as in, had a narrative, instead of just snippets from the stories) but I think we should still hold back on using it as a Valid Source. Tardis:Valid sources clearly states that trailers don't count. And I know this is the exception of the rule, but going trough an inclusion debate seems better IMO (although, I'll admit, I will support that this trailer should be a VS, and this trailer only). OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:25, June 22, 2017 (UTC)
- This whole situation is near identical to those Virgin preludes or the Tardisodes: a short original narrative released before the "main event" which ties into it and expands upon elements of the story. CoT ? 21:42, June 22, 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that is very similar, but the biggest issue, is that this is directly named as a trailer, unlike the Tardisodes and the preludes There is also another somewhat narrative trailer that was deemed an invalid. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:49, June 22, 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, upon rewatching the trailer and relistening to 1st Doctor trailer, I admit they are different, but I still see this being named as a "trailer" as a bit problematic. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:52, June 22, 2017 (UTC)
- Shambala108
Just adding that if this thing is labeled a "trailer", it is specifically not valid by policy.
The lead of the article not only calls it a "trailer" but also uses the word "advertised". That makes this not valid by two counts: trailer and advertisement.
- OttselSpy25
Well, if you click on the link to the SoundCloud file by Big Finish it says "trailer" in parenthesis. However, I think that it would be best to describe this as a "prelude" of sorts.
- Amorkuz
We often insist on not taking the marketing tricks at face value. For instance, main range stories with Bernice Summerfield are now added to the single releases range of the Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series on the Big Finish website. But we reserve the right not to accept that. In most cases, it means that we may not give things the status the publisher suggests. Thus, it seems only fair that, in principle, we may also give things the status the publisher does not suggest. They did call it a trailer, though Briggs in one of the podcasts (I can't remember which) said that they wanted to try something different with this trailer (he shied away from defining what it was in the end).
My proposal is to evaluate it on its merits rather than on its name. Is it really a trailer or is it a "prelude", to use the term of OttselSpy25. In other words, let us look at why T:VS excludes trailers and see if the original reasoning is applicable here. Seemingly the main problems are:
- Rule 3: is it officially released?
- Rule 1: does it form a story?
- Does it contain de-facto cut scenes: alternative cuts of scenes from the actual stories that contradict them?
- OttselSpy25
That's a very tricky subject that you've suggested we dive into.
In my eyes, the rule of "trailers are not stories" was implemented mainly due to the many that showed clips from upcoming stories. So, for instance, a next-time trailer is not an episode. Soon, this was extended to appeal to many other things, such as the BBC ident narratives or trailers that use original scenes. This was simply because few of these told a story at all.
The first big time that a narrative-driven "trailer" was disputed in a discussion of validity was with the case of TV: Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars, where it was said that the story didn't count simply because it was an advertisement. Advertisements, it was reasoned, can never be narratives. The logic here is that the intent of the story to sell something else made it invalid.
The same debate also had the comic Dr Who and the Turgids invalidated. That is a case where the strip had a full narrative but its intent to serve as an ad for a toy made it invalid.
These are simply examples of precedent that I am laying out as an example.
In my eyes, this "story" (because it is a story, there is no debate) was indeed created to cause the listener to want to purchase something else. But I'm not sure that this alone makes it a "trailer" and thus not a narrative. Most prequels and preludes are used with the intention of selling what comes next. Are the Tardisodes trailers? What about the Series 6 Prequels? If they are and this isn't, what's the difference?
I've talked about this before when debating the validity of Doctor, Doctor, Doctor. (Don't let the tag at the top of the page fool you -- this story was never declared invalid by any authority. Two debates have been had about LEGO stories, and this passes the rules set up by both of those.) I stand by my belief that a webcast telling an original story, even if meant to elicit the purchase of something else, is no trailer.
I at the same time have a hard time seeing how to discuss what could possibly make this story valid without stepping on the toes of previous discussions. How can this Big Finish trailer be valid when Sprout and Turgids isn't? I'm afraid that I don't have an answer to that.
- Amorkuz
I think it is good to discuss this exactly because it is tricky. My feeling, based on the presented precedents, is that there was something left implicit in those discussions, and that is why it is not entirely clear how to apply them here.
The following is my thoughts, which may or may not correspond to the original intent of those discussions. It would also be great if people who participated in those discussions elaborated their positions.
Firstly, I agree that defining "advertisement" as something to make you buy a product is both too simplistic and too narrow. Narrow because watching a BBC programme is not really buying things. Simplistic because many marketing tricks can be described this way. If a short story is made available for free to make you interested in the range, it should not automatically invalidate it.
Secondly, a trailer is a reasonably well-defined thing:
an advertisement for a film or a television or radio programme, consisting of short parts taken from it
But at the very least, trailer must be attached to a story, whereas an advertisement can relate to a story, merchandise, or anything else.
If I were to opine myself on why advertisements should be universally invalid, I would say that they actually break Rule 4. The main purpose of an advertisement is to highlight something out-of-universe rather than to tell a story (even if a story is present). If the primary goal is to sell TARDIS Tuners in RW, this is hardly a reason to accept TARDIS Tuners in-universe. Similarly, if the goal is to highlight the Luther Christmas Special at BBC, this is hardly a justification for Luther becoming an in-universe character. This would look like a commercialised real-world bleed.
Trailers, on the other hand, are attached to a story anyways. (There can also be other types of advertisements for stories.) The standard trailers are, indeed, just fragments of the story being advertised and, again, it is a no brainer to exclude them. Same for non-narrative advertisements. These cases violate Rule 1 (and possibly 4 if the advertisement is out-of-universe).
Finally, we get to the case of Transmission from Mars and this trailer. Various prequels are to me of the same ilk. In all these cases, there is a separate short story highlighting, and typically closely connected to, the main story. Seems important that the main story is standalone and valid on its own terms.
So this is the possible implicit categorisation behind the current rules. If a trailer/advertisement is
- not a story - not valid by Rule 1;
- story tied to a non-story (e.g., merchandise) - not valid by Rule 4;
- story tied to a non-DWU story - not valid by Rule 4;
- story tied to a DWU story - may be valid. I don't think in these cases validity should be automatic, but it can, in principle, be considered as Transmission from Mars shows.
Once again, this is my reverse engineering of past debates. As a matter of course, it is good to understand the motivation behind the rules, whether the community manages to remember it or renegotiate it anew.
- SOTO
Bump. In the current state of things, this story is used as a source on at least the page Fall of Arcadia. It carries both real world and invalid tags, yet there’s still a continuity section.
I personally do not see why this can’t be considered a story in its right.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: If I were to opine myself on why advertisements should be universally invalid, I would say that they actually break Rule 4. The main purpose of an advertisement is to highlight something out-of-universe rather than to tell a story (even if a story is present).
I don't know to what extent I can follow this reasoning, though. Authors are always going to have all kinds of unstated, real-world motives for decreeing that this or that is something that happened/exist in the Doctor Who universe.
To cite but one obvious example, the Curator exists because Moffat realized he could get Tom Baker into the 50th anniversary special, and invented the entire character and the concept of the "revisiting of old faces" as a venue for that. The main thing one is meant to get out of it is the return of Tom Baker — just like the main thing one is supposed to get out of the TARDIS-tuner story is that TARDIS-tuners are neat gizmos that the whole family should buy. Yet obviously, that doesn't mean the Curator's existence is invalid…
All of the above is kind of a separate kettle of fish, though. It's not directly relevant to what we're talking about here, I think.
Amorkuz wrote: Various prequels are to me of the same ilk. In all these cases, there is a separate short story highlighting, and typically closely connected to, the main story. Seems important that the main story is standalone and valid on its own terms.
And there you hit the nail on the head. What we commonly call "trailers" (the disjointed shots and bits of floating text) does not always correlate with what the BBC/Big Finish/whoever are going to call "trailers"; whatever the advertising department calls them when they post them online, those few ‘trailers’ belong to precisely the same genre as 'prequels' and 'minisodes'. Objectively speaking, it's the same medium, the same artform.
To my mind, ignoring those two 'trailers' while keeping prequels and minisodes valid would be akin to declaring a given comic story invalid because our rules only mentioned 'comic stories' as valid sources, and all the advertising for the story at hand called it a 'graphic novel', and thus we legally couldn't call that spade the spade that it so obviously is.
It may be worth noting that another, older inclusion debate presents an example where Tardis Data Core chose to ignore advertising language that leaned one way in favor of the story's actual nature as described by authors and audience alike: the "Vienna solo series" inclusion debates, where, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the actual production team didn't think of it as a "spin-off" as we understand it on Tardis, we safely ignored Big Finish's referring to it as a "spin-off" on their website.
TL;DR, words have many subtle differences in meaning; just because Big Finish calls this a ‘trailer’ does not mean it's a ‘trailer’ as understood on this Wiki; I think we should exercise unbiased analysis of the short on its own merit, an analysis which will, I think, not fail to yield that by our terminology it is in fact a ‘prequel’.
- OttselSpy25
"The main purpose of an advertisement is to highlight something out-of-universe rather than to tell a story (even if a story is present)."
As a fan of the TV series The Transformers, I find this definition questionable at best. That show was made entirely to sell a toyline to kids. The episodes were structured to show toys, the characters were created to match the toys, and thee episodes are structured to get kids to want the toys for playtime. If you were to tell me "none of the Transformers TV show episodes (nor the movie) are stories," then I would respond "balderdash!" I have never heard someone say that a storytelling narrative being a story or not can be defined by the intention. Never never never.
- Shambala108
SOTO wrote: Bump. In the current state of things, this story is used as a source on at least the page Fall of Arcadia. It carries both real world and invalid tags, yet there’s still a continuity section.
Easily fixed. I moved the Continuity section to the talk page for now. User:Amorkuz had added the "invalid" tag upon seeing this discussion but forgot to remove the "real world" tag which I have done.
Any entries on in-universe pages citing this "story" should be removed to each story's talk page for now, until this issue is resolved.
- Shambala108
Response to User:OttselSpy25:
- Transformers has nothing to do with this wiki. Please do not compare what we do on this wiki to other wikis.
- This thread is for deciding the validity of the trailer mentioned in the original post. This is not the place to advocate for changing an existing rule.
- Scrooge MacDuck
True — as I said, Amorkuz brought up the matter of the advertisement rule in order to understand where the various rules involved here were coming from, but it's really its own debate. But I wouldn't say that within the context of that debate the Transformers allusion was all that irrelevant; it was a famous non-DW example of a phenomenon common across almost all franchises of narrative elements prompted by behind-the-scenes salesmanship, a phenomenon of which I identified a proper Who example (the Curator) earlier.
But let's move on, yes. Does anyone disagree with my above assessment that this is a case where we see that what the BBC and/or Big Finish call a "trailer" does not always correlate with "trailer" as understood by our rules, that it is for all intents and purposes a "prequel" as we understand it, and that we should judge its nature on its own merit rather than based on what the website calls it? Not unlike, as I said, the way the description of Vienna Salvatori as a "spin-off" was overturned by closer inspection of what it actually was.
- Shambala108
It's generally not a good idea to ask "does anyone agree" in a forum thread. People tend to draw the conclusions they want out of the responses (or lack of). Just keep to the discussion and let the admins decide if there is enough of a consensus one way or the other.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Er, well, perhaps the wording was unfortunate but I meant the "does anyone disagree" remark in the sense of rerailing the debate: restating my point clearly and then trying to see if anyone had arguments against it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Brief revival of this thread to note the arising of a few more so-called trailers consisting of newly-filmed material and which constitute full narratives of their own — the Official Doctor Who YouTube Channel (don't forget to click below!) has been putting out shorts featuring new live-action appearances by old companions. Jo Grant Returns has a page on this Wiki, Ace Returns! doesn't yet.
I wouldn't necessarily want to set in stone that all these should be treated the same, mind. There are arguments for not counting Ace Returns! that don't apply to either Jo Grant Returns or the First Doctor audio which sparked this discussion. Nevertheless, I do think they're relevant here.
- Revanvolatrelundar
So as I mentioned in the Ace Returns thread, perhaps its time to alter the policy regarding how we cover trailers when they meet certain criteria. These specific trailers would certainly add to what we cover here, and to disregard them would, in my opinion, be a disservice to our readers.
- LegoK9
The Ace Returns! thread, for convienience: Thread:255994.
I also support reforming T:VS to allow narrative trailers indended to also function as a short DWU story. It's a grey area, but Tardisodes, series 6/7 prequels, and Transmission from Mars are all currently valid.
That means it cannot be used as a source for in-universe articles.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:224568
Found this when I was going through the delete tags: Interweb of Fear (home video). Is it valid or not? For the record, I have no idea what this is, but it doesn't seem like a narrative to me from the descriptions. I'm posting what was given on the talk page for convenience:
- I would argue that with the archive footage chosen and the narration at the time the footage was playing it has a valid narrative and therefore should merit inclusion. --User:Borisashton 19:37, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
- It just features a few clips in the documentary like Thirty Years in the TARDIS, they are just featured. No minisode was featured. Special:Contributions/82.3.146.201 19:42, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
- When the narrator says 'We had a problem' (or something similar) archive footage of a man getting murdered by the War Machines plays. This seem like a narrative (albeit a very loose one). --User:Borisashton 19:48, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
- But it's still part of the documentary, joined together - unlike other minisodes featured in documentaries. Special:Contributions/82.3.146.201 19:51, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
- As I said above there is a narrative, which means it's a story. From what I can tell passes the four little rules due to this. --User:Borisashton 19:57, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
- In a documentary, it doesn't warrant a separate page, it's unwatchable individually. Special:Contributions/82.3.146.201 20:06, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
- I've just had time to watch the documentary (with just the bits with the archive footage from The War Machines) and it makes sense on it's own as a brief history of the BBC website with the archive footage linking the narration. --User:Borisashton 16:15, February 4, 2017 (UTC
- SOTO
Bump.
- NateBumber
Looked this over and unless I'm missing something obvious, I think I agree with User:Borisashton's conclusions, as represented in the OP summary. It's blatantly set in-universe, and it tells a story.
(If this is decided to be valid, I should note that its precedent might affect Built for War.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
From what Borisashton says in the 3d message, it does seem like it's a narrative; and the previous standard on whether a minisode could be separated from a documentary where they were embedded was whether it made sense on its own, which Borisashton tells us it does in the last message.
The question, though, that remains, must be whether it's a parody, or just a humorous (but potentially-valid) piece. Why are we hearing the history of the BBC website, exactly? More precisely, does the minisode acknowledge the existence of the show Doctor Who as one of the things the BBC talks about on said website? If it does, then it can't be anything more than a 4th-wall-breaking parody. If it doesn't, though, I'm in favor of validity.
- NateBumber
I mean, there are plenty of non-parody stories that acknowledge the existence of the show Doctor Who. Cf Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks).
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, yeah, but considering its circumstances I think it's fair to say that if it heavily mentions Doctor Who, we can consider that the intent was of fourth-well-breaking parody.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Okay, I've watched it. It really is spliced into quite a lot of very short pieces, but I do think it makes sense as a narrative of its own — but the question of parody remains; I'd be willing to call it merely humorous and not necessarily parodic, but it's a bit subjective.
Here's my report to help others make up their own minds: Doctor Who is in fact mentioned repeatedly, and what's more, we're shown the First Doctor and Susan Foreman as being members of its audience. This isn't impossible to rationalize, mind you, within the "in-universe Doctor Who TV show starring Peter Cushing as Dr Who" framework that is documented at Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks). But I do think there's grounds to disagree with me in that scene.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:225181
I am Lady Aleena, admin of the Tommy Westphall Universe wiki. The Tommy Westphall Universe (TWU) contains over 400 connected television series including all of those in the Doctor Who universe. I would like to build a bridge between our communities by offering a place for non-canon live-action crossovers to be cataloged. In that way, your wiki here can remain free of the insanity that is the TWU.
I do not know if you have already considered the TARDIS appearing in Red Dwarf "Marooned" as canon, but with that comes the future episode of Red Dwarf "Psirens" where people swear they say ships from Aliens, Space: 1999, and Star Trek appear. Also, if all appearances of the TARDIS are canon, then its appearance in The Librarians "And the Final Curtain" will make a connection to the Back to the Future franchise. And it gets worse from there. So, the Tommy Westphall Universe wiki is the place to send people for that kind of thing.
I hope to gain an editor or three to maintain the Doctor Who articles on the TWU wiki and maybe make them an unofficial part of this wiki. The Doctor Who articles need the attention of people who know more about them then I do. So, if you are willing to help me out, I would be grateful. So please come on over. You can start at Doctor Who on the TWU to see what we have.
Leave a note on my talk page there if you have any questions.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:226169
Alright, so for the longest time the TV version of Shada has been discounted as invalid on our website.
The reason for this was that there had been no version of the story which had "finished" it through actual use of the filmed sequences. The closest attempt was the 1992 VHS release, which simply had Tom Baker (not playing the Doctor, but himself) explain the missing scenes. Our ultimate judgement was that as this had been presented as something that "could have been" and not "something that now was." It's confusing, but the presentation coupled with an ultimate lack of it being "finished" lead to use seeing it as little more than a very complex deleted scene. As per our policy on deleted scenes, it was thus deemed invalid.
I am not challenging any of that. It's clear policy and precedent, and I see no point in trying to change it. Frankly, it makes sense. But only for the 1992 release.
Today, yet another version of Shada was released. The version that should have been released the whole time. A completed cut of the TV story, with scenes shot in the 1970s and animated versions of the unfinished scenes. But today's version of the episode frankly deserves to share the page with the "unfinished" episode as much as the 1990s version does. It seems hardly necessary complicated to present them as three different stories when they're not.
I furthermore think that there should be no doubt that TODAY's Shada is very much valid. Not only does it feature all of the finished scenes (unlike the 1992 version) but the presentation surely says that this is intended to be a "finished" version. Simply watching the trailer makes it clear that this is the intention of the creators.
I hope that this can be resolved quickly. This is facing much publicity, and it would be a shame to block users from writing about this amazing story for months for little reason.
- NateBumber
Agreed re:everything. Shada (TV story) is now officially released as a finished episode, and as such, it should be considered valid.
- 121.45.220.189
What, if anything, does this do to the Eighth Doctor one?
- Borisashton
121.45.220.189 wrote: What, if anything, does this do to the Eighth Doctor one?
Not much I'd imagine. The novelisation of the original Shada (featuring the Fourth Doctor) already conflicts with the webcast and is solved by writing "According to one account". See Fourth Doctor#Shada.
- OttselSpy25
Does anyone have any argument for why the 2017 release of Shada shouldn't be valid? I really can't imagine any.
More specifically I suppose this thread will most likely be about the ins-and-outs of merging the three "versions" of the TV Shada into one page.
- Amorkuz
If you support the validity, please do not hesitate to voice your support even if it is a simple "Yes, it should be valid." Otherwise, it is not entirely clear whether no one opposes, no one else has an opinion or no one else is aware of this discussion.
- Borisashton
In that case I agree completely with validity. The only thing I would be unsure of is how exactly the versions of the TV Shada would be merged together.
- NateBumber
Considering that all previous versions of TV Shada were invalid precisely because they weren't complete, I think there's no reason for them to be on separate pages; the versions of Shada are already cluttered enough, and I don't see a point in cluttering it further.
- OttselSpy25
Our validity policy is mainly about discussing what stories can be seen as available to be covered. Since the 1990s Shada is deemed as not valid for coverage, then it makes total sense to me that we mention its existence on the Shada page but otherwise dedicate it to the 2017 version.
We would, however, have to ban images taken from earlier 'releases' of the TV Shada, given that the latest edit does many different things with some scenes.
- 5.2.105.85
I think there should be a page for the non televised version under the name "Shada (TV story)" which logs the unaired bits and behind the scenes.
But there should either be one page called "Shada (home video)", detailing the 1992 and 2017 versions, but if only one is valid on this wiki. Then there should be separate page "Shada (1992 home video)" which'll be invalid and "Shada (2017 home video)" which'll be valid, unless it's broadcast on the TV which it then becomes "Shada (2017 TV story) but I also believe the 1992 version was broadcast on telly on Gold.
- Amorkuz
Just for the record, in terms of continuity troubles to be sorted out if the latest version is approved as valid. There are additional versions of Shada with non-trivial event overlap. These are currently valid and their validity is not affected by this latest release:
- Shada (webcast) (2003) - animated feature with the Eighth Doctor
- Shada (audio story) (2003) - more or less the same on audio, with additional material.
In fact, these two may even comment on why the Fourth Doctor version never happened.
Plus there is a question of
- Shada (novelisation) (2012).
Ordinarily, it would be treated as a second-class citizen compared to the original TV story. But in this case, the TV story is released after the novelisation.
- OttselSpy25
I understand the concern, but because of the Shada novelisation and a recent Titan comic, we accept that both the Fourth and Eighth Doctor versions occurred (by altering accounts). It's not as easy as "The webcast Shada is the only one that counts." If you, for instance, visit the section on the Fourth Doctor's page it is exactly as it would be if the TV version were valid.
As for your concerns about how we would treat the novelisation (since certain scenes are obviously written differently in the TV version to account for the use of stock audio of deceased actors), I think we should just accept both the novelisation and the TV version in both cases. All that's really going to be different is some of the dialogue (Tom also adlibbed as much in the new version as he regularly would), the scenes follow the same order and flow.
My biggest qualm will likely be that I would rather character pages like Chronotis have the "first appearance" variable be the TV version, since that's the real source material. But given that this is almost certainly going to be denied, I am willing to compromise on that point.
- Bwburke94
For that matter, it doesn't make sense to refer to the same events twice on character pages. Referring to the Doctor only as "the Doctor" without specifying his incarnation would fix that, would it not?
- Amorkuz
I would honestly prefer that as the more sane option. So I would be happy to be persuaded it is okay. However, if both versions are accepted as valid, then the same events either happened twice to the same character or are alternative incompatible descriptions. Perhaps, a good precedent for such a situation is what the template {{WhichDoctor}} deals with. There comic stories were reprinted with the Fourth Doctor instead of earlier ones. Here we have a single story retold with the Eighth Doctor or Fourth one. The template itself wouldn't work but the idea of once announcing that it is not clear whether it's 8 or 4 and then carrying on with "the Doctor" as Bwburke94 suggested might be an option.
- OttselSpy25
So, what you're saying is that a page like Chronotis would explain the discrepancy between Four/Eight having the adventure, but that it would otherwise only have one paragraph explaining the "plot" that occurs with the Doctor and Romana.
- OttselSpy25
5.2.105.85 wrote: I think there should be a page for the non televised version under the name "Shada (TV story)" which logs the unaired bits and behind the scenes.
But there should either be one page called "Shada (home video)", detailing the 1992 and 2017 versions, but if only one is valid on this wiki. Then there should be separate page "Shada (1992 home video)" which'll be invalid and "Shada (2017 home video)" which'll be valid, unless it's broadcast on the TV which it then becomes "Shada (2017 TV story) but I also believe the 1992 version was broadcast on telly on Gold.
I accidentally skipped over this post. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I can see how it would also make some sense, but by our own policies, the 1990s Homevideo release is nothing more than a deleted scenes segment, and I think it's a given that the planned Shada and the released Shada are very much the same episode.
- Amorkuz
Part of my problem is that I cannot watch the Four version of the Shada, so I don't know how close to each other the versions are other than halving of the Doctor. Consider it as one of the possible options thrown into the mix.
But yes, if it turns out that including both versions amounts to including two copies of the same paragraph, one with Four and one with Eight, then one could consider actually having only one copy and adding a banner at the top explaining whatever it is decided here is the case (events happening twice or events happening in one of two ways).
- Danniesen
Personally all of this just confuses me a lot.
- OttselSpy25
There's very little change in dialogue made to the 2017 version of Shada.
The only thing they change is that some scenes are not adapted (for instance, in the script we see Romana talking to K9 in the TARDIS when she goes to get milk. In the 2017 version they skip this scene due to the loss of the actor who voiced K9) and some scenes have their dialogue rewritten around deceased actors (so instead of Chronotis saying "I [Salyavin] escaped ages ago" like he does in the script, he does the glowy-eyes-thing and another character guesses that he is Salyavin (which he actually responds to, through use of audio of the audio taken from The Keeper of Traken)).
A banner is really not needed. It's frankly ugly and wouldn't work on a character page. The best course of action would be to say something like:
- Chronotis sent a distress signal to the Fourth Doctor. (TV Shada) Some sources suggest that the Fourth Doctor, along with Romana and K9, indeed arrive several months later in response (TV Shada, Novel Shada) while others suggested that the Eighth Doctor and and older Romana and K9 instead responded to the signal. (WC Shada, AUDIO Shada)
Then a description of what happens after that, because in every version it's nearly identical from my memory.
- Amorkuz
Yes, this looks good to me. Presumably, the common part using "the Doctor" ends in (TV: Shada, WC: Shada, AUDIO: Shada). It's a bit longish but would be bearable if used sparingly.
Another thought/question. Suppose, as in your example above, a character does more in one version than in the other (perhaps, does something more substantial worthy of note). If this extra action does not contradict other versions, just is not present there, should it cause a fork in the description or should the cumulative version be given.
My current vote is to give the cumulative version in the main part of the page and then have a behind-the-scenes list of differences (at least eventually). I think that is the easiest way of finding necessary info.
- OttselSpy25
I think, for the most part, a description of events should not be specific enough for that to be an issue. I agree on the Behind-the-scenes concept, although some things (such as a difference in appearance) can easily be held on the main page.
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: So, what you're saying is that a page like Chronotis would explain the discrepancy between Four/Eight having the adventure, but that it would otherwise only have one paragraph explaining the "plot" that occurs with the Doctor and Romana.
That is what a few of us are saying, yes.
We can rather easily adapt the WhichDoctor template to cover this situation, through #switch or other parameters.
- OttselSpy25
I again insist that it would look very ugly to put something like the WhichDoctor template on these character pages when it comes down to a detail that's really only so important to covering the story. Imagine going to read about Chris Parsons only to see a giant text box that reads HEY, DID YOU KNOW THAT SOMETIMES IT'S 4 AND OTHERTIMES IT'S 8? WhichDoctor is only needed on story pages where there is only one page.
- Danniesen
I agree with Ottselspy25 that templates plastered all over would look very ugly.
- Bwburke94
It would certainly be easier to code an inline template explaining the situation, rather than a huge box.
- OttselSpy25
I really don't understand why a template would be needed at all? The WhichDoctor template is necessary because those story pages are covered as one release. Doomcloud, despite having a printed version with the Fourth Doctor, only has one page. We don't, say, put a template on Sarah Jane Smith to explain that one of the stories she was in has a discrepancy because we can easily explain that from an in-universe point-of-view.
Really this is a situation where we don't need to break the "fourth wall" of our articles. While to some it may seem that the discrepancy between Four or Eight having the adventure is a big deal, on a page like Chronotis it is the least relevant thing that could possibly be discussed, and it really needs no dedication outside of one or two sentences.
- Amorkuz
You have a point there.
- RingoRoadagain
Personally, I think the latest release is perfectly valid and I don't think a template is necessary.
But I wonder if we should distinguish the 1992 (as "Shada (Homevid)" for example) from the 2017 one ?
- OttselSpy25
I would say that we discuss the 1992 version as if it were a special feature released halfway through production, since that basically matches how we currently cover it.
- RingoRoadagain
Side question: supposing that it does become valid, where should we place it in the broadcast and production orders ?
I don't know if there is a precedent for it, I guess the production order should remain between Nimon and Hive (since that was when production began and given its production code) but should we do the same with the "Doctor Who television stories" order ?
- Amorkuz
I would say that this is a secondary concern to validity. This is clearly a special release. There has been a number of different special releases and the current navigation among them is very much inconsistent. This was noted at Thread:225625. So I encourage to issue your opinions regarding the proper navigation order there. Hopefully, the proper placement for Shada should fall out of that discussion.
And by the way, for those of us who can't watch it. Was it actually broadcast on TV?
- OttselSpy25
Not that I've been told -- however, it would be totally plausible that BBC America had put it on the airwaves. Some would be tempted to call it Shada (homevid), but realistically it was put out as a digital download first -- so if it's not a TV story it's a Webcast. I think most will logically view it as a TV story, so we should just go with that.
- 86.152.200.4
Amorkuz wrote: Yes, this looks good to me. Presumably, the common part using "the Doctor" ends in (TV: Shada, WC: Shada, AUDIO: Shada). It's a bit longish but would be bearable if used sparingly.
Another thought/question. Suppose, as in your example above, a character does more in one version than in the other (perhaps, does something more substantial worthy of note). If this extra action does not contradict other versions, just is not present there, should it cause a fork in the description or should the cumulative version be given.
My current vote is to give the cumulative version in the main part of the page and then have a behind-the-scenes list of differences (at least eventually). I think that is the easiest way of finding necessary info.
Wait so where do the novelisation and The Five Doctors fit into this?
- OttselSpy25
How the novelisation and TFD "fits" has no relevance to if this story is valid or not. How does Lungbarrow fit into any other story written for the DWU? Or how Spiral Scratch and The Last Adventure? The answer is that they don't fit, and it's our job to point out how they don't fit, not to pick whichever version of events we love more.
I would like to move to close this thread. I've seen very little support for calling the final version of Shada INvalid, and I think the next logical move is to move the discussion of merging it into Shada (TV story) to said stories' talk page so we can get on with it.
- RingoRoadagain
OttselSpy25 wrote: I've seen very little support for calling the final version of Shada valid.
Is this a typo ? Just asking because I believe most here supported it to be valid rather than not
- OttselSpy25
Yea, typo. My bad.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm so glad I've stumbled across this thread. I actually watched the DVD not so long ago and I wholeheartedly agree with this release being valid. The only possibly conflicting scene that I haven't seen raised - admittedly, I may have missed it - is the final scene where the Fourth Doctor rises from under the console and is played by Tom Baker as he is NOW, in his old age.
How does that play into this? Lalla Ward gives her line from the TARDIS corridor so that we do not see her changed state. With the initial DVD release of The Five Doctors suggesting that Borusa attempted the Time Scoop during this adventure, and the Eighth Doctor audio story Shada stating that the event of The Five Doctors meant that he had to return to the story in his eighth incarnation (if I've understood that correctly), this could be treated as time catching up with itself.
Also, I've read about the different Shadas conflicting with one-another and the Wiki possibly going down the route of "one account suggests" and "another account suggests". While this is fine and common practice, it's quite clear that if the 2017 DVD Shada is deemed valid, it actually doesn't conflict with the audio version. In fact, it is deemed in exactly the same way as Series 5. At the end of Series 5, the Eleventh Doctor "reboots" the universe. He closes the cracks running through his previous adventures. When Kovarian blew up the TARDIS, the entirety of Series 5 took place in an alternate timeline that was corrected later on. My point being, the 2017 Shada would just be the Shada before Borusa interrupted and messed up the timeline.
But that's bordering on head-canon, something which is in no way allowed here. Just my wild thoughts. I'm fully backing any way to make this DVD release valid. Let's just tackle that last scene please. Do we treat it as "Tom Baker just playing the Doctor" or do we treat it as "he looks older and this causes some problems"?
- Thefartydoctor
And in regards to The Five Doctors not bearing any influence on whether this is valid- I do understand that every story is judged on its own merits. That, I agree entirely with. For every positive continuity reference, there will always be a negative one trying to overwrite it. However, if I understand the Eighth Doctor audio Shada correctly, the Eighth Doctor does mention the events of The Five Doctors to explain why the original event did not take place and thus why he's had to return in his eighth form.
So, while it's not mega important to mention, I think we should bear it in mind rather than ignore it. If the audio story hadn't made reference to it, then I wouldn't have included it in my response. This is just me justifying myself haha.
- The explanation can be heard on a YouTube excerpt called "Doctor Who - McGann Shada - live action" ##
- OttselSpy25
I say we discuss Tom suddenly being old in simply a straight-faced way: "On one occasion, the Doctor appeared to be much older, with white hair" or whatever.
- Thefartydoctor
Okay, I just wanted us to all be aware of it before having our final say. Either way, it doesn't have to make any difference. At the end of the day, the character he was playing was still "The Fourth Doctor". Doctor Who has always left unanswered, ambiguous, fourth wall breaking moments in and they've neither impeded the story nor our way of dealing with their inclusion. We could just leave a behind the scenes note in the Story Notes section and have done with it, due to it not strictly being a Production Error.
In summary- I'm all for validity!
- RingoRoadagain
I don't think it should prevent from anything either:
It's not worse than the 1st Doctor saying "a happy Christmas to all of you at home" while looking directly at the camera (and the Daleks' Master Plan validity was never in question because of it).
- OttselSpy25
Can an admin close this thread and remove the invalid tag from Shada (TV story)? Either that, or a reason should be given for why the thread shouldn't be closed. But no reason exists for this to sit open like this.
- All TV versions (except for the Leekley Bible one) go to the same page. The 2017 is the only valid one. The others (however you might count) should be given their subsections in the Notes. Accordingly, the information in the infobox should pertain to the 2017 edition and follow as close as possible the official credits on the original release and/or DVD. Deviating information for the earlier invalid versions should go to their subsections.
- The page should be called Shada (TV story) because that's how most people think of it, because there is already Shada (webcast) and because the technology is erasing the difference between webcasts and TV stories. For instance, all episodes of Class were "broadcast" on an Internet-only channel. Thus, bending the boundary between TV story and webcast to achieve some better clarity is acceptable.
- Novelisation should in this case be considered of equal value with the audio, webcast and this latest TV version. Ordinarily, it is subordinate to the TV version. But it mostly helps to simplify related pages when there are only two versions by eliminating the second. The difference between four or five versions is negligible, and the novelisation was published before the episode it is supposed to novelise.
- Differences between versions should be explained in detail on the (valid) story pages and minimised on character/object in-universe pages. After the initial fork between the Fourth and Eighth Doctor, it is preferable to use generic "the Doctor" to streamline the narrative. Given the increased timey-wimeyness, it is preferable to describe substantial differences between the webcast/audio and TV/novelisation versions not in terms of "one account/another account", thus, implicitly postulating that they are incompatible, but rather "with the Fourth Doctor/with the Eighth Doctor". Please avoid speculation as to the exact connection between them. Keep close to the text.
- Thanking OS25 for willingness to compromise, we must treat this as a contemporary release in all respects. It is not part of Season 17. It is a (very) special release, so all the nuances should be explained in the notes rather than in the infobox navigation. If it is any consolation, novelisation is a bit earlier, so many characters' first appearance will be 2012.
- Template regarding the interchangeable Doctor was soundly rejected by the majority.
- Age of the actor was never a problem in The Two Doctors (or indeed most BF audios) and, thus, should be discussed only inasmuch as it is acknowledged in the story, by the same token as we do not discuss in-universe switches between animated and live-action segments.
Discussion of further details should take place at Talk:Shada (TV story).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:226225
just wondering if this was valid
- Dr Pengin
well no, probably because of rule 1, and a poem isn't a story so.
- NateBumber
I completely disagree about poems not being stories. Cf the distinction between lyrical and narrative poetry. There are several lyrical poems in Now We Are Six Hundred, but many of the poems (eg The Death List) undeniably tell stories. I believe the best approach would be to treat the collection like Decalog 5: Wonders: some stories are valid, and others aren't. There's no need to make a ruling for the entire anthology as a whole. I don't have my copy of the book on-hand at the moment, but this shouldn't be too difficult to sort out.
- Borisashton
I agree with Nate in the respect that some stories should be valid and some shouldn't. This is because there are several different formats. The ones I could find just flicking through were:
- Non-poem, narrative short stories (e.g. Beforwards and Afterwords)
- Poems which acknowledge invald elements (e.g. Next Episode and Verity)
- Poems told from a first-person perspective, usually by The Doctor or The Master (e.g. Full Stop and The Master's Beard)
- Clearly narrative poems (e.g. The Death List and The Red and the Blue)
- Poems with no or a dodgy narrative (e.g. Ode to a Krynoid)
It is my belief that the short stories and the narrative poems should be considered valid as they clearly tell a story so are narrative. It is also my opinion that stories told from a first-person perspective also be given validity because it portrays one's thoughts (and one's thoughts are rarely narrative) but I have been unable to find a precedent for such an occasion as this.
Obviously the poems that reference real word things like Verity Lambert or cliffhangers should be considered invalid. Each poem with a dodgy narrative should be discussed individually to decide whether each has a suitable level of narrative.
It should also be added that Russell T Davies has stated that at least Harriet Jones, PM is canon. In fact the full quote is "It's a BBC Book that makes it canonical. She is alive." Although I am perfectly aware that this wiki has no canon what it does show he intends that these events did happen. He also states that producer Phil Collinson said on set that Harriet wasn't really dead and T Davies illustrated what he had said in the poem.
- NateBumber
Borisashton wrote:
It is my belief that the short stories and the narrative poems should be considered valid as they clearly tell a story so are narrative. It is also my opinion that stories told from a first-person perspective also be given validity because it portrays one's thoughts (and one's thoughts are rarely narrative) but I have been unable to find a precedent for such an occasion as this.I agree with this analysis completely. I found a possible precedent for allowing first-person perspectives: the novella PROSE: Time and Relative is written and formatted as Susan's journal, and therefore written entirely in the first person from her perspective. This includes some narratives about her day, but also lots of bits that are just her thoughts and feelings; I think this is very analogous to the first-person poems in this collection, which should be similarly valid.
Does anyone disagree with this assessment? Even if so, I think the next step is running through and sorting each poem into the five categories.
- Borisashton
NateBumber wrote: Does anyone disagree with this assessment? Even if so, I think the next step is running through and sorting each poem into the five categories.
Indeed, I've made an initial categorisation into the five categories which can be seen on my sandbox. I was actually really surprised to find that the majority of stories feature reference to a person telling the story. In fact poems like Harriet Jones, PM (which I would have placed in the 'clear narrative' section) featured a reference that it was Harriet telling the story which I had forgotten about.
The categories which will have to be discussed the most are the narrative ones. I could only find two poems that I could question the narrative of (as I found most had enough content to drive a plot) but of course all narrative poems should be discussed (if only briefly). Additionally if anyone feels a story is wrongly placed please say so as the current list is essentially a first draft.
- RingoRoadagain
Flicking through Borisashton's sandbox, I agree with most of the list.
I would just add that "Shortness of Breath" is also from a 1st person POV ("are you my repeated meme", "my two left feet" and "have we done dancing")
Also just to be sure, you think "Next Episode" should be invalid because of "the internet is aflame" bit, right? (because I would agree with that)
Now based on this list I would personally think that everything except "Poems which acknowledge invalid elements" should be valid.
- NateBumber
Yep, I agree with the Sandbox. I'd really like to see an admin close this discussion, so we can move on with covering this collection on the wiki.
- Borisashton
RingoRoadagain wrote: I would just add that "Shortness of Breath" is also from a 1st person POV ("are you my repeated meme", "my two left feet" and "have we done dancing")
Also just to be sure, you think "Next Episode" should be invalid because of "the internet is aflame" bit, right? (because I would agree with that)
Now based on this list I would personally think that everything except "Poems which acknowledge invalid elements" should be valid.
Good spot with Shortness of Breath! I originally missed the reference to it being told in the first person so had got it down as having no narrative. I will move it into the 1st person category if that's okay with everyone.
I invalidated Next Episode because of "I'll be back next week" but your point still stands as well.
If you think only everything in the "Poems which acknowledge invalid elements" should be invalid can I clarify your position on Ode to a Krynoid which has a very dodgy narrative please?
- RingoRoadagain
Borisashton wrote: If you think only everything in the "Poems which acknowledge invalid elements" should be invalid can I clarify your position on Ode to a Krynoid which has a very dodgy narrative please?
Well I know it is debatable but I do believe this poem should be valid like most of the anthology. (it contains so little information that I doubt that it would change any other page of the wiki if we do and because I generally want to validate stories if given choice)
- Borisashton
I can agree with that and although the narrative isn't as strong as some of the other poems it is there (the plot being the Krynoid grows the more it snows and so the more it kills people.) Another thing that is important to note is Now We Are Six Hundred is based upon Now We Are Six, another poetry book. Ode especially is restricted by A Good Hum (a poem in Six) for its lyrics quite heavily which is very evident if you search for the original on the internet.
In short, you've convinced me Ode to a Krynoid should be valid. Any other further arguments on the anthology?
- Borisashton
Just to be absolutely clear, the stories that are currently up to remain invalid are as follows:
- Next Episode
- Friend Ship
- Verity
Is the verdict of everyone else as well?
- 86.152.200.4
Borisashton wrote: It should also be added that Russell T Davies has stated that at least Harriet Jones, PM is canon. In fact the full quote is "It's a BBC Book that makes it canonical. She is alive." Although I am perfectly aware that this wiki has no canon what it does show he intends that these events did happen. He also states that producer Phil Collinson said on set that Harriet wasn't really dead and T Davies illustrated what he had said in the poem.
Considering that Russell T. Davies has never made such definitive statements about 'canon' and that the illustration depicts Harriet Jones dropping down a trapdoor, bouncing off a trampoline and onto a motorcycle and driving away, I'd say that he was joking.
- Borisashton
86.152.200.4 wrote: I'd say that he was joking.
Do you have a source for that? He spoke to The Fan Show as if she were alive. It might have been something of a joke in 2008 on set but RTD has now made it happen. This sort of situation can be likened to Steven Moffat jokingly stating that Nardole has invisible hair - something which made it onto screen in Twice Upon a Time! At the end of the day RTD's statements about the canonicity of the poem can be put down to him caring about his character and wanting to clarify that she had a happy story in the end. His interview for Radio Times also backs this up, he also echoes the story about Phil Collinson:
Absolutely. She's my character, that's my episode. I say that's true.
I look forward to an admin making a ruling on the anthology, hopefully sometime in the near future!
- Borisashton
It's been a month now. Does anybody else have any further objections?
- Shambala108
Just a couple of things:
First of all, it is not the job of any user to decide which stories are up for debate or to ask for a vote or verdict or thread closure. Just post your arguments so that the admins can make an informed decision.
Second, please please please abide by "Please don't over-quote in the forums". Inclusion debates can get pretty long, and adding quotes to your posts just makes them longer, and harder to sift through for useful information.
- Borisashton
That's fine.
Just to be clear when I was listing the poems that could be ruled invalid based on the arguments and comments in the thread. It's hard to move the conversation forwards when covering an anthology of 50+ stories and especially so if we were to discuss them one at a time. Instead I sorted the stories into categories (and put it on my sandbox) so that that could be brought to the discussion instead on arguing about each individually.
The majority agreed with said sandbox but when people didn't they posted their opinion and then that one controversial poem was debated, again so it wasn't necessary to discuss every single poem. Only the ones that were potentially unclear in regards to validity.
- NateBumber
Bumping this, now that 'Twas the Night Before Christmas has given us the precedent for a narrative poem being treated as a valid short story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The course of action seems to be transparently obvious, and indeed has already been suggested without much objection.
Start from the premise that being in verse does not preclude being narrative (hi, said the Illiad and the Odyssey), and that Now We Are Six Hundred is a big collection of unrelated stories (because it is: obviously Verity has very little to do with anything else in the book).
Then run individual poems through the 4 little rules and find, firstly, which tell stories (short though they might be) and which are just musings; and secondly, which of those that are left break the 4th wall.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:228790
With brand new Vienna story coming up this month, I think this is the perfect time to reopen discussion about the series. Because, frankly, there are lots of arguments in favour of inclusion.
Currently Vienna considered invalid because of a single comment made by producer David Richardson in the christmas edition of The Big Finish Podcast in 2012.
I do not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off. It's its own thing. It's not set in the Doctor Who world at all.
…and that's it. Why the decision was made to exclude the series because of a comment from one person involved in production, in whose vision of a term spin-off Vienna sadly wasn't included? When there's this:
Big Finish itself from the very beginning promoted the series as "brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure". And then in 2016 they stated:
For as long as Big Finish have been making audios, we've always been interested in a good spin-off. Our first ever range continued the adventures of the Doctor's New Adventures companion Bernice Summerfield, and over the years we've added to our universe, with Dalek Empire, Jago & Litefoot, Counter-Measures, Gallifrey, Charlotte Pollard and more. But while some of these ranges have been long in the making, Vienna holds the record for the quickest commission of all....
And the statement was backed up with quote from behind the scenes material from the pilot episode The Memory Box:
Well, there's a bit of a confusion. In that comment he clearly calls Vienna a spin-off, but in the other says that he do not see it as one. And why Wiki currently believes only one of those?It's quite unusual for us to get the edits in for a story and then suddenly decide that there was the potential for a spin-off character. We do spin-offs at Big Finish, but rarely that quickly!
There was one comment from Paul Spragg in 2013:
From the basis of promotion and licensing, this isn't a Doctor Who spin-off. It's not licensed through AudioGo or subject to compliance rules because Vienna is our character and thus can exist in her own series as long as the Doctor doesn't turn up. Also, it's useful to distance the series in the hope it will appeal to non-Who fans[…] But there's no denying that this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart. So all the tropes of that story are present, that setting is present (and events of the story referenced in The Memory Box), but to all intents and purposes it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in. I suspect that probably doesn't help you, but that's basically it: David wanted Vienna to stand on its own so it helped to separate it from Doctor Who. We didn't want to call it a spin-off and have it saddled with the need to know Who[…]
He says that Big Finish did not promote Vienna as a Doctor Who spin-off. Well, they do now, with clear comparison with other Doctor Who spin-offs and quote from producer, that states that it is a spin-off.
And what about the authorial intent? Jonathan Morris, writer and creator of Vienna, in 2015 said:
There's the intent for you! And if he wasn't in a position to make any official statement, Big Finish certainly were. And they released those statements: Vienna is a spin-off.I'm afraid I'm not in a position to make any official statement. My feeling is that canonically she exists in the same sort of hinterland as Bernice Summerfield or the Graceless girls, if that helps (it probably doesn't). The character is owned by Big Finish, not the BBC, so legally speaking she's not from 'The Worlds of Doctor Who'. With the three series, my approach has been to establish the character in her own right, so (since 'The Memory Box') there haven't been any references to Doctor Who. But are the stories set in the same universe as 'The Shadow Heart'? In my opinion, yes.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Yep, and once again I am on the side of the series being included here on the Wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:228795
I think this is the perfect time to reopen discussion about the Vienna audio series. Because, frankly, there are lots of arguments in favour of inclusion.
Currently Vienna considered invalid because of a single comment made by producer David Richardson in the christmas edition of The Big Finish Podcast in 2012.
I do not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off. It's its own thing. It's not set in the Doctor Who world at all.
…and that's it. Why the decision was made to exclude the series because of a comment from one person involved in production, in whose vision of a term spin-off Vienna sadly wasn't included? When there's this:
Big Finish itself from the very beginning promoted the series as "brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure". And then in 2016 they stated:
For as long as Big Finish have been making audios, we've always been interested in a good spin-off. Our first ever range continued the adventures of the Doctor's New Adventures companion Bernice Summerfield, and over the years we've added to our universe, with Dalek Empire, Jago & Litefoot, Counter-Measures, Gallifrey, Charlotte Pollard and more. But while some of these ranges have been long in the making, Vienna holds the record for the quickest commission of all....
And the statement was backed up with quote from behind the scenes material from the pilot episode The Memory Box:
Well, there's a bit of a confusion. In that comment he clearly calls Vienna a spin-off, but in the other says that he do not see it as one. And why Wiki currently believes only one of those?It's quite unusual for us to get the edits in for a story and then suddenly decide that there was the potential for a spin-off character. We do spin-offs at Big Finish, but rarely that quickly!
There was one comment from Paul Spragg in 2013:
From the basis of promotion and licensing, this isn't a Doctor Who spin-off. It's not licensed through AudioGo or subject to compliance rules because Vienna is our character and thus can exist in her own series as long as the Doctor doesn't turn up. Also, it's useful to distance the series in the hope it will appeal to non-Who fans[…] But there's no denying that this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart. So all the tropes of that story are present, that setting is present (and events of the story referenced in The Memory Box), but to all intents and purposes it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in. I suspect that probably doesn't help you, but that's basically it: David wanted Vienna to stand on its own so it helped to separate it from Doctor Who. We didn't want to call it a spin-off and have it saddled with the need to know Who[…]
He says that Big Finish did not promote Vienna as a Doctor Who spin-off. Well, they do now, with clear comparison with other Doctor Who spin-offs and quote from producer, that states that it is a spin-off.
And what about the authorial intent? Jonathan Morris, writer and creator of Vienna, in 2015 said:
There's the intent for you! And if he wasn't in a position to make any official statement, Big Finish certainly were. And they released those statements: Vienna is a spin-off.I'm afraid I'm not in a position to make any official statement. My feeling is that canonically she exists in the same sort of hinterland as Bernice Summerfield or the Graceless girls, if that helps (it probably doesn't). The character is owned by Big Finish, not the BBC, so legally speaking she's not from 'The Worlds of Doctor Who'. With the three series, my approach has been to establish the character in her own right, so (since 'The Memory Box') there haven't been any references to Doctor Who. But are the stories set in the same universe as 'The Shadow Heart'? In my opinion, yes.
- NateBumber
Very well-cited thread. For records' sake, the previous one was at Thread:125464. (It really cracks me up that it was originally said that Vienna should be invalid because it's a "Faction Paradoxy situation".)
I feel like we should keep in mind some sort of hierarchy when it comes to the rule about intent. David Richardson, the producer of Big Finish, has made conflicting statements about whether Vienna is set in the DWU; the anonymous person(s) in charge of the Big Finish website has made a plethora of statements confirming that Vienna is a Doctor Who spinoff, as has the great late producer Paul Spragg; and meanwhile, Jonathan Morris -- the creator of the character of Vienna and the writer of her range -- has been completely consistent in saying that he personally believes the Vienna series to be set in the Doctor Who universe. Which means that, when he wrote The Memory Box', when he wrote Deathworld and The Vienna Experience, he intended for it to be set in the Doctor Who universe. Screw the promotional guys; that right there is some Rule 4 Authorial Intent.
The goal of Tardis Wiki is to be an encyclopedia of the Doctor Who universe. That means that if someone wants to learn about the Vienna series -- which is publicly listed and advertised as a Doctor Who spinoff, by a company that produces a plethora of licensed Doctor Who media, now featuring NuWho Doctors no less -- they should be able to come here to do it.
I look forward to seeing the outcome of this conversation.
- Amorkuz
Now, before this conversation can go any further, it is necessary to make sure that it does not violate T:POINT. The relevant quote is: You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.
Therefore, as a point of order, I would kindly request the OP to list which parts of his original post provide new arguments heretofore not present in the Vienna discussions. I thank NateBumber for providing a link to the thread where the decision was made to invalidate Vienna.
No matter how editors feel about that decision, it is a long-standing policy of the wiki not to re-litigate such decisions unless new evidence and/or new arguments appear. Without this policy we would be condemned to eternally squabble over every choice ever made, and every new user would be free to open all the old wounds.
It is a sad truth that inclusion debates often get heated and unpleasant. The previous Vienna debate had seen its share of mutual recriminations flying around. As much as I wish this debate to avoid this fate, there is a very real possibility that it won't. This is why I am asking, non-judgmentally, that the first OP prove that now, at this moment there exists a novel material reason, a new yet undiscovered clue that warrants reopening this cold case.
If this proof is provided, the debate will continue unimpeded. Until this proof is provided, I would request all other editors to refrain from commenting. Partly because, without this proof, the thread will be promptly closed by T:POINT and all the comments will go to waste, but mainly to avoid potentially heated debates whose only result, in case of the closure by T:POINT, will be worsened relations among editors.
I would like to emphasise that the novelty of material/argument can only be demonstrated by the OP and it has to be present in the original post. T:POINT does not allow editors to rehash old arguments in hopes that they or somebody else will later come up with something new.
- Dmitriy Volfson
Amorkuz wrote: Now, before this conversation can go any further, it is necessary to make sure that it does not violate T:POINT. The relevant quote is: You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.
Therefore, as a point of order, I would kindly request the OP to list which parts of his original post provide new arguments heretofore not present in the Vienna discussions.
The previous discussion was held mainly in 2013, when statements from Big Finish, where Vienna is openly called a spin-off, didn't exist, as well as the statement from the author himself, Jonathan Morris. Where those two popped up, there was barely any discussion, so the thread was closed, while completely ignoring the authorial intent and new promotional goals from the company, where the series is a spin-off.
And in the previous thread there wasn't any mention of the fact, that producer's statement, where he did not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off, contradicts his another statement, where he calls it a spin-off!
So while Wiki is clinging onto the producer's statement, which contradicts his another statement, Big Finish to this day continues to promote Vienna as a spin-off, and the author himself still believes that stories set in the same universe'.
History[[edit] | [edit source]]
On 25 March 2013, CzechOut posted a notification of a routine deletion of a story (The Memory Box) that violated Rule 4 of Tardis:Valid sources policy. Little did he know that this notification will turn into a sprawling debate that would last for almost 3.5 years, collect impressive 170 posts, include at least 5 admin taking opposing sides, with the 6th one finally closing the thread in August 2016. The debates got heated, so heated in fact, that it was seemingly suggested by one admin that another admin was anti-community. The suggestion had to be retracted/denied/explained. At the time, I still had the luxury of not taking part in all this, but now the OP forced me to read the whole debate and I did not enjoy it. Given that the explanation above strongly suggests that the OP himself did not read the original debate, and certainly did not read it carefully, I really do not appreciate being forced to do it myself.
Given how unpleasant it was to read it and given that, partly bruised and almost universally unhappy on both sides, the editors finally reached a truce thanks to PicassoAndPringles braving a thankless and tedious job of reaching the conclusion, there is no reason in the world to go through all this again, unless there is an ironclad new proof of validity (or one enjoys seeing people quarrel).
Modern history[[edit] | [edit source]]
This thread was opened twice, the first attempt having been deleted due to T:SPOIL. So I had a strong suspicion that the real motivation behind this thread was what originally made it violate T:SPOIL. Several of the quotes from the OP were clearly present in the original debate. But good faith is to be assumed and I gave the OP the chance to point out this new evidence that would give him the right to open this thread and risk the established truce. I did not even set a specific time for the answer, knowing that the thread is long and may require some research. Unfortunately, after my clear explanation of the Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point policy as regards this case, the OP did not even try to pretend to have something new.
Rather incredibly, the last link in the OP is https://www.bigfinish.com/news/range/vienna/perpage:24, i.e., the page collecting all BF news about Vienna series. The OP gives this link in support of Vienna being a "spin-off". Given that the word "spin" is not present at the link, I'm not sure if this should be considered an insult to editors' intelligence or merely a sign of disrespect, but what this link did provide was the ability to at least fish out some new quote from all these news items as a fig leaf against the potential T:POINT violation already hanging over this thread. I will provide such a quote below. The OP chose not to. So be it.
Nothing new in the OP[[edit] | [edit source]]
Several editors were pretty vocally in favour of the inclusion in the original debate, at Thread:125464. And, rest assured, they found every quote they could in their support, including all the quotes provided in the OP. Here are direct links to the respective posts:
- the first quote by David Richardson can be found at Thread:125464#24, posted by CzechOut in an extended form with more context and followed by 146 further posts;
- the second quote by BF can be found at Thread:125464#157, posted by TheChampionOfTime and followed by 13 further posts;
- the third quote by Richardson can be found at Thread:125464#159, posted by Mewiet and followed by 11 further posts.
- the fourth quote by the late Paul Spragg can be found at Thread:125464#43, posted by CzechOut in its complete form, without omissions, and followed by 127 further posts.
- the final fifth quote by Jonathan Morris can be found at Thread:125464#130, except for the first sentence, posted by JagoAndLitefoot and followed by 40 further posts.
Almost 7 months passed between the latest of these quotes making an appearance in the original thread and the thread's closure. So the OP's claim there was barely any discussion, so the thread was closed should properly be read: after these new claims were brought in in the 3rd year of the discussion, admin waited for almost 7 more months for further opinions and, finally, closed the thread. The OP's suggestion that the thread was closed without regard of these quotes is his assumption of bad faith towards the closing admin, and I think an apology towards the closing admin is here in order. Needless to say, T:POINT directly prohibits reopening the discussion based solely on the OP's belief that some arguments were proposed but ignored by the closing admin.
Mischaracterisation by omitting the context[[edit] | [edit source]]
- The OP's statement Why the decision was made to exclude the series because of a comment from one person involved in production is arguably not factually incorrect, but is quite misleading. Richardson is not "one person involved in production". He is the line producer of the Vienna range, who has overseen every single release of the Vienna range and who has created it, according to Chase Masterson: "And major thanks to the brilliant David Richardson, whose idea it was to spin Vienna off – he saw the potential in this show and championed it from day one." (VOR 108) So, unless one wants to debate inclusion on a story-by-story basis, Richardson (plus the wider BF leadership and marketing team signing off on everything) is the author of the series. Jonathan Morris did create the character (in a story whose validity was never in question), but he only wrote 4 out of 13 BF stories about Vienna (for the record, 3 of these are considered valid, one from the Main Range and two from The Worlds of Big Finish). But, according to BF website, Morris has not had anything to do with Vienna since February 2015. His name is nowhere in the credits after this. Incidentally, his (alleged) quote in the OP originates from November 2015. (In the interests of full disclosure, the alleged Jonathan Morris from the forum this quote is taken from, who only has 2 posts there, claims in the other post that he was the script editor/showrunner of the Vienna series. We may speculate why BF did not credit him. But, in the spirit of T:NO SELF REF, we cannot accept this statement unless confirmed by BF.)
- The OP's claim The previous discussion was held mainly in 2013 is highly dubious. What does "mainly" mean? If it is understood as 50% + 1 post, well, it is mathematically correct. But with 53 of 170 posts (roughly a third) of the thread taking place after 2013, it would be fallacious to draw any conclusions regarding post-2013 information being neglected, as indeed demonstrated in detail above.
- The OP's claim statements from Big Finish, where Vienna is openly called a spin-off, didn't exist skips the subtlety of the subject, which was discussed in detail in the original thread, as evidenced by the word "spin-off" appearing there at least 111 times. Indeed, quite early in the original discussion, already in March 2013 (see Thread:125464#9), Revanvolatrelundar provided the exact description of the range by BF, which survives unchanged till this day: "Impossibly glamorous bounty hunter Vienna Salvatori (Chase Masterson) takes on the galaxy's toughest cases and most vile villains in this brand new spin-off from the Doctor Who main range adventure The Shadow Heart." The question was and is whether a spin-off from the "Doctor Who main range adventure" equals a Doctor Who spin-off. This has been debated in the original thread. Again, nothing new to be gained.
- The fourth quote is presented in the OP as There was one comment from Paul Spragg in 2013. What the OP omits here is that this "one comment" was, in fact, the official email response by Paul Spragg to CzechOut, regarding the question of whether Vienna is part of DWU. This is the only official comment of BF directly on the subject matter of this discussion, as opposed to, say, the quote of alleged Morris, which was posted on some 3rd-party forum and anyways has him explicitly say that he cannot comment in an "official" capacity.
Outright false statement[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Thus, the OP's statement Currently Vienna considered invalid because of a single comment made by producer David Richardson in the christmas edition of The Big Finish Podcast in 2012. is simply false. The wiki actively sought to obtain a clarifying statement from BF but never received a clear answer, as eventually agreed in the original discussion. PicassoAndPringles wrote in her final closing post: "David Richardson's comments stood out to me the most", after explicitly stating that she went through 3-years-worth of the discussion carefully considering both sides. To interpret this as the comment being the only reason for invalidity is a gross misrepresentation of the difficult task performed by PnP.
- Another clearly false statement is And in the previous thread there wasn't any mention of the fact, that producer's statement, where he did not see it as a Doctor Who spin-off, contradicts his another statement, where he calls it a spin-off!. Here is just one of several posts by CzechOut, where this very problem of Richardson contradicting himself was addressed: Thread:125464#117. I believe this calls for an apology to CzechOut for falsely accusing him of arguing his position without addressing an evident problem.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
Because the original debate was contentious, I did not want to dismiss this thread out of hand and carefully checked every single piece of info provided by the OP and every claim about alleged omissions in the original debate. The clear conclusion is: The community was thorough in both fact finding and arguing the finer points. All facts mentioned by the OP are present in the original debate, and all supposed omissions have been discussed in sufficient detail and sophistication and for as long as editors had the slightest interest in the topic. Thus, this post is in clear violation of T:POINT. This thread is closed. There is no reason to change validity of any Vienna stories.
PostScript[[edit] | [edit source]]
As the icing on the cake, let me add my two cents about the authorial intent. The quote by alleged Jonathan Morris has, unfortunately, been cut off both times. Let me present it in full in the proper context:
Nov 13, 2015 at 2:43am omega said:
Well that would for the admins at TARDIS Wikia to reconsider their approach towards Vienna. Can we get a definitive answer as to whether or not her spin-off is still in the Whoniverse?
Last Edit: Nov 13, 2015 at 11:48am by jonnymorris:
Well, not from me, I'm afraid I'm not in a position to make any official statement. My feeling is that canonically she exists in the same sort of hinterland as Bernice Summerfield or the Graceless girls, if that helps (it probably doesn't). The character is owned by Big Finish, not the BBC, so legally speaking she's not from 'The Worlds of Doctor Who'. With the three series, my approach has been to establish the character in her own right, so (since 'The Memory Box') there haven't been any references to Doctor Who. But are the stories set in the same universe as 'The Shadow Heart'? In my opinion, yes.
In other words, after claiming to be the showrunner of the range, the alleged Morris was directly asked about Vienna being set in DWU for the purposes of applying it to the wiki. And the part of the answer omitted before is where he flat-out refuses to give a "definitive answer". This calls into question the insistence on considering this answer as definitive, especially given that he clearly states in the same quote that the character is owned by Big Finish. If it is owned by Big Finish, then it is only Big Finish who can issue official statements. That's what Morris says himself. And the only official statement from Big Finish at this time is that of Paul Spragg.
I also promised to provide a new quote. It is part of the promotional news item and can be found at the link for the second OP quote:
'It's a very colourful universe,' says Jonathan [Morris], 'it's not particularly dark or grim. It's a wild thing with lots of aliens, spaceships, robots and visiting strange alien planets – all the things I love about science-fiction, but with a slightly more psychological story running through it'.
This is the creator of Vienna explaining the universe of the range to Big Finish listeners. It's not the ambiguous "world" anymore. Straight up: "universe". And the idea that this might be a description of DWU to the listeners of BF, which is primarily known for DW, is simply beyond the realm of possible. It has aliens, spaceships, robots---things well known of DWU and requiring no mention there. But above all, it is based on science-fiction. Thus, at least when speaking in his official capacity, Morris describes the universe of Vienna as a generic science-fiction universe, making no connections to DWU. This fits perfectly with the marketing stance of David Richardson in particular and BF in general that this is intentionally not tied to DWU for the purpose of attracting other listeners, such as Chase Masterson's Star Trek fans, which are expressly mentioned by Paul Spragg in his official response but for some reason cut out of it in the OP's quote.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:231309
CLARA: Is this a story or did this really happen?
DOCTOR: Every story ever told really happened.
Everything is canon.
Folks, we have a problem. And we've had this problem over and over again, time and time again. And I think it's about time that we all got together to say, “this isn't working, we can fix it. Let's fix it.”
In the novelisation of Day of the Doctor, a new piece of dialogue is added, where Kate Stewart points to two VHS tapes of the Dr Who Dalek films and discussed to Clara that the Doctor “loved” the films, and was personal friends with Peter Cushing. What this means is that our currently-invalid page for the version of Dr Who from the 1960's Dalek movies technically exist within what we perceive to be the Doctor Who Universe. So the most logical choice for us at this point is to discuss this revelation and to decide then how we should try and cover the numerous stories surrounding the Cushing Doctor. But to be frank, I think the fact that we are continually doing this is a much more pressing issue.
The fact that we always seem to be bringing up the same few stories declared “non-canon” on the site long-ago, whenever a mainstream story makes reference to them or when it's brought into question how “non-canon” they are... Well, it's shocking given our clear rules in T:VS about such things.
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
Certainly, this is reasonable to point out? That we are always fighting over the same few stories over and over again, and we're still arguing over that same word. “Canon.” Is this canon? Are the Peter Cushing films canon? That's what we're still fighting over. To this day. And the fact that we've sworn off that word for years but we are still fighting over it... Well, it's something that I think we need to point out and talk about for once.
Because so often stories that men long-ago declared “too irregular to be covered as part of the canon” are being brought back up again with the same question worded slightly differently. Suddenly we're trying to find out how much of these stories contradict the “deep lore.” We're declaring that stories which invent Doctors can be valid until they give us a number, that small technicalities are the only difference between if a story “counts enough” for us to cover it. And I know for a fact that everyone is tired of talking about these same four or five stories over and over again. So let's fix it. Right now.
I would like to examine how we have reached this point, why it's an issue, and how we should fix it all at once, instead of tunnelling our way through every single case continuously for the rest of time.
Defining Words[[edit] | [edit source]]
To start off in this elaborate discussion of our site's history, the nature of Doctor Who stories, and where things might have gotten confused, we must first agree on the meaning of phrases which have taken on new connotations in the recent decades. This is mainly so that we can understand how all of these phrases, in a way, represent one-and-another.
- Canon: The word Canon is meant to mean “a collection of stories.” One of its earliest uses was when discussing which stories featuring Sherlock Holmes fit inside the original collection. In a modern sense, the word canon means the same thing but is meant to exist under the pretence of which stories exist within a universe. As in, “this story is canon because it exists within X universe.”
- Universe: The word “Universe,” in this context, could be best said to be the world shared by a collection of stories. The consistency between stories and the intention of them to be set within the same time-frame indicates both an active membership to a canon, and existence within the universe of said collected stories.
Now here's where it gets controversial.
- Non-canon: A story which is non-canon is not a part of a certain collection of stories. It is still a part of some collection of stories.
- Part of an alternate universe: A story which is part of an alternate universe exists in its own world outside of a certain collection of stories. But, it still has a universe.
This is an important point to make. The sentences “Doctor Who and Star Trek exist within completely different canons” and “Doctor Who and Star Trek exist within their own universes” are saying the same thing, without controversy. And when a fan of Sherlock states that “the Moffat TV series isn't in the original canon,” he means that the universe of the original Holmes books and the Sherlock TV series exist are independent.
It might seem that this is an unimportant thing to get caught up on, but this needs to be clarified for this discussion to run coherently.
A History Lesson[[edit] | [edit source]]
Long ago, we as a wiki separated our stories into two groups. Canon and non-canon. The Canon stories, as explained above, were all part of the “mainstream” Doctor Who Universe. Non-Canon stories, meanwhile, were fully-functioning Doctor Who stories capable of being covered in a coherent fashion, which merely existed in universes separate from the “normal” one.
Thus, stories were sorted, pretty much, as follows:
Canon Stories
- Most things on the wiki
Non-Canon Stories
- Doctor Who Unbound
- Seven Keys to Doomsday
- Scream of the Shalka
- The Curse of Fatal Death
- Sometimes The Infinity Doctors
- Any story to feature the Peter Cushing Dr. Who
Again, it might seem like I'm going on a pointless tangent. But there's a significant distinction here regarding how our rules used to function, and how they operate as-of-today. These days we consider non-valid stories to be ones which we are incapable of covering. But the stories which were "non-canon" were always capable of coverage.
To prove this, all that one needs to do is to go to many of the pages created as non-valid still successfully wrote from an in-universe perspective. Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka). Third Doctor (Exile). And of course, Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks).
Stories that were “non-canon” were allowed to have pages about the elements featured in their narratives, and they still are allowed this space to this day. The only real reason that they were ever splintered off is due to a belief that they were too different from our common perception of the regular Universe to be put with the other stories without disclaimer.
But as time went on, “non-canon” was replaced by a new system of sorting stories. The non-valid and valid system sorted stories by our ability to cover them. Are they actual stories? Are they meta-contextual? Is there a narrative? Is the story the same every single time? And while there is a clause in our four little rules discussing a story's need to be “within the Doctor Who universe,” in recent years we have seen that be used almost exclusively to decide is a story has any place on our site. Most stories found not to be “set in the Doctor Who Universe” are kicked without discussion, as they rightfully should be.
But there is no point in kicking the Peter Cushing Dalek films because, while it might be controversial to say, they are Doctor Who stories.
T:VS discusses the need for a story to exist within The Doctor Who Universe. Well, all of these stories, at the very least, exist within a Doctor Who Universe.
Dr. Who and the Daleks, Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., Daleks Versus the Martians, and Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor all certainly exist within the same universe. They are meant to be congruent, and their connections are meant to be explored by people like us. This is a collection of stories. They are set in a consistent world. This world is a universe. All four of these stories count to each other, they all exist to one-and-another, and they exist within their own Doctor Who universe. Thus, they all have the potential to be covered and explored by someone. And we are the Doctor Who wiki, after all. It's kind of our thing to create a space for people to do that with Doctor Who stories.
Here's the thing. There are going to be people in this debate who staunchly stand by the fact that all of the stories listed above can't exist within the mainstream Doctor Who Universe. That they can't be part of the regular canon, and thus we shouldn't try to hide their warts from our readers. And the thing is that I pretty much agree. Our logic isn't broken -- it's our system that needs to understand better what we are trying to say.
To understand how this can be fixed, let us glance over to other wikis to see how they cover this same situation.
Precedent in Other Wikis[[edit] | [edit source]]
In this section, I will be discussing other wikis who have come across this same issue. That being, stories which they have to cover despite them not existing in the current “canon.” All of these wikis found ways to clarify to readers which stories and characters fit into what collection of stories, and did this without “exiling” them from coverage.
Sonic the Hedgehog[[edit] | [edit source]]
Sonic the Hedgehog, over the years, has had numerous canons in numerous mediums of fiction. And instead of trying to pick one to cover in full, or indeed trying to banish all others, they simply keep their readers informed about which pages fit within what worlds, canons, and universes.
Check out w:c:Sonic:Doctor Ovi Kintobor. Here, you'll see a page dedicated entirely to a version of Robotnik which existed in early comics, alongside promotional material for the game. At the top is proudly shown a banner explaining what this character is.
| This article's subject exists primarily or exclusively within the Sonic the Comic continuity. Information in this article may not be canonical to the storyline of the games or any other Sonic continuity. |
Power Rangers[[edit] | [edit source]]
Power Rangers Wiki notably covers two completely different canons. That of the Japanese Sentai series, and that of the American Power Rangers series. They apparently decided at some point that having different sites for the two versions wasn't in their interests. However, what interests us is their coverage of Power Rangers: The Movie. For the many of you uninitiated, Power Rangers: The Movie was a stand-alone high-budget film made to tie into the TV series. It did this by retelling a key sequence of episodes, and because of this, it is considered by fans to be non-canon. You might notice that it is a precise description of the 1960's Dalek films created for Doctor Who, which infamously starred a human Peter Cushing. So the question is, how do they allow for coverage of these stories? The answer is that they create unique pages for every human, alien, species, and rock featured in the film with the DAB term “(movie)” added. Then, at the top of these pages, like at the Sonic wiki, a banner explains the issue.
At the top of the page for the film, a banner reads “This article is about a/an independent-continuity film entry in the Power Rangers franchise.” Pages about characters featured in the film display a similar banner.
| This article is about a/an [blank] in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie, existing in a different continuity than the TV series. |
I think this choice, of referencing the “universe” as an “independent-continuity,” is the closest to not only what the original “Non-canon” banner served, but also to what we need as a wiki.
What to take from this[[edit] | [edit source]]
These sites have realised something that is important for us to as well. There is no point in there being a billion Sonic wikis for every canon, or a separate set of wikis for Sentai, Power Rangers, and the Power Rangers movie. One Sonic wiki should learn to find a space for all fans of the series to discuss the stories that exist under its title. And in the same light, there is no need for there to be a 1960's Dr. Who Dalek Films Wikia. We are the Doctor Who wiki. Warts and all. We should find a reasonable place to cover stories that break rank, just like these sites have.
And, again, this is the same logic that was used to call these stories non-canon in the first place. That they were valid to be covered on the site, but that it needed to be pointed out that they existed within a reality different from most DWU stories. The good news for us is that precedent tells us what to do with stories like this on our current site.
Precedent on our own Wiki[[edit] | [edit source]]
In the past several years of debates, numerous validated stories have served as test-runs of the implementation of these rules. First, in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, it was decided that despite the fact that the book The Infinity Doctors was not intended to be set inside THE Doctor Who Universe because the writer saw it as an alternate reality, we could cover it and simply state that this was the case. This change has gone over extremely well. It not only gives writers the chance to write about the versions of characters in that book but also gave a window for references to the book to be explored in an in-universe fashion. This was arguably one of the debates that lead to us changing the word “canon” to “valid." In short, there are no reasons for The Infinity Doctors ever to be invalid.
Then came the discussions of Thread:197392, Thread:197509, and Thread:207240. In short, Big Finish had done a crossover between one of their Unbound audios and their Bernice Summerfield line. Other users pulled up plentiful examples of various people saying that the Unbound audios were set in alternate realities and universes. (As discussed above, saying that something is an “alternate universe” and saying that the story is a “separate canon” are pretty much the same statements as far as writers are concerned.) The rules were changed to allow a space for the Unbound stories to be discussed as “alternate universes.”
The amazing thing that happened next... was that the world didn't end. Suddenly, all Unbound audios were now available in their own little pocket of the wiki, where connections between the Unbound stories and regular ones could be discussed fairly, all while letting the readers know that the stories existed outside of the regular Doctor Who Universe. It didn't scare users off, and it certainly didn't distract users who otherwise would be writing about mainstream stories. People who liked these stories wrote about them, and people who didn't care watched Aliens of London again.
The final nail in the coffin came in 2015, when Thread:180396 set in stone the consensus that Non-DWU was not a reasonable description of how our current rules explain what is and is not a valid source. Thus it was rejected as a prefix and as a phrase to-be-used in categories. What this meant was that we have now officially declared that a story being Non-valid and a story being non-canon are entirely different things. So we can't just say “Because this story doesn't fit into our universe [See: Non-canon], it must be invalid,” because, by the fundamental precedent of discussions on this site, that is not the case.
What should we do?[[edit] | [edit source]]
What I (and arguably a good chunk of people who care about these stories in the first place) want is simple. Because it's been routinely agreed upon through precedent that our rules have evolved to create a difference between a story being “non-canon” (of a different universe) and “Not-valid” (not suitable to be covered on this wiki as a feasible Doctor Who narrative), then we should take all alt-DWU stories currently placed in the “Not-valid” category and move them to a stance of being a part of an “alternate Doctor Who reality.” This will allow users who want to write about the Doctor as he was played by Peter Cushing to easily discuss what this character was and how it existed without roadblocks. It will allow users trying to point out how The Taking of Planet 5 mentions the plot of The Curse of Fatal Death from an in-universe perspective to do so. And to be frank, it will end any gatekeeping trying to dictate what can and cannot be Doctor Who.
Why this is really, really easy[[edit] | [edit source]]
This is amazingly easy to pull off, mostly because all of the pages who exist under this issue are already written as if they were valid. Go check out Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), for instance. A page which is the perfect example of how we should be covering these stories, and the only thing making it “invalid” is a little tag at the top. Otherwise, it perfectly functions as a valid coverage of a story.
The only big issue we would come across is that the prefixes for these stories (all “NOTVALID”) would need to be replaced. However, a little problem like that has hardly stopped us fixing a blatant problem before.
Furthermore, this is just the right choice for people who are tired of the in-universe pages created under the NONVALID category. If we can take pages out of this group that are fully-functional and ready to be valid, then it would easily allow us to clean up this part of the site. We can get rid of horrid superfluous pages like The Doctor (Shada) and Graske (Attack of the Graske) (if these stories are invalid because they can't be covered, why are we covering them?), and people who actually care about these Doctor Who stories that “contradict too much” would have a place on the wiki to discuss them without their coverage really being changed that much at all.
No, seriously, this shouldn't be controversial.[[edit] | [edit source]]
In essence, I am not suggesting that we overthrow age-old rules on the site. Instead, I am pointing out that our rules have changed, and some stories are still affected by logic that is gone. In taking these few stories that are "alternate universe Doctor Who" stories and creating a system for interested users to find out about them and cover them, we are only respecting the original purpose of separating them in the first place. And we are making our current system for invalid stories more clean-cut and easy by sorting out a massive inconsistency that has existed for a very long time.
Stories which should be affected by this change[[edit] | [edit source]]
The following stories, which are invalid for not fitting the current view that we have of the Doctor Who Universe (and are thus invalid for the heinous crime of being allegedly “non-canon”), are what I intent to have covered as “alternate realities” if the community comes to a consensus about these points.
- The 1960's Dalek Films
- The Curse of Fatal Death (In a DWM interview, Moffat noted that the story, despite being written to be funny, was meant to be real, honest Doctor Who, and watching it, you can tell that it was meant as a genuine continuation (and finale) of the show. If it were the only sequel ever made to the show, we would cover it the same way that 21jumpstreet wiki covers the (comedic) sequel films.)
- Scream of the Shalka (This is a story that's packaged with regular Doctor Who stories in most shops, it should be said)
- Death Comes to Time
- All and any stories considered invalid for being connected to the above narratives. See: The Feast of the Stone, Daleks Versus the Martians
Thank you for your consideration, apologies if I was a little to blunt in any key places.
- 109.181.189.80
i do not see any real augments against this proposal
- NateBumber
I don't think I necessarily agree with how direly you've painted the situation, but after thinking about it for a bit, this seems like a really sensible proposal that would kill a lot of birds with one stone:
- Overall, it's a nice middle ground for a lot of the subjects that caused so much tension early last year: Shalka and Death Comes to Time would no longer be completely discarded as invalid, but they'd still be unmistakably separated from the rest of the content on the wiki.
- As you've pointed out, the parallel universe dynamic has already been tested in this exact scenario with great success in the cases of the Infinity Doctors universe and Big Finish's Unbound series: this wouldn't be some crazy experiment; we already know it works.
- Treating these stories as parallel universes would also mean we wouldn't have to pretend anymore that (for instance) Ace is completely unrelated to Ace (Death Comes to Time): the latter page could be linked to with a proper explanation and a short summary in Ace#Alternate timelines.
- This would also help a lot with clarifying how this wiki treats invalid material. The reason we have in-universe pages based on content like Mind My Minions, Introduction to the Night, and Truth or Consequences is because those are classified under the same category as Shalka etc. Implementing this plan would go a long, long way toward un-muddying the waters and fixing that problem.
The more I think about this idea, the more it seems to me like a no-brainer. I look forward to reading other peoples' thoughts.
- OttselSpy25
Thanks for the comment, Nate. I also think that a majour reason that this would be a good plan for the wiki is that it would allow us to clean up the NOTVALID sub-space while giving editors a place to write about many of these stories.
- "...We always seem to be bringing up the same few stories declared “non-canon” on the site long-ago." Well, no, "we" don't. And neither is it right to say that "we are still fighting over" whether Peter Cushing films are valid". There are a few people who like to bring it up from time to time, often in violation of T:POINT. And as we learned in the spate of inclusion debates in December 2016, some participants were actually opining about things they hadn't ever read, seen or heard. They were just jumping on the bandwagon. So I'm not at all inclined to believe that this is some big, pressing problem. I'm always going to be on the side of the average reader of the site — and none of this is even on their radar. I know from page view stats on the wiki that, over time, what most people care about are, unsurprisingly, characters from modern (mostly televised) Doctor Who.
- "Because it's been routinely agreed upon through precedent that our rules have evolved to create a difference between a story being “non-canon” (of a different universe) and “Not-valid” (not suitable to be covered on this wiki as a feasible Doctor Who narrative) ... " That's simply not true. The rules do not create this difference that you suggest. The only things this wiki cares about are valid/not valid. Yes, this wiki is old enough that it predates Paul Cornell's famous and fan-influential "there is no canon" essay. So you'll find some earlier discussion material that uses the word "canon", where today we would use "invalid". But for the better part of a decade we have been saying the same thing. You can see this in the very first iteration of {{Invalid}}, where the language says exactly what we actually say today about {{invalid}} articles: "Do not reference it in an article written from the in-universe perspective". So if you see an admin using the word "canon" in the last decade or at the top of this one, what they generally meant was "this thing can be used to write an in-universe article" — exactly the same meaning admin assign to "valid/not-valid" today.
- We have not been using "canon" as has been suggested by the OP. The whole point of T:CAN is that we don't care about canon here. Tardis admin are not trying to define that term except to say that it does not exist in this franchise.
- The whole of #Defining Words and #A History Lesson, above, is therefore built upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the wiki's history and ambitions.
- "These days we consider non-valid stories to be ones which we are incapable of covering." Again, no. That's not what "non-valid" means. A non-valid story is one that can't be used to create the in-universe portion of an article. It's right there in the opening couple of paragraphs of T:VS. In fact, the OP's defiinition is almost precisely the opposite of what the term means. It's not that we can't cover something deemed {{invalid}} — we have long allowed coverage on Dr. Who and the Daleks. It's that Dr. Who and the Daleks is not a valid source for the in-universe portion of the page Dalek.
Understand that by closing this thread, I'm saying quite specifically that the logical underpinnings of the original post are just too shaky to allow for further discussion. I'm not saying we can't look for some kind of reform. Indeed, I've been thirsty for some simple thing that can be easily administered and understood. It was always the intention in the creation of this discussion board that it would eventually no longer be needed.
But I really think that by firmly pushing back against the OP's assumptions, it might put us on the same page — and help frame future arguments along clearer lines.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:231746
So a few weeks ago, I wrote and posted a forum on my views on the main issue with the site. I was then informed by our head admin that the parts of the post I had done in defining words like “canon,” “fictional universe,” and “valid” was problematic. He, however, did not disagree with the changes that I was suggesting and stated that he too was looking for reform. To make up for this, I have removed and altered pretty much all of what he brought up in his final point (which was not the "basis" of the forum really, it was just side-stuff), basically eliminating all of what was noted in the final post. As any points that were used to close the thread are now fixed, there should be no issue with reopening the discussion. Welcome to the “future discussion.”
It was also brought up that most people don’t care about this topic, that most just care about the current TV show. I don't see why this is relevant. Most don't care about John and Gillian, either. Yet some do, and thus stories that feature them are worth talking about.
And since I have not seen this specific issue discussed in a forum in recent years, and none of what I am posting here was actually addressed in the closing post, it's also far from a break of policy.
CLARA: Is this a story or did this really happen?
DOCTOR: Every story ever told really happened.
Everything is canon.
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
Folks, we have a problem. And we've had this problem over and over again, time and time again. And I think it's about time that we all got together to say, “this isn't working, we can fix it. Let's fix it.”
In the novelisation of Day of the Doctor, a new piece of dialogue is added, where Kate Stewart points to two VHS tapes of the Dr Who Dalek films and discussed to Clara that the Doctor “loved” the films, and was personal friends with Peter Cushing. What this means is that our currently-invalid page for the version of Dr Who from the 1960's Dalek movies technically exist within what we perceive to be the Doctor Who Universe. So the most logical choice for us at this point is to discuss this revelation and to decide then how we should try and cover the numerous stories surrounding the Cushing Doctor. But to be frank, I think the fact that we are continually doing this is a much more pressing issue.
The fact that the key individuals most heavily involved with the inclusion debates always seem to be bringing up the same few stories declared “outside of continuity” on the site long-ago while raising new points about the stories and thus not contradicting any rules whenever a mainstream story makes reference to them or when it's brought into question how “outside of continuity” they are... Well, it's shocking.
Here’s the issue: we have made it the goal of our wiki to cover as many Doctor Who stories as we can. Our goal has always been to find a way for all stories, regardless of contradiction. That’s the reason that Lungbarrow and John and Gillian both have pages on our site. And yet, we’ve selected a few stories out to be invalid under the principle that they contradict continuity too much to “count.” That these stories shouldn't be written about from an in-universe perspective, because they exist "outside of continuity".
And since this only applies to a very short list of stories, stories which keep coming up over and over again in the discussions of how our site works, I would like to put this for rest once and for all by discussing how we could do this better.
The core issue[[edit] | [edit source]]
T:VS discusses the need for a story to exist within The Doctor Who Universe, and how stories which do not meet these standards should not be covered. Well, all of these stories, at the very least, exist within a Doctor Who Universe. That’s the key point of contention.
Dr. Who and the Daleks, Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., Daleks Versus the Martians, and Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor all certainly exist within the same universe. They are meant to be congruent, and their connections are meant to be explored by people like us. All four of these stories count to each other, they all exist to one-and-another, and they exist within their own Doctor Who universe. Thus, they all have the potential to be covered and explored by someone. And we are the Doctor Who wiki, after all. It's kind of our thing to create a space for people to do that with Doctor Who stories.
And that’s exactly why we DO have pages that discuss the nature of these stories. Pages like Dr. Who and Ninth Doctor, etc. The thing is, these pages already exist and function as if they are about valid stories. And they are able to act like this because they are coherent narratives. The only reason that they invalid is that they “don’t count” enough to exist within the “mainstream DWU.”
Some might try to argue that these stories can't be seen as in-universe, but by that logic, a story like AUDIO: Exile also is not "in-universe." And yet it is valid. All of these stories can be discussed from an in-universe perspective, and thus the potential of them to be in-universe exists. The problem is the classic game of "What universe?" Well, a Doctor Who one, obviously.
There are going to be people in this debate who staunchly stand by the fact that all of the stories listed at the bottom of this post can't exist within the mainstream Doctor Who Universe. That they can't be part of regular continuity, and thus we shouldn't try to hide their warts from our readers. And the thing is that I pretty much agree. Our logic isn't broken -- it's our system that needs to understand better what we are trying to say. We should find a way to tell our readers that these stories contradict the mainstream show. But we should find a way to do this without shutting the pages off from the rest of the wiki.
To understand how this can be fixed, let us glance over to other wikis to see how they cover this same situation.
Precedent in Other Wikis[[edit] | [edit source]]
In this section, I will be discussing other wikis who have come across this same issue. That being, stories which they have to cover despite them not existing in the current continuity or "universe." All of these wikis found ways to clarify to readers which stories and characters fit into what collection of stories, and did this without “exiling” them from coverage.
Sonic the Hedgehog[[edit] | [edit source]]
Sonic the Hedgehog, over the years, has had numerous continuities in numerous mediums of fiction. And instead of trying to pick one to cover in full, or indeed trying to banish all others, they simply keep their readers informed about which pages fit within what worlds, stories, and universes.
Check out w:c:Sonic:Doctor Ovi Kintobor. Here, you'll see a page dedicated entirely to a version of Robotnik which existed in early comics, alongside promotional material for the game. At the top is proudly shown a banner explaining what this character is.
| This article's subject exists primarily or exclusively within the Sonic the Comic continuity. Information in this article may not be canonical to the storyline of the games or any other Sonic continuity. |
Power Rangers[[edit] | [edit source]]
Power Rangers Wiki notably covers two completely different shows. That of the Japanese Sentai series, and that of the American Power Rangers series. They apparently decided at some point that having different sites for the two versions wasn't in their interests. However, what interests us is their coverage of Power Rangers: The Movie. For the many of you uninitiated, Power Rangers: The Movie was a stand-alone high-budget film made to tie into the TV series. It did this by retelling a key sequence of episodes, and because of this, it is considered by fans to be "outside of regular continuity". You might notice that it is a precise description of the 1960's Dalek films created for Doctor Who, which infamously starred a human Peter Cushing. So the question is, how do they allow for coverage of these stories? The answer is that they create unique pages for every human, alien, species, and rock featured in the film with the DAB term “(movie)” added. Then, at the top of these pages, like at the Sonic wiki, a banner explains the issue.
At the top of the page for the film, a banner reads “This article is about a/an independent-continuity film entry in the Power Rangers franchise.” Pages about characters featured in the film display a similar banner.
| This article is about a/an [blank] in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie, existing in a different continuity than the TV series. |
What to take from this[[edit] | [edit source]]
These sites have realised something that is important for us to as well. There is no point in there being a billion Sonic wikis for every version of the universe, or a separate set of wikis for Sentai, Power Rangers, and the Power Rangers movie. One Sonic wiki should learn to find a space for all fans of the series to discuss the stories that exist under its title. And in the same light, there is no need for there to be a 1960's Dr. Who Dalek Films Wikia. We are the Doctor Who wiki. Warts and all. We should find a reasonable place to cover stories that break rank, just like these sites have.
Precedent on our own Wiki[[edit] | [edit source]]
In the past several years of debates, numerous validated stories have served as test-runs of the implementation of these rules. First, in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, it was decided that despite the fact that the book The Infinity Doctors was not intended to be set inside THE Doctor Who Universe because the writer saw it as an alternate reality, we could cover it and simply state that this was the case. This change has gone over extremely well. It not only gives writers the chance to write about the versions of characters in that book but also gave a window for references to the book to be explored in an in-universe fashion. This was arguably one of the debates that lead to us changing the word “canon” to “valid." In short, there are no reasons for The Infinity Doctors ever to be invalid.
Then came the discussions of Thread:197392, Thread:197509, and Thread:207240. In short, Big Finish had done a crossover between one of their Unbound audios and their Bernice Summerfield line. Other users pulled up plentiful examples of various people saying that the Unbound audios were set in alternate realities and universes. The rules were changed to allow a space for the Unbound stories to be discussed as “alternate universes.”
The amazing thing that happened next... was that the world didn't end. Suddenly, all Unbound audios were now available in their own little pocket of the wiki, where connections between the Unbound stories and regular ones could be discussed fairly, all while letting the readers know that the stories existed outside of the regular Doctor Who Universe. It didn't scare users off, and it certainly didn't distract users who otherwise would be writing about mainstream stories. People who liked these stories wrote about them, and people who didn't care watched Aliens of London again.
What should we do?[[edit] | [edit source]]
What I (and arguably a good chunk of people who care about these stories in the first place) want is simple. For us to take all alt-DWU stories currently placed in the “Not-valid” category for discrepancies with continuity and move them to a stance of being a part of an “alternate Doctor Who reality.” This will allow users who want to write about the Doctor as he was played by Peter Cushing to easily discuss what this character was and how it existed without roadblocks. It will allow users trying to point out how The Taking of Planet 5 mentions the plot of The Curse of Fatal Death from an in-universe perspective to do so. And to be frank, it will end any gatekeeping trying to dictate what can and cannot be Doctor Who.
Why this is really, really easy[[edit] | [edit source]]
This is amazingly easy to pull off, mostly because all of the pages who exist under this issue are already written as if they were valid. Go check out Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), for instance. A page which is the perfect example of how we should be covering these stories, and the only thing making it “invalid” is a little tag at the top. Otherwise, it perfectly functions as a valid coverage of a story.
The only big issue we would come across is that the prefixes for these stories (all “NOTVALID”) would need to be replaced. However, a little problem like that has hardly stopped us fixing a blatant problem before.
Furthermore, this is just the right choice for people who are tired of the in-universe pages created under the NONVALID category. If we can take pages out of this group that are fully-functional and ready to be valid, then it would easily allow us to clean up this part of the site. We can get rid of horrid superfluous pages like The Doctor (Shada) and Graske (Attack of the Graske) (if these stories are invalid because they can't be covered, why are we covering them?), and people who actually care about these Doctor Who stories that “contradict too much” would have a place on the wiki to discuss them without their coverage really being changed that much at all.
I really don’t see this as changing the rules, but rather clarifying what we mean by having these rules. It will help our wiki function better, and I hope my points are still clear after this rewrite.
Stories which should be affected by this change[[edit] | [edit source]]
The following stories, which are invalid for not fitting the current view that we have f the Doctor Who Universe (and are thus invalid for the heinous crime of being allegedly “too far outside of regular continuity and thus the universe”), are what I intend to have covered as “alternate realities” if the community comes to a consensus about these points.
- The 1960's Dalek Films
- The Curse of Fatal Death (In a DWM interview, Moffat noted that the story, despite being written to be funny, was meant to be real, honest Doctor Who, and watching it, you can tell that it was meant as a genuine continuation (and finale) of the show. If it were the only sequel ever made to the show, we would cover it the same way that 21jumpstreet wiki covers the (comedic) sequel films.)
- Scream of the Shalka (This is a story that's packaged with regular Doctor Who stories in most shops, it should be said)
- Death Comes to Time
- All and any stories considered invalid for being connected to the above narratives. See: The Feast of the Stone, Daleks Versus the Martians
Thank you for your consideration, apologies if I was a little to blunt in any key places.
- Revanvolatrelundar
You have my vote. Another addition would be Dimensions in Time and the two Short Trips stories that have been deemed invalid because they refer to it. The Doctor Who universe is a weird and wonderful place, and if we can have Beep the Meep and the Doctor's other grandchildren in one corner, we shouldn't be saying that the Rani in Eastendersland (I forget the name - something Square) cannot exist in another corner.
I have mentioned in other forum topics how we are seen as alienating our readers by a large part of the community (one that springs to mind was the Delgado Master being the same as Mr Crispy). These changes you're proposing will help to ease that scrutiny, and will help our readers find the whole place more accessible.
- NateBumber
When I first heard this suggestion, I wasn't too sure about this idea, but as the weeks have passed it's grown on me more and more. I think the proposal would kill a lot of birds with one stone:
- Overall, it's a nice middle ground on a lot of the subjects that caused so much tension early last year: Shalka and Death Comes to Time would no longer be completely discarded as invalid, but they'd still be unmistakably separated from the rest of the content on the wiki.
- As you've pointed out, the parallel universe dynamic has already been tested in this exact scenario with great success in the cases of the Infinity Doctors universe and Big Finish's Unbound series: this wouldn't be some crazy experiment; we already know it works.
- Treating these stories as parallel universes would also mean we wouldn't have to pretend anymore that, eg, Ace is completely unrelated to Ace (Death Comes to Time): the latter page could be linked to with a proper explanation and a short summary in Ace#Alternate timelines.
- Also, these stories would finally be able to be listed in the "Continuity" sections of valid stories that reference them, of which there are surprisingly many -- cf the Doctor (The Tomorrow Windows) or the Slarvians. That's always seemed to me like a strange blind spot on our wiki.
- Frankly, it just makes sense: we could argue for years about whether or not those stories were intended to take place in the Doctor Who universe, but we can all agree in a heartbeat that each story takes place in a Doctor Who universe.
- This would also help a lot with clarifying how this wiki treats invalid material. The reason we have in-universe pages based on content like Mind My Minions, Introduction to the Night, and Truth or Consequences is because those are classified under the same category as Shalka etc. Implementing this plan would go a long, long way toward un-muddying the waters and fixing that problem.
The more I think about this idea, the more it seems to me like a no-brainer. I look forward to reading other peoples' thoughts.
- Borisashton
After thinking about it I also agree with this proposal.
Could this decision be applied to other stories in the category that are not too parodic. There are stories like UNIT Recruiting Film which (from what I can tell) has no reason to be invalid. Also, the CIN and Comic Relief specials are meant to be comedic but is there any reason to deem One Born Every Minute or Looking for Pudsey invalid? If there is that's fine but it seems a bit weird to pick and choose which special minisodes to consider valid.
By the way Dimensions in Time was decided to be in violation of rule 2 at Thread:211495 anyways and there is an ongoing discussion about sequels and prequels to invalid stories looking for closure at Thread:212365.
It is exceedingly unfair to say, "Oh, you didn't address my specific points a, b and c, so your closure was invalid, and I'm just going to float the idea again."
Nevertheless, I'll add a few more thoughts this time.
Your lack of understanding of the nature of what it means to be an "invalid" story, which is still evident in this post, nullifies your proposal. I have no idea whom you're quoting when you say things like:
- NOTVALID stories are "too far outside of regular continuity and thus the universe"
- "...stories currently placed in the 'Not-valid' category for discrepancies with continuity..."
None of that is true, so your proposal is reacting against a condition that doesn't exist on the wiki.
We say something isn't valid around here not because of continuity issues, but because we've made a good-faith effort to ascertain what those who made it (and/or owned it) intended, or what the controlling creatives subsequently said.
That process is imperfect for any number of reasons. Maybe the author said different things to different interviewers. Maybe the production company for Doctor Who has changed hands, and the new regime is singing a different tune to the preceding one. Or maybe the person quoted, like Steven Moffat and RTD, have an interest in (or joy of) misleading people. But we still try to make a judgment based upon something completely different than your proposal believes.
The whole point of T:VS is to divorce ourselves from trying to make a subjective assessment of narrative continuity.
Changing from a rendering of "invalid" to "alternate universe" is a fundamental shift in what we've been trying to accomplish here for this whole decade. Your proposal would seek to supplant our current system that stresses production realities with something based on subjective analysis of the narrative.
And we've tried that before, ending up with a wiki that was literally strewn with the most marginal material. We may hate that the occasional property — like, say, Vienna — launches us into a multi-year debate, but the notion of invalidity that is actually present on the wiki has done a lot to clarify what we're about, as opposed to where we were at the top of the decade.
And it should also be pointed out that there is nothing stopping any content from invalid stories being placed within the behind the scenes section of any relevant page. Calling a story "invalid" doesn't mean you lose interesting tidbits from it. Rather, it merely forces that information into the BTS section of a page.
Finally, our current solution of adding "not-valid" tags is better in our increasingly cross-platform world. Now, again, I completely disagree that "not-valid" has anything to do with continuity. So your examples of Doctor Ovi Kintoboor over at Sonic and the 2017 Rangers movie over at Rangers Wiki are not great examples. The messages they display do not convey in any way what our not-valid tag means.
But, as a purely technical matter, our solution is better. By just having a li'l image with a couple of words
With that, I again close up this proposal for the second time. Please do not re-open it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:236104
I'd like to open the debate on whether Infinity is canon. I believe it should be considered canon, as the gameplay doesn't intrude on the story and doesn't have the same issue as Legay where you can use any character. It follows a specific storyline which follows the four rules.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I support the motion.
- StevieGLiverpool
Anyone else?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:237184
According to Tardis:Valid sources, to accept a source as valid we need to satisfy four rules. It has to be licensed, released, intended to be part of DWU. All these create no problem here. With original actors hired to voice licensed characters, drawn in painstaking likeness---there seems to be little to discuss. As if this were not enough, the head of digital entertainment and games at BBC Studios Bradley Crooks stated:
...to have gaming-led content. Doctor Who Infinity would fit into that category. So it’s taking content from our major brands and delivering gaming experiences that actually form part of the canon. It’s not led from TV series it comes to the game first.
While this wiki decided to abandon the notion of canon, this statement should clearly be seen as a strong statement of intent by the licensor. (Credit goes to NateBumber for pointing this out.)
But, as for many other games, the main problem of determining validity of Infinity content lies in fulfilling Rule 1. Is it a story? Or, more precisely, can the material within the game be seen as a collection of stories? The predecessor of Infinity, Doctor Who: Legacy, was deemed invalid, twice, in Thread:161867 and Thread:186659 based on the violation of exactly this rule.
Thus, it seems reasonable to start the discussion of Infinity's validity with comparing it with Legacy and deciding whether the features that rendered the latter invalid still persist in the former.
The main problem cited by the then-admin in closing the threads was, essentially, that different players could use different characters in the same situation. Thus, there was not one game experience but multiple. In particular, it was hard to determine which of the characters appear at which level.
Infinity consists of separate, so far independent, "stories" (named so in the game and put in quotation marks here to distinguish from what is called stories on the wiki). Each "story" has its own cast, author, colourist, etc. More importantly, each "story" has a clearly defined, linear plot (with flashbacks). Each "story" consists of named levels. In each level, the player plays for one (sometimes several successive) of the characters (who may or may not be present on the playing board). Each level has an objective related to this character and is won when this objective is reached. Here is an example from the first "story", The Dalek Invasion of Time:
20: Time, Rewritten
The TARDIS cannot reach its destination with anomalies spreading each turn - clear them by making adjacent combos. The TARDIS will use the yellow waypoint gem as a guide towards the exit - match it with other yellow gems to power it (it will turn white), to lure the TARDIS towards the exit.
Success: TARDIS reaches its destination
Failure: Take too many turns
Characters participating in the level are either to the left of the board or on the board. Enemies participating in the level are either to the right of the board or on the board. There is no choice as to who is present (at least in all the levels I've already completed).
Thus, there is no problem of determining which characters appear. Similarly, each level is part of the overall plot.
Another objection mentioned regarding Legacy was that some of its levels were explicitly based on TV episodes, giving an impression that events from these episodes are retconned. This problem is not present for Infinity either. The material, as stated by the BBC is wholly original, with authors of storylines (George Mann, Gary Russell and Scott Handcock so far) being explicitly credited. All three are, needless to say, well-known DW authors.
The only variabilities between individual experiences I could observe are
- the exact movements on the board within each level;
- choice between winning a level and losing a level. Losing is accompanied with some appropriate text often encouraging to try again;
- after too many losses, there is a choice to skip a level to proceed with the plot.
To my mind, these three bullet points are the only thing that could be used to argue that the game does not present the same story for different players. I myself do not see it this way. I believe that each "story" in the game is a story in our sense too. I hope that I provided sufficient information (complete to the best of my current knowledge) in case somebody would like to argue otherwise. I also encourage everyone to add relevant details that I may not be aware of.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I have nothing more to offer but I definitely support the decision for exactly the reasons you say. Unlike Legacy, Infinity has as linear a story (or several "stories") as you can get with video game; to say that Infinity does not present a coherent story is denying the very idea that video games could be used to tell a linear story.
- StevieGLiverpool
I'd argue with the bullet points that losing and trying again and winning, or simply skipping does not deter validity. It's essentially like in the Adventure Games, the Wiki is not going to say "The Doctor was exterminated 5 times, then respawned and avoided them", but the game uses the best possible scenario of what the game intended. So either way for Infinity it would read "the TARDIS reaches its destination". With the positions on the board, I'll argue again using the Adventure Games as an example. The Wiki has inferred that the Doctor just gets along with the story and ignores little things like this. The Wiki would just write that the Doctor gets to his destination and not that he could be loitering around for 5 hours before he gets to where he needs to go.
Hopefully you understand what I'm saying here, I completely support the notion that Infinity should be valid due to its coherance in storytelling as well as the other rules in the 4 rules for validity.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'm on board with Infinity. Avoiding the usual tropes of gaming in our edits (Deaths, respawning and the like), the game seems to be entirely based around stories written and illustrated as any comic from Titan or DWM would be.
- StevieGLiverpool
Is this enough to reach a conclusion?
- Amorkuz
No.
- SOTO
It's also interesting that you mention it allow you to continue, even if you fail. In other words, the plot line necessarily includes the TARDIS reaching its destination, and even if you can't make that happen, it's necessary to the next level. No matter what you do--short of deleting the app right then and there--the TARDIS will have completed its mission.
And the game itself does call them stories. From what I'm seeing, these are actually stories, with a Companion Chronicles audio narration style, and somewhat moving 2D illustrations, very much in line with comics released today.
But that's the intro, and the bits in between. Cutscenes, I suppose. Then there's also the gameplay. It's just a puzzle game for this portion. The story itself is, in your example, the TARDIS making its way to the exit. The mechanics of it are outside of the story, kind of part of the medium I suppose.
And you either succeed, or you don't succeed at first, and you retry until you make it. Or it lets you go on anyway. This isn't the sort of game where your decisions or failures affect the outcome. There is a linear story to follow, one in which all the puzzle games are won. This is what moves the story forward, after all.
And they even have this magazine comic book covers for the stories, don't they? They're clearly making an analogy, whereby Doctor Who: Infinity is the "magazine" here, and The Dalek Invasion of Time is an individual comic story. Just like, with moving things and audio accompaniment.
Which begs the question--if we do consider the stories valid, do they get separate pages? The game itself seems to favour that angle. If they do, what dab term do they get?
- NateBumber
SOTO wrote: Which begs the question--if we do consider the stories valid, do they get separate pages? The game itself seems to favour that angle. If they do, what dab term do they get?
A smart distinction. Having played the game, they remind me quite strongly of the Flash animated "narrated-comics" we got with Real Time and Shada in the early 2000s. So out of respect for that convention, I'd recommend (webcast), even if "a feature in an app" is stretching the definition a little bit.
- SOTO
This would essentially make Doctor Who: Infinity, the video game, a series for the different stories. Are the stories sold separately as in-app purchases? And they are indeed separate stories, on a closer look. And it seems to me, interactive elements aside, which do not change the tide of the stories, these are proper narratives.
- SOTO
Oo I see what you're saying with Real Time and Shada. I think I agree they are analogous. These might as well be Flash animated.
- Amorkuz
Yes, each story is sold separately and independently of each other. They are also completely unrelated: different Doctors, different companions, etc.
- CzechOut
I agree that we should allow the narratives, as long as they remain non-branching, static narratives that are the same for every player, every time they play the game, regardless of how they play the game.
But I think it's important to stress that we're in the very early stages of this game's life-cycle. We don't know what's going to happen with it. Aspects of it could change. As they improve the platform, it could well be that future stories will indeed have branching narratives, and then we'll be in the very sticky situation of being okay with some of the stories and not okay with other ones. Certainly, it's being made for devices that are significantly more powerful than the ones that Legacy launched on, so there is absolutely the technical possibility that the nature of the game will evolve.
That said, I think we have to consider what's best for the end reader. Our refusal to cover Legacy has had a net positive effect upon coverage of that game. The DW Legacy Wiki has over 1500 pages and much better coverage of the topic as a whole than we could ever hope to do. We mustn't forget that the majority of this subject is a custom version of Bejeweled. Strategies, definitions, iconography — all of that is important to the reader, but definitely not something this wiki should or will cover.
Sure, this game might tell Tardis readers about another story involving the Third Doctor, but it's not here to tell you how to defeat level 13 of "The Orphans of the Polyoptra", or the meaning of a red ball versus a yellow one.
- CzechOut
Another thing we have to be on guard against with a game that has no physical media is the likelihood that it will change. A realistic scenario is this. Tiny Rebel Games release "The Lady of the Lake" this year. Three years from now, the game is still active, but now the platform has changed. So they push an automatic update which switches it to a new format whereby you can now select different companions to go on different parts of the adventure. But because there is no physical media, no one can verify what the original storyline was.
Stuff like this happens more or less 100% of the time in the gaming world. Every game that can be updated does get updated.
And it's even happening to a degree to televised Doctor Who. Someone in this very thread — was it SOTO? — pointed out how they didn't know that there was a call between Martha and that Doctor-who-became-her-fiancé at the end of Last of the Time Lords, because the exchange doesn't happen in the iTunes version of the story, and the iTunes version is not marked as being edited.
So, again, while I'm happy to consider these well-praised stories as valid for writing in-universe articles here at Tardis, it may be that the better analogy here is not webcast but stage play. These narratives, or at least some aspects of them, could disappear in the blink of a download.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's a worthy point, but if I may offer my rustic wisdom from the Disney Comics Wiki, we've had similar conundrums and the situation is simple: archive the games ourselves, now. Someone trustworthy on the Wiki records an entire playthrough and keeps it safe and sound on their own hard drive or a cloud.
If I may, you bring up that this sort of Orwellian-retconning happens to televised Doctor Who sometime. Surely no one's going to go arguing that Last of the Time Lords is made invalid by that retroactive edit? And what's more, there's an even more direct parallel of televised Doctor Who for clearly-valid narrative that we don't have access to: lost episodes.
I may be wrong, but lost episodes are still theoretically valid, and worthy of coverage insofar as possible, no? Why should this not hold true for the 2018 Legacy stories, regardless of whether they are "taken down" and replaced with altered versions in the future? If they do upgrade the current static versions into branching narratives, would the result not be that there was once a valid narrative, it's been "lost", and where it once stood there is a non-valid video game "adaptation" of the original?
- Amorkuz
I guess this distinction can be viewed as follows: were stories intended to be variable or were they intended to be in a fixed form but were later changed due to unforeseen circumstances?
Stage plays are an example of the first type. Every next performance is expected to be different from the previous one.
TV episodes are expected to be fixed, but may later be modified, may turn out to be slightly different on different platforms (there was also a case of a typo in iTunes credits but not in BBC ones). Still, we ignore these potentialities because they are not supposed to happen. Some Third Doctor episodes are only available in black and white now, but this was not the original intended change. Similarly, these stories (those released so far, to be precise) are not intended to be changed in the future even though it may happen.
I also agree that the mechanics of moving gems are out of bounds for this wiki. They are not part of the story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz hit the nail on its proverbial head, I think.
By the way, about plays, something I couldn't find out: if there were an official recording of a play's performance (either broadcast, or released on video), would that be valid, or not?
- Pluto2
I support considering Infinity valid.
- FuturesEnd
i also consider infinity to be valid
- NateBumber
Given that Seven Keys to Doomsday is valid, I'd guess that official recordings count, yes.
- Scrooge MacDuck
NateBumber wrote: Given that Seven Keys to Doomsday is valid, I'd guess that official recordings count, yes.
That's kind of a different situation, though: there, they used the script of the original play and recorded it as an audio story. I am proposing an official recording of an actual performance, kind of like what they do with the Doctor Who Proms. (I know that those were deemed invalid due to Rule 4 — obviously no serious intent of the occasional character appearances "counting" within the DWU -, not because of their nature as a broadcasting of an originally-live show…)
In the meantime, has anyone got any counterarguments to what Amorkuz and I said a few posts ago?
- FuturesEnd
I support considering Infinity valid.
- StevieGLiverpool
I forgot this existed, do we have enough for a verdict?
- TheChampionOfTime
We are no longer in the early stages of Infinity's existence, much the opposite it would appear. On top of all the juicy points above, an article in DWM 545 gives many relevant insights to the intention behind the game's stories.
Christopher Dring writes:
Infinity is an unusual game in that it places story above everything else. Typically with a game, it's all about the gameplay and the story comes afterwards. ... Yet with Infinity, the script came first.Chris Dring
And, as an interesting contextualisation of already-discussed features:
The focus on story has seen Tiny Rebel introduce the ability to skip puzzles for those players who don't want to play. "Last year we pitched Infinity very much as a game," says Susan Cummings. "Which in some ways is a disservice, because it's not just a game. It's something we hope will appeal to people who are just fans of the show or audio dramas. People who are maybe not that big on games."
So, in other words, one of the above-identified few potential variances in player experience, level skipping, was intended to be a way of keeping player experiences uniform. Also, the comparison (of which there are several in the article) to Big Finish really highlights the linear, unchanging natures of the stories within Infinity.
- StevieGLiverpool
That's some excellent evidence and I think, really, there's no debate against the canon of it. An interesting discussion (I suppose for another thread) is to make these seperate pages per story?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd definitely be in support, yes. Those are narratively independent stories, which, as we saw, the people in charge compare to comic stories in a comic book.
- StevieGLiverpool
How exactly do we reach a proper verdict?
- FuturesEnd
How is this still not canon? C'mon it's unanimous.
- StevieGLiverpool
I don't want to seem rude but is this going to be resolved or... I mean that's the point of this thread right?
- Bwburke94
It'll be resolved once the admins get around to it. Don't worry too much.
- StevieGLiverpool
Still nothing though haha
- StevieGLiverpool
Like I said
Ruling this invalid. It's really pretty hard for a video game to pass Tardis:Valid sources due to the ruling at Forum:Prefix simplification.
And of course keep in mind Tardis:You are bound by current policy and Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point apply as always.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:240617
(A word of warning: I have not listened to “Zagreus” myself; I'm acting on good faith that the information on the Wiki is accurate.)
As we all know, Death Comes to Time is not considered a valid source because, much like Scream of the Shalka, it was determined that by the time of its release its creators weren't so sure at all that it was "canonical" to the wider Whoniverse, even if it may originally have been conceived in that spirit. The relevant debate is here.
Only, after listening to Death Comes to Time for myself, I checked out our page about it, and I found a rather arresting statement there, whose information had not been brought up in the original debate:
This reality was one of the realities seen by the Eighth Doctor during the Anti-Time infestation of the TARDIS. (AUDIO: Zagreus)
If true, and again, maybe that statement is incorrect or misleading (I don't know — I don't own a copy of Zagreus), but if true, isn't this major evidence towards classifying Death Comes to Time as an alternate timeline, rather than a null-and-void pastiche/elseworld?
Remember, a character traveling to the non-valid story's universe (treated as an alternate timeline to the main Whoniverse timeline) is what made Sympathy for the Devil valid retroactively, and, by association, the other alternate-timeline Unbounds. And in the debate about the possible validity of Scream of the Shalka and Curse of Fatal Death based on a possible reference to them as alternate timelines in a novel, the debate was carried out with the assumption that if the reference was decisive then Shalka and Curse would have been reevaluated as valid — it just turned out that the references weren't precise enough to definitely say "this is the Richard E. Grant Doctor" and "this is the Rowan Atkinson Doctor".
So by the same standard, if the statement above is verified, and the reference is precise enough… shouldn't Death Come to Time fall into the same basket?
- 90.34.27.201
I mean it doesnt look like a bad idea but uh doesn't "Death comes to time" contradict a bunch of stuff like what would it mean for it to be canon?? --Fox
- Scrooge MacDuck
A), see T:CANON. Death Comes to Time is as canon as anything in Doctor Who, no more, no less; and we're not going to say anything more than that. Feel free to disregard it or not in your headcanon.
B), regardless, you appear to have misunderstood my suggestion above. The idea is that the timeline of Death Comes to Time would be considered an alternate dimension, like Pete's World. So it doesn't matter that it "contradicts a bunch of stuff" (which, yes, it does).
- Shambala108
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: (A word of warning: I have not listened to “Zagreus” myself; I'm acting on good faith that the information on the Wiki is accurate.)
That's a pretty big assumption. This wiki is user edited, and users can and do make mistakes that often get overlooked. It's even pointed out at Tardis:Valid sources that this wiki is not a valid source for other statements on the wiki.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I know; that's precisely why I included the warning. But as I outline in the rest of the post the statement would be pretty groundbreaking if true, so I think we really should try to get to the bottom of it. And the intent of this thread is as much to check its accuracy as it is to discuss what to do next — indeed, as I argued, the precedents are such that the main question is whether the statement was accurate, as the course of action would seem pretty clear-cut if it is.
- NateBumber
DOCTOR: I can see things in my mind's eye. I can see me, thousands of mes doing difference things in different places, but all at once. Alternative realities. Or maybe this is an alternative, and one of those others is real. You're part of me. Can't you see what I'm seeing?
ZAGREUS: Always.
DOCTOR: Look there. I see myself on the planet Oblivion, facing a race called the Horde. And there, look. A tiny reality where Gallifrey isn't a planet but a timeless diamond, drifting through the stars. I can see a universe where the Time Lords have terrible mind powers, and another where they have ceased to exist. Time wound backwards to eliminate their every trace. A planet, Earth, where the Nestenes very nearly destroyed everything. And another Earth, upon which I have plucked out one of my own hearts. But which is real, and which are the alternatives?
ZAGREUS: There is no alternative.
DOCTOR: You mean no one knows which reality is the real one?
ZAGREUS: They are all real, and primary to their inhabitants. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. Who is there to care? They all exist, occasionally sharing moments, eras. The rest of the time self-contained and unaware.
While the bolded text above is certainly intended to be a reference to Death Comes to Time (part of Gary Russell's list of stories that don't quite fit into his Main Range continuity) it's no less oblique than the reference to The Curse of Fatal Death in The Tomorrow Windows.
If you're looking for concrete references to Death Comes to Time, far better bets would be
- the direct mention of Tannis in The Gallifrey Chronicles (and the admittedly more-oblique reference to the Minister of Chance in the same novel),
- the direct mention of the Canisian invasion in Trading Futures,
- the mentions of Anima Persis in Relative Dementias and The Tomorrow Windows, and
- the mention of Mount Plutarch in The Three Paths.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, but all these references are under the assumption that Death Comes to Time is, somehow, a thing that happened to the main Doctor in the main timeline. And it was decided that this wasn't the authorial intent. So they're not particularly significant, any more than a reference to the Doctor's nightmare about "his enemies chasing him through a TV show" makes Dimensions in Time valid.
Thank you immensely for providing the full quote, anyway. The question will be whether the community considers it decisive enough. (If the decision were up to me, I would — I'd say that the Death Comes to Time world is an alternate universe, and the mentions of Tannis or the suspiciously Minister-like Time Lord would be easily explained as cross-universe echoes, just like there's a Jackie Tyler both in Pete's World and the regular timeline.) So let's try and get more opinions.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Let's try and get more opinions, the poor fool said before two months of radio silence. Hello?
- Dmitriy Volfson
I think Death Comes to Time should be treated the same as the Unbound stories, not totally disregarded as not-valid. NateBumber already pointed out all the references from valid stories, and if the intention of that line from Zagreus was to establish the Death Comes to Time events as the alternative within the DWU, why Wiki is ignoring this intent?
- Shambala108
I suggest you read the entirety of Tardis:Valid sources (not just the "four little rules") to understand how and why we treat stories as valid or not valid.
But it has been given time and the result so far is that no single piece of evidence in support of the story is agreed to be sufficient by both the OP and NateBumber, who actually did the legwork of finding any evidence at all, for which I would like to officially thank him.
Despite the clear confirmation bias by the OP, who did not make an effort to find a quote from Zagreus but immediately announced the provided quote as sufficient despite objections of Nate, who actually listened to the story, despite all these quotes, they have no bearing on the matter.
The validity rules state that authors intending their stories to be placed outside DWU should be granted their wish. The original DCTT debate concluded that this was exactly this case. In particular, the validity rules state:
Most stories are trying to be narratively continuous at the time they're produced, even though they may be superseded by later stories.
DCTT was purposefully produced against the continuity with authors expressing their desire to disregard continuity completely.
No amount of second-guessing by others would change the authorial intent, as established in Forum:Inclusion_debate:_Death_Comes_to_Time. No amount of oblique references to the Steelman or the Caped Crusader by Marvel executives would make Superman or Batman a Marvel character. Thus, all the quotes and references provided above do not affect the results of the original debate in the slightest.
The debate is closed. Death Comes to Time remains invalid until a quote from Dan Freedman is found, where he explains how his killing of the Seventh Doctor and disparaging of the Eighth was meant to integrate his story into DWU at the time.
PS This was yet another pointless debate. It was held for no other reason than to have this debate. The story is already covered by the wiki. Its page is more extensive than those of many valid stories. Even if there were some reasons to change the status of this story from "covered invalid" to "covered valid," what would have been achieved by that? Beyond a successful inclusion debate, that is? Is it desired that the Seventh Doctor page necessarily states, "According to another account, the Seventh Doctor died there and then"? And each future consequent Doctor's page states at the end, "According to another account, this Doctor never existed"?
This story is significantly different from Unbound audio stories, where Benny's travels established them as alternative to the main continuity. No such in-universe evidence exists that DCTT is an alternate timeline or parallel universe (and no, Time Lords having terrible mind powers is very far from nailing DCTT: the Master has terrible mind powers and is not afraid to use it; even the Doctor completely erased Donna's memory).
Yes, tears in continuity are commonplace in DWU. They do not invalidate a story. However, completely rewriting the very basics of the universe, like making the Doctor a human inventor or making Time Lords homeless time gods, unambiguously places the story outside the wide but not infinite bounds of what can count as Doctor Who.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:243563
Oh wee, another inclusion debate.
Facts of the case: Festive Thirteenth Doctor Yule Log. A webcast. I say it's a narrative, SOTO disagrees.
My case is that, well, it's not the most gripping of stories, of course (since the point of it is to be a relaxing moment with the Doctor, in real time), but "we see a mysterious room (possibly on Gallifrey) with a warm fire in the chimney, adorned in a way that suggests it's home to the Doctor; after a while a Kerblam Man comes in but realizes she isn't here and leaves; some time later the Thirteenth Doctor arrives in the TARDIS, realizes the wind from the TARDIS materializing has blown out the fire, relights it with the Sonic, sits by the fire for awhile, then leaves on some unknown errands, and later returns" is an entirely sensical succession of events happening to the character without any fourth-wall breaking.
SOTO's argument is, I believe, that since the same animation is recycled for the Doctor's different arrivals in the room, it's less of a "the Doctor came in, then left, then returned" and more of the clip being looped in on itself.
But I don't think that's what's happening here; yes, the same animation is recycled, but it's not the same event being looped back to us. These are clearly meant to be different visits of the Doctor to the room, at different times — different events in the same evening/night. We know this because the webcast gives us a clear way to track the passage of time: the day slowly turning to night in the window. It's still later afternoon during the Doctor's first visit; it's night (with stars and snow) during her second.
- Amorkuz
Not that I have two hours to spend on something that by definition is intended to provide a cosy background noise rather than tell a story. But somebody watched it so we don't have to. (Well, we have to to verify their findings, but it makes it easier.) And I did verify the following occurrence.
Three times the Doctor’s sonic screwdriver appears on the table completely on its own, glows a bit, and remains on the table, only to disappear again shortly before the Doctor arrives in the room (43:00, 44:30, 1:38:53).
I am not aware of an established ability of the sonic screwdriver to materialise and dematerialise on its own. If this story is accepted as valid, then we would have to use it to establish such an ability.
Which would be quite unreasonable, given that I have not seen a statement from BBC suggesting they intended it as a story instead of a traditional yule log video. From the further description it appears that various monsters/characters from Series 11 are cameoed to make for some change in the video, without any regard for the continuity. Not that continuity is necessary for validity. But here there does not seem to be any intention of storyfying it. Just random occurrences that do not make much sense together. This is closer to a trailer, which also exhibit many DW things in some sort of order, without pretending to be a story. Like the pre-season trailer where the Doctor was moving with supersonic speed leaving regenerative energy traces in the air and messing up with Team TARDIS.
Fortunately, unlike many other communities that have to wait months and years for the next story, we easily get 10+ stories every month. There is no need to go fishing for more. Just like And Introducing... is and should stay invalid, so should this.
PS. Apparently, last year there was a similar video about the Twelfth Doctor, which was ignored to the extent I couldn't find it on the wiki at all. No reason to treat this one any differently.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That was quick, thanks.
Concerning the Sonic Screwdriver's teleportation: it's hard to say whether the Sonic has ever displayed such an ability before, but it's definitely displayed a propensity to have whatever abilities the writers or designers think will be cool as the plot demands. I don't think teleporting itself ahead of the TARDIS is much more unlikely from containing a pen or allowing someone to see every football match ever. In short, if FTDYL is otherwise found valid I don't see what would be wrong with accounting for this ability, just as we would account for its ability to relight a dying fire.
(Note how Twas the Night established that Santa Claus can apparently drive the TARDIS, which, unless the webcast means to imply that Kris Kringle is a renegade Time Lord, strikes me as no more or less "continuity-breaking" a revelation.)
Concerning whether it's a story: I have seen nothing to contradict the concept that we are watching a succession of events happening in the room over the course of an evening. Of course, having watched the thing in its intended format of having it on while doing something else on the side, I may have missed some logic-breaking happenstance. If T'zim Shah materializes wearing a tutu, winks at the camera, and goes away in a puff of smoke, or something, I take it back. But until such an incident is found my mind remains unchanged on this point.
Concerning last year's Twelfth Doctor one: I haven't watched it yet, but I see that a link to it has been added on the Festive Thirteenth Doctor Yule Log page has been added, and even if it is found invalid (it should probably have its own inclusion debate, shouldn't it? the one could be valid and the other not, or vice-versa) I do think it's deserving of a page.
Concerning those zipping-around-with-regeneration-energy thingies: they're obviously hella invalid, but since as it turns out they were more like TV spots of their own, rather than mashups of footage from the series itself, shouldn't they get their own page in the same way that Blue Peter special 2005 (another pre-proper-Series-debut bit of invalid fluff featuring the new Doctor) did?
(Oh, and a post-scriptum: A, there’s no such thing as having too many Doctor Who stories; B, whether we'd like something to be a story or not shouldn't impact objective reasoning in either direction; C, in terms of wanting this story in particular to be valid, I admit to being somewhat partial here not because of a general "I want more stories!" but because, while this is too speculative for the Wiki, it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that the room is the Doctor's old house on Gallifrey, and you don't get a story with the Thirteenth Doctor on Gallifrey every day. Though again, my personal feelings shouldn't matter here.)
- Amorkuz
Some procedural things. No, pre-seasonal teasers/trailers do not need their individual pages. Their proper place is on the season's page, where they are given in context and easier to find.
Yes, there should be a page for the Twelfth Doctor yule's log or maybe, better still, one page for all yule logs, just like Adventure Calendar is sufficient for multiple years of another seasonal promotional trick by BBC.
It is true that validity of one story does not generally impact validity of another. However, we have encountered cases of editorial overreach before. It was well-intentioned, sure. But at some point pages were created for each individual minion that appeared in some clearly invalid story. I would prefer to avoid going down similar rabbit holes in the future.
As for continuity problems, sure, there were bona fide TV stories that made no sense, and we have to live with that. But they at least tried. I see no indication that this was the case here. While discontinuity R Us, there is no reason to bring in utter nonsense. And this looks like one. Delightful and heartwarming but still nonsense. And we should never establish major changes to the DW lore based on secondary suspect sources. When was the last time the Doctor had a house on Gallifrey? When was a single time the Thirteenth Doctor had her own room? Long time ago and never, to the best of my knowledge. Did the Thirteenth Doctor visit Gallifrey after its reemergence? No, to the best of my knowledge. If this is on Gallifrey, why are there Arachinds from the UK crawling on its windows? Why Pting appears but does not eat anything? It does not make sense. More importantly, it does not try to make sense.
As for the original intentions, I believe the name is indicative enough. Yule Log (TV program) defines a yule log TV program as "is a film loop of a yule log burning in a fireplace, with a traditional soundtrack of classic Christmas music playing in the background". The film loop is present, based on the description above. Fireplace too. It is a yule log video, not a Christmas story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, I'd somehow missed the Pting (I knew I had to have missed something). Okay, I'm coming around to your point of view that the story (inasmuch as it is one) doesn't try to make sense, and that kind of disqualifies it on the same grounds as, say, Dimensions in Time.
All your paragraph about how no other sources establish that the Thirteenth Doctor visited post-Hell Bent Gallifrey do kind of run afoul of "all stories are equal", though. If we'd found that Festive Thirteenth Doctor Yule Log was meant by its creators to be a story, set in the DWU, then whether it says things about the Doctor or the sonic never previously shown in televised or literary Who shouldn't matter an inch. A webcast has as much right to say the Sonic can teleport as any other kind of licensed DW story. And (but again keep in mind that this was only my pet theory; I am in no way arguing for it to be put on pages, even if the webcast were valid) nothing forbids an animated Christmas webcast from showing 13's first visit to post-Hell Bent Gallifrey if it so pleases and Chibnall doesn't object.
(Again within that speculation, which would be better spun off to the Howling if you want to discuss my theory further: the fact that the Doctor was last known to own a house on Gallifrey long ago doesn't mean much. He fled and abandoned it; we have nothing, AFAIK, to suggest it was destroyed or repossessed since then. Presumably he — or, now, she — could just come to reclaim it at any time. For example, the War Doctor may well have stayed there during his time on Gallifrey in the Time War.)
Your argument that its nature as a Yule Log precludes it being a Christmas story is kind of flawed, I think. As I stressed in the opening post, FTDYL already deviates from the traditional Yule Log format, since it clearly establishes the passage of time as day turns to night, and features a bunch of discrete non-looped events (a Kerblam Man materializes, the Doctor comes in through the TARDIS then leaves); it has the trappings of a Yule Log, but it's also got a narrative component. A kind of aimless, not-enough-to-pass-Rule-1 sort of narrative component, yes; but a narrative component still. If the animation wasn't looped and the Pting & co. didn't materialize without rhyme nor reason, it's easy to imagine a version of FTDYL which would have nothing against its validity, yet would still also be a Yule Log.
Oh, and as far as making a single Yule Log article for both (and any future ones): I dunno about this… such an article would get crowded, I think, quite quickly, and become nigh-unreadable within five years if they keep it up every year. The interest of the article, whether it be a valid source or not, is to catalogue the references and cameos and so on; would we be able to do so as efficiently with a single catch-all page?
Many participants in inclusion debates (not saying this thread's OP is one) are well aware of the "four little rules", but they haven't read the complete information located at Tardis:Valid sources. Stated there, just because something has some kind of narrative, doesn't mean we include it. That page gives some examples.
That being said, what we have here is the same kind of thing. It's pretty clear that this is not intended as narrative. Therefore it fails Tardis:Valid sources and falls into the "invalid" category. Given that three admins (including myself) consider this not valid, it's a foregone conclusion.
And I agree with User:Amorkuz that these Yule logs should be on one page per the Adventure calendars. To address User:Scrooge MacDuck's concerns, this kind of thing would only come out once a year; the information currently under "References", "Notes" and "Cast" can be added as a paragraph or two under each year's Yule log entry. There's no indication, at this point, that the BBC will continue airing one of these every Christmas. So for now, the information at the current two Yule log pages should be converted (merged) to one page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:245019
So — Doctor Who: The Live Escape Game. It's now open, as I understand it (and if I got it wrong someone please correct me, and be my guest at deleting all mentions of this specific story from this thread, especially as I am saving the text just in case).
What do we do about it? Because the thing is, there's never really been anything like it in Doctor Who before. The closest was the interactive story (or, as it were, stories) at the Doctor Who Experience, but that's not quite it either, since the interactive story there was a sort of bonus show to tie together what was already an exhibition in its own right; and indeed, we have separate page for Doctor Who Experience itself and the interactive story within; whereas here the interactive story is all there is.
My instinct is, first and foremost, that it shouldn't be valid; I've got two different potential rationales, too. The first is that it's basically "a stage-play of which you are the hero", where you are invited to play the companions live and as improv; as such it should be disqualified as a stage play. The second way to look at it is that it's more of a real-life video game, a story where part of the fun is that you get to choose what is done by the characters and in what order. Either way, it's out.
It is secondly that it seems plenty narrative enough to cover it as a story, albeit an invalid one; complete with pages about Alastair Montague and ChronosCorp[1], with requisite {{Invalid}} tags.
It is thirdly that since the interactive story is all there is, we shouldn't let the Doctor Who Experience precedent confuse us, and instead create just the one page about the story, just like we don't have separate pages about a video game per se (gameplay and all) and about its plot.
It is fourthly that holy Rassilon who art in the Matrix, how do we dab this thing? It's this unique beast of a new story format we've never really encountered before.[2] Is it a "(game)"? A "(live show)"? An "(interactive story)"? Heck, could we just cut the Gordian knot and call it an "(escape game)" or "(escape room)", no matter how thin the chances there'll be another one in the near future?[3]
Notes & References[[edit] | [edit source]]
- ↑ Before anyone asks, no, it's clearly not the same thing as Chronos Corporation.
- ↑ The DWE stories were mostly film, and so could be watched as fourth-wall-breaking TV stories if you squinted; though as I type this I notice that Doctor Who Experience Interactive Story (Eleventh Doctor) and Doctor Who Experience Interactive Story (Twelfth Doctor) are not in fact conventionally dabbed, though that may be more to do with the need to distinguish between the two Doctors' versions than a positive desire not to call it a TV story.
- ↑ Though then again, a guy can hope…
- Danniesen
Just gonna put the link to the page as it is already in existence...
- Scrooge MacDuck
Aaah, there it is.
…Yeah, no, "(video game)" really isn't right.
(Also, is "The Live Escape Game" really this thing's whole title? I think this is one of those cases where Doctor Who is a pretty essential part of the title, not just a reminder of what franchise it belongs to.)
- Danniesen
The Live Escape Game is what it says right below the Doctor Who logo. Also, as with other games, Doctor Who is not used in the article titles.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I get why you'd call it that; usual policy points towards it. But this isn't like, say, Legacy, which indeed shouldn't be titled Doctor Who legacy. "The Live Escape Game" isn't a title, it's a description of what this story called Doctor Who is, so that you don't confuse it with other things called Doctor Who.
It's like… take a theoretical video-game franchise, I dunno, Kingdom Hearts. They make a movie about it, marketed as Kingdom Hearts: The Movie. You may argue that its title is Kingdom Hearts: The Movie, rather than Kingdom Hearts. But it would be goddamn insane to act like its title is The Movie.
This is a minor point, though, anyway. Any thoughts on the bigger issues I raise in the OP?
- SOTO
It would be nice to hear (in the near future) from someone who’s actually been to one of these. Failing that, a little more research would do us good.
I don’t think there’s a question about validity: we didn’t even let Attack of the Graske in, which of course would have been far simpler, with more limited choices. Barring a surprise statement about canonicity, like we got with the Adventure Games, I don't see how this could pass T:VALID. Unless there's a complete story independent of the participants' actions.
The real discussion here is how to cover this thing. And at least speaking for myself, I feel I'm lacking some information. The trailer shows some of the video elements. How do they slot into the live experience? I might just be clueless on this as I've never been to an escape room.
- Borisashton
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Is "The Live Escape Game" really this thing's whole title?
Its full name seems to be The Live Escape Game: Worlds Collide.
- Borisashton
Although I should point out its actual name should be discussed on the talk page rather than here. This is a place to determine dab terms etc..
- SOTO
I'm actually 90% sure the proper title is Worlds Collide.
For reference, see this comparable poster for a different property: https://escapehunt.com/uk/bristol/games/blackbeards-treasure/
- Danniesen
Neither have I.
I just created the page so that we have it before it gets so old that we no longer remember it and are unable to find out anymore. Months ago I created question in the Board Index and a link to an article talking about this game, but it's been lost in time.
- SOTO
Sorry, that link does not contain the right image. Scroll to the bottom here: https://escapehunt.com/uk/bristol/games/worlds-collide/
EDIT: In each poster, the proper name is in big letters in the bottom half, following this format: "Blackbeard's Treasure: An Escape Hunt Original Game". It would follow that the big text above Escape Hunt Original Game in the Doctor Who poster also indicates the title.
- Danniesen
Thanks for recovering it at least. I had no idea where it was...
- Scrooge MacDuck
Okay. Sure. “Worlds Collide”. Not a bad title, either.
So, anyway?
- Danniesen
Wait. Not the same link as I found months ago.
- SOTO
As for dab term, there seem to be three major options:
- No dab. We treat this topic like an event or exhibition with story elements, rather than a story with live elements.
- We decide that an existing dab term fits this perfectly well. I don't really think this is a video game or a stage play, but this is potentially an option.
- As this is new territory, we go for a brand new dab term, (escape game), and treat it as an invalid story akin to a (live) video game.
Just as a note, Dr. Who and the Daleks has no dab term, despite definitely being a story, because it does not fit into any established dab terms and it's not valid anyway. But I should note there is a rename tag there right now, and a comic story adaptation to potentially conflict with.
- Scrooge MacDuck
SOTO wrote: But I should note there is a rename tag there right now, and a comic story adaptation to potentially conflict with.
Yeah — indeed, you'll find me on that thing's talk page arguing for its dabbing. In its case, there's also the fact that sooner or later we will most likely get another, very-possibly valid theatrical film out of Doctor Who, so we might as well create the dab term now — an argument which applies less to Worlds Collide, as I don't know how likely another escape-game is. Though who knows, really, if this one proves successful.
But if it wasn't clear yet, of SOTO's three options, I support #3, would be okay with #2, and find #1 a real disservice to Worlds Collide and to escape-games in general as a medium.
- SOTO
Well if we're treating this as a story, there is the question of whether we want to use the
premierevariable as with a stage play, or portopening dateand other such variables over from {{Infobox Event or Exhibition}}. - Scrooge MacDuck
Good point. "opening date" would probably be best, indeed.
- SOTO
I thought of a fourth option:
- All games with a tactile, physical interactive element (ie. anything that isn't a video game) could be deemed simply a (game) in T:DAB TERM. In this option, the same dab term applied here would also apply to board games or card games (where disambiguation is necessary).
- Scrooge MacDuck
Clever. One obstacle is that some games will be narrative and some won't be — a card-game with Who-themed versions of the face cards would be a "(game)" in this scheme, would it not, just as well as something like Worlds Collide? And it doesn't sit right with me to dump a piece of merchandise and a story (albeit invalid) in one category. But there are probably workarounds.
- SOTO
Well if we decide against using (game) as a common dab term, it'd probably be best to standardise card games and board games as (card game) and (board game). Currently it's a bit of a mess, hence the flexibility for our options in terms of this escape story.
- Danniesen
What date do we put on the page? I mean, all broadcast episodes, movies and games and so on has a date of release. So what do we put on this page?
- Danniesen
- SOTO
Well in full, the opening dates are:
- Bristol: 16 January 2019
- Leeds: 25 January 2019
- Oxford: 8 February 2019
- Manchester: 22 February 2019
- Reading: 8 March 2019
- Birmingham: 22 March 2019
- Danniesen
What is "Reading"?
Also, do we put them all, or just the earliest?
- SOTO
Reading is a town in Berkshire, England. At the moment, only the first opening date applies, as the other locations have not opened yet. But as I said, we would have to bring the applicable parameter over from the event infobox, as {{Infobox Story}} is not currently equipped for this.
- Danniesen
Thanks for new knowledge...
- Danniesen
Has anyone gathered new knowledge of this escape room since we last discussed this?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I have, actually, though it's secondhand knowledge. A few reviews can be found online by people who have been lucky enough to experience the escape room, such as Mr “Ace Creeper” on YouTube. Our witness Mr Creeper persistently refers to Worlds Collide as a story throughout his review, much as I expected.
He incidentally gives a few more story details; so apparently, despite what the conjunction of “Worlds Collide” and the presence of Cybermen may have suggested, the narrative has apparently nothing to do with Pete's World or parallel universe; rather, Alastair Montague's company's attempts to build a timeship result in a tear in the fabric of time and space that sees elements of various time-zones crashing into each other, the room depicting the eye of the storm. Among these elements are the much-advertised Cybermen, who it is the player's mission to prevent from fully crossing over into the 21st century. (The Cybermen, as seen in the advertising, are of Mondasian Nightmare in Silver design.)
At any rate, Mr Creeper says nothing about the player roleplaying as anyone other than "themselves as a DWU character", so we don't even need confirmation of a branching storyline; invalid, most definitely.
Creeper's not very clear about this but it doesn't seem like the story elements are conveyed only through video, though. A lot seems to be achieved by the props and theming of the room's interior. So treating it as a video story still seems disingenuous.
- Danniesen
What about calling it "interactive story"?
Also, someone should most definitely check out what information Ace Creeper (and maybe others too) have about this escape room, so we can fill out the page with the appropriate info. (I did similar thing on the The Runaway (video game) page.
- Danniesen
Well... now I've found some photos from inside the Escape Room and uploaded them. I'll leave it up to others to decide if we can use them. :)
- Danniesen
However as SOTO said, it would be so cool if someone on this Wikia happens to have first-hand experience inside the "game" and can provide some knowledge on what to expect. :P
- Danniesen
Hopefully some new information will pop up soon.
- Danniesen
Does anyone happen to have gathered some further information about this story? :)
- Danniesen
Has anyone managed to gather some more information on this live action escape game? :)
- SOTO
DWM 544 explicitly confirms that the "escape room game" is called simply Worlds Collide.
I propose either Worlds Collide (escape room game) or Worlds Collide (escape room). Yes, either is a new dab term, but this is an entirely new type of DWU entertainment.
- Danniesen
So we ditch the "The Live Escape Game" part entirely? Or do we say that it's an alternative name, as it is what is given on the "poster" itself?
And yes, I agree with the introduction of a new dab term. As new types of the DWU are born, so must we expect that the existing dab terms simply does not do anymore...
- SOTO
To quote: "DWM has teamed up with Escape Hunt, makers of the interactive Doctor Who escape room game Worlds Collide to provide a discount" . . . "Standard tickets for Worlds Collide are normally £23 per person. . ."
As far as I can tell, having "Doctor Who: The Live Escape Game" up top is barely different from having "Doctor Who" at the top of the cover for Ravenous 4, or "From the Worlds of Doctor Who: Gallifrey" on the cover for Intervention Earth. Not part of the title, but it highlights the branding.
- Danniesen
Furthermore...
Has someone actually managed to experience it? It would be great if we could get some more info on what to expect inside one of these. :D
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree that Worlds Collide (escape room game) is best, if that is the way DWM refers to it, although I still think, personally, that escape game is a more elegant term than escape room game.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I've done the Worlds Collide escape room. You get a call from the Thirteenth Doctor who tells you that you have to find certain objects from different periods of time in a lab because of a time experiment or something. It's pretty fun but the story is obviously very slight.
- Danniesen
Jack Saxon, there's a plot section on the page. Since you've been there, couldn't you fill it out then? :)
Also, what references can be found in there?... you know, like in regular stories...
- Danniesen
So... what's the deal? What do we do? :)
- Danniesen
Now that we have a second escape room "A Dalek Awakens" I believe we really need to do something about this.
- NateBumber
I think the (escape game) dab term seems like the best option, given that the page is currently titled "The Live Escape Game". It's also shorter than "escape room game" and has better parallels with the existing (video game) than just "escape room".
- Danniesen
Just a reminder that the page is up for renaming to "Worlds Collide", so "The Live Escape Game" is not permanent.
- NateBumber
Right. The new pages would be Worlds Collide (escape game) and A Dalek Awakens (escape game). My citation of the current page name was meant to point out that we already have plenty of evidence for the phrase "escape game".
- Danniesen
Sounds good to me.
This dab term, and the presumption of invalidity, should carry forward if ever new Doctor Who escape games arrive on our doorstep. It's an entirely new medium for the DWU, and an exciting one at that. Thanks to everyone who helped work this out!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:246053
Death's Head: The Body in Question, first published in Strip #13-20 reveals the origin of Death's Head, a character iconic for appearing in Marvel, Transformers, and Doctor Who comics.
Even before The Incomplete Death's Head was ruled valid, the Death's Head stories Time Bomb! (comic story) and Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling! (comic story) have been considered valid for the appearances of DWU characters: Seventh Doctor/Dogbolter/Hob and Keepsake, respectively.
If a story having a character that originated in the DWU can make it valid, then Death's Head: The Body in Question should be valid for the appearance of none other than Keepsake's vulture, who first appeared in Keepsake (comic story).
More information on Vulture here.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If the vulture does make an actual appearance, that seems pretty open-and-shut to me. The matter might be more doubtful if it's a mere cameo, however. Does the vulture appear for more than one panel or two, or…?
But assuming he does, yeah, I say valid. And I say it gladly; if the story indeed expands upon Death's Head's origins, our page on the character can only benefit from it.
Side question: we refer to the vulture as Keepsake's vulture, but both the Marvel Database and the link you provided at the end seem to call him "Vulture" with a capital V, as though this were an actual given name. Is this so?
This thread is based on incorrect and/or incomlete reading of our four little rules and its argument goes against multiple precedents that ruled against stories involving DWU characters.
This is a kind of overreach into the Marvel UK universe that was not unexpected. The condition of including The Incomplete Death's Head was exactly that it would not warrant an automatic inclusion of DH stories that were never considered to be part of DWU by their creators, be they even origin stories for any of the three Death's Heads in Marvel UK (of which he third one is not part of DWU).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:246276
(User:Amorkuz gave me their blessing to make a new inclusion debate thread that adressed the Four Little Rules.)
Death's Head: The Body in Question, first published in Strip #13-20, functions as a continuation of Death's Head (1988) / The Incomplete Death's Head as well as an origin story for the titular Death's Head, a character iconic for appearing in Marvel, Transformers, and Doctor Who comics.
Given the obscurity of this story, here's a detailed summary/review if you need to familiarize yourself with it: Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3
As this community did for The Incomplete Death's Head, let's see if Death's Head: The Body in Question meets the requirements of this wiki's “Four Little Rules”:
| 1 | Only stories count. |
It is a story.
| 2 | A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. |
It was licensed by relevant copyright holders, namely Marvel UK.
| 3 | A story must be officially released to be valid. |
It was officially released in 1990 and as a complete volume in 1991.
| 4 | If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. |
Ah, now this is where things get contentious; is this story set in the DWU? While Death's Head: The Body in Question is first and foremost a Death Head story, I propose that it is intended to be set in the DWU for two primary reasons:
- 1. Death's Head explicitly refers to the Doctor by name. (See image)
Here we see Death's Head recap the basics of his past stories. The Seventh Doctor sent him to the year 8162, where he was based for a few stories. When they reencountered thanks to Josiah W. Dogbolter, the Seventh Doctor left him on the Baxter Building in 1989. Reed Richards then sends Death's Head to 2020, where Death's Head (1988) end and Death's Head: The Body in Question begins.
(I found this to be a surprising name drop, given the Doctor was only referred to as a “feeble time traveler” in Watch Out – Dragon's Claws Here's Death's Head! (comic story) and Clobberin' Time! (comic story). The writers probably avoided the Doctor's name for simplity to not confused readers, but this story explicity connects itself to the DWU.)
- 2. The appearance of Keepsake's vulture. (See image)
While this unnamed animal only plays a bit role in its appearances, this vulture first appeared in Keepsake (comic story), a Seventh Doctor comic story from DWM 140. Keepsake, his vulture, and the medic Bahlia would later appear in Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling! (comic story), a Doctor-less Death's Head story. The vulture joined Death's Head and appeared in two more Death's Head comics which then lead into Death's Head: The Body in Question.
(More information on Keepsake's vulture here.)
With an explicit namedrop of the Doctor as well as the appearance of a character that originated in the DWU and is explicitly meant to be the same character from a DWU story, I believe this is enough evidence in favor for Death's Head: The Body in Question to be set in the DWU, yes?
(At least I'm not arguing that Revolutionary War: Death's Head II (2014) is valid because the vulture is seen in a flashback in issue 1. I have no real case for that one.)
- Borisashton
I definitely think that the explicit mention of the Doctor by name certainly gives it some merit as a DWU story.
- Shambala108
Please explain how this thread has been started given the closing arguments of Thread:246053 thanks.
- Chubby Potato
I think having the Doctor explicitly mentioned is very important.
The interesting thing about the vulture, though, is that he appeared in other Death's Head stories we didn’t cover until the ruling regarding The Incomplete Death's Head, which takes place in the DWU. In the other thread, Amorkuz said "This wiki does not grant validity simply for including a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story." His example was the audio series Vienna. As far as I can tell, that series was stated not to be in the DWU by the producer. With this, it’s a little more vague.
Before the ruling regarding TIDH, we covered two DH stories only: Time Bomb! and Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling!. The first is set in the DWU and has the Doctor in it among other DWU characters, but the second only has characters. If Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling! was considered valid for having DWU characters, I think this should be too, seeing as they are similar situations regarding DH comics. The mention of the Doctor only adds to it. And, as Scrooge MacDuck pointed out on the other thread, it wouldn’t hurt to have more info on the origins of Death's Head.
- LegoK9
Shambala108 wrote: Please explain how this thread has been started given the closing arguments of Thread:246053 thanks.
I asked Amorkuk if I could make a new post directly within the Four Little Rules and they said yes:
"To summarise, if you can make a case for Death's Head: The Body in Question based on the four little rules and including a justification regarding being intended to be set in the DWU, sure, start a discussion. "
- LegoK9
Chubby Potato wrote: The interesting thing about the vulture, though, is that he appeared in other Death's Head stories we didn’t cover until the ruling regarding The Incomplete Death's Head, which takes place in the DWU.
Is it possible the vulture was simply overlooked at the time due to his obscurity? Or at least ignored for being non-sentient animal?
Chubby Potato wrote: In the other thread, Amorkuz said "This wiki does not grant validity simply for including a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story." His example was the audio series Vienna. As far as I can tell, that series was stated not to be in the DWU by the producer. With this, it’s a little more vague.
I agree with this notion. Vienna was ruled non-valid as the producer explicitly said it's separate, but I know of no such notion from the writer of this story. We can only glean authorial intent from the comic directly, which includes a name drop of the Doctor and a character that is meant to be the same character from a Doctor Who story.
And for what it's worth, this wiki ruled Imaginary Boys (audio story) a valid story in Thread:206638 because it included not a character but a species from two of Paul Magrs' Doctor Who audio stories.
- Shambala108
LegoK9 please read Thread:223085 thanks.
- OttselSpy25
A very interesting post! I think that given our previous choice to cover stories featuring DWM characters like Keepsake and his vulture, I think it would be no harm to include this tiny little story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If the story references the Doctor, and specifically events concerning the Doctor in an already valid story, I can't well see a case for it not being set in the DWU.
Keepsake's Vulture is a more ambiguous case. His presence is additional evidence, but, I think, only inasmuch as it is further evidence of the intended narrative connection to the previous Death's Head/Doctor run-ins. On its own it's very weak evidence of DWUness; I'm a bit queasy about allowing in other stories on the sole basis of its presence. Yes, it happened to make its debut in a DWU comic story, but in the absence of continuing attempts to connect the Vulture to the DWU, then I fear that precedent rules against it. And the Brothers were actual characters, whereas the Vulture is, at the end of the day, a background prop that happens to be made out of flesh and blood, more than a character — as I recall Amorkuz once put it.
Again, though, we are not discussing stories featuring the Vulture in general, we are discussing The Body in Question; and in the form of the reference to the Doctor, The Body in Question has much more irrefutable evidence of Rule-4 compliance than one measly buzzard.
- Chubby Potato
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not very much, honestly. If they didn't originate in the DWU, they're just two additional crossover characters, no different from Death's Head himself.
- LegoK9
Ditto what Scrooge MacDuck said. The goal with this wiki is to avoid the "creep" of other universes into this wiki. We only include crossover characters when they appear in material deemed valid in the DWU. We stop the "hemorrhaging" into other universes where the Doctor Who (universe) stops, so to speak.
This means the Fantastic Four are covered, but only when it comes to the single Death's Head comic they're in, and not the rest of their back catalogue. Same for Spratt, Big Shot, and Death's Head himself.
In my view, the "hemorrhaging" of DWU into Death's Head stops with this The Body in Question, with the Doctor's namedrop and vulture's appearance.
- Chubby Potato
Okay, that makes sense.
- Amorkuz
It seems that some relevant facts are still missing.
- There is a story featuring the Doctor that references and affirms events of The Body in Question. In linking material of The Incomplete Death's Head comic series, Hob's archive contains images of both Lupex and Pyra, and Death's Head (the new one) states that these are his "parents" (in issue #1). Much later (issue #11), Death's Head mentions in the linking material that he killed his father Lupex.
- Pyra had (shadow and voice) appearances in stories that have been ruled valid. She does not, however, appear in Time Bomb!, the Death's Head story actually featuring the Doctor.
- LegoK9
I like the support, but TIDH "affirms events of The Body in Question" isn't proper justification for it being in the DWU (satifying Rule 4). TIDH makes explicit reference to Death's Head's Transformers stories and includes Dragon's Claws #5, but we cannot include all Transformers and Dragon's Claws stories; they lack DWU elements. Just as we cannot inclue all Fantastic Four stories, only the one relevant to the DWU.
This is the same "universe creep" problem at hand.
So we must focus on elements that either originate in a DWU story (i.e. Keepsake) or enter a DWU story (i.e. Death's Head).
- OttselSpy25
Agreed, especially as the validity of TIDH is so case-specific.
I think the specific curiosity here is the inclusion of Keepsake's vulture, who is a DWM character in the same context of Keepsake.
- Amorkuz
Correction: my post was not in support or in opposition to inclusion. It was adding facts that have not been mentioned earlier. Making an informed decision requires looking at all the available information.
- Amorkuz
- Scrooge MacDuck
…does this count as a short story by this Wiki's standards, or not? It would probably be invalid either way, since Death's Head is talking to the readers and/or it's technically part of an advertisement. Still, I feel like a note of this support of “the Doctor's name is Doctor Who” should be put somewhere on the Wiki. Thanks for digging it up, anyway!
- NateBumber
Seeing as the Superannuation advertisement and Prime Computer advertisements are invalid, I'm guessing this would be, too.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, as I said, it'd be invalid however we slice it; just wondering if it's deserving of a(n invalid) page.
- Amorkuz
No.
- Amorkuz
Simon Furman, the creator of Death's Head, speaking in 2011 about the character retrospectively:
So, having gone to so much effort initially, it felt that Death's Head was always destined to outgrow his origins and thrive in his own right. But it took a while. And it was only the advent of Marvel's US format line that provided the opening we needed to showcase Death's Head. So, very quickly, we shuffled him out of Transformers, via Doctor Who (and a size/scale change), into Dragon's Claws and finally into his own title and original graphic novel, The Body in Question.
...
There were plans for a new series featuring the original Death's Head during Paul Neary's reign as editor in chief at Marvel UK. In fact, we may even have started in on script and art (Geoff was back!). Sadly, nothing remains of either story or that art. And before we got very far along Paul canned that series and launched Death's Head II instead.
...
For the Death's Head series, Bryan just seemed the obvious choice. Geoff was busy on Dragon's Claws and had already handled his Doctor Who and Dragon’s Claws guest appearances, so we looked to Bryan (who had already drawn the High Noon, Tex strip) to step in.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Interesting quote to be sure; but while I can see the similarity between what he's here saying about Death's Head and the pronouncements that ruled out Vienna Salvatori (which I think is what you're getting at with this?), he's not saying anything about universes as had been the case with Vienna; only IRL franchises. Seems to me this could just as easily be Paul Magrs discussing Iris. Different franchises doesn't necessarily mean different continuities. (Note that I picked my example carefully, what with Iris, just like Death's Head, having debuted in a non-DWU, non-DW-connected story before she so lastingly crashed into the Whoniverse.)
At best it is a further argument not to include non-specifically-DWU-connected Death's Head material on the Wiki. But a mostly-IRL comment, to my mind, does not outweigh the explicit evidence of intended narrative continuity that is discussing the Doctor by name.
- Amorkuz
I repeat: I am not providing facts for or against the inclusion. I am not "getting" at anything. I am providing facts to make sure that the final decision, whichever it is is fully and roundly informed.
I really wish this to become the standard practice: first collect all facts; then weigh them. Otherwise, the danger of confirmation bias will always be looming. And another metacomment: in the inclusion debates, people often argue about individual pieces of evidence independently. The whole can often be more than the sum of its parts.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, sorry, then. While I can understand your argument that this is how things should be done, it is not how things are usually done, so mine was an easy enough mistake, I think.
Also in my defence, weighing the above piece of evidence is what I jumped to doing, past that mistaken introductory line.
- Amorkuz
Another ad, this one from a Transformers (UK) issue 222 (cover date June 1989). This one is about the only story from the Death's Head series featuring the Doctor, Time Bomb!:
Speaking of Death's Head, his very own title, Death's Head 8, is on sale now - and it's all about time travel. Josiah W. Dogbolter, a shady character well known to Doctor Who readers, has put a contract out on a certain good Doctor, and a certain free-lance peace keeping agent is interested. The stage is set for a rip-roaring temporal tale, spanning the very fabric of time and space itself. While we're on the subject, in Death's Head 9 & 10, there're a few more famous characters making an appearance, namely the Fantastic Four and Iron Man respectively! Can you handle all this quality material!?!
- OttselSpy25
Here's the question I guess. Is Keepsake's vulture a Doctor Who Magazine character in the same way we consider Keepsake to be? If so, then this story should be included. If not... Then I guess not.
- LegoK9
Some have argued that the vulture is essentially a background prop made of flesh and blood, but I personally see no reason to say that sentient DWU characters should be more valid then non-sentient DWU characters.
If this story concerned a non-sentient alien (or even a robot) that originated in a DWU story, I would expect much more support. So I see no reason to descriminate based the sentience of the characters.
And the name drop of the Doctor should not go overlooked. Both peices of evidence provide a good case for validity in my book.
- LegoK9
I have been wondering what wiki articles regarding this story should be made if it is ruled valid. I'm thinking:
- The story itself: The Body in Question (comic story) (Obvious)
- The graphic novel: Death's Head: The Body in Question (Also obvious. No dab needed?)
- The original publication: Strip (comic series) (More questionable. This is where TBIQ was first published, so it's reasonable to cover it like we cover Death's Head (1988))
- Amorkuz
You are mixing two types of pages: story pages and comic issue pages.
- For story pages dab term is always needed by Tardis:Disambiguating story titles. Also range name, which "Death's Head" nearly is, should be omitted. The first suggestion is the only possibility.
- As for comic issue pages, the policy is Tardis:Magazine issues, one can create as many or as few as one likes (for valid stories within). Witness, for instance, TIDH 1-TIDH 12. However, the abbreviation must be chosen so as not to overlap with other already existing abbreviations. On the other hand, it would be much better to simply link to the respective Marvel Database pages, since we will not be allowed to provide details for certain parts of these publications. This should be specified in the closing post by an admin if the decision will be in favour of validity.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, again, I agree with LegoK9 that the mention of the Doctor is in and on itself evidence of DWU-ness, and that even if we disregarded Keepsake's Vulture there'd be a case.
- LegoK9
Amorkuz wrote: You are mixing two types of pages: story pages and comic issue pages.
Maybe my comment was worded poorly, so I made some edits.
- OttselSpy25
Here's my only question: other than this issue and a brief came in a 2014 comic collage (which obviously we won't cover) is this the only Vulture comic we don't have on the wiki?
If so then I don't think adding this one story to keep our policies consistent would do much harm.
- Chubby Potato
According to Marvel Database, this reading order website, and the Marvel Unofficial Appendix, those are its only appearances. (The final source gives more information about the vulture if anyone hasn’t read the comics.)
- OttselSpy25
Is anyone strongly against the comic being included? (I'm not trying to take a vote, but rather inspire discussion)
And despite what one user posted above, forum threads can be and have been closed summarily if the basic premise of the thread is incorrect. If you'd like some examples, leave a note on my talk page and I'll dig them up.
Ok on to the nitty gritty. This story is invalid on this wiki. For one thing, the quotes posted by User:Amorkuz don't give any definitive statements that this story is intended to be set in the DWU.
But more specifically, it is explicitly stated in Tardis:Valid sources:
- "While we do have articles on the original comic series itself, the entirety of the character is not up for discussion here. Basically, Death's Head is valid to us only in stories directly featuring the Doctor or characters introduced in Doctor Who Magazine. If you want a full explanation of the character, go to w:c:marvel."
And User:Amorkuz' comments when closing the original thread attempting to make this story valid:
- "This wiki does not grant validity simply for including a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story. The Big Finish Vienna series is a typical example when even a Vienna Salvatori-centred spin-off remians invalid, despite Vienna herself debuting in a DWU story.
- This thread is based on incorrect and/or incomlete reading of our four little rules and its argument goes against multiple precedents that ruled against stories involving DWU characters.
- This is a kind of overreach into the Marvel UK universe that was not unexpected. The condition of including The Incomplete Death's Head was exactly that it would not warrant an automatic inclusion of DH stories that were never considered to be part of DWU by their creators, be they even origin stories for any of the three Death's Heads in Marvel UK (of which he third one is not part of DWU)."
And User:CzechOut posted in another inclusion debate:
- "See, we've got to look at things mainly through the lens of the average reader of the site. What they care about right now is The Return of Doctor Mysterio. These inclusion debates about these "random stories" are not only exhausting our administrative staff, they're distracting us from doing work on the wiki that would attract and retain our first bunch of new users in a year.
- So I hope you will understand I'm not being mean, but looking out for the bigger interests of the wiki, when I say that I'm closing this thread and denying any motions made within it."
(All bold face print is mine, used for emphasis.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:246568
Free-Fall Warriors (comic series) and Captain Britain (1985) (the publication the four stories appeared in) have been nominated for deletion as they do not contain stories within the DWU.
I disagree with this assessment as these four comic stories explicitly meant to be an origin story for the titular Freefall Warriors, first seen in Doctor Who and the Free-Fall Warriors (comic story). Let's go over the four little rules:
| 1 | Only stories count. |
They are stories.
| 2 | A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. |
They were licensed by relevant copyright holders, namely Marvel UK.
| 3 | A story must be officially released to be valid. |
They were officially released in 1985.
| 4 | If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. |
Ah, now this is where we get to the debate; are these stories set in the DWU? Unlike the contentious Death's Head stories; in my view, these are pretty cut and dry parts of the DWU from the very first page of the first story: "Warworld: The origin of THE FREE-FALL WARRIORS..." (see image)
The writers very well intended these to be the same Freefall Warriors from Doctor Who and the Free-Fall Warriors (comic story).
I must confess I have not read these stories in full, but I have them and will surely move them up on my priority list and add any additional information I find for bonus legitimacy points:
- Intra-Venus, Inc. is heavily referenced.
- Shaman Kahn appears in the third story and first appeared in A Ship Called Sudden Death (comic story), a Doctor-less comic story about the Freefall Warriors from DWMS Summer 1982.
- Amorkuz
I am closing this inclusion debate as spurious. The OP clearly states that they have not read these stories in full. Opening inclusion debates without having the knowledge of the stories, based on partial information, invites bad-faith inclusion debates of which this wiki had had enough. Thus, such attempts will be exterminated.
As a more general comment, origin stories and/or continuation of stories of crossover characters are generally considered invalid, with very rare and very well argued exceptions.
This wiki is not interested in Marvel UK characters for their sake. They should instead be represented on Marvel wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:246613
A new version of the lost story Mission to the Unknown is being filmed by students at UCLAN, and made as close to the original as possible.
https://scifibulletin.com/2019/02/20/a-fresh-mission-to-the-unknown-filming/
- Borisashton
Is the production licenced by the BBC?
- Danniesen
Not yet, but I have heard something about them seeking to get the approval.
- Borisashton
Well until it is, there is not really a discussion to be had on covering it on the wiki as per rule 2 of the four little rules.
- Danniesen
No. I know, but now we have a thread for a possible future discussion, should it become a reality. :)
- Danniesen
Well... it could be licensed, but I haven't found anything on it yet, though.
- Borisashton
Danniesen wrote: No. I know, but now we have a thread for a possible future discussion, should it become a reality. :)
I mean that's not really how forum debates work but okay.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:252387
Do we add award nominations and award wins on the Wikia?
https://cultbox.co.uk/general/doctor-who-series-11-nine-submissions-for-emmy-award-nominations
- Shambala108
Yes we do there are categories for various award winners though I'm of the opinion that we don't need categories for just nominations; those can be added on the page itself.
- Danniesen
Okay. Just wanted to make sure, so I didn't do something wrong.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:252484
Since these pictures of Venus, Mars and Jupiter, though originally not related to Doctor Who, have now been used by the Doctor Who Instagram account (Stories-section), are they usable on this Wikia?
- Shambala108
Do they come from actual stories?
- Danniesen
Not as far as I know. Just the Stories-section of DW's Instagram.
- Shambala108
Instagram accounts are not valid sources for in universe articles or pictures; only stories are.
- Danniesen
That's why I asked first. Thanks.
- Scrooge MacDuck
They should be fine for Behind the scenes, though, shouldn't they?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:254702
Came across this discussion at Talk:TARDIS Index Files. Please please please in future bring inclusion questions either to an admin or start a thread here. It's hard to find these things when they're hidden on talk pages, and if something currently valid ends up being ruled invalid, it will make for a lot of cleanup work.
Here's the discussion:
I'm bringing here the validity of these webcasts. They bring us information about some of the Doctor's enemies. They, indeed, have narrative (albeit a very "weak" one). The TARDIS scanner gives us information about the webcast's subject, and images of the alien are shown, either through images from previous stories, or original illustrations. So, let's take a look at Tardis:Valid sources. Rules 2, 3 and 4 obviously are OK. The main problem is Rule 1: "Only stories count.". Can we trully deem these as stories? OncomingStorm12th ☎ 15:16, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmmmmm... I'd say Who is the Master? has a story. CoT ? 15:18, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Does the TARDIS explaining the histories of the Doctor's biggest adversaries count as a story...? I'm not too sure in all honesty. :S TheFartyDoctor Talk 15:49, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- I personally believe so, they have a narrative, such as the TARDIS explaining facts, it's no different from the Doctor walking in turning on the scanner and wollah, the fact file appears, a narrative is very much present, again as OS12th said, albeit a "weak" one. 82.3.146.201talk to me 16:41, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I had Who Is The Master? (webcast) as a good example in mind while writing this: from the moment Missy "corrupts" the file, there is a clear story there: she corrupts the file, and begins a dialogue. But is anything show before that a story? How is the first half of the video that different from this page at BBC's website? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by OncomingStorm12th (talk • contribs) .
- I personally believe so, they have a narrative, such as the TARDIS explaining facts, it's no different from the Doctor walking in turning on the scanner and wollah, the fact file appears, a narrative is very much present, again as OS12th said, albeit a "weak" one. 82.3.146.201talk to me 16:41, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Does the TARDIS explaining the histories of the Doctor's biggest adversaries count as a story...? I'm not too sure in all honesty. :S TheFartyDoctor Talk 15:49, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Picking up where the last sentence by OncomingStorm12th left off, I'd say the difference is that the BBC page is simply stating facts about the character, without any in-universe context for that, whereas Who Is The Master? shows us new events in the DWU during which all that information about the Master happens to come out — namely, the TARDIS playing all these files.
It's similar to Case File, which also mostly consists of restated information, but also established new in-universe events — "At some point following her adventure fighting the Morax, Yasmin Khan created a Case File about them, where she recorded herself explaining that they (…)", and to the earlier Monster Files, which I'm fairly sure were ruled valid somewhere but I can't find the discussion again at the moment for whatever reason.
Of course, one can doubt how seriously this "gimmick" of an in-universe framing for the info is to be taken, but instances of clear additional in-universe narrative outside of the documentation, such as Missy's earlier-cited interference, would, I think, serve to establish that yes, we are meant to see this as the actual TARDIS scanner actually pulling up these actual files.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:254703
Found this discussion on the talk page, Talk:Doctor Who Files, don't think it was ever answered. This kind of question should either be asked of an admin or posted in this board.
Here is the discussion (or rather, unanswered question):
Narrative source?[[edit] | [edit source]]
I don't own these books, but it does not seem to me that they're narrative. They seem to be more encyclopedic, and thus not a story. If this is the case, then, according to Tardis:Valid sources, {{Notdwu}} should be slapped on all the pages, and they shouldn't be covered on this wiki. Can someone who has access to these either confirm or deny that they're narrative?
--SOTO ☎ 04:58, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Scrooge MacDuck
According to the page itself, I get the impression that the books consisted of short stories packaged together with some additional info on the topic being featured. As the summaries present on all of the short stories' individual pages show, these are clearly narrative as anything. See Stamp of Approval (short story), for example.
I suppose by the Wiki's policies, the additional info provided around the short story would probably be invalid, but I think it's plain that this should have no bearing on the status of the featured stories, any more than the fact that any given Doctor Who Magazine issue is filled with non-narrative material of no validity at all, without its endangering the validity of a comic story printed within.
(All that being said, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there arealso circumstances where a story has an encyclopedic format yet is still considered valid by the Wiki. The Book of the War (novel), say. Where exactly Tardis draws the line is something I'd quite like to know myself, but there are objectively encyclopedias that fall on the right side of it.)
- SOTO
I agree with Scrooge MacDuck, above, at least concerning the first two paragraphs. I'm not entirely clear what 2013 me was confused about. Is the problem that Doctor Who Files 1: The Doctor, etc., have {{real world}} instead of {{non-fiction}}? I do think that ought to be fixed, for sure.
But other than that, the stories contained within would seem to be proper fiction contained within a work that's partly non-fiction. Same deal as Doctor Who Magazine, or even Doctor Who Adventures.
I wonder if I saw an instance of the non-fiction parts being used as a source in an in-universe portion of the wiki?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Wait, about the "real world" vs. "non-fiction" tag — if we treat the books as the venue for the release of valid stories, why should it get a "non-fiction" tag? Individual DWM issues don't.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:255994
Request that Ace Returns! be taken off as an invalid source.
- 1. Only stories count.
- It is a story. Albeit a very short one.
- 2. A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.
- Released on the BBC's Doctor Who YouTube channel.
- 3. A story must be officially released to be valid.
- See point 2.
- 4. If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.
- Depicts Ace's post-Doctor life. I'd say its placed firmly within the DWU.
- LegoK9
I'll add my support for this being a valid story. To elaborate rule 4, which says "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU..." This story is very much inteneded to be in the DWU:
- Ace (and Sophie Aldred) has aged in the 30 years since she met the Doctor.
- Ace reminisces on her time with the Doctor. (i.e. Building on valid stories means this is intened to be valid.)
- It builds on Ace working at A Charitable Earth mentioned in TV: Death of the Doctor and AUDIO: In Remembrance. As a nice bonus, this story being valid would give this wiki nice bits of extra context on post-Survival Ace.
- For a story like this that isn't intended to be in the DWU, see "The Sixth Doctor is on trial AGAIN!" which promoted the Season 23 Collection.
And while an unrealesed story is not proper evidence, an upcoming Big Finish story will probably be mentioned at some point, so I might as well cover that base here and now. (Although spoiler rules might limit any more discusion on it.)
This all being said, should we expand this debate to discuss Jo Grant Returns as well? It is a very similar webcast and any precedent should/would be apply to both of them.
- Shambala108
Please note that only admins are permitted to upload videos on this wiki, even for inclusion debates. See thread:128198 for details.
- Shambala108
Something to keep in mind as you argue for inclusion: per Tardis:Valid sources, trailers are not considered valid sources. Instead of going through the three rules, you have to actually argue that this isn't a trailer.
- LegoK9
The first 2:10 of the webcast acts as an independed story from the last 1:12. It even ends with the 7th Doctor ending theme before segueing into the actual advertisement for the Season 26 Collection. (Ace Returns! features new footage set after season 26, so does that really make it a trailer for what happened before it?) This is no different than Transmission from Mars, which promoted The Triumph of Sutekh in the same manner.
(Also, I do not see anthing about posting videos in thread:128198. What am I missing?)
- Danochy
I took a look at T:VS and the only mention of trailers is in regards to their use as a narrative source on upcoming stories., specifically mentioning the "next time" trailers. The reason for this rule is clearly to a) stop the infiltration of spoilers about future stories into the wiki and b) to avoid having what are effectively deleted scenes which were used in the trailer, be valid.
Ace Returns!, on the other hand, is certainly not a next time trailer, and spoilers and deleted scenes are not an issue here. It clearly promotes the upcoming collection release, however it also has a clear narrative which, as User:LegoK9 states, will obviously not be in Season 26 itself.
There may have to be some divide between the narrative portion of the story and the following part which announces the boxset, since only the narrative part should be a valid source. But this has been done in the past with The History of the Doctor which sandwiched The Ultimate Guide.
- MrThermomanPreacher
LegoK9 wrote: This all being said, should we expand this debate to discuss Jo Grant Returns as well? It is a very similar webcast and any precedent should/would be apply to both of them.
Throwing in The First Doctor: Volume Two narrative trailer.
- SarahJaneFan
I agree with basically all of the above. Especially the parts in reference to The History of the Doctor and The Ultimate Guide
And again it’s important to note that the rules about trailers in T:VS don’t really apply situations such as these as they specifically talk about next time trailers and other trailers produced in the same style. The issue is that we have to prove that something that is very clearly a trailer, isn’t a trailer purely because the rules invalidate a particular kind of trailer but don’t comment on advertisements that also have their own distinct narrative, thus making a generalisation of all trailers.
I think a relevant fact to consider is that the writer/director of Ace Returns!, refers to it as a "short film" rather than a trailer on twitter. [10]
SarahJaneFan ☎ 01:32, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
- Shambala108
LegoK9, sorry, my mistake, I meant Tardis:Video policy. (I've been moving so many pages lately, that thread is on my brain.)
- Shambala108
Please do not discuss The First Doctor: Volume Two trailer (audio story) here, we already have an older discussion for that one at Thread:224324.
- LegoK9
Danochy wrote: There may have to be some divide between the narrative portion of the story and the following part which announces the boxset, since only the narrative part should be a valid source.
For what it's worth, writter/director Pete McTighe refers to this as short film titled The Promise.[11] So the "short film" could be given this convient title with Ace Returns! being the full promo. (After all, Friend from the Future was titled "Introducing the New Companion..." on YouTube.)
- Shambala108
Again reminding everyone of Thread:223085.
- LegoK9
For clarity, I notice Thread:224324 has yet to be closed and user:Scrooge MacDuck has given it a bump by bringing up Jo Grant returns and Ace Returns!. Volume Two trailer currently has an invalid tag while Fall of Arcadia and Last Hour (currently) cites it as if it were valid. It seems we need an explicit policy on how to handle these narrative trailers; I agree with previous points that T:VS point on trailers doesn't really acknowledge them.
- Shambala108
Cleared up those two pages, thanks for the information.
- SOTO
That Pete McTighe refers to The Promise as a short film is telling, and potentially supports this not being a trailer. What we ought to be discussing, though, if participants are arguing for inclusion, is how this is different from the Sixth Doctor trial promo.
- Revanvolatrelundar
What I really think we need here is a change to the policy regarding trailers. For example: if a trailer includes a narrative elements (such as Ace Returns! etc), then we include it.
I think that proposal should settle the discussion and keep users happy. I do feel we do fans an awful injustice by rendering these stories invalid.
- Danochy
Answering SOTO's request for why the Sixth Doctor's trial promo is different fromAce Returns! and Jo Grant Returns, the narrative of the trial promo includes direct promotion and reference to the Season 23 Blu-ray set. Meanwhile the Blu-ray set is not mentioned until after Ace/Jo's scenes in the other videos, in a clearly distinct section.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Also, the Sixth Doctor trailer in question features a fictionalized Colin Baker, not the Sixth Doctor. So even if it were otherwise a valid-like narrative it's clearly non-DWU.
I wonder, could one dig up similar production info for Jo Grant returns? Perhaps it has its own title as well, unbeknownst to us.
- SarahJaneFan
Pete McTighe also wrote Jo Grant Returns, if that helps in any way.
SarahJaneFan ☎ 11:24, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
- LegoK9
OK, there are 5 promos for The Collection (one lacks a wiki page):
- The Season 19 Safety Video with Tegan Jovanka: While Janet Fielding plays an older Tegan Jovanka, she breaks the forth wall in referring to episodes and special features on the collection. Invalid.
- Season 18 Announcement Trailer: As above, Tom Baker narates about the stories on the collection as a comedic travel guide. He isn't explictly playing the Fourth Doctor. Invalid.
- Jo Grant Returns: Katy Manning and Stewart Bevan return playing Jo and Cifford in a sequel to TV: The Green Death. (Similar to HOMEVID: Global Conspiracy?) Ending refers to Mike Yates and TV: The Dæmons. Overall meant to be a sincere continuation of Jo Grants life. Valid?
- The Sixth Doctor is on trial AGAIN!: Colin Baker plays (a fictional version of) himself and breaks the fourth wall by refering to the content on the collection. Invalid.
- Ace Returns!: Sophie Aldred returns as Ace in a serious short that does not break the fourth wall. (See arguments above). Valid?
Christopher Allen of BBC studios is listed as a producer on Jo Grant Return. He says Jo Grant Returns[12] and Ace Returns![13] are "canon," further showing intent for them to be be valid DWU stories.
- Bwburke94
Of course, we don't use the C-word here, but Chris Allen's statements are clear intent of their DWU placement.
That means they cannot be used as a source for in-universe articles.
For those who are interested in wiki history, this isn't the first time we've had this kind of situation. It's analogous to the debate and decision concerning P.S. (webcast).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:257153
Free-Fall Warriors was a four-story back-up comic in the pages of Captain Britain vol. 2 (1985), basically in the same spirit as the DWM backup comic stories. (Side Note: Abslom Daak... Dalek Killer and Star Tigers were reprinted in Captain Britain, but this was the first publication of Free-Fall Warriors.)
Free-Fall Warriors tells the origins of the four members of the Freefall Warriors, who first appeared in Doctor Who and the Free-Fall Warriors (1981), a valid Fourth Doctor comic. (The Freefall Warriors would later appear in A Ship Called Sudden Death, Party Animals and A Life of Matter and Death.)
While these four stories are currently considered invald by this wiki, I believe there is overwhelming evidence for them being part of the DWU. Let's go over the four little rules:
| 1 | Only stories count. |
They are stories.
| 2 | A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. |
They were licensed by relevant copyright holders, namely Marvel UK.
| 3 | A story must be officially released to be valid. |
They were officially released in 1985.
| 4 | If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. |
The four stories:
- Warworld: Cool Breeze and Big Cat are introduced on the planet Warworld.
- A Cat Out of Hell: Machine Head attacks Big Cat, only to end up at the end of Cool Breeze's gun.
- Recruitment...: Cool Breeze spares Machine Head and are saved by Bruce. Together they rescue Big Cat after he was attacked by Shaman Kahn.
- Mission: Improbable!: The Ambassador unites the four of them against the Intra-Venus space station.
Now, this is where we get to the debate; are the four Free-Fall Warriors stories set in the DWU? Unlike contentious Marvel UK debates (e.g. the Sleeze Brothers miniseries, despite their origins in the DWU), in my view, Freefall Warriors is a cut and dry spin-off of in DWU. The first page of the first opens with: "Warworld: The origin of THE FREE-FALL WARRIORS..."
If they are not meant to be the same Freefall Warriors as the DWU, how can this be an origin story? What would it be an origin story for? (In fact, no character utters the term "Freefall Warriors" in these stories.) The writer clearly intended these to be the same Freefall Warriors from Doctor Who Magazine. Furthermore, Steve Parkhouse was the creator of the Freefall Warriors and the writer of these four stories, showing authorial intent.
The Freefall Warriors should join the ranks of Bernice Summerfield, K9, Erimem, etc. as one of the many valid spin-offs not licensed by the BBC.
Unlike, say, the invalid Sleeze Brothers miniseries, there are explicit connections to the wider DWU (namely Doctor Who Magazine comics):
- Obviously, the four members of the Freefall Warriors are featured. Continuity is maintained, such as Big Cat's ship called Tigerfire, Cool Breeze being an android, etc.
- Intra-Venus, Inc. from The Moderator (et al.) is heavily featured. Their space station above Warworld and the weapons they are demonstrating is the main source of conflict. Cool Breeze was a parachute android of Intra-Venus' Trailblazer and Machine Head was part of Intra-Venus' High-Flying Dive Fighters before joining the Freefall Warriors.
- Warworld mentioned in The Moderator (1984) is the primary location of these stories.
- Recruitment... is also the origin story of Shaman Kahn before he was disfigured. He first appeared in A Ship Called Sudden Death, a Freefall Warriors comic from DWMS Summer 1982. (So there is already a precedent for Freefall Warrior spin-off stories without the Doctor.)
This should be ample evidence that Free-Fall Warriors is intended to be part of the DWU.
(Full disclosure: I made Free-Fall Warriors (comic series) about a year ago but it was deleted months later because no inclusion debate had taken place. I apologize for believing they were "obvious cases" not needing one. When I opened Thread:246568 months ago, it was closed because I had not read the stories. Now that I have read them, let's have a proper inclusion debate. And if the community rules them valid, is it possible for an admin to restore my initial page for the sake of simplicity?)
- TheChampionOfTime
I think it's fair to say Steve Parkhouse was influential in establishing the strand of the Doctor Who Universe that's featured in the pages of the Doctor Who Magazine for many decades now. Stockbridge, Frobisher, and (more relevantly) Josiah W. Dogbolter and his Intra-Venus, Inc. have well-outlived the panels from whence they sprang. So too, even if they aren't quite as remembered these days, the Freefall Warriors.
The Free-Fall Warriors comic series is a clear continuation of the universe of Steve Parkhouse's Doctor Who comics. We already rightfully cover stories "spun-off" from the "universe" of a single DWM strip, but the series we talk about today is much more than that because it ties together elements from multiple Doctor Who stories and makes connections that weren't there in Doctor Who. It says that characters featured in a Fourth Doctor story came together to oppose ongoing antagonists from Fifth and Sixth Doctor stories.
Unlike some other stories once proposed for coverage on the wiki, I see the Free-Fall Warriors less as a spin-off, less as a diverting branch of narrative that splits away into its own thing, and more a sort of yo-yo. Even in the four '85 months that the Free-Fall Warriors was published, that string existed tying it back to Doctor Who: Intra-Venus were mentioned by name in the third part of Polly the Glot, concurrently with Intra-Venus high-ups appearing in the flesh/casing/shell in A Cat Out of Hell. The string's still there in the months after the yo-yo has gone as far as it will: IntraVenus is mentioned again in Abel's Story, a background detail of the DWU on the same level as Davros. Then the yo-yo journeys back to the hand: Intra-Venus appears in Time Bomb!, where it is clearly meant as an aspect of the Seventh Doctor's world crossing into Death's Head's world; the Freefall Warriors cameo in Doctor Who again in Party Animals, alongside not just characters from Dr Who's past but also a bunch of Marvel Heroes (including Captain Britain); then A Life of Matter and Death celebrates the 250th issue of DWM and the Freefall Warriors cameo unambiguously in the context of being part of the Doctor Who universe, of the Eighth Doctor's universe. And the yo-yo has stayed in the hand ever since: IntraVenus cameoing in the novel Prime Time, then featuring in the Twelfth Doctor comic The Stockbridge Showdown, a story which the Thirteenth Doctor dealt with after-effects of earlier this year.
Thus, Yasmin Khan has two degrees of separation with the fictional events depicted in the 1985 Free-Fall Warriors. And Izzy Sinclair has one. Like it or not, these Captain Britain back-ups are part of the mismatched quilt of the Dr Who Universe; not some frayed edge, but somewhere deep (and forgotten) in the middle.
- OttselSpy25
This seems pretty cut-and-dry. The Freefall Warriors are pretty widely seen as DWU characters, often being shown in later DWM collages or cameos. I think this is only non-valid because it's proved too obscure to have been mentioned before!
- Scrooge MacDuck
Just dropping in to show support. For all the reasons cited above, it seems transparently obvious that this is a Doctor Who spin-off through and through, not a case of an author happening to debut in a DWU story a concept they wanted to explore for its own sake anyway.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:258247
As the previous discussion on this topic unfortunately had to be closed for unrelated reasons, here is a new thread on three particular crossover stories between the 10,000 Dawns series and various DWU series—Rachel Survived, White Canvas, and The Gendar Conspiracy—and whether they qualify as valid in-universe sources according to the “four little rules” defined in Tardis:Valid sources. (This pertains only to these 10,000 Dawns stories that cross over with licensed DWU elements, not any others, akin to how we cover Assimilation² but not all of Star Trek.)
Apologies if I am just going over known facts for most people here, but I do recall the participation of some new members of our wiki in the last discussion, who seemed less familiar with our policies, so for the sake of clarity I will err on the side of over-explanation and present all the facts in as much detail as possible.
Now, a word on inclusion debates in general. The principle for judging a narrative's validity as an in-universe source is explicitly defined by Tardis:Valid sources as follows:
- We specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story. Instead, we are guided by the legal status of a work as well as the authorial intent. Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded. Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid. In these discussions, sufficient evidence must be provided that that the story either doesn't have permission from all relevant copyright holders, or that there are solid non-narrative reasons to believe the story does not occur in the DWU.
In other words, community discussions such as this one do not produce validity—no amount of fan interpretation can change a professional work’s "legal status" or the “authorial intent” behind it; these intrinsic aspects of the work exist whether or not an inclusion debate has taken place to recognise them, or indeed whether or not this wiki itself exists. A community discussion thus only functions as a venue where evidence can be collected and presented, so that the community may gain knowledge of the facts.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the “four little rules”, the foundation that T:VALID is based upon.
Rule 1: “Only stories count.”
This seems to be the only one that hasn’t stirred any opposition. The three pieces of prose in question are clearly narratives and therefore pass.
Rule 2: “A story that isn’t commercially licensed by all relevant copyright holders doesn’t count.”
There are two parts to this one: the idea that a story needs to be sold or commercially available to be valid, and the idea that a story needs to be licensed by the copyright holders of any characters or concepts used. This rule is also linked heavily to the policy at T:NO FANFIC.
Let’s investigate the commercial aspect first. It is well-documented that Wylder has sold physical copies of these stories for profit at conventions and via direct mailing. In addition, he has also noted plans for the three stories to be available physically to the wider public in an anthology in the near future. Even ignoring these, the “blog” that Wylder posted the stories on is used for a commercial purpose by Arcbeatle Press and is never described as being for personal use in the content itself.
It was raised that, as Arcbeatle Press is run by James Wylder and James Wylder was the author of the stories, the stories are self-published and therefore fan fiction. Firstly, the idea that something that is self-published is automatically fan fiction is a strange notion indeed, without any backing in wiki policy; secondly, Arcbeatle Press does not exclusively publish Wylder’s work (there are too many examples to list of other works featuring contributions by other authors: for instance, Greater Good and Echoes; 10,000 Dawns: Poor Man’s Illiad; a reprint of Dracula; et cetera), so it is really best treated as a small publisher. There has long been a precedent on this wiki that small publishers like Arcbeatle, BBV, or Telos are not treated differently from larger ones, even when the CEO is involved in the published stories: take Nicholas Briggs’ massive 300+ catalogue of credits at Big Finish Productions, for instance.
Finally for rule 2, there is also the stipulation that a work has to be licensed by all relevant copyright holders. Firstly, it should be noted that Wylder claims he has obtained the necessary permissions and is willing to provide evidence of this if required. The full list of people that had their copyrighted concepts used in the three stories are Andrew Hickey, Jacob Black, Nate Bumber, Niki Haringsma, Simon Bucher-Jones, Lance Parkin, Alan Bednar, Elizabeth Tock, David Koon, Jo Smiley, and Stuart Douglas. Two of these people (namely Bumber and Haringsma) participated in the original debate and argued for inclusion whilst also vouching that Arcbeatle had obtained the other rights as well; . One struggles to think of a reason why two people would want their copyrighted material that had been used in fanfiction to be on an official Doctor Who wiki (rather than Doctor Who Expanded, say). Additionally, Obverse made a post regarding White Canvas stating it was “some Faction Paradox crossover fiction” further highlighting the company’s stance on the matter of licensing. We have never questioned publishers of a similar size (such as Candy Jar or Obverse) regarding their copyright claims so I have no idea why Arcbeatle should be any different.
Once again for full transparency, even though it isn’t directly related to the debate: the presence of some comic strips titled Lil’ Doctor Who that featured appearances from the Twelfth Doctor and Clara (and others) on the Arcbeatle site caused some to cast doubts over the truthfulness of their other copyright claims. However, these strips were well-established to be parodical and, as per copyright law, parody falls under fair use. This means that the BBC need not be consulted so the integrity of Arcbeatle’s, and Wylder’s word remains perfectly intact.
Rule 3: “A story must be officially released to be valid.”
This rule is covered more fully at Tardis:Official releases so I will direct my analysis there.
In the original debate there was much talk of what counted as “officially released”. The fact that the stories were initially released for free online and whether that counted as a publication was a subject of much scrutiny. Yet again, there is precedent for stories being released for free online being valid, even if they weren’t later collected in a physical volume. Candy Jar is an example of the former with lots of their stories being released for free and then later sent out to readers as physical editions. The BBC has many a story that has been released online for free and then never available in print. A poignant example that comes to mind is Martha Jones’ MySpace blog which to this day is neither available for money nor even accessible on the internet anymore.
Another method of determining a verdict from rule 3 came from whether it possessed an ISBN. Our wiki has never required a story to have an ISBN, as it is not representative of any form of legal or copyright protection. The International ISBN Agency describes ISBNs as beneficial rather than compulsory. It was raised that previous Arcbeatle releases bear the name of a different publisher on ISBNsearch.org, but that hasn’t posed a problem for our wiki in the past: for instance, Resurrection of the Daleks is listed on our wiki as being published by BBC Books, when ISBNsearch lists its publisher as “Penguin Group UK”. Another minor point raised was that the phrases “All stories are publications of Arcbeatle Press” and “Publisher: James Wylder” were incompatible, but it was pointed out that “publisher” is also a job at a publishing house.
There was also some dispute over the release date that should be provided for these stories. T:OFF REL states, “For prose fiction, release date is whatever is given by the publisher as the release date.” Arcbeatle Press has said the first releases of these stories were 8 December 2017, 25 December 2018, and 5 March 2019 for Rachel Survived, White Canvas, and The Gendar Conspiracy respectively. As dictated by policy, these are therefore the release dates as we should recognise them.
Rule 4: “If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it’s probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.”
The second part of this rule is not relevant, as this is the community discussion in question, but I left the full rule in to ensure clarity regarding the “probably” clause.
Harkening back to the rule 2 argument, one struggles to imagine why Wylder would go to such an effort to get permissions for characters and concepts from the DWU only to set the stories outside of it, but let’s look at the evidence. These three stories have very clearly been established as crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and Faction Paradox and/or Doctor Who. Once again, it has been well-established (see Assimilation²) that we only cover the crossovers which is why this debate is only focused on these three stories.
In its 2017 release, Rachel Survived is described as “a 20th anniversary crossover”, and as being the product of “[getting] permission from a Faction Paradox author to write a story crossing over a character from his novel [Head of State] with the universe-hopping heroes of [Wylder’s] 10,000 Dawns book series”.
In its 2018 release, White Canvas is described as a “licensed crossover between the 10,000 Dawns, and characters from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox”. It features concepts and characters from the Virgin New Adventures, BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures, and Short Trips. Additionally, it is said that the novella “acts as something of a prequel to a few of the stories” in Obverse Books’ The Book of the Peace, and at the time of its original release Obverse itself acknowledged the story as “some Faction Paradox crossover fiction”. The intention of its DWU setting doesn’t come much clearer than that.
In its March 2019 release, The Gendar Conspiracy is described as “a prequel to [Wylder’s] novella White Canvas” and “like Rachel Survived and White Canvas, [is] a licenced crossover, pulling characters and settings from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox”.
Finally, in the anthology release of August 2019, the release of the three stories and their relation to the DWU is described as follows: “In 2017, Arcbeatle Press put out the first of our beloved licensed crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and the Universes of Doctor Who titled Rachel Survived. Since then, we went on to put out two more stories…”.
In every iteration of their releases, these three stories have unambiguously been described as crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and the DWU. So in regard to rule 4, the three stories clearly pass.
One of the concerns raised in the original thread weren’t directly related to any of these rules about validity, but rather concerned Wylder’s tweet saying that he would be willing to let “any other folks writing officially licensed Whoniverse works (that is, not fanworks)” borrow the 10,000 Dawns characters for their own writing. This led to a tangent in which it was claimed that the validity of these three crossover stories would lead to “anyone” being able to publish works in the DWU that the wiki would have to cover. This is not true, as the tweet clearly only opens the request to those who are writing stories already set in the DWU; furthermore, even if it was open to anyone it specifically concerns Wylder’s 10,000 Dawns characters, and as per the analogy to Assimilation², non-DWU related 10,000 Dawns stories are of no concern to our wiki.
This tangent also led to a discussion about how people like Gareth Roberts, who have been accused of posting trans-misogynistic posts online, could take advantage of Wylder’s offer to force the wiki to cover transphobic slurs. Most posters in the last thread seemed to agree that this had nothing to do with the matter at hand, as policy dictates we “do not consider the quality of the narrative” when deciding validity; we already have an (albeit obscured) page for the n-word without purging everything relating to The Celestial Toymaker from the wiki.
I believe this is an accurate and comprehensive summary of the arguments raised for and against the validity of these three stories in the last thread. Personally, I haven’t seen any convincing arguments against validity, as the three stories seem to clearly pass all four rules, but this debate is nevertheless appropriate and to a degree, necessary as this is the first Doctor Who-related work Arcbeatle has done. As defined in T:VALID, it is the job of an inclusion debate to prove invalidity, not validity, so if there are any new concerns about these stories, this is the place to please raise them!
(As a final note, as mentioned in Thread:256955, anyone professionally involved with Arcbeatle Press should please refrain from joining in this thread. Thank you.)
- RingoRoadagain
Not much to add: i support for the inclusion and validity of these stories.
- Bwburke94
This shouldn't be as long as the last discussion. Easily valid, unless the situation has changed in the past few weeks.
- AeD
The whole matter seemed right on the verge of being concluded at the time the original thread was deleted, and, at least for me, Borisashton's fantastically thorough summary here more than reinforces that these stories should be considered as valid as any other.
- LegoK9
Looks like every base was covered above, so I would also like to add my support.
- Amorkuz
The assumption underlying the following part of the OP is incorrect.
Arcbeatle Press [...] is really best treated as a small publisher. There has long been a precedent on this wiki that small publishers like Arcbeatle, BBV, or Telos are not treated differently from larger ones.
The difference between Arcbeatle and, say, Telos, or Thebes Publishing is very simple: Telos and Thebes Publishing have published books, whereas Arcbeatle Press has not.
In order to explain why it is wrong to call Arcbeatle Press a small publisher or small press, it is first necessary to explain the jargon used by the publishing industry, including the technical meaning of terms such as publisher, publishing imprint and ISBN.
The OP is correct that an ISBN (International Standard Book Number) is not necessary for a story to be valid here on the wiki, partly because many types of stories cannot have ISBNs, which are primarily reserved for books. It is de jure not necessary to supply a book with an ISBN in order to publish it either. It is, however, de facto necessary for selling this book, whether through online or brick-and-mortar retailers. At any rate, all books listed on Arcbeatle website as its publications (from now on "Arcbeatle books") are supplied with ISBNs.
The main purpose of ISBNs, which is the main reason retailers demand it, is to uniquely encode the metadata of a book, including its publisher. Thus, in book trade, the publisher(s) of a book supplied with an ISBN (ISBNs) is not determined arbitrarily (or by publicly claiming the publication as one's own) but is read from the book's ISBN(s). Moreover, ISBNs cannot be transferred from one publisher to another [14]. For instance, the above-mentioned example of Resurrection of the Daleks is simply a mistake on the wiki. The publisher there is Penguin Books, Limited, not BBC Books. The OP is right, however, that it plays no role for the validity of that book as both Penguin Books, Limited and BBC Books are well established publishing imprints of the same publishing conglomerate, Penguin Random House, which has a well established history of publishing licensed commercial Doctor Who products.
It should be noted that, in commercial publishing "publisher" means the imprint under which a publishing company wishes to market a book (it can also be the name of the publishing company/individual). Imprints need not be separate legal entities. [15]
So why is Arcbeatle Press not a small publisher? The problem is not that some Arcbeatle books are published under a different imprint of the same publishing company, as is the case with Resurrection of the Daleks. The problem is that no Arcbeatle books are published by Arcbeatle Press (or its imprints). Instead, they are published by various imprints of Amazon, not by Arcbeatle Press.
As a US-based publisher, Arcbeatle Press would be within the purview of R.R. Bowker, the exclusive source of ISBNs for US publishers. In addition to supplying ISBNs, Bowker also registers them in a professional commercial database Books in Print (published for 70+ years, originally on paper, now also online). [16] Here is how this database is described in Start Your Own Self Publishing Business by Cheryl Kimball
...the bible of the publishing industry, R.R. Bowker's Books in Print. Booksellers and librarians, as well as everybody else in the trade, use Books in Print as the source for information about titles in print and their publishers. If your book is not listed here, it might as well be lost in the ether.
The Books in Print database also allows to search for publishers and provides information about them. According to this "bible of the publishing industry", Arcbeatle Press does not exist either as a publishing company or as a publishing imprint.
(Full disclosure: the last of the Arcbeatle books, "Sheffield Steel" is not currently in the database; most probably, it will be added there soon.)
This is what distinguishes Arcbeatle Press from Telos or Thebes Publishing. The latter are publishers, whereas Arcbeatle Press is not. Although Telos is a UK publisher, it is still represented with 250+ books (including some out of print titles) in Books in Print under the name Telos Publishing, Limited. Similarly, Thebes Publishing, again despite its UK origins, can be found, though with only 4 titles.
In other words, even non-US publishers are represented in Books in Print, though not necessarily with all their books. For instance, BBC Books, another UK publisher, is listed twice as an imprint: once of Ebury Publishing and once of Penguin Random House (the former is a division of the latter), even though no books are assigned to either imprint.
As a US publisher, if Arcbeatle Press existed as an commercial imprint or a commercial publishing house, it would have been entered into Books in Print database.
All Arcbeatle books are there. But they are not published by Arcbeatle Press. Why? Who decided who would be the publisher?
The decision not to be named as the publisher was made by Arcbeatle Press itself. Here is an extended explanation from KDP (Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing), the service used by Arcbeatle Press, with emphasis by me:
Paperbacks
An ISBN is assigned to every published book. An ISBN identifies a book's edition, publisher, and physical properties like trim size, page count, binding type.
...
Can KDP provide me with an ISBN?
KDP can provide you with a free ISBN to publish your paperback. We'll also automatically register your ISBN information with BooksInPrint.com®. This [sic] a global database of print books maintained by Bowker (the U.S. ISBN agency) and consulted by publishers, libraries, and booksellers. The "Publisher" field on your paperback's Amazon detail page will read "Independently published." This free ISBN can only be used on KDP for distribution to Amazon and its distributors. It cannot be used with another publisher or self-publishing service.
Can I provide my own ISBN?
You can buy your own ISBN from Bowker or through your local ISBN agency. ISBNs purchased from Bowker can be used to publish titles in any language. KDP authors can buy an ISBN at a discounted rate from Bowker. If you use your own ISBN, KDP will check whether your book's imprint matches what's on file with Bowker. You will not be able to publish your book if there is a mismatch. If you are reprinting your book, the title, author name, and binding type must stay the same. A new edition requires a new ISBN.
Should I provide my own ISBN or use the free one from KDP? It's important to some authors to provide their own ISBN because it allows them to choose their book's imprint of record. An imprint is a trade name that a publishing company uses to publish a work. If you use your own ISBN to publish your paperback, you'll be prompted to enter the imprint name as well. The imprint you enter must match either the imprint or publisher name that appears in Bowker (the U.S. ISBN agency).
Can I change my ISBN?
In keeping with industry standards, your ISBN cannot be changed once assigned. Your ISBN is associated with your book's trim size, title, and author name. That means the ISBN cannot be changed after publication.
Here is the description of the same process from Bowker, again with my emphasis:
I got my ISBN from my printer and now I want to make sure it's in my name, how do I transfer the ISBN?
ISBNs cannot be transferred on an individual basis. If a self-publisher wants to be identified as the publisher, the self-publisher must get their own ISBN. A printing company or publisher services company cannot sell, give away or transfer one of their ISBNs to a customer.
If I'm using a print-on-demand company (POD), whose ISBN goes on my book?
Whoever is to be identified as the publisher obtains the ISBN. In most cases, the POD is the publisher and puts their ISBN on the book. In very rare cases, due to the contractual arrangements between the POD and the self-publisher, the self-publisher is the publisher. Most of the time, the POD is the publisher because the POD fulfills orders.
Arcbeatle Press chose not to create "a trade name that a publishing company uses to publish a work". They chose to let the publisher be an Amazon imprint. Thus, unlike Telos or Thebes Publishing, Arcbeatle Press itself chose not to be a publisher.
To summarise, as explained by Bowker, in the terminology of US publishing industry, Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher that lets a POD, in this case Amazon, publish its books. The above quote from KDP clearly shows that KDP provides self-publishers an option to be identified as the publisher. Arcbeatle Press simply decided against this option.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no valid stories on the wiki at this time that originate from self-publishers. This debate is unprecedented. This alone warrants additional scrutiny of this case.
- Bwburke94
We've already addressed that in the last thread, haven't we?
Even if Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher, that means nothing to our rules, as there is no rule blocking self-published stories from being valid.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz:
First and most importantly, what User:Bwburke94 said. Which is also stated in the opening post, for that matter. Namely: you may wish it were otherwise for reasons known only to you, but we do not currently have a policy that says commercial self-publishing isn't a mode of release we care about, a notion that is frankly bordering on the oxymoron (something self-published is by definition published; it's in the name).
All our rules currently say about what counts as an "official release" is that something's officially released when it has been made available to the public in a commercial format. If you want to add more clauses to what kind of publisher does or does not count (I'm using "publisher" in the wide sense of "entity which legally publishes things", not the narrow legalese sense you outlined above), that is a wholly other debate, but in the meantime, Tardis:You are bound by current policy. As far as this debate is concerned, nothing in Tardis's rules prohibits self-publishers. That may change someday, though by all appearances, the bulk of the community has yet to be convinced of why this would be a good idea. But for now, this is an inclusion debate applying the rules as they stand.
Second, please explain why whether its publishings in a repository of data called Books in Print should have any bearings on discussion on an online publisher. (Whether you like it or not, webnovels and ebooks are a major part of what literature is in the modern world. You can't just say something's not a "proper" book because it doesn't exist in print.)
Third, you write: "Instead, they are published by various imprints of Amazon, not by Arcbeatle Press". Okay, so the books are published by Amazon then. In other words, rather than a tiny publisher, they are, by your legalese definition of publisher, released by a big, multi-billion-dollar publisher. This supports your side of the debate how?
- Shambala108
Couple of admin notes before this thread progresses any further:
- The "last thread" mentioned by User:Bwburke94 has been completely deleted, so nothing from that thread has been addressed or covered because there is no record of it. Any comments referring to that thread that don't provide information or context will be removed. Keep in mind that there might be users who didn't read the other thread (or who can't remember all the details).
- On this wiki, it is the job of the admins to determine things like consensus, whether something has been established, whether policy is being followed, when a thread should be closed, etc. User:Bwburke94 and User:Scrooge MacDuck state their opinions very forcefully, but since they are not admins, that's all it is - their opinions.
- Everyone who wants to participate in this (or any other) inclusion debate should make themselves famililar with Thread:223085. And I might as well recommend everyone read the entirety of Tardis:Forum policy.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Apologies if I came across as trying to establish consensus if there wasn't any, I didn't mean for anything I said to have that meaning. As for its being admins' job "to determine whether policy is being followed"… within an inclusion debate, isn't it everyone's job to try and see whether coverage or non-coverage of a story fits T:VS? And, being an admin yourself, I would please ask you to explain it if I have somehow misinterpreted current policy in my above post.
- Bwburke94
When I said "there is no rule blocking self-published stories from being valid", it was a fact.
However, when I said Dawns was "easily valid, unless the situation has changed" in the post before that, it was my opinion.
Is that correct?
- AthenodoraKitten
I do believe this does highlight how most unfortunate for us the doxxing issues in the last thread has been, for the wiki’s credibility and transparency—however necessarily it had been to completely delete the last thread as an emergency measure, it is certainly a fact that there is a whole body of pertinent points and evidence which, to quote from post #9 above, now “there is no record of.” That this is not ideal is, of course, obvious: take Tardis:Forum policy, for example. There is a clause warning against “[violating] our rule against disrupting the wiki by making the same point in several different places — particularly one that has been defeated by the community”—it is there on the page, clear as day. But how can the wiki enforce it if, say, the bunk of these “several different places” have been deleted for some unrelated reasons? Does the offender now have carte blanche to make the same already-defeated point again and again?
And more to the point, am I participating in a discussion that will set precedent for such flagrant rule-breaking for the future? Because I would rather not be a party to such a thing, if nobody minds.
The administration of this wiki should be above suspicion—surely that is an ideal that everyone can agree to? Or if someone here objects, and thinks that the administration of this wiki should not be above suspicion, please make that case and let me know. And if anyone is wondering: no, this is not a personal attack; I would make the same point even if one of our admins had not just been involved in a doxxing scandal.
But yes, as it happens, it is a fact that one of our admins has indeed just been involved in a doxxing scandal.
And sure, to err is human—I do make mistakes myself, so who am I to throw stones? But is it not also human to desire some sense of security? To have some comforting assurance that the people one is talking to are engaging in the discussion in good faith, that evidence does not just disappear into thin air, that people will have to take responsibility for what they said, and not pretend they had never said it?
For the record, I am not an admin. I have never claimed to be one, and indeed many aspects of wiki administration are strange and alien to me. (For example, I am not quite sure why the previous thread had to be permanently deleted—rather than, say, just deleting the “doxxing” post, and having the rest of the old thread available as evidence, until this new thread has reached a conclusion and the old one can be safely deleted. I am sure one of the admins can enlighten me on that point, of course.) Nevertheless, I do think my suggestion here is fair, and reasonable, and would help this discussion smoothly go forward in a way that is compliant to the letters and spirit of our policies:
Please, User:Shambala108 or any of the other admins, could any of you please kindly clarify—are such things as screenshots or the like of the previous thread be admissible into evidence? With all sensitive personal information censored, of course—which should not be too much of a problem, since as far as I can recall the quote-unquote “doxxing” behaviours was limited in origin, and are not representative of the tone and tenor of the thread as a whole.
- Shambala108
User:AthenodoraKitten, many of your concerns are beyond the scope of this thread, and I will get to them when I have some free time.
For now I want to assure everyone that this post does not violate Tardis:You are bound by current policy; the other thread was deleted, not closed. My main goal in pointing out Tardis:Forum policy was to educate new users about our forum policies and guidelines.
Tardis:Discussion policy also has a few key points that apply to this thread (and all others).
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Shambala, I think you misread Athenadora very slightly, conflating her concerns with mines; Athenadora was worried about T:POINT violations in people restating here arguments that had been answered on the deleted thread, but never even mentioned T:BOUND.
Meanwhile, I was the one who namechecked T:BOUND upthread, as you know, having sent me a message on my talk-page directly related to that post of mine. My T:BOUND concerns had nothing to do with people repeating stuff from the old thread, and instead have to do with User:Amorkuz's pursuit of "it's self-published" as a line of argument for invalidity even though, much as Amorkuz obviously wishes this were otherwise, Tardis policy currently says nothing about self-publishing not counting as an official release.
Your rightful issues-taking about my non-admin-self being the one to apparently hold an admin to accounts concerning policy aside, this is a point where your (and, most importantly, Amorkuz himself's) answer would be much appreciated. Regardless of who said it, facts remain facts, and in this case the fact is that Amorkuz is acting as though his dream policy of banning self-publishing already existed, when in fact no thread about it has even been started.
- Shambala108
oopsie my mistake, I meant to cite Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
- Borisashton
There is absolutely nothing in wiki policy that invalidates stories on the basis of them being published by self-publishers. Even if there were, these stories would not immediately ruled out because as much as you claim it is fact Amorkuz, whether Arcbeatle is a self-publisher is a matter of contention. Merriam Webster's definition of self-publish is "to publish (a book) using the author's own resources". As Arcbeatle is a company, by this definition at least they are not. I feel any other arguments along this line would be verging on off topic until/unless a forum thread is made in favour of banning self-published stories and then another thread is also passed that determined Arcbeatle to be a self-publisher.
But all that aside, am I missing something here? The only release of the three stories that has been accepted as the official release by everyone who has commented on it is the anthology release. (The individual releases proposed as release dates was widespread but not absolute.) As has already been established, ISBNS are not compulsory for digital releases and to the best of my knowledge 10,000 Dawns: The Book Club Collection is neither available in print nor in posession of an ISBN. Therefore, any talk of ISBNs to determine anything to do with the stories we're actually talking about is irrelevant.
- Bwburke94
I believe the individual releases' validity should be discussed, to form potential precedent for the future.
- Borisashton
The individual releases' validity should definitely be discussed. I was just clarifying that the ISBN argument doesn't affect the stories' validity as a whole because that argument is irrelevant to the release of The Book Club Collection. At most, that argument affects whether we consider the release date to be the individual release dates or the anthology release date.
- Amorkuz
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: we do not currently have a policy that says commercial self-publishing isn't a mode of release we care about...
All our rules currently say about what counts as an "official release" is that something's officially released when it has been made available to the public in a commercial format.
The 10,000 Dawns: The Book Club Collection mentioned by Borisashton and the preceding individual releases mentioned by Bwburke94 are not published commercially or in a commercial format. They are made available online for free. The rules cited support non-validity rather than validity. In fact, though I doubt it was Scrooge MacDuck's intention, his description suggests that these stories have not been "officially released".
It is important to distinguish between Arcbeatle books and the releases discussed in this thread:
- Arcbeatle books are published commercially by various imprints of Amazon.
- The discussed releases are distributed non-commercially by an entity that has not established itself professionally as a publisher.
Let me also briefly address Scrooge MacDuck's suggestion that Arcbeatle Press is an "online publisher", for which the Books in Press database should be irrelevant:
- most book covers on the website of Arcbeatle Press link to paperbacks; hence, describing Arcbeatle Press as an "online publisher" contradicts their self-description;
- the ISBNs of these paperbacks (as well as the ISBNs contained inside the corresponding Kindle editions) are covered by Books in Print and determine that the publisher of these books is not Arcbeatle Press.
Thus, this "online publisher" argument is simply not applicable to Arcbeatle Press.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You keep acting as though your very narrow legalese definition of "self-publisher" is the be-all-end-all. But User:Borisashton's point that Merriam-Webster's defines it rather differently stands.
Moreover, I don't know what Arcbeatle Press is called in your lawyerspeak, but it is definitely a commercial entity of some sort. If, when a commercial entity, one that would be entitled to selling a work if it felt like it, instead chooses to release it for free on the Internet, it doesn't count as a commercial release for us, then there's rather a lot of BBC online content, webcasts and so on that would no longer count as officially released. (All webcasts released via the Doctor Who YouTube Channel were technically released by YouTube, not by the BBC themselves, and they were released for free. Hardly makes all the YouTube Prequels invalid.)
Speaking of the Beeb, they release contents in a variety of ways and through a variety of channels. The same appears to be true of Arcbeatle Press. They are both a ‘publisher’ of paperbacks (in the wide sense of the term, not your lawyerspeak one) whose books are released via Amazon, and an online publisher which releases original fiction on their website, www.jameswylder.com. I speak not just of the short stories but of the original serialized release of the original non-DWU 10,000 Dawns novel itself.
Finally, just checking: those objections are only for the original pdf releases, yes? What do you make of the short story collection? Because we need to be clear on whether this whole business is on the matter of "which release date do we go with", or of validity of any version of the story.
Mind you, I think it'd be an unfortunate and likely-ill-fated decision to ignore the way the medium of prose is evolving by discounting webnovels and other similar "online releases by author who owns the license, and may later collect them as a for-sale ebook" media as not being official releases. It is a major part of how literature works these days, doubly so in the case of small-profile sci-fi and fantasy literature, and I think that part will only grow as time goes on. But we need to be clear on whether this is the only issue you still find with the short stories, or if you'd also have objections to an Amazon-aided book release of them.
- Bwburke94
It's also worth noting that the original PDF releases were printed out and sold at conventions, which I believe would count as a physical commercial release.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, yes, that too, that a thousand billion times. (Although we might need a source for that fact?)
- Bwburke94
My source, unfortunately, is the last thread. And I'm not sure what from the last thread, if anything, is admissible from the perspective of our policy.
So let's focus specifically on the PDF-format releases for now, not any printed versions. They still pass our rules as I understand them, because only a commercial license is involved, not a commercial release.
- Borisashton
Amorkuz wrote: The 10,000 Dawns: The Book Club Collection mentioned by Borisashton and the preceding individual releases mentioned by Bwburke94 are not published commercially or in a commercial format.
As Bwburke94 implied in the previous comment, T:VALID as I understand it does not ask for a story to be published commercially. A story must be commercially licensed and officially released but not commercially released. A commercial licence is definitely involved from the evidence that has been presented and it has already been established that the official release date is that set by the publisher. There are probably hundreds of stories that have been released for free currently valid on this wiki, being free does not preclude its inclusion here.
May I clarify if your position on The Book Club Collection has changed since you made the below comment so we are all on the same page?
In view of this development, I propose to consider 29 August 2019, the post date of this new pdf anthology, to be the official release date of these stories by Arcbeatle Press and switch to discussing their inclusion to the wiki based on this latest pdf.
- LegoK9
Judy's War might give us a precedent here.
Rachel Redhead used Judy Collins and other characters and concepts from her self-published The Twisters book series[19] in Judy's War. The self published status of these non-DWU books had no bearing on the wiki covering this DWU story. The status of the DWU story is the only thing that matters for this wiki.
(Likewise, Assimilation² is condered valid on this wiki, despite all Star Trek comics being relegated the non-canon Memory-Beta wiki. The status of non-DWU stories have no bearing on what is covered by the Tardis Data Core.)
The only difference is that Judy's War was published by Obverse Books while Wylder published the three 10,000 Dawns crossovers on his website.
- Amorkuz
@AthenodoraKitten: Your complaints about the actions taken regarding doxxing are misdirected. The doxxing incident, as explained in Thread:256955, was adjudicated on a level above this wiki. It was decided by FANDOM staff. I accepted their ruling (and, as correctly stated in it, regret any unintentional harm caused). If, however, you think that FANDOM staff acted improperly in any way, you should address your complaints to Fandom’s Customer Support Team [20], not to the admin of this wiki.
Regarding your desire for "some comforting assurance that the people one is talking to are engaging in the discussion in good faith", FANDOM's ruling on the doxxing clearly stated that
it was ill-advised, not intentionally harmful
This ruling and Tardis:No personal attacks explicitly stating "Assume good faith" should be sufficient to lift any concerns you might have about good faith.
@Scrooge MacDuck: "as a line of argument for invalidity even though, much as Amorkuz obviously wishes this were otherwise" is your speculation regarding my arguments, my wishes and even my dream policies. I cannot respond to it as it has little resemblance to my actual arguments and wishes (I do not dream of policies).
If you think that establishing facts (e.g., whether Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher or a small press similar to Thebes Publishing) is not necessary in validity debates, it is your opinion. I disagree and believe that facts matter and will endeavour to establish them as best I can.
Perhaps, it would be more productive if, instead of trying to second-guess motives behind posts, we return to discussing the contents of these posts.
- Borisashton
Well, now that you've cleared up any potential misconceptions I'm sure you'll be happy to continue the debate and address the arguments raised.
Let's get this back on track.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Amorkuz, you write: “If you think that establishing facts is not necessary in validity debates, it is your opinion. I disagree and believe that facts matter and will endeavour to establish them as best I can.”
I have nothing against establishing facts per se. Obviously I believe facts matter in inclusion debates. But not just any facts. Is there anything anywhere in Tardis's policies to state that "whether a story's publisher is a self-publisher or a company is relevant to a story's validity"? If there isn't, how are these particular facts relevant? How are they a good use of the thread's time and attention when they have no way of affecting the decision? You might as well argue that researching James Wylder's mother's maiden name is relevant because it's a fact.
As for the rest of your reply to me, I apologize if I misunderstood what your wishes regarding self-publishers are. But then, what are they? Being that (as far as I know; but you haven't put forward any hard policy to correct my impressions on this matter) Tardis's policies do not currently have anything against self-publishers (and as always I mean that in the common-sense meaning, not your lawyerspeak above), then why would you pursue a line of argument based on whether the stories are self-published, unless you believed that Tadis's policies should care whether something is self-published rather than published by a company?
At any rate, I concur with User:Borisashton that scolding people about misunderstanding your intentions in this or that matter is all well and good, and it might even be justified, but we would still like to get back to the actual meat of this debate and address our object-level arguments. Starting with my question of clarification on where you stand on the anthology release.
- Borisashton
Amorkuz wrote: If you think that establishing facts (e.g., whether Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher or a small press similar to Thebes Publishing) ...
This is a bad example is it not? Haven't we already established repeatedly that Arcbeatle is not a self-publisher (at least according to "America's most trusted online dictionary") and even if it were it would not matter as there is no policy that excludes self-published stories.
It is extremely hard to "return to discussing the contents of these posts" when the facts you present are not relevant to the matter of validity and when you reply to the thread with your only new piece of information being that you believe "facts matter".
Which of the four little rules do you think these stories actually break and have your opinions changed since you proposed the anthology release as the official release date for the three stories?
- Borisashton
This went quiet abruptly. Does anybody have any new information that would support the invalidation of these stories on the wiki?
- Shambala108
Given the potential far-reaching consequences of this decision, I would like to hear the concerns from the two admins who jointly decided with User:Amorkuz that this shouldn't be covered on this wiki.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I quite agree. Do you (or anyone) know who these admins are? They've been mentioned quite a lot but we still don't know. If someone knows, couldn't we drop messages on the relevant talk-pages to notify them?
- Borisashton
Obviously it would be great to hear from the admin that made the original decision but the thread has been pleading for that to happen since August and Amorkuz (or anyone else) has proved unwilling to share who those people actually were.
I think it's unwise to delay this decision indefinitely if the input we are looking for is never going to arrive.
- Amorkuz
If the issue of Arcbeatle Press being a self-publisher is not relevant, why was it mentioned in the OP? At any rate, what is or is not relevant for a debate should be determined by an admin who has not participated in the unresolved inclusion debates on the topic. The same goes for what has or has not been established. Until an admin closes it, everything stated here is a matter of opinion of participants rather than a matter of wiki-wide policy.
@Scrooge MacDuck: What you call "[my] very narrow legalese definition" and "[my] lawyerspeak" is not actually mine. It is the accepted term of the US publishing industry, as explained by Bowker, the source of professional bibliographic information in the US (and beyond). Let me repeat the quote: "If a self-publisher wants to be identified as the publisher, the self-publisher must get their own ISBN."
KDP, used by Arcbeatle Press, concurs:
Self-publish eBooks and paperbacks for free with Kindle Direct Publishing, and reach millions of readers on Amazon.
...
Get started today! Self-publish with KDP for free.
Here is a quote from a book on the legal aspects of self-publishing (emphasis is the author's):
...if you use one of CreateSpace's free ISBNs, then the publisher of your book will be listed as CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, which is like screaming that you are a self-publishing novice.
The majority of Arcbeatle books (10 out of 13) are published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Scrooge MacDuck is right in asking how one should call Arcbeatle Press if not a "self-publisher". It is not the publisher of Arcbeatle books because that title is determined by their ISBNs. If neither a publisher nor self-publisher, then who?
On a side note, to flag statements and arguments that have not been supported by any valid sources, Borisashton claims that "Arcbeatle is a company". Firstly, Arcbeatle is an alias of James Wylder, who is a person not a company. Unless it was a Freudian slip, I suspect that Borisashton meant "Arcbeatle [Press] is a company". I was not able to find any confirmation of this fact. What valid sources exist to determine that Arcbeatle Press is indeed a company and not a so-called fictitious business name?
Here is another voice in support of Arcbeatle books being self-published (emphasis mine):
The world Wylder operates in seems to have become more simplistic on the surface since the advent of self-publishing and print-on-demand websites–both things that he uses–but it has also become more complex for the same reasons.
...
Though he would like to stay a self-publisher for purposes of integrity and solidarity to a community increasingly guided by the whims of a select few industry titans, Wylder understands there is still a game to be played and that game has rules.
"When I was much younger I was more 'I’m going to do everything myself.' I still like doing that, but I’m starting to get to the point where doing all of the work of self-publishing seems exhausting," he said...
As you can see, as recently as in 2017, while preparing his 9th book, James Wylder was clear about being a self-publisher. Note also that there is no mention of Arcbeatle Press in this whole interview. As I mentioned before, I was not able to find any information about Arcbeatle Press as a legal entity, including when it was established. However, its Facebook page [23] was created no later than May 2016, thus, predating the interview by more than a year. It is highly unusual that the owner of a company that, by 2017, had purportedly been publishing books for 4 years, that this owner would be giving an interview about an upcoming book and yet would never mention the company or his status as its owner. Instead, he professes hopes to achieve exactly the opposite of owning a publishing company:
And hopefully, [James Wylder] said, he will work more with major publishing houses in the future.
Of course, plans for the future can change. But past---less so. By 2017, James Wylder, in his own words, has self-published eight books and was promoting the ninth. His modus operandi has not changed since 2017. He was and remains a self-publisher.
Finally, if, instead of using professional commercial terminology, the proposal is to use layman's terms, specifically those from "America's most trusted online dictionary" (in Scrooge MacDuck's unattributed quote), then here is another definition that should be accepted:
Fan fiction - stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet.
According to this proposal, the three stories under consideration are clearly outside the scope of the wiki by T:NO FANFIC. I myself do not particularly like this definition. But if consensus is reached on accepting definitions from Merriam-Webster over professional terms, then this debate can be closed without much ado.
UPD: It was later pointed out by Borisashton that the unattributed quote was by him rather than by Scrooge MacDuck. Apologies for the unintended misquotation.
- RingoRoadagain
- If the issue of Arcbeatle Press being a self-publisher is not relevant, why was it mentioned in the OP?
It was mentionned solely because --if i read the OP correctly-- it was raised by some in the deleted thread as being synonymous with fan fiction.
With due respect, as long as this connection is not unambiguously established following the rules or precedents of the wiki, I sincerely don't see the point of debating whether it's self- or third-party publication.
- Bwburke94
The dictionary definition of "fan fiction" is overly broad, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of fans obtaining the proper licenses. (Under your proposal, almost the entirety of prose Doctor Who would be considered fan fiction, with the early novelisations the main exception.)
In reality, the term "fan fiction" implies "unlicensed", as can be evidenced by the cited rule on T:VS being Rule 2. The three Dawns stories in question were licensed, and have more or less been shown to pass Rule 2.
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:Amorkuz: I do not deny that what I called your "narrow legalese definition" might be what an official publishing company's lawyer would give as the definition. I am simply arguing that that is not the definition we should care about. Furthermore, here is evidence that Arcbeatle Press is acknowledged as a publisher by an undoubtably respectable professional entity, Decipher, Inc.. Clearly your definition of publisher isn't the only one in use by "the industry", and there are others which explicitly allow for Arcbeatle Press to be one.
Besides, as RingoRoadAgain pointed out, the only reason we started to talk about publishers was that certain parties were arguing that publishers had something to do with fanfiction status. No one has ever claimed it was otherwise relevant. So if as you say you "don't like" the Merriam-Webster definition and aren't trying to establish that the crossovers are fanfiction based on said definition… again, pray tell, why is the matter of whether the publisher is a self-publisher relevant? Based on what Wiki policy?
(It is one thing that an uninvolved admin will be the one to pass final judgement on this question, as you state. But one cannot simply allow random facts to continue to be cited without reason until such a neutral admin passes by! Or would I be allowed to conduct my aforementioned research into the colour of James Wylder's cleaning lady's socks unless and until an involved admin visited the thread?)
As for the "fanfiction" argument itself, User:Bwburke94 has hit the nail on the head: why do we reject "fanfiction"? Why does T:NO FANFIC exist? Because of Rule 2. Because the fear is that it's unlicensed. If there is another hidden reason not mentioned in policy why "fanfiction" isn't valid, I or anyone else have yet to hear of it. As I understand it, T:NO FANFIC is a strongly-worded clarification of a special case of Rule 2, not a restriction of its own; if it were it really ought to be put on T:VS as Rule 5. Except, why would we want to do that? If by some twist of fate something that would fall under a certain definition of "fanfiction" actually otherwise passes the 4 Little Rules, why would we not want to cover it?
Plus, you don't seem to follow your "if we follow one definition we have to follow the other" to its logical conclusion. If one cannot rely on the dictionary definition of "publisher" without also accepting the dictionary definition of "fanfiction", then the reverse ought to hold: you can only try to argue that the stories are invalid based on T:NO FANFIC for being fanfiction if you also accept the non-legalese definition of "publisher". And if you accept said non-legalese definition, then the stories are no longer "posted by a fan", they are released by a publisher.
Also also also, Shambala above wants to hear from the other two admins who made the decision with you, could you kindly give us their name and/or notify them on their talk page, we have been asking for this for ages, thanks.
- Bwburke94
The dictionary definition of fan fiction says "often on the Internet"; it does not apply only to internet-based works. (This is why the Star Trek fanzine stories of days long past are considered fanfic.)
- Borisashton
Bwburke94 has yet again hit the nail on the head. To further his point, this official policy page states that "fans grew up and became part of the professional "industry" of Doctor Who". This shows that Merriam-Webster's definition of fan fiction stands as representative of lots of other perfectly valid web stories published by major companies such as the BBC as well.
Obviously, we can't use this definition to rule over T:NO FANFIC for one very simple reason: they are not talking about the same thing. T:NO FANFIC has been precisely calibrated over the years to apply to this wiki and this wiki alone (it's been created with rule 2 in mind) whereas Merriam-Webster's definition is defining a broad term that is used by everyone or in other words, the general public. It would be ludicrous if their definition included links to our user page and video policies as helpful clarifications now, wouldn't it?
The reason why self-publishing is different is, as I've said many times, there is absolutely nothing is wiki policy that invalidates stories produced by self-publishers hence why the best option available to us is to quote from a trusted online dictionary and apply their common sense meaning to this situation.
Also also, I'll add to the reminder for you to name the admins involved in the original decision in your next post.
- AthenodoraKitten
User:Amorkuz, I think you misread my post—my actual main question was simply “are such things as screenshots or the like of the previous thread be admissible into evidence? With all sensitive personal information censored, of course.”
It is a question for which I still have not yet received an answer, as of this moment. I do fully understand, of course, that all our admins are busy people who have kindly volunteered their time to help build our community, and I have no desire to be mean-spirited to anyone for taking a reasonable time to answer questions. At the same time, I would like the same courtesy to be given toward me, and for everyone on this thread to be kindly understanding toward why I disliked having to feel as if everything we said has been in vain—as if valid counterpoints that had been raised or point-blank questions that had been asked could just be ignored, and one has to repeat themselves again and again.
As it happens, posts #6, #19, and #34 above do rather illustrate why I needed to ask that question, I believe—for I had already addressed the point about ISBNs in the last thread. Fortunately, according to post #9 above, I should be able to refer to the former thread so long as I do “provide information or context” in my post; as I have kept a draft of my former post on my word processor, I will now adapt that draft into this post, and be able to reproduce and present the evidence I provided in the former thread with as much information and context as possible.
Apologies if this risks running afoul of Thread:223085, or if everybody else on this thread finds it repetitive to read through the same bit of fact-checking again and again:
CreateSpace (or more precisely, “On-Demand Publishing LLC, doing business as CreateSpace,” to quote its Bloomberg profile) was a company which provided on-demand printing services, “[allowing] publishers and authors to publish their work” (emphasis added). Now, according to the International ISBN Agency,
It is always the publisher of the book who should apply for the ISBN. For the purposes of ISBN, the publisher is the group, organisation, company or individual who is responsible for initiating the production of a publication. Normally, it is also the person or body who bears the cost and financial risk in making a product available.
Furthermore, in the info section about “Assigning ISBNs to joint publications”, the International ISBN Agency further states that
In the case of a joint publication, both publishers are entitled to have an ISBN on the book. It should be made clear which number identifies which publisher. However, if only one publisher is to hold stock and distribute the publication, then it is recommended that the ISBN of the publisher who is responsible for distribution appears in bar-coded form on the back cover of the book.
As a print-on-demand business, CreateSpace naturally would be “responsible for initiating the production,” in the sense of starting the printing process once a copy had been ordered, as well as distributing said copy once it had been produced, with the demand for the company’s service—and the profit the company might make from providing said service, through fees and suchlike—tied to the demand for the publication itself. There is nothing surprising, then, for CreateSpace to be considered “the publisher” for the purposes of ISBN.
That is not all, though. I was intrigued by this logic of using ISBNs to determine what does or does not count as “officially released” for the purpose of Rule 3, and looked further into the information provided by the International ISBN Agency. This is what I found:
ISBNs are assigned to text-based monographic publications (i.e. one-off publications rather than journals, newspapers, or other types of serials). Any book made publicly available, whether for sale or on a gratis basis, can be identified by ISBN. [. . .] With regard to the various media available, it is of no importance in what form the content is documented and distributed; however, each different product form (e.g. paperback, EPUB, .pdf) should be identified separately. [24]
The ISBN is an identifier and does not convey any form of legal or copyright protection. [25]
In principle, publications that are monographic (i.e. one-off publications not periodicals or serials etc), text-based (or predominantly text-based) and available to the public are considered eligible within the scope of the ISBN Standard. [26]
As everyone can see, the International ISBN Agency’s understanding on who counts as a publisher, or what counts as a publication, is very, very broad. And, well, . . .
I own a printer.
Per the International ISBN Agency’s terms, in theory I could print out just about anything tomorrow and have it be given an ISBN with just a few simple steps. I would not need to do any proofreading or quality control, or worry about copyrights, or even convince anyone to put money into my so-called book (given that the International ISBN Agency counts books made publicly available “on a gratis basis”) like Arcbeatle Press and other traditional publishers have to do, but so long as mine was the hand that turned the printer on, “AthenodoraKitten” would count as a legitimate publisher for the purposes of ISBNs—and thus for the purposes of T:VALID, according to the logic of posts #6, #19, and #34 above.
In practice, of course, it is very unlikely that a DWU rightsholder would ever grant me a license (especially given that DWU rightsholders are almost by default professionals familiar with copyright and licensing, and would have some proper understanding of professional standards), so the chances of my hypothetical book actually passing our “four little rules” as currently defined is virtually nonexistent. Nevertheless, this broadening of the scope of Rule 3—this apparent broadening of the scope of T:VALID into something along the lines of Anything printed by anyone with a home printer would be considered officially released so long as it has an ISBN attached to it—is so uncharacteristic compared to the position the author of posts #6, #19, and #34 above has otherwise been advocating for since the beginning of the previous discussion (as I understand it), that I would like to take a moment to ask: User:Amorkuz, can you please confirm that this is actually what you are arguing for?
Furthermore, least my post accidentally derail the conversation, may I bring attention back to the ongoing matter of (to quote post #37):
Also also also, Shambala above wants to hear from the other two admins who made the decision with you, could you kindly give us their name and/or notify them on their talk page, we have been asking for this for ages, thanks.
- Shambala108
FYI, User:Amorkuz has been in contact with the other two admins, asking for their input, so there is no need for everyone to keep bringing it up. They will respond when they have a chance.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Is there any reason why he hasn't disclosed the names of these two admins yet to us, however? If they have specifically asked him not to it is a wish we must obviously respect, but otherwise, why is he keeping this information from us?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I have to say it is rather strange.
- Bwburke94
Let's avoid that part of the discussion for now. If Amorkuz genuinely believes he shouldn't be answering that question, he's free to not answer that question.
(Though I can't see why he'd stay quiet at this point. It's harming his credibility.)
- LegoK9
Kaldor City story PROSE: Skulduggery is a valid story on this wiki since the page was made in 2013.
This short story was first published in the 2008 charity anthology Shelf Life It was reprinted in Cosmic Masque issue 3 (December 2016) and later published on the official Kaldor City website. [27]
While T:VS doesn't allow charity publications, it specifies "Any fiction, by any author, where the copyright holder hasn't given permission isn't allowed." Was this one allowed for having the proper copyright? Because I notice that admins user:Doug86 and user:Shambala108 both edited the page with no scrutiny over it.
Even if we ignore the charity publication, the later publications back it up. Skulduggery gives us a precedent that supports the includion of the three 10,000 Dawns stories.
- Amorkuz
There was another round of strong rebuttals of what I never said or meant.
Let me start with AthenodoraKitten and answer her question whether "this is actually what [I am] arguing for?" where "this" represents her long post. The answer is, "No, it is not."
Next there is Scrooge MacDuck's "rebuttal":
Plus, you don't seem to follow your "if we follow one definition we have to follow the other" to its logical conclusion. If one cannot rely on the dictionary definition of "publisher" without also accepting the dictionary definition of "fanfiction", then the reverse ought to hold: you can only try to argue that the stories are invalid based on T:NO FANFIC for being fanfiction if you also accept the non-legalese definition of "publisher". And if you accept said non-legalese definition, then the stories are no longer "posted by a fan", they are released by a publisher.
The problem with this "rebuttal" is that just because Bwburke94 said that I had proposed to use MW definition of fan fiction, does not mean that I actually proposed it. The clue was when I said, "I myself do not particularly like this definition." (There is also a logical fallacy hidden there because T:NO FANFIC is not tied to Merriam-Webster definition of fan fiction. So there is no problem using T:NO FANFIC while rejecting the MW or some other layman's definition of publisher. But since that was not what I was arguing, this point is academic.)
It was not me who proposed to use layman's terms instead of professional commercial ones. It was Borisashton when he used Merriam-Webster as a source for Arcbeatle Press not being a self-publisher. Scrooge MacDuck at first enthusiastically agreed calling Merriam-Webster "America's most trusted online dictionary". After which I showed why it is a bad idea, both for defining publishers/self-publishers and fan fiction by showing how precise Merriam-Webster is in other situations of interest to this validity debate.
If Arcbeatle Press were a commercial publisher, its commercial partners selling its books would have known about it. Barnes & Noble, for instance, sells many of Arcbeatle books. For some reason, Barnes & Noble completely ignores the clear instructions of "America's most trusted online dictionary" and provides no hits when one searches for "Arcbeatle". For instance, here is one of 10,000 Dawns books, the crossover with which we are discussing. According to Barnes & Noble, the publisher is CreateSpace Publishing, not Arcbeatle Press. Moreover, if you read the blurb about himself by James Wylder (emphasis mine),
An eternal Science-Fiction fan, James Wylder was born in Elkhart Indiana, and later attended Hanover College where his play "Cryptos" had an extended run. He's since gone on to produce the popular Doctor Who poetry book, "An Eloquence of Time and Space", two other books of poetry, a short story collection, and several other plays. James is also a writer for Shotgun Angel Games, LLC.
Barnes & Noble reports a publication date about half a year after the creation of the Facebook page for Arcbeatle Press. However, just like in his even later interview quoted in my prior posts, the author does not mention Arcbeatle Press as a company he owns. Instead, he bills himself as a writer for Shotgun Angel Games, LLC. (Perhaps, one could also make a case for the author billing himself as a book producer.)
I did not see sources for Arcbeatle Press being a publishing company other than Arcbeatle Press, James Wylder and other people listed as his collaborators. In particular, the alleged acknowledgment of Arcbeatle Press as a publisher by Decipher, Inc., mentioned by Scrooge MacDuck above, is also sourced to the website of James Wylder/Arcbeatle Press rather than that of Decipher. It is not another publisher stating that Arcbeatle Press is a publisher. It is Arcbeatle Press stating that it is a publisher and implying that another publisher agrees.
To quote from T:NO SELF REF (emphasis from the policy),
It is a fundamental truth of show business that people lie about themselves.
Accordingly, in order to avoid getting into verifying veracity of anyone, the rule has always been to use facts that are independently verifiable. Outlets selling books by all other DW publishers know about these other publishers and, hence, provide such a requisite independent verification. Arcbeatle Press is the only exception I know of. Professional bibliographical databases also provide independent verification for all other book publishers, again except for Arcbeatle Press.
James Wylder himself called himself a self-publisher (see quotes above) just two years ago, when most Arcbeatle books had already been published. Those claims have a clear confirmation in standard publishing commercial practices. All commercial distributors and databases agree that there is no (as of 14 October 2019) publisher called Arcbeatle Press.
Now James Wylder says that Arcbeatle Press is a publisher and lists many books he previously described as self-published. And the only proposed argument in support of this change (other than "James Wylder said so") is Merriam-Webster, if we are to accept the common sense definition of publisher instead of professional one.
In fact, here is his current self-description of his work on Facebook (emphasis mine)
Freelance writer
Writer · 2010 to present · Elkhart, Indiana
I have self-published a book of poetry, and my play "Cryptos" is a part of Hanover College's Fall Theater Season. I am accepting commissions.
(I am not providing a link to prevent further complaints of privacy violations that can lead to the deletion of this thread the same way as the first one.)
If you are still in doubt, here is his current self-description from his professional Facebook page as a writer (emphasis mine):
Author of "10,000 Dawns", "Cryptos", "Cascade", "An Eloquence of Time and Space", and "Death! And the Doubling Cubes." A Freelance Writer open to commissions.
He is not an owner of a small press. He is a freelance writer.
UPD: It was later pointed out by Borisashton that it was also his description of Merriam-Webster as the most trusted dictionary, not Scrooge MacDuck's. Scrooge MacDuck did embrace the use of definitions from Merriam-Webster, however, by stating "But User:Borisashton's point that Merriam-Webster's defines it rather differently stands." Apologies for the unintended misquotation.
- RingoRoadagain
I still don't understand why we are debating the way it was published. In my understanding, the stories have been commercially released for non charuty and with the necessary licenses.
So anyway would it make any difference to it being fanfiction or not?
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:Amorkuz:
While the specific M&W definition of fanfiction is not necessary to a T:NO FANFIC argument, a similar "layman's definition" of fanfiction is, because by a legal definition of fanfiction (inasmuch as there is such a thing), commercially-licensed material such as the Wylder crossovers wouldn't be fanfiction. My point wasn't specifically about M&W, but rather about the sheer logic of the situation.
Once more, I apologize for answering arguments that are not yours, but would you kindly tell us what your actual argument is, rather than leave us to make guesses and then correct us when they miss the mark? If not to push an argument based on the "anything published personally on the Internet is fanfic" idea, why is the self-published nature of the short stories relevant? What are you arguing for? A debate cannot be had with anything resembling efficiency if one of the parties just gives examples but refuses to explain what point they're meant to be illustrating.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Also, you are misquoting me. I didn't say anything about M&W being the "most trusted online dictionary", that was all User:Borisashton.
Also also, it is one thing that we do not trust statements about themselves by real-life people, but it is another that we should mistrust statements by real-life people about other companies. If you're saying that Arcbeatle Press's website is not a valid source for "Decipher, Inc. said [X]" because, as T:NO SELF REF explains, people in the industry sometimes lie, then you're asking us to consider the possibility that Arcbeatle Press lied, not about itself, but about a third party: Decipher Inc. Is that really the route you want to go down? (Note, additionally, that as I understand it, T:NO SELF REF is for people, not publishing companies. Whether Arcbeatle Press is a person or a company is precisely what we're trying to establish here! Within the position I was arguing for, it does not break T:NO SELF REF to source statements about Arcbeatle Press to Arcbeatle Press, if it is indeed a company, rather than an individual posing as one.)
Also also also, doesn't sourcing your "Wylder is a self-publisher/freelance writer" idea to quotes by Wylder himself also violate T:NO SELF REF? If not, why not?
But if you're pressed for time, the "what is your point, if not what we've been assuming it was?" question is the one I'm most anxious to see you answer.
- Borisashton
I'm a bit confused about your comments about Merriam-Webster being "America's most trusted online dictionary". I was the one who brought that up, not User:Scrooge MacDuck and he never agreed or referenced that before the response you reference above. His only reply during this period was:
I quite agree [in response to hearing from the admins in the original decision]. Do you (or anyone) know who these admins are? They've been mentioned quite a lot but we still don't know. If someone knows, couldn't we drop messages on the relevant talk-pages to notify them?
This doesn't seem to me like "enthusiastically" agreeing. I passed off your earlier comment about "Scrooge MacDuck's unattributed quote" as a mistake but it seems like you are now actively manufacturing a dialogue between us that never happened and misrepresenting both of us.
EDIT: This was written before I had seen the above comment.
- Amorkuz
Apologies for misquoting Scrooge MacDuck. Indeed, "America's most trusted dictionary" was Borisashton.
However, Scrooge MacDuck did agree with this definition by saying.
But User:Borisashton's point that Merriam-Webster's defines it rather differently stands.
The simplest way of correcting somebody's factual mistakes is to point them out. You might even get an apology as the one above.
Waiting for the mistake to be repeated and then engaging in something that to me sounds like a personal attack:
you are now actively manufacturing a dialogue between us that never happened and misrepresenting both of us.
seems a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks.
I would like the mods to weigh in on this.
- Scrooge MacDuck
True, I did say that Borisashton's point "stood", though I wouldn't describe that as agreeing enthusiastically. I just thought it was a valid point yet to be answered, not a be-all-end-all. I can, at any rate, perfectly see where the confusion came from and certainly bear you no ill will for it. It's a random mistake of the sort that one is bound to make with long and twisty debates like this one.
That being said, and regardless of the status of Borisashton's statement regarding your "misrepresentation" of the dialogue thus far (which it will be up to another administrator to decide), back to the topic at hand:
Speaking of valid points yet to be answered and of points that stand, though, Amorkuz, I still would like you to tell us what exactly your argument is in bringing up all that "are the works self-published?" business. If you're not angling for a "it's self-published on the Internet so it's fanfic" argument, to what policy is the self-published nature of the work relevant?
- Borisashton
Obviously it was never my intention to engage in a personal attack and I think my careful wording of the post referenced reflects that. I agree that without context, this:
you are now actively manufacturing a dialogue between us that never happened and misrepresenting both of us.
might be considered a personal attack. However, that is not the full sentence. A more accurate representation of what I said might look something like this (emphasis new):
I passed off your earlier comment about "Scrooge MacDuck's unattributed quote" as a mistake but it seems like you are now actively manufacturing a dialogue between us that never happened and misrepresenting both of us.
The phrase "seems like" completely changes the meaning of what I said. At no point did I say you had been "manufacturing a dialogue". At no point, did I accuse you of wrongdoing and I stated specifically that I had assumed good faith by judging the first instance of this slip to be an honest mistake. Indeed, I started off the post by admitting my confusion, further highlighting that I simply wanted your elaboration rather than to attack you. I apoligise for any offence a misinterpretation of my words might have caused you.
Secondly, I would like you to match my attempts at good faith. Contrary to your comment, I was not "waiting for the mistake to be repeated". Instead, I simply thought pulling you up for a minor mistake such as wrongly attributing a quote that contributed a mere sentence in your quite lengthy response would have been inappropriate and verging on off-topic for the sake of extreme pedantry. It was only when you made the same mistake again but in the context of giving the impression of a conversation happening that didn't did I feel it was necessary to mention it.
Once again, I apoligise for any offence caused and now that you have edited your previous posts to elaborate on the situation I hope we can now return to discussing the matter at hand.
- Amorkuz
RingoRoadagain wrote: In my understanding, the stories have been commercially released for non charuty and with the necessary licenses.
At the risk of repeating myself, all releases currently proposed for validity are not commercial. They were originally posted online on James Wylder's blog for free in html/pdf format. Later this blog was supplied with a legal statement announcing contents of the blog to be publications of Arcbeatle Press. The purpose of the move seemed to have been to retroactively turn the free html/pdf's into publications of Arcbeatle Press (with certain inconsistencies which are irrelevant for the commercial aspect for the moment). However, the html/pdf's continue being available for free to this date. The commercial release of these stories is currently announced for 2020.
It should be noted that Bwburke94 mentioned some other commercial releases but was not able to provide any independent verification for their existence without the deleted thread. Of course, by T:VS, information from this wiki could not have been accepted as a valid source for the purposes of inclusion debates, even if it were available (emphasis mine):
user-editable sources such as Wikipedia, the Internet Movie Database and this very wiki are to be avoided
Thus, there is little point in discussing those at the moment.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think you're mixing together two parts of T:VS:
- the license needs to be a commercial license;
- the release needs to be an official release.
But there's nothing about the release itself needing to be a commercial release. In fact, there are dozens of valid stories which have never been released commercially, but instead released for free for promotional purposes; they are officially released and commercially released, so they're valid. See: all Free Comic Book Day comic stories, nearly all webcasts ever. This is direct from T:VS:
(…) if it's downloadable it's by definition officially released.
And this is from T:OFF REL:
(…) We consider something officially released when it is made available to the general public, in venues that are ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium.
Nothing here about the release needing to be for profit. It just needs to be official (e.g. endorsed by the right-holders of the story).
So yes, RingoRoadAgain's understanding of the situation in the post you quoted was faulty, but so, it would appear, is yours. The Wylder crossovers are commercially licensed and officially released, so they fulfill the criteria of T:VS.
Also, none of this has anything to do with the works being self-published, so what is your point with that?
- Borisashton
I'll just repost my response on October 5 verbatim since the argument has come up again despite already being dealt with in my opinion.
Borisashton wrote: T:VALID as I understand it does not ask for a story to be published commercially. A story must be commercially licensed and officially released but not commercially released. A commercial licence is definitely involved from the evidence that has been presented and it has already been established that the official release date is that set by the publisher. There are probably hundreds of stories that have been released for free currently valid on this wiki, being free does not preclude its inclusion here.
- Scrooge MacDuck
P.S.: Still pondering what on Earth you're on about regarding publishers and self-publishers, the one vaguely-relevant thing I can find in Wiki policy s at T:OFF REL again: is that what you're thinking of?
For prose fiction, release date is whatever is given by the publisher as the release date. Even if you get a copy before that date, you cannot write about that story here until the date the publisher gives as the official launch date.
If so, I think you're basically the only person to ever have interpreted "publisher" in that sentence as "what is legally called a publishing company" rather than "whoever is legally publishing the work". This piece of policy is clearly about preventing early leaks and other scheduling hiccups from overruling the official release date, not anything to do with "publishing company" vs. "self-publisher".
(For the last time, as far as non-lawyers are concerned, a "self-publisher" is self-evidently a kind of "publisher". In fact, it is etymologically obvious that this should be so. "Self-publisher" means "publisher of self". The operative words being publisher of.)
Apologies if I got it wrong again but if you want us to stop having to resort to guesswork, you should make your arguments explicit. You did so for "official vs. commercial releases" above, allowing me to properly answer that point in what I hope is a satisfactory manner. Can't you do the same for "self-publisher"?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Still pondering what on Earth you're on about regarding publishers and self-publishers, the one vaguely-relevant thing I can find in Wiki policy s at T:OFF REL again: is that what you're thinking of?
For prose fiction, release date is whatever is given by the publisher as the release date. Even if you get a copy before that date, you cannot write about that story here until the date the publisher gives as the official launch date.
If so, I think you're basically the only person to ever have interpreted "publisher" in that sentence as "what is legally called a publishing company" rather than "whoever is legally publishing the work". This piece of policy is clearly about preventing early leaks and other scheduling hiccups from overruling the official release date, not anything to do with "publishing company" vs. "self-publisher". For the last time, as far as non-lawyers are concerned, a "self-publisher" is a kind of "publisher". In fact, it is etymologically obvious that this should be so. "Self-publisher" means "publisher of self". The operative words being publisher of.
- RingoRoadagain
According to the OP "Wylder has sold physical copies of these stories for profit at conventions and via direct mailing". That's what I assumed to be commercial release, does it not count?
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Ringo: As User:Amorkuz rightly explained, they would if they could be proven, but we don't have any other proof but OP's recollections on the matter, so we can't make any decisions based on that alone. I mean, we can't just change the status of Death Comes to Time because someone has a dim memory that once at a convention the author said it was DWU. There'd need to be a verifiable source. Same thing.
The good news is, however, that for the reasons I outlined above, in my understanding, this is not required by the current wording of T:VS. Stories need a commercial license, but the release need only be official, not necessarily commercial, so long as the license itself was commercial. (This is why, for example, YouTube minisodes are valid even though the BBC releases them for free.) So we don't actually need to prove there was a commercial release, though certainly it wouldn't hurt if we could.
- Amorkuz
Beyond finding a publicly available proof of physical copies sold, there is a further problem of fulfilling Tardis:Official releases (emphasis from the policy):
We consider something officially released when it is made available to the general public, in venues that are ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium.
I do not believe that there are precedents of stories validated because they were sold to those who paid admission to a convention happening over a couple of days in one location (rather that to the general public).
As for direct mailing, this is the ordinary medium for selling fanzines and fan productions. One example readily coming to mind is Audio Visuals, a well known former producer of unlicensed Doctor Who audios. Direct mailing is not ordinarily used by professional book publishers, who trade their books either through a third-party distributor like Amazon (which, according to their website, is the ordinary route for commercial activities of Arcbeatle Press) or through their own website, which is the route taken by Big Finish Productions. While websites of Arcbeatle Press may provide free access to their stories, to the best of my knowledge, they have not provided a way to buy their stories directly from the website.
Since people keep trying to read things in my posts that were never there, let me be clear. If Arcbeatle Press engaged in direct mailing, it is not, by itself, a proof that their stories are fan fiction. It would, on the other hand, be further evidence that their business practices have hallmark features of producers of fan fiction while at the same time lacking some fairly universal features associated with professional book publishers (publishing under their own ISBN and, consequently, under their own name).
It should further be pointed out that T:OFF REL explicitly stipulates "venues ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium". As is evidenced by the same examples, direct mailing is often used to circumvent legal restrictions arising from copyright, tax laws, etc. Conventions are no different. Things sold at conventions often violate the same laws.
Once again, this does not mean that everyone selling things at conventions violates copyright. To state the obvious, conventions are not intended for commercial distribution of products, but rather for promoting products and interacting with fans, which is used by both professionals and amateurs. Therefore, evidence of things sold at conventions (even if such evidence were readily available)
- cannot be taken as a proof of a commercial license;
- does not constitute an official release according to T:OFF REL.
To summarise, things sold at conventions and through direct mailing are not "commercial releases".
There is, of course, an additional common sense and legal rationale why neither should they be. Both modes of distribution are very hard to trace and even harder to prove in the court of law. Copyright holders have very limited recourse against those infringing copyright by direct personal communication via mail or by setting up a stall at a convention.
- AthenodoraKitten
Amorkuz wrote: There was another round of strong rebuttals of what I never said or meant.
Let me start with AthenodoraKitten and answer her question whether "this is actually what [I am] arguing for?" where "this" represents her long post. The answer is, "No, it is not."If you do not mind me asking, then—User:Amorkuz, what precisely are you saying here?
Are you accusing me of writing a rebuttal against what you never said or meant, that I made a straw man out of your arguments, and put words into your mouth? That I tried to derail this conversation, by going off-topic and discussed something that has never been said?
User:Amorkuz said that my post was “long.” Oh yes, it was long—I fully admit that. All my posts are long, because I strive to be as comprehensive as I can in providing actual evidence to back up my propositions, and in demonstrating the logic I use to arrive at my conclusions, so that there would be no hidden fallacy catching people unaware. I just thought that I was merely being a conscientious member of this wiki, doing my part to contribute to this community.
Thus, in book trade, the publisher(s) of a book supplied with an ISBN (ISBNs) is not determined arbitrarily (or by publicly claiming the publication as one's own) but is read from the book's ISBN(s).
the ISBNs of these paperbacks (as well as the ISBNs contained inside the corresponding Kindle editions) are covered by Books in Print and determine that the publisher of these books is not Arcbeatle Press.
It is not the publisher of Arcbeatle books because that title is determined by their ISBNs.
Are these not statements you have made on this very thread, User:Amorkuz? And do the posts they came from—posts #6, #19, and #34 above—not contain multiple instances of similar statements concerning the use of ISBNs as a measure to access a book’s eligibility according to Rule 3 of T:VALID’s “four little rules,” on the basis that ISBNs are, allegedly, the standard measure “in book trade” to determine a book’s publisher? In which case, then, how could I be rebutting what you “never said or meant,” when I wrote a post about this proposed use of ISBNs that you yourself brought up so many times and so many words on this thread alone?
If I had wanted to build a straw man out of User:Amorkuz’s arguments, then surely would have just done so, rather than asking User:Amorkuz to clarify what he meant, and leaving him the chance to refute my straw man before I could use it as a prop for my arguments? But ask I did, and wait for User:Amorkuz’s reply, I did. And what did I get in return?
If User:Amorkuz had just answered my question, then yes, I would be happy—that was what I asked for in the first place. But why did he have to lump me into some alleged brigade of people delivering multiple rounds of “strong rebuttals of what [he] never said or meant”? And post #46 above singled me out by name, so I honestly cannot see how to read it as anything other than a personal accusation directly targeted at me.
Like I said, I always strive to have my arguments be as factually accurate and logically valid as possible, so that if I ever err and commit any fallacy, whether of form or of matter, anyone can easily point out my mistakes. User:Amorkuz did not address any part of my argument that using ISBNs as a measure to determine eligibility under Rule 3 would logically lead to a radical broadening of Rule 3 in apparent departure to what User:Amorkuz had seemingly intended, only confirmed that "no, it is not” what he had intended. Should I take it as User:Amorkuz saying that he agreed with the logic of my argument, and agreed with my assessment that his initial arguments inescapably led to a conclusion he had not intended? In which case, how could he still say that my post was but a “long” rebuttal of what he “never said or meant”?
Or should I take literally the part where he said that he interpreted the subject of my question as being “[my] long post” itself, and read his rejection of “no, it is not” as being a rejection of the entirety of my quote-unquote “long” post itself?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: To summarise, things sold at conventions and through direct mailing are not "commercial releases".
That's all fine and dandy but overlooks the fact that as I wrote a whole post to point out, nothing in T:VS or T:OFF REL demands that the release be a commercial one; it's the license that has to be commercial. Relevant policy quotes are in said post. But common sense should make this obvious: online minisodes, or Free Comic Book Day issues, are released for free, but are obviously valid, because they're officially released and commercially licensed. The Wylder short stories are the same.
- Amorkuz
On a separate note, I am alarmed by the recurring responses that, instead of addressing reported facts attempt to address the supposed motives behind stating these facts. After a post stating that fact A is not entirely correct (or is completely incorrect), these responses can be divided into three subtypes:
- The claim that A is necessary for validity has already been addressed and disproved.
- Whether A is true or not is irrelevant for validity and should not be discussed.
- What is the reasoning behind raising the issue of claim A being false? Before proceeding with discussing A, one must lay out a strategy how they would argue (in)validity using A.
(The 2nd type is sometimes coupled with calls to admin to reprimand the poster for posting off-topic.)
This is an all too familiar symptom of partisan disputes, where objectivity matters little and where every fact, instead of being verifiably true, verifiably false, or in dispute---where every fact is either in favour (of validity) or against (validity).
This is a dangerous aberration of intellectual discourse. I am truly disheartened to see it manifest itself so strongly here on the wiki.
All people who ask me what it is I am trying to say should read my posts. When I say that Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher, it is because this is a fact I have been proving by multiple quotes, including from James Wylder himself, over and over again. This fact is not for validity or against validity. It just is. If somebody considers this or similar facts irrelevant, they are welcome to ignore these facts. If you are right about their unimportance, so will the closing admin.
When I say that the releases proposed for validation are not commercial, it is also a fact. Borisashton responded to this by "I'll just repost my response on October 5 verbatim since the argument has come up again despite already being dealt with in my opinion."
As is becoming a tradition in these debates, the argument Borisashton responds to (for the second time), the argument I was allegedly promoting is along the lines of the story must be commercially released to be valid. However, I do not believe anyone, including me, suggested this line of reasoning. All I pointed out was that the releases whose validity is being debated are not commercial.
In showing good faith, unlike Borisashton, and despite him doing it for the second time, I am not suggesting that he "actively manufactured" this faulty argument and put it in my mouth,
- where, according to his favourite Merriam-Webster dictionary, to manufacture is a synonym of inventing or fabricating, as in "known to manufacture evidence" and where to fabricate is defined as "to make up for the purpose of deception" as in "accused of fabricating evidence";
- and where "actively" signifies intent.
I am not claiming that putting "seem to" in front of a personal attack somehow turns it into something allowed, as if "you seem to be a bastard" were not considered an insult.
In show of good faith, I am simply pointing out that the argument Borisashton erroneously attributes to me, for the second time, is not mine, as is clear from reading my posts.
- Bwburke94
I'll put you on the spot here, Amorkuz, because you haven't exactly made this clear. What is your argument for why these three stories should be invalid?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: When I say that Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher, it is because this is a fact I have been proving by multiple quotes, including from James Wylder himself, over and over again. This fact is not for validity or against validity. It just is. If somebody considers this or similar facts irrelevant, they are welcome to ignore these facts. If you are right about their unimportance, so will the closing admin.
That the relevance is up to the closing admin is one thing. But I maintain that if a debate such as this is to go anywhere, it is quite another to act as though users should just collect random facts without any idea of how they relate to the question at hand: validity. I refer you to my earlier thought experiment: should I just start compiling every minute tangentially-connected detail I can ,from the colour of James Wylder's socks to the precise number of question marks in his œuvre, simply because they are facts, and then leave it to the closing admin to figure out if these facts were helpful?
In other words, if I think a fact you have provided is irrelevant, then yes, it's up to the closing admin to tell whether I was right, as such. But that doesn't dispense you (or anyone else who is considering researching this or that fact) from considering whether a fact is relevant to the question of validity before you start an argument about it on the tread.
This whole "self-publisher" thing has taken up a lot of the thread's collective time and attention that could have been better spent examining whether the stories actually pass the four little rules. If you don't have any particular idea of why these facts are relevant in mind, and aren't arguing either for or against validity, what are you doing? These things are called "Inclusion debates", not "Threads about tangentially-related facts at the end of which an admin will make an inclusion decision". You were originally part of the one-sided decision to delete these stories from the Wiki, so clearly you have an idea in mind of why they should be invalid. Why would you spend your time collecting very tangential facts for no clear reason, instead of stating this position and arguing for it?
So I'll echo User:Bwburke94: even if your contributions to this thread so far haven't been an attempt to argue for invalidity, you were one of the three admins who originally came to the conclusion that the stories shouldn't be covered on the Wiki. What was your reasoning then, for God's sake? Surely I'm not the only one to think that if any fact is relevant here, it's that?
(Of course, it may be that you were only carrying out a decision taken by the two other admins in a conversation to which you weren't privy, although that isn't the impression I got. But in this case, I'm back to my earlier request: could you give us the names of these elusive admins? And, if they asked you not to disclose their names, at least tell us that and make sure they show up sometime soon? At any rate, I think you really ought to clarify which of these scenarios is actually correct, if only so no more people get confused about this.)If you don't have any such reasons why the story should be invalid, and are just stating facts without arguing for invalidity… then, er, that would mean that there isn't actually anyone in this whole thread who's been arguing against this story's validity. If so, what's even the point of having a debate about this, when we all agree that these stories should be valid?
- Amorkuz
Since I actually have a lot of points to make and have already provided a lot of facts not previously discussed in either of two threads, I will ask whether anybody else would prefer to return to discussing the "one-sided" decision by three admin to delete the stories after TheChampionOfTime took an even more one-sided and, to the best of my knowledge, unilateral decision to create pages for them without an inclusion debate. Is that what the community would prefer to focus on right now, on reappointing the blame and rediscussing the past? Or should we continue discussing validity as of right now.
As a reminder, due to actions of James Wylder in the course of the first debate, the situation now is materially different from the situation when the stories were deleted. At that point, the stories were posted on a personal blog of James Wylder that lacked a legal statement or any other hallmarks of a commercial website of a professional publisher. Since then, James Wylder added a legal statement to that website. His original legal statement was criticised in the first debate for being, shall we say, too imprecise and not sufficiently lawyerly, and was consequently updated.
Now we have a situation when stories are posted on a website that at least has a legal statement. Because of this material change I cannot use some of the arguments that caused the deletion.
I will wait for more voices in favour of revisiting the past before actually doing so.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The point that the facts have changed from when you originally took the decision is a fair one. I will note, though, regarding which of your or CoT's decision was the more theoretically reproachable one, that CoT was only was mistaken in his belief that there would be no controversy, in which event one is allowed to create pages without an inclusion debate. My point being that inclusion debate aren't necessarily required for creating pages about works, whereas, outside of sheer trolling, they should be required for deleting ones. Quoth T:VALID:
Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid.
Whereas there's nothing in there about community discussion being required to declare a story valid.
But you're right, let's stop discussing blames for a former decision which, due to the change in the situation, no longer applies anyway. I would like to note that my request for the other two admins who took the decision with you to chime in was specifically based on the idea that even if you didn't, they might be able to explain their thought process when taking said decision. If by your analysis the old rationale is no longer applicable anyway, would you agree that we just drop it and go forward with the debate without waiting to hear from these two people? (Even if it would still be nice for them to participate eventually if they can find the time.)
Looking forward to reading your promised "lots of points to make", at any rate.
- RingoRoadagain
- I do not believe that there are precedents of stories validated because they were sold to those who paid admission to a convention happening over a couple of days in one location (rather that to the general public).
I'm afraid that would be a mistake as the wiki has been covering such stories for years.
I know that, at the very least, there are articles about Titan Comics that were exclusively sold at the San Diego Comic-Con and have never been republished to this day, which fits your description neatly:
- Amorkuz
I have to admit that I did not remember of these stories, one of which I own. This is a good point. Perhaps, it merits a separate discussion because "exclusively sold" is the polar opposite to "made available to the general public" required by T:OFF REL. But discussing it here would be off topic.
However, and fortunately, there is no need for drastic measures. All three of these stories have been made commercially available to the general public, eventually. It is not the case, as stated in the above post, that the three stories "were exclusively sold at the San Diego Comic-Con". In addition, Selfie has been republished digitally:
- Selfie can be purchased digitally right now at comixology;
- The Long Con was at some point available to order through Forbidden Planet, as stated here (currently out of stock);
- The Last Action Figure was also at some point available to order through Forbidden Planet, as stated here (currently out of stock).
For all three stories, it was easy to find commercial releases through major providers of Doctor Who merchandise, such as Comixology/Amazon and Forbidden Planet.
As for the stories discussed in this thread, I believe we are still waiting for evidence that they have been sold commercially at conventions, let alone been made available to the general public through ordinary and legal channels for selling Doctor Who merchandise.
Independently of this, the problem of determining the existence of commercial license based solely on convention (and direct mailing) sales remains.
And this is the problem unique to Arcbeatle Press.
- When Titan Comics created these exclusive convention stories, it has long been common knowledge that they have the general continuing license for publishing Doctor Who comics.
- When Big Finish Productions posted free audios on its website, it has long been common knowledge that they have the general continuing license for producing Doctor Who audios.
- When BBC posts free stories online, it is common knowledge that they own the rights to Doctor Who.
- When Candy Jar Books distributed free stories, it was affirmed by them, Haisman Literary Estate and publicity in Doctor Who Magazine that they have the general continuing license for publishing Lethbridge-Stewart-related stories.
It only seems like no consideration was given to the copyright status of these stories. To prove that copyright vetting takes place (though, fortunately, rarely leads to visible actions) one should only remember how, shortly after the announcement of the current Doctor, Candy Jar Books distributed a story featuring the Thirteenth Doctor. Since it has also been common knowledge that Candy Jar Books do not have, in their own words, a permission to use the Doctor, the story was deleted from the wiki and remains in this state to this day.
It has been stated by the OP, "A commercial licence is definitely involved from the evidence that has been presented." Unfortunately, I see no evidence to support the existence of commercial license. The OP's claimed, "It is well-documented that Wylder has sold physical copies of these stories for profit at conventions and via direct mailing." But others struggled to confirm this. And, at the same time, as already explained above, it is quite common to sell merchandise through these channels without having a license. The releases available to the general public, the ones discussed in this thread, are not commercial. Let RingoRoadagain correct me again if I am wrong, but legal and ordinary distributors of Doctor Who merchandise have never sold any of these three stories. I personally know of exactly one place where it is explicitly claimed that a commercial license exists. And this claim is made by James Wylder, on his website.
- Amorkuz
AthenodoraKitten wrote:
Amorkuz wrote:
The answer is, "No, it is not."If you do not mind me asking, then—User:Amorkuz, what precisely are you saying here?
Are you accusing me of writing a rebuttal against what you never said or meant, that I made a straw man out of your arguments, and put words into your mouth? That I tried to derail this conversation, by going off-topic and discussed something that has never been said?
To answer your question, I am saying, precisely, I quote, "No, it is not". What you wrote does not represent my opinions.
And no, I am not accusing you of anything.
I, however, categorically state that no parts of AthenodoraKitten's posts except for direct quotes should be taken to represent my opinions. To state the obvious, my opinions are stated in my posts, whereas her posts represent her opinions (including her opinions of my opinions) and her opinions only.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: It has been stated by the OP, "A commercial licence is definitely involved from the evidence that has been presented." Unfortunately, I see no evidence to support the existence of commercial license.
Ah, so it's Rule 2 you're worried about? Hm. Well, several of the DWU authors said to have contributed these licenses to the short stories maintain fairly approachable online activities (Nate Bumber, for one, as we well know; Andrew Hickey has a frequently-updated blog; both the people involved in the licensing of The Gendar Conspiracy, at least, would be very easily contacted.).
It would be a trivial matter to get some of these people to confirm (on other platforms than Tardis, don't worry) that the licenses they gave were commercial ones. Would that suffice, or would we really need to go through all the relevant authors? I think three or so ought to be enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Wylder can be trusted when he says he obtained a license from X.
In fact, if we get Andrew Hickey or Jacob Black or something to confirm that as far as he knows all the DWU elements are commercially licensed, isn't that good enough? It'd be a trustworthy off-Wiki professional giving us the information.
I personally know of exactly one place where it is explicitly claimed that a commercial license exists. And this claim is made by James Wylder, on his website.
On the Arcbeatle Press website. It is one thing that Arcbeatle Press may not be a "publisher" by some legal definitions, but you cannot treat it and James Wylder as interchangeable. Whatever it is, Arcbeatle Press is a business of some sort. It employs people and stuff.
Also, not strictly an explicit mention of a commercial license, but the fact that Obverse's Facebook account gave the story promotion as "Faction Paradox crossover fiction" ought also to count for something regarding whether various FP elements were indeed licensed.
- Borisashton
I am disappointed to see that Amorkuz has again brought up the alleged personal attack towards him and my apparent show of bad faith. I had apologised for it and I thought that was the end of the matter, at least on this thread where the prime aim is to establish validity or invalidity and not disputes over Tardis:No personal attacks.
The 10,000 Dawns: The Book Club Collection mentioned by Borisashton and the preceding individual releases mentioned by Bwburke94 are not published commercially or in a commercial format. They are made available online for free. The rules cited support non-validity rather than validity.
This was the original quote that I was referring to and I don’t think an unreasonable interpretation of those words would be that the “rules” mentioned refer to Tardis:Valid sources and as such, you are stating that the information provided (namely the stories not being commercially released) supports non-validity. I apologise if that was misinterpreted but you did not bring it up then if it was.
Amorkuz wrote: At the risk of repeating myself, all releases currently proposed for validity are not commercial. (...) The html/pdf’s continue being available for free to this date. The commercial release of these stories is currently announced for 2020.
Amorkuz wrote: The argument I was allegedly promoting is along the lines of the story must be commercially released to be valid. However, I do not believe anyone, including me, suggested this line of reasoning. All I pointed out was that the releases whose validity is being debated are not commercial.
I am aware that this statement was clarifying a faulty statement from User:RingoRoadagain but both myself and User:Scrooge MacDuck thought that this was a point you were trying to admit as evidence into the debate. Even if this wasn’t the case, my reply only served to point out that T:VALID does not care about commercial releases and if this was not relevant to your point there was no reason to bring it up again on your part, but I hardly thought it wise to not comment on that part of the response on the off-chance you should bring it up again.
I assume by not mentioning Scrooge MacDuck you took offence to my use of the word "argument". According to Merriam-Webster, (which is not my "favourite", that was an assumption and a wrong assumption you had made about my posts. I am not American so why I would consider an American dictionary to be my favourite is beyond me. It was merely the first I came across when looking for a definition of "self publish" and once I had used Merriam-Webster once, what use would it have been to mix up dictionaries that potentially have slightly different definitions for the same word? The statement about it being my "favourite" was unnecessary and I would be lying if I said I was hurt by it but it certainly frustrated me. Anyway) one of the definitions of "argument" according to MW is:
A coherent set of reasons, statements, or facts, intended to support or establish a point of view.
As you said yourself, what you said is a fact and a fact that was used to establish the point of view (a position or perspective) of these stories not being commercial. So, really, what I was doing was exactly the same as what you were doing but you didn’t use exactly the same words as me.
In showing good faith, unlike Borisashton, and despite him doing it for the second time, I am not suggesting that he "actively manufactured" this faulty argument. (...) I am not claiming that putting "seem to" in front of a personal attack somehow turns it into something allowed, as if "you seem to be a bastard" were not considered an insult.
I have shown good faith and I find your apparent lack of it very troubling. I don’t know where you are getting the "second time" from, since I only mentioned the phrase once and then later in my apology, unless you want to claim my apology for potentially offending you was in itself a personal attack.
According to MW, "seem":
- To appear to the observation or understanding
- To give the impression of being
I don’t think that the obviously derogatory "you seem to be a bastard" and "you seem to be actively manufacturing..." is a fair comparison. If you call somebody a bastard it is pretty clearly an opinionated insult but I genuinely feel in the circumstances that a neutral onlooker could have interpreted your statements as purposely misleading, especially given the fact that what actually happened was so easily verifiable upthread. Now that you’ve elaborated and made clear it was not as it seemed I hope the matter can be concluded. Regardless, I'll be sure to be more careful (and explicit) with my reasoning in the future, as I'm sure we all could.
I have never intentionally personally attacked anyone on this thread and I have already reiterated my apology for any offence caused multiple times. It would be much more productive if I could actually address the points raised rather than having to defend myself repeatedly.
I would like an admin to investigate Amorkuz's repeated claims of my bad faith, just to get to the bottom of the issue so we can move on; as well as his statement that I make a "tradition" out of making "faulty arguments" in "debates", plural, both of which I find quite offensive.
- RingoRoadagain
I sincerely want to thank you for your answers: I did not know that the comics were republished. It probably needs to be reflected in the articles, so that would surely help me in doing so if nobody else does.
Sadly, I do not know more than what's in the OP.
Regarding the licensing, I personally assumed good faith on the part of Arcbeatle and took their statements at face value since it would otherwise appear to be actually illegal to make a commercial profit without the necessary licensing (ie selling fanfiction). Maybe I misunderstand the spirit of "Assume good faith" which is incorporated in some of this wiki rules ?
(I vaguely remember discussion in the old thread that some of the right holders actually confirmed that it was true so if someone can dig such statements I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated?)
EDIT: I did not see Scrooge's answer when typing this message so you can discard my last paragraph.
- Borisashton
Amorkuz wrote: It has been stated by the OP, "A commercial licence is definitely involved from the evidence that has been presented." Unfortunately, I see no evidence to support the existence of commercial license.
You noted yourself in the deleted thread that at least two of the license-holders Arcbeatle claimed to get permissions from loaned their concepts to Wylder for his stories. In addition, one of those people vouched that they had also gotten the necessary permissions from everyone. Is this enough evidence for the existence of a commercial license or would it be more preferable for the exact words "commercial license" to be used?
Before going into the actual decision, there are a couple of points to make regarding inclusion debates in general.
- There was a lot of complaining (especially in the original, now deleted, post) about the original admin decision to delete the pages in question. However, this decision was correct because the pages were created without an inclusion debate or at least asking an admin first. As stated by User:Amorkuz on User talk:Borisashton, "However, for stories from a new series and from a new source, which constitute a crossover with few individually owned elements of a non-licensed spin-off to Doctor Who and which shares no elements with Doctor Who proper, such discussion was quite pertinent." When in doubt, ask an admin first.
- Tardis:No personal attacks is not just about name calling. The main tenet is to assume good faith. That means there should be no comments attributing motives to other users - let them speak for themselves. And just to note in response to a post above, assuming good faith applies to editing on this wiki. When it comes to claims made in inclusion debates, sometimes investigation is necessary, and T:NO SELF REF applies.
- A lot of comments on this post have gone as such: "There's no rule/policy that says..." Please keep in mind, that's what these forums are for: this is one of the places where we actually establish rules.
Now for the actual decision. A lot of focus was put on Rule 2, but we seem to have gotten away from considering Rule 4. From the posts here, in the original post, and in the comments left by User:Amorkuz on User talk:Borisashton and User talk:NateBumber, there are a lot of confusing, contradictory, or ambiguous statements. Researching the material on the internet in general didn't help clarify anything. The clearest statement I found was on the author's website calling this "a whole new universe" and "a new science fiction universe".
There is one thing that few people properly addressed in their comments, and that's ok, because it's not something a non-admin needs to worry about. But we do have to consider how decisions regarding new situations will affect the wiki in the future. The confusing nature of the posting, selling, and licensing of these stories would allow too much of a loophole in the future for other stories.
As has been pointed out before, the large majority of readers/users on this site only care about Doctor Who. We do allow a very large percentage of other stories onto the wiki, but unfortunately sometimes we have to draw the line for those that are two or more times removed from the DWU.
I have to agree with the original three admins that these stories are not valid on this wiki. The nature of how these stories were published and distributed would just allow for too much abuse further down the line.
I would like to point out that there does exist a wiki for this series, at The 10,000 Wiki. I encourage everyone who enjoys these stories to visit it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:258570
A new version of the lost story Mission to the Unknown had been filmed by students at UCLAN, and made as close to the original as possible.
https://scifibulletin.com/2019/02/20/a-fresh-mission-to-the-unknown-filming/
We now have an official trailer put out by the Doctor Who YouTube channel, which I hope is enough to conclude licencing has been given.
- LegoK9
The full episode will be released on the Doctor Who YouTube channel in only 7 days, so I think this is an adequate time to reopen this discussion.
Being released by the BBC, I think this is as valid as the animated reconstructions of other missing episodes. Most of them were done by other studios contracted by the BBC. The trailer markets it as a "Lost classic recreated in 2019"
- Danniesen
I don't think they're gonna release the story on YouTube, buddy. That'd be pretty dumb on their part. Why would they do this different from the other releases?
- LegoK9
"Set to premiere on the Doctor Who Youtube Channel at exactly 5.50pm BST on Wednesday 9th October, the episode will feature modern voice of the Daleks, Nicholas Briggs, plus Peter Purves, who played First Doctor companion Steven Taylor." [30]
- Borisashton
User:LegoK9 is right. This thread violates Tardis:Spoiler policy and should be reopened at the time of release.
- Danniesen
At the old one Shambala said when we know if the production has proper licensing from the BBC it can be reopened. I think, but I'm not sure, that the trailer being put out by the Doctor Who YouTube channel concludes this. BTW, I don't think it does violate. Millions of times you people have said if it's about something already released (which Mission to the Unknown is, this just being a remake) then there is no violation.
- Danniesen
LegoK9 wrote: "Set to premiere on the Doctor Who Youtube Channel at exactly 5.50pm BST on Wednesday 9th October, the episode will feature modern voice of the Daleks, Nicholas Briggs, plus Peter Purves, who played First Doctor companion Steven Taylor." [31]
Okay, must have missed this entirely. But who is to say it won't be removed afterwards, just like with the Big Finish audio weekend.
- Borisashton
Danniesen wrote: At the old one Shambala said when we know if the production has proper licensing from the BBC it can be reopened.
Yes, she said that a thread would be necessary if it was ever licensed. That thread is now necessary but it does not mean the thread can violate policy. This thread violates both Tardis:Discussion policy and Tardis:Spoiler policy and should be closed immediately and reopened on 9 October at the earliest.
There is no discussion to be had at this time.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:259152
The Mission to the Unknown remake by University of Central Lancashire students has been released on the official Doctor Who YouTube channel, and is now open to an inclusion debate.
It fits the criteria of T:VS and is practically the same scenario as the animated reconstructions, so we should cover it on this wiki. Inspired by the animated reconstructions, Andrew Ireland was given permision by the BBC and the Terry Nation estate to make this project. [32]
With permission from the BBC and the Terry Nation estate to rereate Mission to the Unknown, preproduction went into full swing.
I propose we cover this new version as WC: Mission to the Unknown (webcast) to differentiate it from TV: Mission to the Unknown.
- Danniesen
I disagree. We don't cover the animations as different from the originals, why should we cover the UCLAN remake as different from the original? It was just released on YouTube first. It won't stay there forever. It'll undoubtedly be released as any other story on DVD/Blu-ray. Otherwise we should also cover the Big Finish showing during July as audio webcasts to differentiate from the audio releases.
- Danniesen
Off-topic, but I'll just put these here from the old and dead debate from months ago:
https://scifibulletin.com/2019/02/20/a-fresh-mission-to-the-unknown-filming/
- Scrooge MacDuck
I obviously support the proposal to consider this valid.
If anyone's worried about it possibly just being "a fanfilm that the BBC's decided to throw a bone to" (which would be noteworthy in BTS sections but perhaps not valid), let me also nip these worries in the bud: on the official making-of that was posted to the Doctor Who YouTube Channel immediately after the episode's live premiere ended, we see Nicholas Briggs explaining the origins of the project:
Andrew [Ireland] spoke to me about it years and years ago, but he asked if there was anyone at the BBC he should speak to or could speak to, and I put him in touch with someone…
From the very inception of the project, Ireland saw it as an endeavor that would be carried out in collaboration with the BBC, not a fanfilm of any kind.
And User:Danniesen, I also agree with LegoK9 that separate coverage (akin to Shada (webcast) vs. Shada (TV story), or, for that matter, to novelisations) is the right way to go.
Yes, the whole point is that the stories are exactly identical, even moreso than with the two Shadas, but consider what a logistical nightmare it would be trying to cover two sets of casts and crew on a single page.
You cite animated recons, and as a matter of fact I've long thought there might be something to covering animated recons on their own page too (it doesn't sit right with me that currently, the 1960's episode The Power of the Daleks is the first episode of Doctor Who to mention of Magpie Electricals, y'know?); but that would be a whole other debate. Consider, however, that for them, you can still argue they belong on the same page because it's restored from the same audio. Here, it isn't. Everything's new but the shooting script.
And here's another quote to support the position that this is best treated as a separate release:
The 2019 version of Mission to the Unknown was always intended to be viewed in black-and-white (…)
"The 2019 version" being the important bit. This is a "new version", not just a restoration job on a preexisting work. As, for that matter, does the existence of a documentary titled The Making Of Mission to the Unknown about the making of this webcast; would a feature about the Power of the Daleks animation be called The Making of The Power of the Daleks?
Just for the record, though, you do agree that this should be a valid source, whether we give it a separate page or not, yes?
On a whole other note, I think we ought to create a page about the 10-minute-long Making-Of itself, right? (This means we get to create a page about Josh Snares… Feels like Stuart Humphryes all over again, sans the questions of spelling.) The video spells its title The Making-Of Mission to the Unknown, but the title screen reads The Making of Mission to the Unknown, which shall we go with?
- LegoK9
Danniesen wrote:
We don't cover the animations as different from the originalsWell, maybe we should. Why should we cite Magpie Electricals being in TV: The Power of the Daleks? Wouldn't HOMEVID be more appropriate? But that's a different debate altogether, so I'm getting ahead of myself.
Anyway, all the versions of Shada give us a precedent for this.
Danniesen wrote:
It was just released on YouTube first. It won't stay there forever. It'll undoubtedly be released as any other story on DVD/Blu-ray."The Making-Of Mission to the Unknown" video says "Watch the full recreated episode here" with a link to the episode. Wouldn't make sense to put that in the video if they plan to remove it.
- Borisashton
I also concur that the story should be given a separate page. The cast and crew lists would be problematic on the 1965 page. Also, if we were to add images to the 1965 page we run the risk of misleading readers. Not a single frame exists of the original and unlike animation, it is not immediately obvious which version a screenshot came from to those not in the know.
In regard to the title of the making-of documentary, we usually go with the name on the title card.
- Borisashton
Getting into the details of the story, would we consider the abridged audio reprise from Galaxy 4 a pre-title sequence of sorts? I would say count it automatically but it comes before the official introduction by Edward de Souza.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think it might be more akin to a TV channel rerunning "best moments" of the last season the day the first episode of a new season debuts. I dunno. A note of it should be made somewhere either way, though, definitely.
- Danniesen
I just think it's totally ridiculous to cover the exact same story on a different page altogether. Nothing is different except for the cast who are also playing the same characters as the original 1965 cast. The Shada is a completely different matter mainly because the TV story is a Tom Baker story while the webcast is an animated Paul McGann story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Cough, cough, Shada (webcast) vs. Shada (audio story).
Also, novelisations. Surely you wouldn't have us cover a novelisation on the TV story's page even if there were no discrepancies whatsoever between the two? Even with the occasional differences that tend to crop up, the fact remains that through novelisations, we are very accustomed to the possibility that basically the same narrative information can be sourced to two works with the same title.
What matters then is the production side of things, and from a production point of view, Mission to the Unknown the webcast is a very different beast from Mission to the Unknown the TV story, in much the same way that even the most slavish novelisation has its own writer, editor, publisher, release date, etc.
- Danniesen
Not the same thing. Argue as much as you want, I just see something very different than you do. I stand by the statement that it's completely ridiculous to cover the exact same thing with not one single difference but the cast and crew on a second article. But, oh well, there is always something that some people don't agree with. And this here is then what I don't agree with.
- Liria10
I agree with the proposal to cover the new version in a new page, as I feel that having a different production crew, music, actors, and well, pretty much everything apart from the plot, seems notable enough to warrant its own page.
It is after all all new footage, and new costumes as well. I feel representing that on the 1965 page would be a disservice to both version, and wouldn't really be accurate, or, as User:Borisashton pointed out, even misleading to readers.
- Danniesen
Am I really the only one who see how much more insane it would be to cover it on a seperate page? Even more misleading.
And no, there wasn't any personal attack by calling IT insane. By no means did I apply the category on any of you.
- Danniesen
Just in case anyone try and hold that against me.
- LegoK9
Instead of reiterating that the idea "insane," please tell us why it is insane to cover it separately.
It's simple logistics to have a new page for an adaptation of a story with a different production crew, music, actors, release date, medium of release, and so forth. If we cite information (specifically screenshots visual information) of the webcast, we should cite WC: Mission to the Unknown (webcast), not the original TV story.
- Danniesen
Would you do the same thing to the animated reconstructions too. Using the same logic the only thing that is the same is the audio and the character animations.
- Danniesen
We could also change "Night of the Doctor" from TV story to webcast then.
- LegoK9
I made Thread:259163 to discuss that very possibilty.
- Scrooge MacDuck
What does "Night of the Doctor" have to do with anything? No changes were ever made to the story that I'm aware of.
- Liria10
I feel that while that's a worthwhile discussion, the 2019 Mission to the Unknown is different from those, and represents a bit of an unique discussion, being a live action recreation, produced under very different circumstances, and as it is, counts as adaptations, as much as the novelisations mentionned above by User:Scrooge MacDuck.
And considering that if a page is created, it would make it pretty clear that it is about a 2019 production, I think that would clear out any potential confusion.
- Danniesen
And I can only honest to God say, from where I stand, it works perfectly fine the way it is and I don't see the point in making it even more comfusing to guide around than it already is. I only see even more mislead coming from it than it would make it easier.
- LegoK9
Talk:The Night of the Doctor (TV story) ruled that BBC Red Button is TV.
- Danniesen
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: What does "Night of the Doctor" have to do with anything? No changes were ever made to the story that I'm aware of.
It was put out on YouTube, and I don't remember it ever airing on TV, making it a webcast, which is the same as the discussion we're doing here.
- Danniesen
I don't see how making any of these changes would make anything any easier. All I see is that it would be much much much more difficult and misleading and confusing.
- Danniesen
LegoK9 wrote: Talk:The Night of the Doctor (TV story) ruled that BBC Red Button is TV.
Fair enough. It's TV. :)
- Scrooge MacDuck
As LegoK9 explained, it was actually aired on TV via the Red Button feature, which counts as television.
- Borisashton
I don't see how having a separate page for the 2019 version would be more misleading than attributing screenshots from the 2019 version to the 1965 one. Infoboxes have the "adapted into" and "adapted from" variables and the two versions would be linked to each other in their leads which would explain the situation as well if anybody is confused about a webcast remake of a 1965 story. What part of that is confusing or misleading?
- Chubby Potato
As I see it, this is a re-telling of the same story, but with different actors. The narrative is exactly the same, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same episode. This new version had a completely different production. The difference between this and an animated remake such as The Power of the Daleks or Shada (referring to the Fourth Doctor animation) is that nothing from the original production was used (e.g. the audio in this case). It is not an attempt to "fix" a missing story from its remains but to recreate it entirely. So, I believe this remake should have its own page. I also think having a separate page would be less confusing, because otherwise it could seem the two versions are exactly the same in all ways. Plus, there are a LOT of new people who worked on the 2019 version that need to be credited in either case, and it would be confusing to have two actors for the same character on the page for a single episode.
- Danniesen
But what do we do about the summary and the plot bits. They are exactly the same, so do we copy those bits to the new page or do we rewrite it entirely?
- Danniesen
References and possibly story notes too...
- SteamMoose
The story notes would certainly be very differents, though.
- Chubby Potato
Well, that argument could be made for stories that already have separate pages on the wiki. Admittedly, I don’t know of any stories that are exactly identical in plot, but I do know of some that are the same with some additions.
One example of this is the aforementioned Shada. From what I understand, the audio is the same as the webcast but with additional scenes. Another pair of stories I have read are The Death Pit and The Drosten's Curse. The first portion The Drosten's Curse is taken nearly verbatim from The Death Pit. Obviously these stories are going to have separate pages, but if the plot is the same... then it is. One idea I have for this case is to redirect the plot section of the 2019 page to the 1965 page.
- Borisashton
Novelisations of TV stories omit plot sections entirely so that's another idea.
- Danniesen
What would be great is if an admin would offer some opinions too. It would greatly help.
- NateBumber
Borisashton wrote: Novelisations of TV stories omit plot sections entirely so that's another idea.
I really do think there should be a standardized format for "adaptation" pages. It seems to me that animated reconstructions are just as much an adaptation of the original story as the novelisations are, and giving them a "Deviations from the original story" section (as seen on novelisation pages and audio adaptations like Cold Fusion) would be very helpful. The constellation of Shada pages provides a (messy) template here.
In any case, based on some reference I'd read on this wiki to Magpie Electricals, I quite genuinely believed it had originated in The Power of the Daleks and was subsequently referenced in NuWho. So cheers everyone for clearing that up!
- Chubby Potato
In a similar vein, it’s worth mentioning the animated version of The Invasion has a note somewhere reading “Bad Wolf” which obviously was not in the original story. This of course has certain connotations if we actually consider it; right now it’s seen as a BTS detail. But, as far as I know, the new Mission to the Unknown has no differences that are worth noting.
- Borisashton
The new Mission to the Unknown had no differences per se but I did notice de Souza's fluff of "Special Security Service" instead of "Space Security Service" remained. Obviously, since the webcast was a conscious effort to be as faithful to the original as possible this can no longer be considered a production error but rather a production choice not to correct it. I'm not sure if we should consider the alternate name valid in this situation as we don't usually cover production errors but it was not a production error for the new version.
- Danniesen
What you just notified about an original line-fluff being consciously repeated in the new version, is definitely not a "plot"-worthy thing, but should be noted as a "conscious choice repeat" (or something like that) in the "story notes"-section.
- Danniesen
One of the reasons being that the organisation is called "Space Security Service" and "Special Security Service" is neither an alternate name nor an entirely new organisation. The fluff was consciously repeated namely to be as faithful to the original as possible, not an effort to create something new that didn't already exist.
- Danniesen
If there are indeed production errors in the new version, it will be a completely new set of them.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I could be wrong, but I don't think line fluffs are considered "production error", because we never know for sure if it was a fluff or a genuine acting choice. It is a perfectly valid fact that the First Doctor fumbles his words sometimes. Similarly, it is perfectly plausible that, in a stressful situation, a slip of the tongue might cause Marc Cory to say Special Security Service. Doesn't mean it's a valid alternate name.
- Danniesen
Oh, it is by no means a valid alternate name whatsoever. It is clearly a slip in any case. The fact that the new version adds it intentionally does not make it an alternate name, but a case of being faithful to original.
- Shambala108
Not weighing in on whether we should cover this, but some of these issues have been covered at Thread:211198.
- Danniesen
This goes along with my original statement that it should not have a different page from the original.
- Liria10
I believe having a separate page, to cover the new production details, and especially the notes about the line fluff being intentional this time, would be enough information to warrant a new page. As for the plot and summary, well, keeping the same as the ones on the page for the 1965 version would work well enough I think?
I agree with User:NateBumber above that having a standardized format for adaptations would be a good idea, especially as there's quite a few new animations to come, and it would be helpful to deal with pages such as the one discussed her.
- Danniesen
But that is the problem. It is not something new being made. It's a re-creation of something we already had but lost with time.
And stuff like the different Shada adaptions are not recreations of something we had but lost, nor is it a copy-cat of something existing, but each are their own seperate things.
- Danniesen
Recreation video by Josh Snares:
<video redacted by admin>
- Schreibenheimer
Put me in the camp "voting" for the recreation to have its own page. Unlike the animations, having an entirely different cast is the biggest deciding factor for me. It just seems cleaner to have them separate.
- AeD
I agree -- though it goes to great lengths to recreate it faithfully, the UCLan Mission has a script, but not a pixel or decibel, in common with the original. It's as distinct a production to Mission to the Unknown as the Shada novel is to the new Shada animation.
- Danniesen
Why not just create it then? You all seem to be in agreement.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Because once a thread has been started about something, it is my understanding that changes to that something can only be performed once the thread is closed by an administrator following procedure — even when by all appearances consensus seems already to have been reached.
- Shambala108
User:Danniesen please do not mislead new users by implying that it's ok and/or routine for actions to be taken before an admin has closed a thread thanks.
- OttselSpy25
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me everyone in this thread seems to agree that this story is valid, but there's simply disagreement over if it should have a seperate page or should be added to TV: Mission to the Unknown (TV story) as simply another version of the TV story that exists (similar to discussions which were had when TV: Shada (TV story) was finally finished).
So, unless I'm incorrect, surely this means that the Inclusion Debates aren't where this thread really belongs?
- Schreibenheimer
I would agree with that assessment.
- Danniesen
Possibly... but as I see it, the discussion is already going, so starting it up in a different section would be pointless in my opinion.
- Danniesen
You could also turn it this way:
The "inclusion debates" are for inclusions, and the discussion is on whether to include it on the existing page or include a seperate page on the story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
In point of fact, the comparison to Shada is salient: the final Shada thread (Thread:226169), due to the specific circumstances, covered not only the matter of whether to include some of the various versions of Shada, but also how we would in practical terms include them. It seems an "inclusion debate" can, by precedent, cover the "how" of the inclusion as well as the "whether". Which seems tidier to me than to spread it out over a scattered bunch of discussions.
- OttselSpy25
Fair, fair.
Personally, I've always felt is was best to cover animated/reconstructed stories on separate pages from the originals. But this has no precedent, so I think it's fine to expand the original to reference this as a reconstructed version. To me, it certainly seems like this was made because of how unlikely an animated version is, so it's basically the same category of content.
- Danniesen
So... does this warrant a new page, or do we just update the existing page?
- Schreibenheimer
I don't believe anyone's opinions have changed. Does anyone have anything new to add to the discussion, or is it time for an admin to make a decision?
- Bwburke94
I don't think it wise to call admins in just yet. Aren't we still discussing which page to put it on?
- Danniesen
That's exactly what we're asking...
- Bwburke94
I support a new page, by the way. It's a sufficiently new version of the story.
- Schreibenheimer
We've laid out our arguments in regard to that issue. Unless I missed something, the only users who have posted in this thread who have not stated support for creating a new page are:
- Danniesen, who seems to be the only one explicitly against a separate page
- SteamMoose, who made a point that supported a separate page but never explicitly stated their overall opinion
- Shambala108, who declined to weigh in, but provided a link that suggested they could be considered the same as special editions, which do not get their own page
- OttselSpy25, who kind of expressed support, but seemed hesitant about setting precedent
- You, Bwburke94, who just joined, but have not expressed an opinion one way or another
In my mind, the arguments have been made pretty thoroughly. Yes, Danniesen has given no indication of changing their mind, but it's fine for people to disagree. Shambala108 has implied a comparison to special edition DVDs, but we have pointed out that this differs from Special Editions in having entirely different cast, crew, music, etc. Also, as Scrooge pointed out, there is precedent for having separate pages for the same story with novelizations; it's just a question of where we draw the line between deserving separate pages and not.
In summary, I believe that there is little more to add to this discussion. I could be wrong, though, which is why I asked if anyone had anything new to add.
- OttselSpy25
I think I'll go ahead and say I support a new page. The difference between this and Shada is that Shada had never been finished before, thus the DVD was the only real version of the story ever made. The YouTube version is more like a novelization or an audio adaptation, it should be covered differently. I would say, like novelizations, we should still mostly link to the original story, but photos of course would be from this version.
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, that all makes sense to me. For the record, I would draw the line pretty much right after this page. While I would theoretically support separate pages for animations (based on having a separate "crew" from the original) if they were all complete stories, the fact that some of them are partial animations (due to only some of the episodes being missing) is the deciding factor for me. I don't feel the need for separate pages for partial stories. It's a pretty thin line, but that's where I'd draw it.
So, back on-topic, does anyone have any new arguments that have not been previously stated?
- Shambala108
I would like to see a source stating that the BBC actually has licensed this thing, not just that it appears on their official Youtube channel. I quote from Tardis:Valid sources concerning rule 2:
- "Note that the BBC do sometimes issue what they call 'creative licenses', which allow fans to make things that have the 'approval' of the BBC, but which cannot be sold. Such things are not covered by this wiki in any way."
Since this was supposedly made by fans, we need due diligence to make sure it follows rule 2. Any information or statement by the BBC would be helpful thanks.
- Schreibenheimer
You know, that could be a deciding factor, because it seems borderline. All I found (in admittedly only a few minutes' search) was this statement: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/36e9525b-1e11-4acb-b39d-247189c77142.
It states that BBC Studios is premiering the production, but, since it's on YouTube and isn't necessarily monetized, does that count as being "licensed"?
- LegoK9
Shambala108 wrote: Any information or statement by the BBC would be helpful thanks.
I'm sorry, but if we cannot trust the BBC Studios's Doctor Who YouTube channel saying they got approval from BBC and the Terry Nation estate, who can we trust at the BBC? Why would the narrator on a BBC Studios video lie about UCLan having the permision of the BBC and the Terry Nation estate?
Supposedly made by fans? Supposedly what? That it was made? That they are fans? It was made and they are fans; those facts have never been in dispute.
This production of Mission to the Unknown was posted on BBC Studios's Doctor Who YouTube channel. It is not being sold by anyone at UCLan, so that is moot.
- Bwburke94
Are the BBC a relevant copyright holder for videos hosted on their own YouTube channel?
- Shambala108
User:LegoK9, please re-read the part of rule 2 I quoted, and it should answer your questions.
User:Schreibenheimer, thanks for that info, it's a start.
User:Bwburke94 that's a good question. Just because they're hosting it, does that mean they're licensing it? That's what we need to know.
- LegoK9
https://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/lost-episode.php
- UCLan Pro Vice-Chancellor (Digital and Creative Industries) Dr Andrew Ireland directed and produced the episode after being given special permission from the BBC and the Terry Nation Estate, which holds the Rights to the Daleks.
- The UCLan team treated the BBC as the client for the project and that set a high professional bar for the cast and crew to aspire to.
- Dr Ireland added: “We will give the BBC a copy of the episode and hopefully one day it may become available for people to see. Who knows? To achieve what we have in the time we had is a massive achievement and I want to thank everyone involved for all their efforts.”
- Schreibenheimer
One aspect I just thought to check: turned off my adblocker for once and went to the YouTube video, and there were ads, so apparently BBC is willing to monetize it, for what that's worth.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Josh Snares also reported he was hired by the BBC to create the making-of documentary they released on the YouTube Channel immediately alongside Mission. Not "given a creative license to do it on his own accord" — hired. Would the Beeb go about hiring people to make documentaries about things they didn't fully license?
- SteamMoose
Oh, I realise I didn't state my opinion when I commented about the story notes. I think the fact that only the story-related content is the same supports the creation of a new page, since everything else is different.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:260108
Found this debate for The Lucy Wilson Collection: School Children on Talk:The Lucy Wilson Collection: School Children:
(beginning of talk page discussion)
Wait, why’s this invalid? Which of the four little rules does it fail? – N8 ☎ 03:29, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
- The tag was placed by user:Revanvolatrelundar back in December. My guess would be this was done because this looks a lot like a charity publication. That said, it only features original characters created and owned by Candy Jar and/or the writers involved, as far as I'm aware. So it's not an unlicensed work. And we do consider Death Is the Only Answer to be valid, by the Children of Oakley Junior School, and even Good as Gold, by the Children of Ashdene School.
× SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•] 💬•| {/-//: 04:22, August 11, 2019 (UTC)- I'm not sure about the status of this particular one, but remember that Thread:199045 and Thread:240280 saw the admins establish (though I don't personally agree with this decision) that there are stories that don't use any elements not owned by their authors, yet are still considered "charity works" by Tardis.
- That being said, that is no excuse for this being invalid per se. Stories deemed pure charity works by Tardis aren't usually covered at all, Dimensions in Time (TV story) being the only counter-example of which I am aware, where the lack of proper licensing means we don't cover it, but we nevertheless have a page about it.
- All that said it doesn't look much like a charity publication to me. It's not actually promoting any charity — nor are the profits from it given to one, because there aren't any: School Children was a free promotional giveaway — it just happens to have been written by kids, and have been released for free as a publicity stunt of sorts. Both situations are represented among stories which precedent deems valid (i.e. Death Is the Only Answer was written by children; and, of course, most every prequel, The Night of the Doctor included, was released for free on the Internet). So in the absence of evidence that this is a "charity publication" in any concrete sense, I see no argument against this anthology's validity.
- Assuming we do continue to cover it (where as valid or as invalid), though, is there any reason the individual short stories shouldn't get pages? The titles aren't links (red or otherwise) at all at the moment. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 08:29, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
- I unredlinked them (and just made up a new word) because I think caution is needed here when we have works written by school children. This probably needs a discussion on the forums so we can make sure everything is done correctly. Shambala108 ☎ 12:02, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
- I placed the tag because all the stories contained within aren't written to fit with continuity. From the top of my head some of the stories end with Lucy and Hobo shrunk or meeting certain doom. Certainly nothing that stands up as a credible story - they are written by school children, after all. --Revan\Talk 12:04, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
(end of talk page discussion)
A few notes:
- I did some research on this one and couldn't find any indication (yes or no) whether it is a charity publication.
- It was written by school children, but unlike the other stories cited above, we actually have the names of the children, so we should be careful how we create any pages for them.
- I'm not sure I understand the reason given by User:Revanvolatrelundar for declaring this invalid. There seems to be some kind of issue with the narrative?
Anyway, I would welcome some input from anyone who knows anything about this collection.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Having read the book: what Revan is saying that these stories are written by children and it shows. Not in the writing, which is perfectly decent, but in the strangeness of some of the plots, and especially the matter-of-fact, fast-paced way in which these fantastical elements are introduced. The Robot Invasion, for example, begins with the fact that all the teachers at Lucy and Hobo's school have been replaced by robot duplicates, without taking any time to establish this, and doesn't stop to wonder where these robots came from or precisely what their motivations are.
That being said, the lack of context for adventures is nothing we haven't seen with Give-a-Show Projector stories, and the somewhat childish concepts and resolutions is familiar to anyone who's read the First Doctor TV Comics. We'd have no trouble covering all this on the Wiki if we wanted to, is my point.
Revan mentions stories ending on cliffhangers. So what? Are we going to make Sleep No More invalid next? And that's not the case of all of the stories. Here are the only ones with an ending that seems to go against established continuity:
- Gone: Hobo has apparently drowned.
- Assessment Day: Lucy and Hobo are on the run from a corrupt government, with the world devastated by an alien invasion.
- Just Shrink: The one Revan mentioned which ends with Lucy having gotten shrunk to doll-size as its ironic Twillight Zone-size ending.
But Peardrop, The Robot Invasion and The Mystery of the Cyber Teachers are perfectly alright and don't go against any kind of continuity.
Not, of course, that this should matter. We judge validity on whether the authors intend for their stories to slot into DWU continuity, not on whether we think they work as part of a unified DW timeline. Revan does say “all the stories contained within aren't written to fit with continuity”, but this is frankly baseless speculation about the intent of the various writers.
It may be that Gene Turner's Gone is more a what-if, focusing as it does on the death of Hobo Kostinen. Perhaps the same can be said of Assessment Day ("what if Lucy and Hobo were runaways after the end of the world?"). But I see no reason whatsoever to think the rest of the stories were not intended to take place in the DWU.
The stories being all by different authors, and narratively unconnected to one another, I think such Rule 4 concerns should be handled regarding the individual stories (which definitely should get individual pages, even the couple we might or might not eventually deem invalid).
There is no evidence whatsoever in the book itself that it's a charity release, at any rate.
- Shambala108
For now we are not going to redlink the children's names until we've decided what we're doing with this series.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Fair enough. It was really more of a reflex.
- Shambala108
I'm about ready to call this series valid, since User:Revanvolatrelundar's only reason for classing it invalid was the lack of continuity in the stories. That has never determined validity on this wiki (or it would by a really tiny wiki), so unless someone has information about the licensing of this series or if it's a charity publication, I will soon be closing this as valid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:260129
So... as you perhaps have noticed, channels have been created on YouTube on September the 17th by the BBC which focus on each spin-off (not counting "K•9 and Company" and "K•9"). My question is this: can those Youtube channels be used for video recommendations as well as "BBC", "BBC Studios", "Doctor Who: The Fan Show", "BBC America", "bigfinishprod" and "Doctor Who"?
The channels can be found here: Torchwood: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8EY2Nlow8wdUMCBucHEaOg
The Sarah Jane Adventures: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyR7dNvcTYL1kmjnHghr0CQ
Class: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0N8K6RO_fu4VcXbGdQBNyQ
- Danniesen
Follow-up question:
Should these YouTube channels have their own seperate pages on the Wikia?
- Danniesen
Anyone??
- AeD
I don't immediately see any proof that these are official -- if you can back that up in some way, I don't see any reason why these shouldn't be considered equal in every way to those other channels.
As for coverage on this wiki, I dunno that there's anything there to cover? All they seem to do is post clips of pre-existing material.
- Danniesen
Answer to the first part:
If you look at the Doctor Who channel under the section "Channels" (or whatever it's called in the English version), you'll see that these are all shared.
Answer: to the second part: That is the purpose of covering videos from those channels. We add the videos from the official channels to the Wikia (admins do).
- OncomingStorm12th
Seems pretty open-and-shut to me - in the "about" section, the description text follows the exact same format as the "Doctor Who" channel and - more cmompelling evidence imo - all three of these are listed under "featured channels" of the Doctor Who channel.
Plus, Big Finish have shared links to those channels (here, for example) - I hardly believe a company who works under a BBC license would promote an unnoficial YouTube channel.
As for coverage on the wiki..... I don't understandy how, and most importantly why we would try to make a page for each of these channels - they would litteraly be a table of videos, with a link to the official channel n the end of the page.... where people would see all of the videos. Obviously they should at some point be added to the wiki (by admins, of course) but any "coverage" beyond that is ludicrous imo
- Danniesen
Aaahhh, I misunderstood what AeD meant by "coverage"... I thought the question was upon why we should cover the videos, not an article. That's my bad.
- Scrooge MacDuck
On the other hand, come to think of it, shouldn't we have a page about the Doctor Who YouTube Channel and Big Finish YouTube Channel, if none else? They were the medium for the release of a number of webcasts about which we have pages; why should we have pages about TV channels but not online ones? This would also be the page to give some sort of coverage to the specially-shot "Don't forget to subscribe" clips. Obviously invalid for many many reasons, but surely the one use of the Face of Boe in the Moffat era should be noted somewhere on the Wiki.
- AeD
Yeah, that's what I meant -- sans substantial new material of any kind, I don't think there's value in [[Torchwood YouTube channel]] etc., though Scrooge MacDuck is right, coverage of at least those other two seems more than right to me.
- Danniesen
So, I guess it's alright to use them as recommendations for videos in Tardis:Video recommendations?
- Danniesen
Alternatively, we could create one single page that contains information about all the YouTube channels specifically connected to the DWU. :) Not adding videos, of course, just information on them.
- Danniesen
Already now all 3 channels have a bunch of videos that could be added to the corresponding pages. :)
- Danniesen
Has this debate been concluded, or does anyone have any arguments against the use of the channels?
- Danniesen
What's the conclusion? Can we use these channels?
- Bwburke94
I don't believe we've reached a conclusion yet.
- Danniesen
That's why I'm asking.
- Danniesen
What do people think here?
- Scrooge MacDuck
On the general matter of whether videos from these channels can be uploaded to the Wiki, I don't think there has been a single voice or argument against. The question that remains is that of a creation of a page for the YouTube channels under discussion, or possible for "official YouTube channels" as a whole.
- Danniesen
I know there hasn't been someone against it. But I know if I begin adding videos from these channels on the "video recommendations" area, I will most likely be told not to and that a solution hasn't been reached.
- Scrooge MacDuck
For what it's worth, Meet Christel is an example of a page where we already have a video not from the Official Doctor Who YouTube Channel, but rather from an unquestionably official spin-off thereof, namely the short-lived The Fan Show YouTube Channel. That video has been on the Wiki for years, unquestioned.
- Danniesen
Yeah, but that is a long time ago and was agreed on was an official channel. These 3 are new channels and most likely has to be agreed on to be used.
- Danniesen
All I hope to get out of this is a statement from one of the admins that they can be used on the Wiki equally to the others I mentioned above.
- 90.253.57.9
Closing thread: the Youtube channels mentioned in this thread are now deemed valid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:260549
Thread:258247, the previous discussion on the validity of Rachel Survived, White Canvas and The Gendar Conspiracy, was closed recently. However, I believe there is crucial evidence that was not discussed in the two previous forum threads that supports the validity of these three stories, and a fourth. I will centre this post around the points raised in User:Shambala108's final judgement as that represents the actual decision reached.
Undoubtedly the largest change in the status quo since the conclusion of the last debate is the fact that a new story featuring Doctor Who characters has been released Arcbeatle, namely Life After Death by Michael Robertson. Unlike the other three, Life After Death was released as episode five of the spin-off Lady Aesculapius: Series 1. Coloth from the 1998 Short Trips story War Crimes appears and Auteur is mentioned, both of whom had previously crossed over in White Canvas. It seems to be a similar situation to the other three crossover stories. It can be read for free here. Despite the fact it is episode five of the series, the story itself is self-contained and makes sense on its own.
We seem to have gotten away from considering Rule 4. From the posts here, in the original post, and in the comments left by User:Amorkuz on User talk:Borisashton and User talk:NateBumber, there are a lot of confusing, contradictory, or ambiguous statements. Researching the material on the internet in general didn't help clarify anything. The clearest statement I found was on the author's website calling this "a whole new universe" and "a new science fiction universe".
Just to remind everyone of the points regarding rule 4 that were raised in the debate I will repost that section of the OP now:
Borisashton wrote: Rule 4: "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it’s probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination."
The second part of this rule is not relevant, as this is the community discussion in question, but I left the full rule in to ensure clarity regarding the "probably" clause.
Harkening back to the rule 2 argument, one struggles to imagine why Wylder would go to such an effort to get permissions for characters and concepts from the DWU only to set the stories outside of it, but let’s look at the evidence. These three stories have very clearly been established as crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and Faction Paradox and/or Doctor Who. Once again, it has been well-established (see Assimilation²) that we only cover the crossovers which is why this debate is only focused on these three stories.
In its 2017 release, Rachel Survived is described as “a 20th anniversary crossover”, and as being the product of “[getting] permission from a Faction Paradox author to write a story crossing over a character from his novel [Head of State] with the universe-hopping heroes of [Wylder’s] 10,000 Dawns book series”.
In its 2018 release, White Canvas is described as a “licensed crossover between the 10,000 Dawns, and characters from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox”. It features concepts and characters from the Virgin New Adventures, BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures, and Short Trips. Additionally, it is said that the novella “acts as something of a prequel to a few of the stories” in Obverse Books' The Book of the Peace, and at the time of its original release Obverse itself acknowledged the story as “some Faction Paradox crossover fiction”. The intention of its DWU setting doesn’t come much clearer than that.
In its March 2019 release, The Gendar Conspiracy is described as “a prequel to [Wylder’s] novella White Canvas” and “like Rachel Survived and White Canvas, [is] a licenced crossover, pulling characters and settings from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox”.
Finally, in the anthology release of August 2019, the release of the three stories and their relation to the DWU is described as follows: “In 2017, Arcbeatle Press put out the first of our beloved licensed crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and the Universes of Doctor Who titled Rachel Survived. Since then, we went on to put out two more stories…”.
In every iteration of their releases, these three stories have unambiguously been described as crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and the DWU. So in regard to rule 4, the three stories clearly pass.
It is my belief that rule 4 wasn’t discussed as much as rule 2 because the consensus was that most people agreed with the interpretation above.
As outlined above this repeated claim that these three stories are crossovers with Doctor Who is hardly ambiguous, contradictory, or confusing. Instead, it is clear in every iteration of the stories' release that the three stories are crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and Doctor Who and Faction Paradox.
In this tweet, posted in order to familiarise readers of Life After Death with the other characters that the titular Lady Aesculapius had met, states “You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here”. Any reading of that that isn’t these stories were intended to be set within the DWU is frankly a stretch.
The quotes of “a whole new universe” and “a new science fiction universe” are some great quotes but I don’t think they accurately represent Rachel Survived, White Canvas and The Gendar Conspiracy because Shambala is one hundred per cent correct in asserting that the series that these quotes refer to, namely 10,000 Dawns, is invalid. There has never been any question about that fact. Instead, just these three crossover stories are the focus of the debate.
The quotes come from here, which is a summary of the non-DWU 10,000 Dawns as a whole. “A new science fiction universe” is in response to the statement “10,000 Dawns is:”. Additionally, a more complete version of the other quote is “10,000 Dawns isn't just this story though, this is the start of a whole new universe” which is clearly stating that the single piece of 10,000 Dawns literature that had been released at the time is its own thing rather than deciding to set it in the universe of H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds, for example. It is also worth noting that at this point 10,000 Dawns had absolutely no official affiliation with Doctor Who whatsoever. Would we invalidate 2012's Assimilation² because an interview from 1987 said that Star Trek: The Next Generation was in a distinct universe from Doctor Who? Of course not, because precedent suggests we cover the crossover and nothing else which is what is proposed. A very poignant fact that I surprisingly could not find mentioned in either of the two threads was that the titular 10,000 Dawns is a multiverse of ten thousand universes that exist independent of N-Space and characters from the Dawns sometimes leaves their realities to visit the Doctor’s universe. This means the comments about Dawns being a new universe hold up even within the crossovers.
In the judgement, there were also some concerns regarding rules 2 and 3:
We do have to consider how decisions regarding new situations will affect the wiki in the future. The confusing nature of the posting, selling, and licensing of these stories would allow too much of a loophole in the future for other stories.
[...]
The nature of how these stories were published and distributed would just allow for too much abuse further down the line.
I just don’t see it. It’s not that hard to understand. T:OFF REL dictates that the official release date is the date set by the publisher, in this case Arcbeatle Press. This means that the releases that should be covered by the wiki are located here, here, here and here. The first three stories were then collected in an anthology here. I hope this clears up any confusion about the posting of these stories.
At the time of these releases, the stories were free and not available physically. A post on Arcbeatle's blog in July 2018 confirmed that at least Rachel Survived was available physically at a cost via Patreon. The Patreon terms of use prohibit creations or benefits that use others’ intellectual properties so we can be sure on that front that these stories were properly licensed. This is not strictly relevant as the proposal to cover the original releases that are available online for free does not extend to the physical editions which were published later. A small note on the pages (if anything) would suffice in regard to this wiki covering the physical editions. To clarify, T:VALID does not preclude stories published online or stories published for free. I hope this clears up any confusion of the selling of these stories.
What precisely the loophole and abuse the coverage of this story could cause has now been helpfully elaborated upon:
My main concern came from comments (or quotes) by the author regarding other people using his licensed characters. This was mostly mentioned in the original post, so we don't have a record for it, but that was my concern, that the freedom with this licensing would lead to later abuse.
Once again, I’ll repost a section from the OP of the previous debate to outline why these concerns are had unnecessarily.
Borisashton wrote: One of the concerns raised in the original thread weren’t directly related to any of these rules about validity, but rather concerned Wylder’s tweet saying that he would be willing to let “any other folks writing officially licensed Whoniverse works (that is, not fanworks)” borrow the 10,000 Dawns characters for their own writing. This led to a tangent in which it was claimed that the validity of these three crossover stories would lead to “anyone” being able to publish works in the DWU that the wiki would have to cover. This is not true, as the tweet clearly only opens the request to those who are writing stories already set in the DWU; furthermore, even if it was open to anyone it specifically concerns Wylder’s 10,000 Dawns characters, and as per the analogy to Assimilation², non-DWU related 10,000 Dawns stories are of no concern to our wiki.
This tangent also led to a discussion about how people like Gareth Roberts, who have been accused of posting trans-misogynistic posts online, could take advantage of Wylder’s offer to force the wiki to cover transphobic slurs. Most posters in the last thread seemed to agree that this had nothing to do with the matter at hand, as policy dictates we “do not consider the quality of the narrative” when deciding validity; we already have an (albeit obscured) page for the n-word without purging everything relating to The Celestial Toymaker from the wiki.
Just to add to that last point, there is precedent of FANDOM intervening if these hypothetical slurs made it onto the wiki. The pages for N*gger and F*ck buddy were both censored as per FANDOM’s request that they better comply with the terms of use. The conversation at Talk:Penis#Image also saw FANDOM intervene and disallow the image in question from Zygon: When Being You Just Isn’t Enough as it was in violation of the terms of use. I’m sure if FANDOM didn’t intervene, a community discussion would be in favour of purging any hypothetical slurs from this hypothetical book if this unlikely scenario were to ever occur.
Finally, I’d just like to address this statement:
As has been pointed out before, the large majority of readers/users on this site only care about Doctor Who. We do allow a very large percentage of other stories onto the wiki, but unfortunately sometimes we have to draw the line for those that are two or more times removed from the DWU.
As has been pointed out by User:NateBumber at User talk:Shambala108#10,000 Dawns thread closure clarification, I struggle to see how these three stories are two or more times removed from the DWU. White Canvas features Miranda Dawkins, the Doctor’s own daughter. I think if we exclude White Canvas on the basis of it being too far away from the DWU we need to reconsider a great deal of spin-off media, probably ranging in the hundreds of pages that will need to be deleted from the wiki.
I hope we can now rediscuss this matter on a more informed basis.
(Again, just a reminder that as per Thread:256955 anyone professionally involved with Arcbeatle Press should refrain from joining this thread.)
- Bwburke94
And so it begins again.
It's important to not get ahead of ourselves, and not to assume anyone meant something they didn't say. Especially where James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press are concerned; both sides in the deleted first thread were citing different things Wylder said, without considering what he meant.
I'll once again start by supporting these stories' validity, as I did the last two times. If some evidence comes out that they might not pass our rules, things may change; I sincerely hope those who argued against validity last time would change their own opinions in the reverse case.
- Borisashton
I concur that full context and attribution is vital information to be included in quotes. I also share in your willingness to switch my point of view if new evidence comes to light. In addition, I have notified both User:Shambala108 and User:Amorkuz of the existence of this thread and that their input would be appreciated considering their involvement in the previous debates.
- AeD
My opinion in previous threads has consistently been that these are obviously valid -- the addition of Life After Death only confirms this stance. Every bar has been either neatly or more than thoroughly met.
Borisashton gets at a good point at the end of the opening post here, though: If Miranda Dawkins, a companion and adopted daughter of the Eighth Doctor, is in White Canvas, then surely excluding these stories would be a much, much more severe slippery slope, leading to the exclusion of hundreds upon hundreds of currently considered-valid stories, than the inclusion of these stories would be?
- Borisashton
It's been over a week. Does anybody have any new evidence they wish to give or can an admin rule on this soon?
- GordoB95
Seems like a cut and dry case.
- Doug86
I also still think these stories are valid.
- Borisashton
Doug86 wrote: I also still think these stories are valid.
Just to clarify, is that your opinion as a participant of the debate or your verdict on the validity of the stories as a closing admin?
- Doug86
Borisashton wrote:
Doug86 wrote: I also still think these stories are valid.
Just to clarify, is that your opinion as a participant of the debate or your verdict on the validity of the stories as a closing admin?
Both.
- Borisashton
I see. Shouldn't you officially close the thread so no one else can comment on it then?
- Shambala108
User:Borisashton, stop trying to tell admins how to do their jobs.
Since this thread aims to overturn a recently closed thread (potentially violating Tardis:You are bound by current policy and potentially starting a precedent where someone can re-open any debate with whose closure they don't agree), closing arguments have to be especially convincing.
- Borisashton
What? In no way was I trying to tell admins how to do their jobs. I was merely concerned that if the thread was still open to comments I would be technically violating T:BOUND even though a judgement had been given.
I'm not sure about any potential precedents of which you speak that could be set since it is my understanding that forum threads that don't contain any new evidence than that of previous threads are very quickly closed whereas this thread has given a bunch of new evidence.
- Schreibenheimer
Yes, that seems like an aggressive response to what looks like a misunderstanding. Borisashton asked Doug86 if his support was the closing opinion of an admin, and they said yes, but did not close the thread. It seems like a perfectly natural thing to ask about. Perhaps Doug misread the question, had second thoughts, or simply forgot to close it, but we wouldn't know which without asking.
EDIT: Just realized that you probably meant the admin's closing arguments had to be well-worded and that could be the source of the delay. Still a bit strongly-worded, but thank you for the information.
- Borisashton
It's been another week and there has still not been any opposition based on the new evidence. Am I right in thinking that as per Shambala108's comments the only thing preventing thread closure is a detailed closing statement?
- Borisashton
Anyone? There has been zero opposing opinions in light of the new evidence and none whatsoever in half a month. Those contacted by me have had ample time to respond and yet have failed to actively take part in the debate. Why is this thread still open?
- Bwburke94
Because no one's yet bothered to make a closing statement. Don't overthink it.
- Shambala108
Give me a SHORT version of the new evidence, because the previous threads and this one are so long I don't care to sift through them again to see if there is actually any new evidence.
- Borisashton
The new evidence is pretty clearly laid out in the OP but to shrink it down to a barebones form:
A new story was released in a similar way to the others. This isn't actually a new point but is the biggest change in the status quo since the last debate.
Then this:
Borisashton wrote: In this tweet, posted in order to familiarise readers of Life After Death with the other characters that the titular Lady Aesculapius had met, states “You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here”. Any reading of that that isn’t these stories were intended to be set within the DWU is frankly a stretch.
There was also discussion of your somewhat flawed closing statement. Please take any explanations of your closing statement from the far more in depth version in the OP rather than the following extremely shortened version.
Basically I found the quotes regarding universes were referencing 10,000 Dawns as a series (which is unambiguously invalid) rather than than the crossover stories. See the Assimilation² precedent outlined in more detail above. Also I brought up the never-mentioned fact that the titular 10,000 Dawns is a multiverse of universes meaning the fact that they are set in different universes is also established narratively.
I also concisely explained the "confusing" situation regarding the publication of the stories:
Borisashton wrote: T:OFF REL dictates that the official release date is the date set by the publisher, in this case Arcbeatle Press. This means that the releases that should be covered by the wiki are located here, here, here and here. The first three stories were then collected in an anthology here.
Finally, there was a section about the concerns you had about other authors using Wylder's liscened characters. This one is covered in way more detail in the OP but the short version is that quote specified "not fanworks" and we don't cover non-crossovers anyway so what other authors do with Wylder's characters is of no concern to this wiki.
This isn't technically "short" but I have truncated it as much as possible. I'm sure you appreciate how much evidence had been presented in this and the previous two lengthy debates.
- Schreibenheimer
Yes, it seems like closing the previous discussion based on Rule 4 rather than the Rule 2 that was anticipated left people feeling like they hadn't had an opportunity to address that side of the discussion; they never talked about Rule 4 because they expected it to hinge on Rule 2.
I see how the fear of "wiki creep" is a real issue, with things spreading out further and further from Doctor Who, but, with this particular crossover, we already have a statement from the creator that the universe is, as a whole, non-DWU. We have a solid "The buck stops here" for anything not included in crossovers ever being considered valid for inclusion, so it seems just like other non-DWU crossovers in that there's a firm line between anything that's a licensed crossover and anything that's not.
- Borisashton
Absolutely agree in regard to wiki creep. We don't want to be covering stuff not related to the DWU but in this case, as you say, the writer and the publisher have stated that their series as a whole should not be covered and have clarified which stories are crossovers.
At the end of the day, if we don't cover a story featuring the Doctor's daughter what can we cover? Most of Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme, Graceless, anything from Reeltime or BBV, and many others probably wouldn't even make the cut. Non-BBC stuff like K9 would certainly be in peril.
As alluded to earlier, closing this thread because the stories don't pass rule four is a much more dangerous precedent than if they passed.
- Shambala108
OK, I have to correct a mistake that is pervasive throughout this thread and several others.
Validity is not determined by appearances. There are several stories that contain the Doctor and/or his companions that are nevertheless invalid. For example,
- And Introducing...
- Planet of the Rain Gods (comic story)
- Fixing a Hole (short story)
- Storm in a Tikka (short story)
- Dermot and the Doctor (TV story)
- The Doctor needs YOUR help! (TV story)
- Merry Christmas Doctor Who (TV story)
This is just a small random sample.
These stories are considered invalid, despite having the Doctor in them, but the wiki hasn't ground to a halt. Please do not use character appearance to argue for a story's validity. Posts doing so may be subject to deletion.
- Borisashton
Um, okay? Surely validity is determined by appearances to some extent, though.
An appearance is indicative of rules 2 and 4 being passed. Just to give an example, if the Hulk appeared in a story by himself the story wouldn't be valid because the story was not intended to be set in the DWU. Would you agree that if a DWU character does not appear that is indicative or even confirmation that a story fails rule 4. Similarly, if the appearance of a character isn't liscened, that is indicative of a rule 2 failiure and vice versa.
The point I and others have made is the appearance of the Doctor's family is more indicative that these stories were intended to be set in the DWU than if they didn't and instead featured Walter the Worm. It was hardly a mistake merely common sense.
Aside from that, what was the point of listing those stories, they're really bad examples. Was it just that there are some things that feature the Doctor aren't valid? If so, you just could have listed any one of the thousands of fanfictions on the internet. That list of "stories" includes fourth-wall breaking stories, deleted scenes, and even one thing we have deemed not worthy of the moniker "story". The only useful point I can get from it is that Tardis:Valid sources being composed of only "Validity is not determined by appearances" is a bad idea but that has never, and will never happen.
- Borisashton
Either way, are you any closer to making a decision after the summary of the new evidence I gave?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I concur with Borisashton. You're of course right that stories can be invalid in spite of featuring licensed appearances of major DWU characters like the Doctor. However, in the absence of any separate reasons for invalidity, surely a licensed appearance of a major DWU character makes validity the default.
That is to say, Planet of the Rain Gods was a priori valid for featuring a licensed appearance by the Eleventh Doctor; that is superseded by evidence of a Rule 4 break in the form of the fact that it's a deleted scene; but if that Rule-4-breaking wasn't precedent, it would be enough to declare it valid.
When a story features the Doctor's daughter as a major character, the onus is on people who argue that it nevertheless doesn't take place in the DWU to substantiate their claim. In the absence of evidence that the authors of a story featuring a major DWU character didn't mean for it to take place in the DWU, it would be sheer madness to require further evidence of intent of being set in the DWU.
- Schreibenheimer
I'm sorry, Shambala108, but I really have to contest your point as well. I can't find any foundation in the policies for it. Four of the seven stories you mentioned were deemed invalid for very specific reasons which do not apply here, two are up for debate in this very forum right now and really shouldn't be cited until a decision is made, and Dermot and the Doctor seems to have never had an actual discussion, with two admins arguing for inclusion on its talk page, but (forgive me for a subjective interpretation) the story seeming to be so minor that no one really cared to follow through (if there was a discussion that I haven't found, please forgive me).
I can't find anything in the policies that doesn't essentially say that any licensed appearance of an in-universe character is valid as long as it doesn't break any other of a few specific criteria.
I will grant that an argument could be made that crossovers can be tricky to consider "in-universe," since the whole point is that they cross over with another universe, but we have to set a consistent standard, and I don't see how to include Assimilation² and not these. Honestly, I'd be okay with the policy going either way, but whatever it is has to be consistent.
- Shambala108
You know what, Schreibenheimer, I've been an admin here for six and a half years, and you've been here less than a year, but if you don't trust my experience, that's fine. I will address this issue more thoroughly on your talk page later, as I don't want to derail this "discussion".
- Borisashton
What exactly is the problem with Schreibenheimer's post that is different from mine or User:Scrooge MacDuck's? T:WARN states "The basic idea of the system is to create [...] messages that point to specific parts of the MOS and other policy pages." Therefore as far as I can tell policy states that Schreibenheimer was perfectly within their right to want a link to the specific policy that you seemed to have quoted from. T:FAITH states that "Show them that you are assuming good faith about their intentions, whether they are new or regular editors" so I don't see a need to bring up the amount of time both of you have been a part of this community.
Schreibenheimer never said that they don't "trust" you and I think I can speak for everybody in this discussion that we have total faith in the admin team to do the jobs that they do for free but we are all human and all sometimes make mistakes.
Getting back on track, do you need more information to close the thread or is the summary I gave in post #18 sufficient?
- Schreibenheimer
I apologize if I caused any offense; it was not intended. I'm just worried about the precedent of a Rule 4 ruling in this case.
However, going back to the old thread, I honestly wasn't 100% convinced by the Rule 2 arguments. I'm not sure how easy it would be going forward to solidly determine licensing if we allow things from authors' personal blogs, even if they have been stated to be an official part of a publishing company's releases. It definitely seems like a grey area to me, and I would have no problem with the decision going either way if it's decided by that issue. I just think we need to treat crossovers consistently.
It was stated in the old thread that some of these may be released commercially next year, so this thread would still have relevance for if that happens. Rule 2 would not apply then, but Rule 4 still would, so I feel that's something worth looking at.
EDIT: After having a bit of time today to think this over, I wanted to lay out my Rule 4 problems in more detail.
In the original ruling, it stated, ". . . sometimes we have to draw the line for [stories] that are two or more times removed from the DWU." As the discussion had revolved around Rule 2, the discussion hadn't touched on how White Canvas features one of the Doctor's companions, which is as closely tied to the DWU as a non-doctor story can be, so it doesn't fit that description at all, but that was an easy thing to miss when the people talking hadn't been focusing on it.
If licensed crossovers featuring companions are not valid, that contradicts a recent ruling on The Worlds of Big Finish, which features Bernice Summerfield as its "strongest" tie to the DWU. Even ignoring that, I'd like to raise a hypothetical: what if Captain Jack Harkness were to make a fully-licensed, non-parodical appearance in a non-DWU TV show? Would we not include that? If so, how is this different for Rule 4 purposes?
- Borisashton
Responding to your rule 2 concerns, a couple of things to talk about. First off, these stories were not published on an author's personal blog. jameswylder.com is owned by James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press and "All content on [the] website is either the property of Arcbeatle Press, or has been used with permission by its creator excluding content in guest posts". This is absolutely not something you would expect on a blog used for personal purposes. Also for the record, the definition of "blog" is broad and does not necessarily connote a personal connection.
As for the issue of whether we can be sure of the licensing of these stories, it's pretty clear we can. Niki Haringsma (one of the co-licensor's of White Canvas) and Nate Bumber (another co-licensor of White Canvas as well as one of two for Life After Death) have both gone on record by confirming these stories were, indeed licensed. If you couple this with the claims that both Wylder and Arcbeatle Press as a company have given, it becomes pretty clear this is a sound legal operation. I don't want to get into the legal trouble FANDOM could get into if we openly accuse a company of copyright violation.
Another thing to note is that this discussion is necessary because Arcbeatle is a "new source" of DWU stories. However, after this initial check has been completed precedent has suggested we trust publishers of a similar size such as Obverse or Candy Jar and question examples of potential copyright infringement on a case-by-case basis.
This thread would not create a precedent of allowing stories published on a personal blog, it would merely show that we trust Arcbeatle as a publisher to tell the truth.
Please elaborate if you have any further concerns.
- Borisashton
Helpfully, User:Shambala108 has now elaborated on her "Validity is not determined by appearances" comment at User talk:Schreibenheimer#Policy. It seems this stance was affected by User:CzechOut's closing comments of Thread:191574 instead of anything actually written in policy, such as Tardis:Valid sources.
The thread in question was a debate regarding the inclusion of BBV Productions' Infidel's Comet that attempted to rectify an apparent oversight from Forum:BBV and canon policy. Let's take a look at some of the comments in that closing argument.
CzechOut wrote: The thing is, Infidel's Comet doesn't feature any DWU elements. It has a cameo in which the Sontaran doesn't even quite identify himself fully. And that's a world of difference.
The analogue here is No Future for You, a Buffy comic strip that has a panel depicting the Tenth Doctor and Rose. Or, if you prefer, the episode of Young Justice that depicts a/the TARDIS.
I'm afraid to say, this example is almost incomparable with White Canvas with how different it is.
Auteur, painted warriors, Gideon, Hole, Littlejohn, Cá Bảy Màu, Axastyakis, Mullion, Coloth and Miranda Dawkins, the Doctor's daughter are all characters from the DWU that fully feature. They are all explicitly identified and appear throughout the story, hardly in the capacity of cameos. Miranda, in her previously established role as supreme ruler of the universe, even helps negotiate the Christmas Needle Agreement which concludes the story.
Unlike, the Buffy and Young Justice examples, this was fully licensed and we already have two people that gave permission for their characters to be used to testify for that!
CzechOut wrote: Even the BBV website as it existed upon the original release of this thing makes no attempt whatsoever to tie it into DW at all.
This is a stark contrast to this situation. We have a tweet from the publisher stating this story was "set in the Doctor Who universe".
Finally, I'd like to quote a pertinent part of the closing message of the original Forum:BBV and canon policy:
CzechOut wrote: The thing is, we've made a lot of progress in this thread. This thread has firmly established the need for some sort of legal usage of characters in a story before we'll touch it. We didn't actually have that concept before.
This kind of undermines the point that validity is not affected by appearances as the above is pretty much what you can find today as rule 2 of our "four little rules", outlined at Tardis:Valid sources.
I'm quite confident we had mostly agreed that these stories passed rule 4 already, but I still wanted to make this post reiterating that fact in light of the new sources.
- Bwburke94
For the sake of completeness, it's worth noting that the Buffy comic in question would have been invalidated by a later comic which reveals it was the real David Tennant, not the fictional Tenth Doctor.
- Schreibenheimer
Borisashton, the arguments you provided are why I would be totally okay with inclusion, and I agree that the licensing is pretty clear here. My worry is that it may not be the case in similar situations in the future, so I would be okay with drawing the line before these stories. Yes, Arcbeatle has ownership of the website, but it being listed in the author's name rather than theirs gives me some pause as to how much oversight Arcbeatle gives it. We have evidence of licensing for the current stories, but, if he ever decides in the future to post a story that he fully-intends to be noncommercial (and thus being fanfiction, exempt from licensing), would we know? And, even if that's unlikely here with this specific setup, could another author do something like this in the future that could cite this as precedent?
Basically, I see it as a grey area where we need to draw a line, and that line could go on either side of these stories without much of a complaint from me.
- Scrooge MacDuck
As Boris explained, the answer to that is to make it clear that what we're doing here is setting a precedent that we trust Arcbeatle Press specifically, not that anything published on a blog goes.
- Borisashton
Yes, the precedent this would create would be that we trust Arcbeatle not that we allow anything posted on personal blogs.
Just to put to rest your concerns about future Arcbeatle releases, there is a precedent on the wiki to delete publications from trusted publishers if we deem them to be committing copyright infringement. See When Times Change... (short story) for an example and Talk:Legacies (short story) for a massive, massive discussion about copyright violation in that story that ultimately went nowhere. This is on a case-by-case basis, so future publications that were more obviously under the Lethbridge-Stewart brand were allowed without another discussion questioning Candy Jar's integrity.
- Borisashton
Borisashton wrote: Auteur, painted warriors, Gideon, Hole, Littlejohn, Cá Bảy Màu, Axastyakis, Mullion, Coloth and Miranda Dawkins, the Doctor's daughter are all characters from the DWU that fully feature. They are all explicitly identified and appear throughout the story, hardly in the capacity of cameos.
Just to go straight from the horse's mouth in regard to the characters from the crossover stories appearing as cameos or not, this page that centres on the companions of Lady Aesculapius written especially by author James Wylder to help aid in explaining the backstory of Aesc to readers upon the release of Life After Death has some interesting info. It lists Auteur and Coloth and specifies its parameters as "list[ing] characters who traveled with Aesc, and played a significant role in her adventures. (That is, she didn't simply transport that person from place to place, or cameo.)" So there, explicit confirmation from the author that they weren't cameos.
It's pretty clear from reading the stories that they weren't cameos, but it's always nice to have access to authorial intent wherever possible.
- Borisashton
Me again. I don't usually like posting more than two times in a row but it really is a shame nobody seems to be actively partaking in the debate anymore. Anyway, Simon Bucher-Jones (who licenced characters for White Canvas and Life After Death) confirmed on Facebook that one of his achievements for the year was episode 4 of Lady Aesculapius: Series 1 proving that his involvement with Arcbeatle Press isn't just the result of Wylder and Arcbeatle lying completely about the liscening.
I don't know if this point is still up for debate since nobody has opposed the validity of these stories on this thread. But if it is, it's more evidence to the pile of "Arcbeatle are a real company and are not breaking the law".
- Scrooge MacDuck
Sorry for not having contributed to this thread of late, but it's for the same reason that all anyone can bring anymore is a lot of unnecessary icing on an already plentiful cake.
As the thread stands, I'm fairly sure there's already far more evidence than we usually require, supporting these stories' inclusion. I don't want to step on any admins' toes: it's ultimately their decision. But the New Year is a time for resolutions, if you catch my meaning, and it'd be nice to start 2020 on an inclusive note.
- Bwburke94
I believe Arcbeatle Press' legitimacy is established by now. The very fact the stories remain on the wiki as invalid proves this point.
If Arcbeatle Press were illegitimate, these pages would have been deleted under T:NO FANFIC, per Amorkuz' earlier claim.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Indeed. There was a lot of talk about legitimacy in the previous thread, but that's not what it was closed for, and it was (and is) well-established that they did have the various commercial licenses required.
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: If Arcbeatle Press were illegitimate, these pages would have been deleted under T:NO FANFIC, per Amorkuz' earlier claim.
This argument is not based on any policies and directly contradicts what happened in this case. To avoid those who did not participate in the preceding two debates (one of which is not available anymore) being mislead, I will recall the facts the way they happened.
Firstly, the presence of stories on the wiki before the validity debate about them is concluded is not a sign of legitimacy. Consider, for comparison, a small company called Tiny Rebel Games. I do not remember any doubts that it is a legitimate company. The validity debate over the stories in their latest game Infinity can be found at Thread:237184 (full disclosure: I started it). It is common knowledge that the stories are sold under a Doctor Who license from the BBC. They feature various Doctors, employ original actors for voiceover, are written and directed by well-established Doctor Who creators such as, among others, Gary Russell and Scott Handcock. The former announced that his work for the game was his final Doctor Who story. The inclusion debate has been open more than twice longer than all three Arcbeatle debates combined. In short, Infinity stories are more relevant to this wiki than Arcbeatle stories in every objective way. And yet, no one has thought of creating pages for those stories before the debate is concluded. Nobody claims the fact that the last Doctor Who story of Gary Russell does not have a page to be "a great disservice to the readers".
If one follows Bwburke94's reasoning, then Arcbeatle Press is much more legitimate than Tiny Rebel Games because Arcbeatle story pages were created without an inclusion debate and recreated despite one.
Let me remind the history of how these pages came to be on the wiki. First TheChampionOfTime created pages for these stories without starting an inclusion debate. All three pages had been created by him (sometimes months) before James Wylder started collecting money for a future publication at the Kickstarter in March 2019. Thus, CoT could not predict the possibility of future commercial releases. When he created the pages, they could not have been classified as anything but fan fiction. If there is any consensus around these debates, it is that CoT was wrong to create these pages without an inclusion debate.
When the pages came to the attention of several Tardis admin, they were deleted as fan fiction because at that point, in August 2019, they only existed at a personal website of James Wylder, available for free, with no copyright notice nor any claim, let alone proof of the existence of a commercial license.
These pages were then recreated by another admin, Revanvolatrelundar. He first started the inclusion debate, then recreated the pages without waiting for the results of the debate. Moreover, he recreated the pages as valid and added information from the stories to in-universe parts of other pages, as if the whole inclusion debate were a mere pretence. To avoid provoking an edit war between admin, the pages were not deleted after this. Meanwhile, Revanvolatrelundar, in ways quite uncharacteristic of his prior behaviour (especially if compared to his behaviour in the Infinity debate), kept pushing the inclusion debate to be closed, starting a couple of days after opening it. He was so impatient to validate these stories that he even asked a non-admin, OncomingStorm12th, to close the debate (see a later deleted post Special:Diff/2768841).
So intemperate and unusual (for any admin) was his conduct that I, knowing from his posts that he was an author himself, had to make sure he was not acting out of hidden ulterior motives, that he had no business/professional relationship with James Wylder/Arcbeatle Press. His response was that he had nothing to do with the (then still) three stories in question and that his own stories were to be published in a Cwej-themed anthology (as opposed to a 10k crossover). Following Help:Assume good faith, I took him at his word.
Imagine my surprise when I learned from recent edits by Borisashton that James Wylder is also an author of the said Cwej-themed anthology and, moreover, that the anthology is going to be published by Arcbeatle Press. After an independent verification of this information, I am sad to report that
- Revanvolatrelundar chose to conceal his professional and business relationship with James Wylder/Arcbeatle Press from the Tardis wiki community,
while engaging in forceful efforts to validate Wylder stories.
Thus, the reason these stories exist on the wiki, in contrast, say, to the stories from Infinity, is not because Arcbeatle Press is legitimate but because Arcbeatle Press has coopted one of Tardis wiki admin to act in their interests while concealing the conflict of interests from the community.
I strongly encourage Revanvolatrelundar to explain to the community the exact nature of his relationship to James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press, as well as the reasons why he chose to deceive the Tardis wiki community by obfuscating his business ties to Arcbeatle Press and James Wylder.
To prevent him from hiding behind the request from FANDOM that "anyone professionally involved with Arcbeatle Press [...] refrain from joining this thread", as repeated in the OP, I would like to point out that Revanvolatrelundar has already joined this thread, albeit, once again, in a way that masked his involvement. He has given kudos to pro-validity messages, which is not visible by default but can be verified by clicking on yellow "n kudos" links.
What we need to decide as a community is whether such deceptive practices by publishers and/or individual editors, especially admin, should be tolerated, let alone rewarded. Should admin be allowed to offer their wiki services, including protection, to publishers and hide these arrangements from the community? Should such corruption be allowed to stand?
- Amorkuz
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: it was (and is) well-established that they did have the various commercial licenses required.
I must have missed this evidence. Could you repeat it please, specifically with regard to commercial licenses?
- Borisashton
Amorkuz wrote: Imagine my surprise when I learned from recent edits by Borisashton that James Wylder is also an author of the said Cwej-themed anthology and, moreover, that the anthology is going to be published by Arcbeatle Press.
Sorry, what?!? You learned from edits by me? This is an absurd claim to make.
Since this response was clearly well-researched you would know that I have only made a single edit to the anthology page in question. In fact, it was part of a series of edits I made literal minutes after midnight on New Year's Day to link 2020 (releases) to the appropriate places, namely spoilery anthologies, so to even have assumed that I had absorbed all the information when all I was doing is CTRL+Fing for the figure "2020" is bold. See here, here and here for examples. If I recall, I also did the same for New Year's Day in 2019. Did you somehow discover the anthology was from Arcbeatle Press when you learned it was 2020 in at least one time zone?
I didn't think much of it of the time, if that answers your question. I am confused why you didn't mention OncomingStorm12th (who created the page) and admin SOTO who edited the page mutiple times.
You attributed all this to me apparently in an attempt to discredit me, or at the very least in violation of Help:Assume good faith which you ironically cite in this post. You accuse Revanvolatrelundar of "deceptive practices" and ask the community to decide whether corruption of this nature should be allowed to stand. I would like to raise the same question to the community regarding yourself in light of these clear untruths you have spread.
I will respond your points in the morning if I have time but did not feel comfortable with this portrayal of my person lasting a second longer than neccesary.
- Schreibenheimer
This could use some deescalation. Regardless of anyone's motivations or past actions, I'm pretty sure this thread should be decided on the facts alone. While Amorkuz may be right that we need to decide whether Revanvolatrelundar's conduct is acceptable, that seems to me to be more of a matter of user discipline and should not prejudice this thread, inappropriate as it may be for them to still be submitting kudos in it. As this thread's Rule 2 precedent could become significant in our increasingly digital age, it is important for it to be decided based on our policies alone and not on the poor decisions of potentially bad actors.
I think Amorkuz raises a good point that rights-holders allowing Arcbeatle to host a story on their website does not necessarily equal having commercial rights, which tend to be the standard this wiki goes by. It was stated above that some of the creators have "gone on the record" as saying these are licensed, but would it be possible to provide links to where that happened? I feel like exact words may be pretty pivotal here.
I still maintain, though, that I have serious objections to the previous Rule 4 ruling and think it sets bad precedent.
- Shambala108
I haven't really addressed this yet in this thread, but on this wiki, it is up to the admins to decide matters of forum consensus, forum closure, personal attacks, vandalism, and the like. I also feel it's necessary to suggest everyone become familiar with Tardis:Discussion policy.
- Amorkuz
Not for the first time, the first to react to a question regarding commercial interests of Arcbeatle Press was NateBumber, even though a question was to Revanvolatrelundar. I copy the response of NateBumber for the whole community:
Hey Amorkuz, I know that you'd prefer that we forever forgo any semblance of friendly conversation, but I think I could provide some helpful context about the timeline of the Cwej anthology. Namely, as you can see in the initial tentative announcement, the anthology didn't originally have any connection with Arcbeatle; instead, it was expected that Andy Lane would be releasing it in his own publishing house. If you scroll down, you'll see also that the Arcbeatle connection wasn't announced until December 20th. As someone who was pitching a story to the anthology throughout the initial debate, I wasn't even informed by the Cwej editor about Arcbeatle's potential involvement until after the deletion of the first thread, and I would be somewhat surprised if Revan's experience was any different! Since you expressed your frustration that you could no longer see a way to maintain good faith in Revan, I just figured you'd be interested in this information, as it provides an easily-accessible explanation that doesn't involve accusing Revan of deliberately concealing his involvement. PS: It was my understanding that T:FORUM indicates that kudos don't count as contributions to any conversation, since they are not counted by admins for the counting of opinions. But just in case, I've gone through and carefully expunged my kudos from Thread:260549.
Several points in this message are worth noting:
- It is not clear why NateBumber thinks he is sufficiently aware of business arrangements between James Wylder and Revanvolatrelundar to respond on the latter's behalf.
- It is not clear why NateBumber treats the description from T:FORUM of "a statement of being for" as non-participation. T:FORUM does call it unhelpful. In this particular case, NateBumber's kudos were also against the explicit requests of FANDOM. But expressing one's support for validity is very far from not participating in a validity debate.
- NateBumber misrepresents T:FORUM. There it is stated that "your [kudos] will likely be discounted in the final closure of the thread", which is not the same as "are not counted by admins" as stated by NateBumber. All T:FORUM does is gives an admin an option not to take kudos into account. The closing admin may equally well take them into account, especially if kudos look overwhelmingly in favour of validity, an effect that is easy to achieve if all collaborators "non-participate" by giving kudos to every pro-validity post.
- It is not clear why NateBumber thinks that removing his kudos well after Thread:260549 was closed changes anything. However, I appreciate him being public and clear about what he did and why.
- NateBumber's link to Gallifrey Base is not "easily accessible" because the link does not work without a login. Accordingly, I did not verify whether the details provided by NateBumber match the link.
More importantly, NateBumber fails to mention two important chapters in the fate of this anthology.
- In May 2019, Hunter O'Connell (aka "Cwej editor") unsuccessfully tried to crowdfund this anthology [33]. The crowdfunding page never once mentions Andy Lane or his publishing outfit Slow Decay Books. Neither Lane's Facebook/Twitter nor the website of Slow Decay Books ever mention the anthology either.
- In May 2019, the back-cover-artist of the anthology called it a "charity book" here. As a reminder, charity books are explicitly prohibited by our validity rules.
Whatever the source of information supposedly provided at Gallifrey Base and whatever NateBumber meant by "it was expected" above (expected by whom? expected based on which evidence?), that information does not seem to be independently verifiable, unlike the unsuccessful attempt by the Cwej editor to crowdfund a "charity book".
NateBumber's post creates more questions than answers:
- Were Andy Lane planning to publish the book, why would Hunter O'Connell collect money for it without mentioning Andy Lane as the publisher?
- Was Andy Lane planning to publish a charity book of his own character with zero publicity?
- How and when did this charity book become an allegedly fully commercially licensed regular book?
- Just like with all other future projects of Arcbeatle Press, what is the evidence that commercial license was granted by all copyright holders?
Finally, given the provided evidence of the project considered a "charity book" by one of its participants and the lack of evidence of commercial license from all the rights holders, was it not premature to create the page for this anthology?
- Borisashton
Just to clarify so we can discuss this more effectively, is this thread now exempt to Tardis:Spoiler policy given your in depth discussion of Cwej: Down the Middle in that last response?
- Shambala108
No.
- Borisashton
So Amorkuz's last post should be removed then as T:SPOIL prohibits "any information" from future releases being shared on the forums?
- Scrooge MacDuck
First and foremost, User:Shambala108, I second User:Borisashton's queries.
Concerning the kudos thing… I see User:Amorkuz's point about a seemingly-large number of kudos being liable to give off a false sense of consensus, and to be honest, ultimately, I'm not sure kudos in general are a good thing to have in a serious forum at all.
But equally, I still don't think they constitute "expressing one's support for validity", even so. If this were a classic-style public, spoken debate (rather than a written forum thread), I would argue that leaving kudos on this or that post would be akin to the audience in the stand cheering or clapping at this or that statement from one of the speakers. It's not necessarily expressing an opinion on the issue itself, but, instead, equivalent to "well said!", "well-put!".
In such a classical debate, it would, of course, be the prerogative of the master-of-ceremony or whoever to bang with their gavel and call for the audience to stop cheering, if it's getting distracting. So by all means ask for kudos not to be added.
But I don't think it was at all obvious that posting kudos fell within the realm of what User:Revanvolatrelundar was being asked not to do. And we are getting into quite esoteric territory as policy-interpretations go — NateBumber may not be an administrator, but Revanvolatrelundar is; begging your pardon, but assuming (as one well might) that Revan shares NateBumber's interpretation of the Wiki's policy on kudos, why should one admin's interpretation (yours) trump another's?
At any rate, this feels like a good time to remind everyone (and myself) that future releases by Arcbeatle of which no more shall hopefully be spoken here, or any alleged misinterpretations of the Wiki's policy about kudos, aren't actually the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate is the validity of the already-released Rachel Survived, White Canvas, The Gendar Conspiracy and Life After Death.
- Amorkuz
Here is the response of Revanvolatrelundar for the whole community to read:
Thanks Nate for fighting my corner. I'd like to post this message as a full disclosure on the subject. I have always tried to remain as transparent as possible when it comes to my status on the wiki, and I think further clarification over accusations made about my behaviour is necessary.
The Cwej anthology started out as a publication of Andy Lane's imprint Slow Decay Books. At the time of the Dawns thread opening, as far as my knowledge went, this was still the case, so I took part in the debate without any kind of agenda. However, towards the end of the original debate, I did learn of the Cwej anthology's move to Arcbeatle, and when Fandom asked that anyone involved with Arcbeatle not participate in future threads, I followed their wishes. You'll notice from my edit history that I've made no contributions to the further two Dawns threads, as that would cause the conflict of interest from which you imply. At the time I could not divulge the reason for my silence on those threads, but with the announcement from Arcbeatle about the anthology I'm able to clarify things.
I have to say, I am disappointed this issue was first brought up on a public thread. By assuming good faith I would have expected the first questions about my involvement with Arcbeatle to come from my talk page. In future I'd like that to be where the discussion (if you feel there needs to be any) to continue, as I refuse to partake in the thread because of my interests with Arcbeatle.
Thanks
I would like to emphasise the following passage, "I refuse to partake in the thread because of my interests with Arcbeatle." What Revanvolatrelundar concealed in his response is that he silently went and deleted the traces of his participation in this thread, deleted his kudos. His actions make it appear that I was lying earlier stating that he had participated in this thread and present him as fully in compliance with FANDOM explicit instructions. Thus, to demonstrate this further deception on Revanvolatrelundar's behalf, you can find the screenshots of his now deleted kudos to the right. He did participate in this thread and then tried to cover up his participation.
I will respond to the contents of his message later.
- Borisashton
Can we stay on topic please? Discussion of another user's actions and repeated violations of T:SPOIL are not helpful.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@User:Amorkuz: Please see my post above. You may disagree with your fellow administrator on whether posting kudos on a thread constitutes participating in this thread. But since, as I argued fairly thoroughly, thinking kudos don't count as "participating" is a perfectly understandable position to hold, could you maybe lay off terms like "deceit" when talking about said fellow admin, when it's likely all a matter of intellectual disagreement/misunderstanding?
Please also see User:Shambala108's extremly clear statement that this thread is not exempt from T:SPOIL.
As for User:Revanvolatrelundar then deleting the offending kudos, I think it's fairly clear, given their statements, that this is not an attempt to make a liar out of you, but simply to comply with FANDOM's wishes — as well as your apparent ones: if the potential influence of the kudos on this thread would be to give undue feelings of there being a consensus to the eventual closing administrator, surely removing the kudos before that admin reads through the thread solves that problem?
(Note that Revan says "thanks to Nate for fighting my corner", thus endorsing everything NateBumber said in his reply to the question originally asked to Revan himself.)
- AthenodoraKitten
Dear User:Amorkuz, while we’re talking about the need for transparency among the wiki’s admins and editors, would you mind disclosing for us the identities of all of the “three admins” involved in the original decision to exclude the 10,000 Dawns crossovers—you know, for the records?
Given that Shambala108's closing statement on Thread:258247 was explicitly phrased in terms of "I have to agree with the original three admins [. . .]," I daresay that this is a relevant point to clarify for the present discussion.
Thank you very much for your good faith and cooperation.
- Shambala108
Shambala108 wrote: I haven't really addressed this yet in this thread, but on this wiki, it is up to the admins to decide matters of forum consensus, forum closure, personal attacks, vandalism, and the like. I also feel it's necessary to suggest everyone become familiar with Tardis:Discussion policy.
I posted the above for new users, but now I'd like to specifically address User:Borisashton and User:Scrooge MacDuck: leave the admin matters up to the admins. Any future comments that do not directly relate to answering User:Amorkuz' concerns or addressing the matter under discussion will be deleted. Let's keep this post on track.
- SOTO
Quick admin note: Can we stick to the matter at hand please, on its own merits, and remember our long-standing maxim: "Argue the point, not the person." Thank you.
- Amorkuz
A lot has been made from the fact that NateBumber confirmed licensing his character(s). Although, in principle, validity rules require commercial licenses from all copyright holders, the argument above, as I understand it: if NateBumber (and Niki Haringsma) licensed it, then all the rest must have also given a commercial license. I never understood this extension from two to all. But it is useful to look at how NateBumber approaches permissions to use FP characters when not arguing validity here on the wiki. The following is an excerpt from his tumbler feed, only slightly predating the first debate:
Anonymous asked: Do you think it's okay for people to include FP in things like fanfic even if they're very new to FP and don't know very much yet? [NateBumber:] Absolutely! No gatekeeping here, and if you ever have any questions, always feel free to hit me up :)
I do not know whether NateBumber has the authority to respond on behalf of Obverse Books, as well as of all the other FP authors, including Lawrence Miles, who created the FP.
- If not, then we need to find confirmations of commercial license from all other licensors, as NateBumber does not speak for them.
- If yes, then all the stories discussed in this thread neatly fall into "like fanfic" category, at least until they are published commercially.
If, as NateBumber states, FP authors and characters truly do not care who posts FP stories online, then having an FP character in a story published online is really not in any way significant. Any anonymous Internet user has NateBumber's permission to do that, and it would be a mistake to validate stories based on FP characters used (unless proof of a commercial license is provided).
I would also like to contrast NateBumber's response to this anonymous user online ("no gatekeeping") to his stance in the original, now deleted first debate. There he claimed that nobody wanted a free for all and that FP characters would not be given to just everyone. These two contemporaneous positions do not seem to be compatible, which brings us back to the question of credibility.
One could point out that Obverse confirmed their involvement in a Facebook post. However, it has been established in Thread:259152 that even hosting stories on their own website does not automatically mean granting a commercial license and that an additional proof of the latter is needed.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh for heaven's sake. You appear to be overlooking the second part of the fan's question:
Do you think it's okay for people to include FP in things like fanfic even if they're very new to FP and don't know very much yet?
The fan isn't asking for legal permission to use a character in anything. They're starting with the premise that the people with the licenses won't mind that people write DW fanfic, and from that point on, the question is whether it's offensive to authors to use FP ideas without being that familiar to them.
Whether people can use FP characters in fanfics in general isn't the meat of the question; it is seemingly taken for granted by both sides that fans can and will put FP characters in fanfic. No question of "permission" for fanfic is even involved.
And this is where the alleged contradiction naturally resolves itself. That "free-for-fall" which Nate Bumber said he didn't want, it would be one where commercial licenses were granted to everyone and their mother; this is distinct from acknowledging that fanfic exists and being generally supportive of it.
Anyway, although Bumber cannot participate in this specific thread by FANDOM request, it would be trivial to ask him to clarify this point again in another Tumblr post (for your convenience and that of anyone to whom the wording of the original Tumblr post is unclear and by the way it's called a Tumblr blog, not a "tumbler feed").
As for the concerns below,…
Amorkuz wrote: A lot has been made from the fact that NateBumber confirmed licensing his character(s). Although, in principle, validity rules require commercial licenses from all copyright holders, the argument above, as I understand it: if NateBumber (and Niki Haringsma) licensed it, then all the rest must have also given a commercial license. I never understood this extension from two to all.
…this "extension from two to all" which you say is beyond your understanding. Well, let me elaborate what I think everyone who made or restated this argument has been thinking: if Arcbeatle Press were copyright-fraudsters, why on Earth would they bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other? If they were going to break the law anyway, why would they bother to selectively get a couple of copyrights cleared but not others?
Or to put it another way, if we have compelling evidence that Arcbeatle Press isn't lying when they say that "DWU Thing X" is licensed, then for what reason should we doubt their words when they say "DWU Thing Y" is licensed too?
…
Oh, and once again, I'd like to remind you that licensing issues were already explored in the previous thread about these stories, and that the thread was closed by User:Shambala108 on Rule 4 concerns, leading to the stories being covered-as-invalid on the Wiki in the interim between that closure and the opening of the present debate. Aside from that Nate Bumber quote which I insist you're quite missing the point of, what new evidence do you have to reopen an area of discussion which was already talked over in the original debate, only for the closing admin not to deem it one of the concerns that would invalidate the story?
- Amorkuz
My next question is to the OP. Among a series of his edits that drew my attention to the anthology was this Special:Diff/2826049. There he created a red link for a book called An Eloquence of Time and Space written by James Wylder, self-published [34] and described as "The Unauthorized, Unofficial, poetic guide". However, Arcbeatle Press lists this book on its website and Borisashton clearly believes the book should be present here on the wiki.
My question is regarding the picture of the TARDIS on the cover. The TARDIS is well-known to be copyrighted and trademarked by BBC. It is one of the best recognisable symbols of the show and is very useful to have on the cover for marketing a book about Doctor Who. However, the book bears the inscription "This book is not authorised by the BBC or any of its affiliates."
Hence, my question: why was it legal for James Wylder to use somebody else's trademark on the cover of his commercially sold book without permission? Since Borisashton thinks the book belongs on the wiki, he clearly understands this. Which part of the copyright law allows this?
The book does state "All illustrations are limited in scope and serve to enhance the text, and do not represent an accurate depiction of any elements from the shows they are depicting, aside from the image of K-9, which is licensed from Welkin Productions." But it is the whole TARDIS and having a TARDIS on the cover of a book about Doctor Who shows a clear intention of using a copyrighted and trademarked image.
K-9 is on the back cover. So could the OP please explain why it was necessary to license the image of K-9 on the back cover but not necessary to license the image of the TARDIS on the front cover?
One might ask, what is the relevance of this to the validity debate. By now two users, the OP and Scrooge MacDuck suggested that this debate should simply trust Arcbeatle Press's statements:
The precedent this would create would be that we trust Arcbeatle not that we allow anything posted on personal blogs.
what we're doing here is setting a precedent that we trust Arcbeatle Press specifically, not that anything published on a blog goes.
Thus, the argument hinges on Arcbeatle Press's understanding of copyright law. Part of trusting them is our confidence that they know the copyright law and always abide by it. Hence, I would appreciate if the OP could contribute to this confidence.
- Amorkuz
A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post:
why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?
I do not know why but that is exactly what they did with images on the covers of An Eloquence of Time and Space. They obtained a permission for K-9 for the back cover but did not obtain a permission (according to the book itself) for the TARDIS on the front cover. Thus, the strategy of obtaining licensing from some rights holders but not others is not a hypothetical anymore. Arcbeatle Press has employed this strategy in the past. I am sure the OP would soon explain how exactly it squares with the copyright law, after which we would be able to project his explanation to the stories at hand.
- Scrooge MacDuck
An Eloquence of Time and Space is a reference book; more specifically, an episode guide. As such, like any academic work, it has some license to use images and imagery from what it is discussing, under fair use.
Also, not to be cheeky, but technically speaking, in terms of copyright, in what way precisely is the image of the TARDIS copyrighted? It is, after all, an image of a police box. That may well be why specific authorisation for the very unique image of K9 was sought, but not for that of the 1960's British police box. I don't know! (EDIT: I was right to be unsure; apparently for some arcane reason the BBC does control the trademark on the police box image at present? But bear in mind my next sentence.) Though again, I don't think that we can reliably "project [this] explanation to the stories at hand", because copyright for academic work and copyright for new fiction are obviously two very different things.
Consequently, I posit that the situation isabout equivalent to, say, About Time 9. It too is a reference book. It too features an image on the cover of something which, in context, is clearly a Doctor Who element (the vespiform from The Unicorn and the Wasp), but is visually identical to something from the real world, anyway — and thus of debatable visual copyright.
I don't think as well-established a publisher of licensed DWU fiction as Mad Norwegian Press would be indicted by this picture of a giant-wasp-implied-to-be-a-vespiform on the cover of a reference book. So why should the picture of a hovering-police-box-implied-to-be-the-TARDIS on a reference book indict Arcbeatle Press?
…Also, what is this focus on the OP being the one to give explanations? The OP was the one to raise concerns about a question, yes, but this isn't his fight or anyone else's in particular. It's a bunch of editors trying to get at the truth, not a personal trial. If anyone has evidence either way regarding Arcbeatle licensing, surely they should bring it up, rather than the burden lying solely with the OP.
Also also, I am, again, no legal expert but how does accusing a company (or indeed an individual) of using a copyrighted image without permission on the cover of an unquestionably commercial release (the TARDIS) not constitute libel? I'm not saying that you're intentionally trying to do something slanderous/unlawful here, to be clear. Not at all. But my advice is t be careful what you say about real life entities and individuals. Talk on the Internet can have consequences, not just for an individual editor but for FANDOM at large, and I'd rather Tardis and everyone within it remained very careful on this point and others like it. It is my understanding that T:NPA isn't just for other users on the Wiki, but also for people associated with behind-the-scenes Who.
- Amorkuz
AthenodoraKitten wrote: would you mind disclosing for us the identities of all of the “three admins” involved in the original decision to exclude the 10,000 Dawns crossovers—you know, for the records?
I agree with you. It has been a great disservice to the wiki that the other two admin failed to take the responsibility for their decision. Now that SOTO decided to join this debate, I asked them to finally do that. They kept the community in the dark for 4 months despite everyone's pleas (including my private pleas). They seem to believe that although they did agree to delete the stories originally and even poked light-hearted fun at the reaction of several editors who objected to the deletion, they bear no responsibility for their decision. They continue arguing for various outcomes privately, instead of arguing their position here publicly.
I, on the other hand, believe that they owe an explanation to the community on why they went along with the original decision (which they apparently regret), why they kept silent for so long, and why now, all of a sudden, they decided that they are completely impartial, even threatening me to close this debate in favour of validity. Shouldn't they explain their reasoning to the community and let a truly impartial admin make the decision?
Incidentally, in our discussions, An Eloquence of Time and Space was discussed. SOTO's position then was that it has no place here on the wiki. Clearly, the OP disagrees, and I explained above why it is important to clarify that point. Thus, I would be interested if this is another decision/statement that SOTO does not stand by.
- SOTO
I would ask again that discussion remain confined to the topic of this thread, and that all users pay special mind to T:ATTACKS, as well as T:POINT, and refrain from
- attacking users rather than the points being made
- publishing potential slander about real-life persons or businesses
Those policies are quite simply understood.
- (Since I am now being spoken about as well, though, I will state for the record that in the original discussion which led to the initial deletion of these pages, held in private amongst multiple admin, I refrained from taking a position, and continually re-affirmed my neutrality, because while it was taking place I did not have the time to devote to looking into this matter. When a proposal was brought forward, I stated that I would not get in the way of whatever is decided, so long as it was consistent with precedents and policy. I do not appreciate being misrepresented, and I approached Amorkuz in private immediately after he made the claim about "three admins" actively taking part in the decision to express that I did not appreciate this false claim. I have kept away from all three discussions thus far, and my quick admin note above does not constitute participation.
- What is referred to above as me "arguing for various outcomes privately" was in fact me approaching Amorkuz, ahead of any public post as a matter of respect, with some of the results of the extensive research I have undertaken in the last few days to work out the best resolution of this thread, according to precedents and policy. I do not understand the implication being made about my not being impartial, as I am affiliated with no one, have nothing to lose or gain here, and have refrained from all participation since this topic first entered the forums.)
Now, since it seems I have to say it again, will all contributors to this thread please keep discussion here to matters of policy, evidence and past decisions, and keep discussion of matters related to individual users confined to user talk pages, in keeping with T:POINT and T:ATTACKS, going forward.
- Scrooge MacDuck
(EDIT: I began typing this before SOTO posted the reply directly above this one.)
I will leave User:SOTO to answer on the charges you lay upon them (i.e. whether they indeed supported the original deletions, their supposed involvement in this thread or lack thereof, the arguable lateness of said involvement), though let's all bear in mind what SOTO themself reminded us of upthread, in their capacity as an administrator of the Tardis Data Core Wiki:
Quick admin note: Can we stick to the matter at hand please, on its own merits, and remember our long-standing maxim: "Argue the point, not the person." Thank you.
But that aside, I can't help but notice, User:Amorkuz, that you have only half-answered the query which you said you supported the answering of. Those original three admins. Who were they? You were one of them, and you say SOTO was another. But that leaves one. Who was "the third man"?
- Amorkuz
but how does accusing a company (or indeed an individual) of using a copyrighted image without permission on the cover of an unquestionably commercial release (the TARDIS) not constitute libel?
This is a direct misrepresentation of my words. I clearly stated that I would like OP (or indeed anyone else) to explain how it fit with the copyright. I did not state that it does not. I do not understand how it does and asked for a clarification. Asking for clarification is not an accusation.
As for your explanation, firstly, I do not believe vespiforms are trademarked. In fact, I first thought that this is an image of a Zarbi, which indeed proves that this is an image of a generic insect. Neither are vespiforms characteristic of Doctor Who Insects. A police box, on the other hand, is as you admit trademarked by the BBC and is immediately associated with the show.
Forgive me for saying this, but I find the idea that this unauthorised poem book is an academic publication laughable. I do academic publications for a living. Academic publications involve research. Reader's Digest is not research, even when rhymed. But if you are in doubt that this is a commercial project rather than a scholarly endeavour, suffice it to say that James Wylder also released a deluxe version of this book (ISBN-10: 1-5001-9718-1; ISBN-13: 978-1-5001-9718-6). The Deluxe edition has a recommended price of $40 instead of $25 and was released at the same time. Academic projects do not have deluxe editions, unlike commercial ones.
- Scrooge MacDuck
We are not using the same sense of "academic". I was using "academic" in the sense of "being about a piece of media, spoken about from a RL point of view, as opposed to being an in-universe continuation of its fiction". Not in the narrow sense of "scholarly work done within the sphere of accepted academia". It is academic in the sense that About Time is academic.
At any rate, I apologise for apparently misunderstanding your questions, but they did seem to be to be leading questions. If you trust that what Arcbeatle Press did does fit with copyright, and are only confused as to the how, how does your personal confusion about how copyright works constitute evidence that we shouldn't trust Arcbeatle in matters of copyright?
- Amorkuz
I will let the community decide who misrepresents SOTO's vote to delete the stories. Here are their exact words:
As long as we're being fully consistent, I vote delete. Sets a good precedent to shut down future dodgy cases, as well.
- Amorkuz
the results of the extensive research I have undertaken in the last few days to work out the best resolution of this thread, according to precedents and policy
I am sure the whole community would highly appreciate to learn about these results. Personally I am ready to argue about your finding, but here publicly rather than in private. As we've seen, our private conversations do not lead to any consistent results.
Since you yourself now think that you were wrong during the initial decision, it stands to reason that you might be wrong in (some parts) of your researched material. Thus, it would make sense to present it to the community before doing anything rash.
- SOTO
(I have provided further quotes over at Amorkuz's user talk page, three from the same day and another from 7 days later when it became clear there was a need for clarification. I hope this clears up any confusion around the apparent inconsistency expressed upthread.)
As for An Eloquence of Space and Time, that book is not the topic of this thread, so I will remind everyone once again to stick to the four stories under discussion here. (That said, I do not foresee us covering that book, if indeed it contains any works of fiction within it, as there seem to have been no licenses involved in its publication. But for those wishing to contest this point, that would be the subject of a different thread.)
- Amorkuz
Meanwhile, here is a quote from the copyright law regarding academic fair use:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The nonprofit clause is clearly failing in this case. Thus, I do not believe that the "academic work" explanation works. Even if this were a textbook on, say, calculus, it is rather obvious that a publishing house cannot arbitrarily slap, say a Millennium Falcon on the cover to sell it better, even though the book is intended for teaching students. The situation with lecture notes distributed to students for free is a bit murkier, but I would still not put any copyrighted/trademarked image on something that bears my name and can be further copied and distributed by students.
- Borisashton
In case you missed it, as SOTO stated above, this thread is not for discussion of An Eloquence of Space and Time and if you wish to discuss it you should open a new thread.
- SOTO
I was going to give more time to those participating in this thread, but some of the most recent contributions have veered discussion still further off-course. Multiple violations of T:FORUM and T:SPOIL demand, as I believe we've done before, that this thread be closed — temporarily without resolution — in order to halt and prevent more such policy breaches.
More to come.
Part 1: Foreword[[edit] | [edit source]]
First off, I'd like to thank everyone who has put their time and energy into these discussions, helpfully exploring the context and content of these four stories. It is always important, when the community is of two minds, that we clarify the boundaries laid out by policy, making sure that new decisions fall in line with past deliberations, and always with an eye for future applicability, for the precedent we're ultimately laying down.
It's here that policies like Tardis:Valid sources are really brought into practice, and all perspectives are immensely valuable in the work of shaping out each case as they come. After all, it's often been necessary for us to condense years of local precedents, having mixed in all sorts of outside evidence, before a truly consistent approach can be found.
And more often than not, the push and pull brought out by the community during these debates make way for the solution to rise up, out of a growing understanding, out of the points made and the level of specificity so often sought after. However, when disagreements turn away from points and counter-points, and into the realm of ad hominem attacks, they are never allowed to continue down this trajectory. When it comes to attacks on other users, we take a no-tolerance approach.
Part 2: Forum policies[[edit] | [edit source]]
It cannot be stressed enough how seriously this wiki takes our forum policy. It's what makes all this possible. I will quote briefly from that policy, but really, it's all there, in quite a bit more depth.
I did say briefly. That's it.
Even though it started strong, this thread ultimately had to be closed after participants wound up violating policy along all three of the above offences. Most importantly, personal attacks directed at other users are not permitted anywhere on the wiki, including the forums. More specifically, the substance of arguments made in the forums should always be based on the facts of the case, on each other's arguments (note: this is not equal to "on each other"), or in matters of precedent and policy.
Never should we see ad hominem attacks cropping up instead, focused on attacking the character of other users, rather than the substance of their arguments. Disagreements are expected, to be sure, but any efforts to discount the contributions of other participants (and, strangely, non-participants) through the means of personal attacks are clear violations of policy. Potential slander being made about real world persons or businesses are also not to be taken lightly. But perhaps most prominently: given the need to stay on topic, the public forum is really not the place to be airing out issues of a personal manner.
Such behaviour between users is never tolerated. And some cases require a little more than getting rid of a post or two to get things back on track. So as T:FORUM outlines, you should expect in such cases that an admin will come along and enforce this. "When your post may be deleted or moved" covers this in greater detail. Leading us, at last, to...
Part 3: Going forward[[edit] | [edit source]]
Given the circumstances requiring this thread's sudden closure, I think we'd all still like to give a fair shake to the matter of whether these four stories ought to join others of their kind on the list of valid sources. I would like to give everyone a chance to participate, in accordance with T:FORUM this time around. As a result, any user is permitted and invited to start a new discussion in a few weeks' time, without any need for new evidence.
This will be to clear the air with final arguments, and it will have a tentative close date of 3 weeks from the time of the first post. Any messages violating T:ATTACKS or T:SPOIL will be promptly deleted. If they do occur, do not respond to them. This will be the last chance for those wishing to prove that one of the four rules for validity has not been cleared.
Additionally, until such a time as evidence presents itself to suggest we should not be covering these stories, the pages will remain on the wiki. To quote again from policy, this time Tardis:Valid sources:
Part 4: Where are we now?[[edit] | [edit source]]
As of the time of this thread's closure, I do not see that sufficient evidence has been provided to show that these stories are any different to comparable releases from Candy Jar Books or BBV Productions, which are founded on licensing agreements with individual authors (or their estates). These have a long (and storied) history of being covered. And naturally, we have precedents for short stories released exclusively for the web (see: WEB short stories), including those released in blog format (see: Christmas Special), for stories released for free that make use of known licenses (see: Free Comic Book Day and The Paul Spragg Memorial Short Trip Opportunity) and finally for crossovers (see: Stories that crossover with non-DWU series).
Tardis:Valid sources tells us that we need sufficient evidence that one of the four little rules has in fact been broken, if community discussion is to declare these invalid. But all here seems to be in order.
In point of fact:
The first collection containing these stories has a copyright note on, well, the copyright page, which lists exactly whose rights have been acquired, and the introduction to this same release explicitly states these are "commercially licensed" stories.
We even get this more extensive account:
Part 5: What does all this mean?[[edit] | [edit source]]
So, a little history. In the 2011-12 original discussion on BBV, Forum:BBV and canon policy, CzechOut establishes that (1) a quote from DWM in which the makers of P.R.O.B.E. (and not the rights holders) discuss at length how they went about acquiring a license from the BBC, along with (2) the "acknowledgement at the end" itself that the two parties had agreed on, provides a "pretty comprehensive statement of the legal picture". In this discussion, each BBV production was dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This one was one of the more clear-cut examples, for reasons which map out exceedingly well to the evidence that's also been established here.
Conversely, for The Killing Stone, CzechOut opts instead for us to wait for "incontrovertible proof that it had the BBC's blessing", because the story made use of "[Sarah Jane Smith], the Fourth Doctor, the Brig, Benton, the Master and Yates": a tall order for small-business rights acquisition which he finds "just seems so unlikely". So a statement and an acknowledgement have always been sufficient grounds to determine the legal situation for a story, except in those most obvious of cases (like where a small outfit like BBV, which usually acquires rights for DWU stories from individual authors, seems to be using BBC-owned elements without any clear record of actual rights acquisition). Or in other words, as also quoted above, "This thread has firmly established the need for some sort of legal usage of characters in a story before we'll touch it. We didn't actually have that concept before."
The same idea came up again in a more recent case, where The Lego Batman Movie was correctly denied a page, after much discussion, because no indication was given in the movie's extensive credits that permission had ever been obtained from the Terry Nation estate for their use of Daleks. As outlined in that closing post, again by CzechOut, the film had to be excluded (that is, not even given a page) because there were no behind-the-scenes statements, and there were no credits given at the end of the film to indicate these rights had been acquired. So we decided not to touch it.
Here, however, we are in no shortage of such evidence for rule 2 — with credits attached to the stories, and statements from the publisher, and statements from some of the authors that they have in fact been involved — and, honestly, I'm not sure that rule 4 has ever been clearer.
Multiple quotes have been drawn up from the publisher indicating, quite clearly, that the intent is for these stories to cross over with the Doctor Who universe. The most salient piece of information, which formed the basis of this thread — a quote from Wylder which plainly reads, "You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here" — was, of course, absent from the last discussion. Another reads, "Getting to play around in the edges of the Whoniverse has been an honor". No matter how you slice it, the intent (which forms the basis of rule 4) has been directly stated.
Where does all this leave us? Early on, this thread established that the quote from Wylder which had been central to the last closing statement, regarding "a whole new universe" and "a new science fiction universe", were in fact referring to the 10,000 Dawns universe, with which these short stories are intended to cross over. To be clear, we will not be covering the 10,000 Dawns universe.
Instead, we take the same approach as with Assimilation², indeed the same approach as with Death's Head, and the same approach as with Decalog 5: Wonders. That is, we only look at covering those stories which are intended to be set in the Doctor Who universe. All others do not so much as get pages.
The final part[[edit] | [edit source]]
So, you may be asking, is this unusual? Slightly. As established at Thread:208233, as elsewhere, the universal admin approach here is usually to conduct research — independently, generally as an admin who has not yet participated in discussion — and then to both present these findings and come to a final decision within the same closing post.
But it seems to me this is an unusual situation: twice has a thread on this topic had to be shut down for improper forum use. So in case this discussion, cut short, might have led back to good-faith, productive dialogue, I'd like to make sure that everyone is given the opportunity to participate within the confines of policy, so that all voices can be heard.
Once again, in order to prove that these stories should be treated as invalid, sufficient evidence needs to be provided that one of our four little rules has not been passed.
Some other points have also been brought up which do not belong here, but which absolutely can be explored in their own forum threads. First off, the reference book brought into question does not fall within the topic of this inclusion debate. Any suggestion to cover this would require its own discussion. As well, any new rules being proposed that would affect all stories that are released for free, which would necessarily affect Big Finish and Titan output that up to this point have not been questioned, would also need to be the subject of its own Panopticon debate.
I will end with a quick reminder that, in the final thread, this is the golden rule which must be followed:
I wish you all happy editing, and that we should encounter only good spirits in the course of our discussions in the days and weeks to come.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:260946
Having listened to The ArcHive Tapes, I can confirm that they are very much the same thing as The Dalek Conquests. Essentially, the anthology is an account of classic Cyberman history pieced together in-universe by the narrator, an ArcHivist (David Banks).
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I stated elsewhere, fully support this. This is as narrative as you can get, with the in-universe framing confirming that this is set in the DWU rather than being just a collection of "fan theories".
- MrThermomanPreacher
Calling all admins. As this point has received no opposition within a period of at least five days, can I assume that The ArcHive Tapes can be classed as valid?
- Shambala108
Five days, seriously? We still have open debates that are years old. And only two opinions posted here so far.
- Schreibenheimer
I mean, yes, five days is fast, but OP's point about it being equivalent to another story that was deemed worthy of inclusion is sound. If no one has anything more to add, I doubt they'll comment.
I do have one question, though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe The Dalek Conquests was made by the BBC, and The ArcHive Tapes were not. Do we know if they were explicitly licensed, or did they get by under the guise of nonfiction? I just want to make sure we're observing Rule 2.
- MrThermomanPreacher
They certainly were licensed, by BBC Enterprises.
- Schreibenheimer
That was my only reservation. Then, yes, if it is a situation with clear precedent, I'm not sure what further discussion there is expected to be, although it may be best to give it a tad longer than five days, just so that people have a little more time to see it and object if they have thought of something we haven't.
There is a narrative framing device which is similar to that given in AUDIO: The Dalek Conquests and PROSE: A Brief History of Time Lords, which explains how it was this historical narrative was written in-universe (and who wrote it, Hegelia, an established DWU character via Killing Ground), and gives a fictional context to the recording itself. There's even a narrative involved with the playback, or at least the tape — similar in kind, though not scale, to AUDIO: Tropical Beach Sounds and Other Relaxing Seascapes 4 — with a "mysterious intruder" invoked in writing (packaged with the story) as having disrupted and entangled the end of the second tape, The Early Cybermen.
So long as those two examples, and those like them, remain valid, there's no reason to treat The ArcHive Tapes any differently. This can be revisited if ever we reconsider stories like The Dalek Conquests or A Brief History of Time Lords. Ruled valid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:261075
Captain Britian was an eleven-part comic and flagship story of The Daredevils, a 1983 Marvel UK anthology that also reprinted DWM comics Star Death, 4-D War, and Black Sun Rising (hence it already having a page on this wiki).
While this Captain Britian series is currently considered invalid by this wiki, I believe there is overwhelming evidence for most of it being part of the DWU via Merlin the Wise and the Special Executive. Let's go over the four little rules:
| 1 | Only stories count. |
They are stories.
| 2 | A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. |
They were licensed by relevant copyright holders, namely Marvel UK.
| 3 | A story must be officially released to be valid. |
They were officially released in 1983.
| 4 | If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. |
Now, this is where we get to the debate; was Captain Britain meant to be a crossover between DWMs comics and the Marvel universe, and is thus a valid part of the DWU? First, let's look at precedent of this wiki:
- This wiki is no stranger to covering crossovers, but we only cover stories directly part of the DWU.
- This wiki originally covered Death's Head (1988) issues #5 and #6 as valid as they directly include characters that originated in the DWU crossing over with Death's Head. Issue #5 was a crossover for including Keepsake, Bahlia, and Keepsake's vulture from COMIC: Keepsake. The situation with Merlin and Special Executive in Captain Britain is the same scenario with DWM characters in another Marvel UK comic. In fact, it's an even higher profile crossover.
- (The other eight stories have since been ruled valid, but only The Incomplete Death's Head versions.) So there is a precedent for how we cover Doctor Who/Marvel crossovers, even if they don't cover every issue of a series.
- Captain Britain is already valid on this wiki thanks to his crossover cameos in COMIC: Party Animals, a story published in 1991. Some may have hesitated to include Captain Britain on this wiki, but it is a non-issue.
I think the evidence for inclusion is significant:
- Issue #1 features an appearance of Merlin the Wise from COMIC: The Neutron Knights and The Tides of Time as one of many faces of Merlyn. His DWM Merlin the Wise incarnation says "[Captain Britain] wouldn't have known me...", a nod to his appearances being in DWM comics and not interacting with Captain Britain.
- Issues #5-11 feature appearances of the Special Executive team from 4-D War and Black Sun Rising.
- In fact, Alan Moore's Star Death, 4-D War, and Black Sun Rising are reprinted in issue #5-7 to give explicit context for the reader about the DWU origins of this team. (Star Death was given one alteration: Merlyn gives the framing narration in place of the Fourth Doctor, but the word balloons are left unchanged.)
- Alan Moore wrote these Captain Britain stories, showing his authorial intent. Moore explicitly explains his intent for this to be a continuation of his Special Executive stories in "About: The Special Executive!" of issue #5:
The Special executive grew out of a series of years ago for inclusion in DOCTOR WHO MONTHLY as back-up strips.
I won't bother running through all the peculiar ins and outs of [4-D WAR]. Bernie will be reprinting it in these pages next month so you can catch them for yourselves.
BLACK SUN RISING... was just about the last story I did for DOCTOR WHO, so the Special Executive were seemingly cut down in their prime before I could explain who they were, how many there were of them, how their odd time-based powers functioned or any of the rest of the material I had planned. Imagine my glee when I was given the go ahead to use them as supporting characters in a couple of issues of The Daredevils, some two or three years later. So basically, here they are again folks: Wardog, Cobweb and Zeitgeist, along with previously unseen operatives like Fascination and Legion and a whole bunch of intriguing silhouettes that feature briefly in the opening frames of this episode and should give some idea as to how many of these oddballs there actually are. Whether the Executive fare any better in this incarnation, aided by the excellent visual interpretations of good old Alan Davis, is largely up to you.
- The word Parahuman is used in issue #5. In issue #6, there is an oblique reference to the Time Lords when Wardog says: "We've worked for time travellers, we've worked for sentient mold-cultures, and right now we work for Saturnyne." (Not to be confused with the planet Saturnyne.)
Here's a handy table to organize all the pertinent info about this series:
| Original issues (1983) | Captain Britain (comic series) | DWU characters | DWM reprints | Captain Britain colourised reprints (1995) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Daredevils #1 | A Rag, a Bone, a Hank of Hair... | Merlin the Wise, a face of Merlyn | X-Men Archives Featuring Captain Britain #2 | |
| The Daredevils #2 | An Englishman's Home... | None, so outside the DWU | X-Men Archives Featuring Captain Britain #3 | |
| The Daredevils #3 | ...Thicker Than Water | |||
| The Daredevils #4 | Killing Ground | |||
| The Daredevils #5 | Executive Action | Special Executive (Wardog, Cobweb, Zeitgeist) | Star Death | |
| The Daredevils #6 | Judgement Day | 4-D War | X-Men Archives Featuring Captain Britain #4 | |
| The Daredevils #7 | Rough Justice[1] | Black Sun Rising | ||
| The Daredevils #8 | Arrivals | |||
| The Daredevils #9 | Waiting for the End of the World | X-Men Archives Featuring Captain Britain #5 | ||
| The Daredevils #10 | The Sound and the Fury | |||
| The Daredevils #11 | But They Never Really Die |
This should be ample evidence that Captain Britain (but only The Daredevils #1, #5-11) is a Doctor Who crossover and is intended to be part of the DWU, and as such, should be covered by this wiki.
- ↑ First appearance of the term "Earth 616" in Marvel comics, if anyone was wondering. So we can easily establish that all events on Captain Britian's Earth are not necessarily the DWU Earth.
- Borisashton
LegoK9 presents this case thoroughly. It is clear to me at least that the stories outlined should be considered valid both because of the continuity references and the real world evidence of the Doctor Who strips being reprinted, indicating this is a continuation of a narrative thread set within the DWU.
- NateBumber
To be clear, Star Death reprinted in Daredevils #5, but it's not actually part of the story Executive Action, right?
- LegoK9
Correct.
And please keep in mind that the appearance by characters in stories has no determination on validity. Any inclusion debate that tries to argue that a story is valid based on a character's appearance in previous valid stories is subject to being closed summarily.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:261194
Hi. Should we create an article for "the Player" (or whatever name we can come up with) dedicated to the players of the Doctor Who games in which you play as an "unnamed companion" of the Doctor? Sort of like the Harry Potter Wiki did with Jacob's sibling from Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery. I mean, we have a couple of games in which the players are a character of their own and not just playing as an existing character.
- Shambala108
No, how would you describe such a character? It depends on who's playing.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:265090
Does this article detailing how Aldred puts a closure to Ace's fate in her book, mean that the webcast Ace Returns! is valid? It validates Sarah Jane's statement about Ace in SJA. If so, does it change what DWM said about the cast of the webcast?
(READ AT OWN CAUTION) https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2020-01-22/sophie-aldred-doctor-who-book/
- Shambala108
We already had an inclusion debate on this. It's a trailer, and trailers are not valid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:265197
The stories in the Doctor Who Unbound audio series are considered as being “valid” but as taking place in alternate universes, as they should be. But then what, exactly, is keeping stuff like Scream of the Shalka or the Peter Cushing films from being classified in the same way?
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I understand it, authorial intent. Things that are said to take place in parallel universes or alternate timelines are still "tied" to the mainstream Doctor Who universe because those are actual sci-fi concepts within the Doctor's universe; a parallel universe like in Unbound is a universe that the mainstream Doctor could go to if they wanted by i.e. crossing the Void.
Whereas stuff that is marked invalid by this Wiki for Rule 4 reasons is outright not intended to be part of the fiction of Doctor Who — it's using concepts and imagery from mainstream Doctor Who, but in no way, shape or form is it possible for the Peter Cushing Doctor and the Time Lord Doctor to meet, any more than the Doctor is going to meet Luke Skywalker. It's just a different fictional construct.
At any rate, take anything I say with a grain of salt, what with my not being an administrator on this Wiki, just a regular editor who thinks too much about these things. But I don't think this board is the right part of the forum to be posting this question.
P.S. As it happens, there is an ongoing thread right now to reclassify the Peter Cushing films as… something other than a parallel universe, precisely because (among other things) of the many references in mainstream continuity that the Peter Cushing Doctor racked up over time. It's here if you care to read it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:265926
So here we are. The fourth and unambiguously final inclusion debate on the 10,000 Dawns crossover stories Rachel Survived, White Canvas, The Gendar Conspiracy and latecomer Life After Death. The previous accessible debates are located at Thread:258247 and Thread:260549. As per SOTO's closing verdict in the latter this thread will have a tentative close date of three weeks from now.
SOTO's closing statement very clearly states:
Here, however, we are in no shortage of such evidence for rule 2 — with credits attached to the stories, and statements from the publisher, and statements from some of the authors that they have in fact been involved — and, honestly, I'm not sure that rule 4 has ever been clearer. Multiple quotes have been drawn up from the publisher indicating, quite clearly, that the intent is for these stories to cross over with the Doctor Who universe. The most salient piece of information, which formed the basis of this thread — a quote from Wylder which plainly reads, "You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here" — was, of course, absent from the last discussion.
In other words, none of the evidence presented in the last debate was indicative of a violation of Tardis:Valid sources. This means that contributors wishing for these stories to be covered as invalid should provide new evidence to that effect.
Finally, SOTO also helpfully offers this instruction in relation to this thread:
Any messages violating T:ATTACKS or T:SPOIL will be promptly deleted. If they do occur, do not respond to them.
I hope we can now get this matter put to rest!
- Borisashton
I will start by reiterating my support for the full inclusion of these stories, as I have done since the first debate on the matter. It is clear to me that these stories pass all four of our "little rules" outlined at T:VALID.
- AeD
I stopped engaging in previous threads because the atmosphere became uncomfortable, but I've kept up with them the whole way through, and hope this thread will actually be the end of it. I'll just reiterate and sum up what I've said multiple times before:
There is no doubt in my mind that these pass the four little rules, and as far as I can tell, all other bars (some of them arbitrary, and not even based in this site's rules) that have been set in the previous threads have either been passed or dismissed as irrelevant.
To avoid any more interpersonal unpleasantness, I'm therefore gonna close this thread, in my capacity as a member of Fandom's staff. Consequently, 10K Dawns remains an invalid source.
I'll have more to say in the coming weeks, but in the meantime, please remember that this wiki is primarily about Doctor Who, and that a current series of Doctor Who is underway. Please concentrate your editing efforts in that direction, as that will be of most benefit to attracting new readers and editors.
Please do not restart this topic in other threads. And do please remember, as other admin have said before me, that T:BOUND remains in effect. Please don't, therefore, edit contrary to the fact that 10K Dawns is not a valid source on this wiki.
Thanks!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:267336
The latest episode of Doctor Who is very likely to be controversial, due to its extending the lore of the show past a point previously known, but I think there's a bigger discussion to be had about our site-wide policies.
On this site, we have had a long history of invalidating stories based on if the Doctors they present are... "correct." that is, we have a selection of 13 Doctors we consider... "Correct." And if a story contradicts that lineage, then we consider it non-valid. For instance, if a Doctor ever mentions having an incarnation number, it doesn't count to us, and is seen as invalid.
The recent stories introduction of at least 20 incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell brings this into question. It seems like the direction that the BBC is taking the program is the opposite of where we've stood on the issue of "Dcotors that count," and that it might be worth doing to reconsider the stories we've thrown in the bin. Does anyone have any general thoughts?
- Shambala108
This is yet another post that starts with an incorrect assertion. We do not have a selection of 13 Doctors as the OP asserts...there are several "Doctor (story name)" pages that come from valid stories. As this is not the first or second time this particular OP has started a forum post with an incorrect assertion, this post is closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:267931
Death Comes to Time remains currently invalid on the Tardis Data Core.This was done by CzechOut and had ramifications stretching out to the way the general populace of Doctor Who fans views this story. I wish to discuss why this eight-year-old debate has changed since the implementation of validity over canon.
Why it harms the Wiki to cover this story as invalid[[edit] | [edit source]]
Last time there was an (admittedly-ill-argued) attempt to change the Wiki’s coverage of the story to valid, the closing admin (now-former administrator User:Amorkuz) claimed that the debate was pointless either way, because it would not meaningfully impact the Wiki’s coverage of the story if the {{Invalid}} tag were removed from the page.
This was yet another pointless debate. It was held for no other reason than to have this debate. The story is already covered by the wiki. Its page is more extensive than those of many valid stories. Even if there were some reasons to change the status of this story from "covered invalid" to "covered valid," what would have been achieved by that? Beyond a successful inclusion debate, that is? Is it desired that the Seventh Doctor page necessarily states, "According to another account, the Seventh Doctor died there and then"? And each future consequent Doctor's page states at the end, "According to another account, this Doctor never existed"?
We’ll cover, in another section, the matter of whether it’s relevant that the Doctor seemingly dies. But as a matter of fact, whether Death Comes to Time is considered valid on the Wiki does change rather a lot about what we can and can’t cover of the story on the Wiki. Of course it does. That’s, unless I’m very confused about some very important things, what having invalid sources means.
Case in point, the mess that is The_Brigadier_(Death_Comes_to_Time). The invalidity of the story forced us to create separate pages for its versions of characters (because if we can’t have the Doctor’s Death Comes to Time actions in the biography section of Seventh Doctor, then that was the only way to give them the in-depth coverage they deserved)), but the situation turns into a Catch-22 with the poor Brig: since he is little more than an extended cameo in the story, we somehow have to act as though this mysterious man who introduces himself as “the Brigadier” is appearing for the very first time, as though we have no idea what his real name even is. Which is obviously nonsense.
Death Comes to Time may not seem to fit particularly well with the TV Movie, although wait a tick. But it is overwhelmingly obvious that it at the very least takes place in the same universe as the Classic Series of ‘’Doctor Who’’. Trying to cover ‘’Death Comes to Time’’ as if it existed in a vacuum, rather than as a continuation of the adventures of the same Time Lord whom we saw tried by powerful, mystical Time Lords for his interference in ‘’The War Games’’, and form a strong bond with Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart throughout the Pertwee era, turns it into a garbled and frequently confusing non-story where elderly men in unfamiliar military outfits show up for no reason and refuse to introduce themselves.
Further, the failed thread linked earlier may have been mistaken in its assumption that the reference to Death Comes to Time in Zagreus was blatant enough to revalidate the story on its own merits, but the fact remains that varyingly-subtle references to Death Comes to Time in later, unambiguously valid stories are dime-a-dozen. There’s Zagreus; there’s a recent and blatant reference in the high-profile novel At Childhood's End; the Minister of Chance makes a cameo in The Tomorrow Windows; and Tannis is referenced in The Gallifrey Chronicles. This latter cameo, incidentally, means that our Tannis page must currently consist of a minuscule sentence about what we know about the guy from valid story, and an unworkably huge behind-the-scenes section to cover any and everything that people actually want to know about the man — so there’s yet another example of the way in which covering this story as invalid very much impacts its coverage on the Wiki, negatively so.
Plus, notice anything about two of those four references, perchance? That’s right: half of these references to Death Comes to Time are in Eighth Doctor stories. The admin, in his closure of the earlier thread, might have said the story remained invalid…
…until a quote from Dan Freedman is found, where he explains how his killing of the Seventh Doctor and disparaging of the Eighth was meant to integrate his story into DWU at the time.
but obviously, authors of valid stories featuring the Eighth Doctor didn’t wait for such a quote to integrate this supposedly anti-Eighth-Doctor story into the ongoing adventures of the Eighth Doctor.
Why this story passes Rule 4[[edit] | [edit source]]
I found the fact that this story’s invalidity was decided back when the Wiki used the concept of “canon” willy-nilly —- when the fact that a story was or was not referenced by later stories could be as, or more, important than authorial intent — and that it was not reevaluated upon the adoption of a new system, very counterintuitive indeed. Reading through the original debate, it becomes clear that it’s actually where much of the validity policies we now know were ironed out, and given that closing admin CzechOut had to point out “Anyway, guys, this thread is about Death Comes to Time” in his succinct closing statement, it’s easy to see how in the effervescent atmosphere of those early days of the Wiki, the actual facts of the case might have been analysed a bit too lightly by the time people even agreed what the relevant facts were.
In this section, we’ll look through the Four Little Rules and how they are met without question.
Rule 1 - It is a story. This passes with flying colors.
Rule 2 - As this was produced by the BBC itself and no evidence has been found to show they didn’t attain the proper licensing, I would say this passes as well.
Rule 3 - Released as both a webcast and an audio. This passes.
Rule 4 - This, as always, is where doubt starts to come into play. For all that the original 2012 (!) debate followed an archaic form of our validity system, it did, to its credit, feature a couple of quotes whose use in the discussion was along the lines of how we would, these days, examine a Rule 4 quote. However, this does not mean that they are convincing Rule 4 quotes, at least in my opinion. No offence to people who participated in the discussion then; it was a different time with different policies. But it’s time for us to give them another look.
A quote from Nev Fountain illustrates the following position:
[I]f you want to accept it as canon, you can. or not. Whatever you prefer.
As we do not use canon any longer, this hardly matters on the surface. It does tell you, however, that their stance on “the DWU” is, in effect, very similar to our stance. We do not dictate what people can and cannot deem personally canon, but as stated above, creators having their stories explicitly set in the DWU have on countless times referenced it. The script editor merety states that personal opinion is exactly what it says on the tin.
Nothing has been said to imply that this story is in a wholly-separate continuity outside the confines of the DWU. Fountain merely joined Paul Cornell and Steven Moffat in arguing that in a fictional world as big and complicated ridiculous as the Doctor Who Universe, it’s a fool’s errand to want to make everything fit, and that fans are free to pick and choose what is true in their personal imaginary DWU.
In that old Forums debate, CzechOut also picks apart some quotes from Dan Freedman himself:
"No regeneration scene, no continuity references, no nothing. You've got to get to know this character and his companions again."
Freedman also says he already had someone cast "theoretically" as the "next Doctor" for his proposal of a new series. This means, as far as I can make out, that the death in DCTT simply wouldn't have been narratively respected.
Had his proposal, instead of RTD's, been the one that carried the day, he wouldn't have even used DCTT as a part of the backstory.
Again we see this assumption that the Doctor’s death is really supposed to be final, which is frankly a bit odd when the Doctor calmly replies “I’ve been dead before” when someone points out what he’s doing might kill him. But besides that, is it just me who reads this Freedman quote as the exact opposite of what CzechOut is saying it means? Consider: once you’ve created a non-TV story where the Doctor “dies” in a way where he disappears, ready to pop up again in the future through unknown means, then is skipping a regeneration and just reintroducing a new Doctor with no set number not the only way you could keep your TV continuation in continuity with the non-TV spinoff? It’d certainly have been more respectful of Freedman’s to his own EU work than Steven Moffat was to his first take on Sally Sparrow, or Paul Cornell to the prose version of Human Nature.
Similarly, when it comes to “ignoring McGann”, reintroducing a new Doctor with no regeneration scene, few continuity references, and no clear in-universe evidence of which number their incarnation is… that’s, er, precisely what Russell T Davies ended up doing in ‘’Rose’’, isn’t it? To the point that Moffat was later able to retcon a whole new incarnation in-between McGann and Eccleston when it suited him. It’s just the common-sense way of reviving a ten-year-cancelled sci-fi show and not having it bomb.
CzechOut, after the aforementioned passage, also speculates on whether Freedman’s Doctor Who revival might have been a straight continuity reboot in the vein of the Leekley Bible, with a new First Doctor. Perhaps so, though again that is by no means clear. But if that’s what the quote means, then again, the potential TV revival ignoring DCtT would also have ignored the whole of the Classic Series with it. Because DCtT is in the same universe as the Classic Series, and ignoring one goes together with ignoring the other.
A reminder that validity isn’t canonicity[[edit] | [edit source]]
The closing statements we have already quoted twice seem agog at the prospect that…
…the Seventh Doctor page necessarily states, "According to another account, the Seventh Doctor died there and then"? And each future consequent Doctor's page states at the end, "According to another account, this Doctor never existed"?
There is an obvious answer. It goes something like this: “sorry to break it to you, but the Third Doctor page already has two different irreconcilable accounts of how that Doctor died, the one from television and the one from Interference.” One story saying the Doctor died one way, and another saying the Doctor died some other way, is just a thing that happens in the DWU sometimes. Nor does Death Comes to Time annul post-Seventh Doctors, necessarily; no body is found after the “death scene”, and the Seventh Doctor says that he “has died before”, so I rather doubt that Dan Freedman intended to close off future regenerations.
Later on in the same closing post, the admin argued that…
(…) completely rewriting the very basics of the universe, like making the Doctor a human inventor or making Time Lords homeless time gods, unambiguously places the story outside the wide but not infinite bounds of what can count as Doctor Who.
Well, the quip about the Doctor being a human inventor is I think clearly a fun dig at the Peter Cushing movies, which are their own conundrum, but here’s the thing: as casual perusing of The Doctor's early life and The Doctor's species will show, there exist unquestionably valid accounts from the sixties, some of them televised, of the Doctor being a human inventor called Dr Who.
As for the Time Lords being “homeless time gods”, I would also advise that Amorkuz (were he here) or anyone else of similar opinion have a look at the page Fraction: there is significant evidence in Death Comes to Time itself, and already acknowledged by our coverage of it, that the Time Lords of the Fraction are a special case, and that the less epic bureaucrats of The Deadly Assassin still exist in the background somewhere, or used to exist. But more to the point: Time Lords having all kinds of godlike powers over Time and reality is something already present to various extents in The War Games, The Five Doctors, The Test of Time, Silver Nemesis, The End of Time and more. The Time Lords can hardly be considered “the very basics of the [Doctor Who] Universe” when there exists, as we have demonstrated, a bunch of stories where the Doctor is explicitly a human, plus, lest we forget, fosixur years’ worth of stories (from 1963 to 1969) where the concept of Time Lords didn’t even exist yet. Any argument that Freedman is knowingly setting himself completely outside Doctor Who, besides, again falls flat against the fact that this is a story which expects us to know who the Brigadier is and to care about him and his relationship to the Doctor. Is it possible for every Doctor Who story yet released to have happened within the backstory of Death Comes to Time? Perhaps not, but neither can you say that about The Klepton Parasites, or indeed The Five Doctors. The point is that it is, like any other DWU story, a story predicated upon the fact that its Doctor, Ace and Brigadier are the same people that viewers have already been following for years; it is part and parcel of the gleefully contradictory palimpsest of Doctor Who.
The Timeless Children, to pick a very recent example, could easily be discounted from continuity by a close-minded Wiki for whom intentional messing about with “the lore of the Universe” would be a capital sin. With its total lack of mention of Rassilon or Omega, redefinition of the word Shobogan, and intentionally blasphemous ideas about where the Doctor came from, it would take days to list all the stories which Chris Chibnall knowingly contradicted. Yet it would be lunacy to suggest that because it doesn’t adhere to one conception of who the Time Lords are, it is not part of the DWU. ”Canon” is not the same thing as “DWU”.
Also drawing from recent and televised examples, let’s back up a bit: how is the Seventh Doctor’s seemingly-definitive death, though given an asterisk in the formof “I’ve been dead before”, any different from Steven Moffat giving Missy a “final death” in The Doctor Falls in the full knowledge that Chibnall, or some further showrunner, would someday bring back the Master, likely without even addressing how Missy escaped? Moffat recently published a quote stating that he saw no need for an official explanation of how we go from The Doctor Falls to Spyfall and fans are free to make up their own minds. Does that phrasing perhaps look familiar?
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
I hope to have demonstrated that it does the Wiki tangible harm as a resource on the Doctor Who universe to cover Death Comes to Time as invalid, especially (though not only) when even more references to it in valid sources than existed at the time of the previous debates keep piling up.
Being that covering DCtT on the Wiki as valid is desirable, the question became: is it feasible by the Wiki’s policies? Again, I honestly think the answer is yes. The quotes from Nev Fountain and Dan Freedman were overinterpreted — understandably so, but overinterpreted. They are in fact wholly consistent with what this Wiki considers “Rule-4-passing”.
And as for the fact that the Doctor seemingly dies and that the Time Lords don’t act like what we’re used to… then by those standards, logic dictates that Interference and The Doctor Falls and The Timeless Children should be made invalid too. No one wants that, and that’s not what the Wiki’s policies are all about.
Thank you for your attention in reading through this monster of a post, but this is a thorn in the Wiki’s side that had to be plucked eventually.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I wholly support this proposal. I was the one who created Thread:240617 a year ago, and I now see that I was going about it in completely the wrong way based on shaky precedents from the old Forums. What User:LilPotato has done is point out that shaky precedents from the old Forums is precisely what invalidated Death Comes to Time to begin with, and that we really should have run DCtT by the modern Four Little Rules long ago. The new evidence provided by At Childhood's End is just a cherry on the cake of something we were always going to have to do.
- Gowlbag
I agree with this proposal. I would also like to point out that Rule 4 only states that stories "intended to be set outside the DWU" are probably invalid – it does not address stories "intended to have an ambiguous status within the DWU". This may be a subtle distinction, but it's an important one, as it places Death Comes to Time in an entirely different epistemological category – one which Rule 4 does not exclude. The above quote from Nev Fountain confirms that the story is intended to invite audience interpretation – the entire audio, therefore, is much like the artistically ambiguous "half-human" backstory suggested in Hell Bent. It invites the reader to make up their own mind as to how and whether it fits with broader continuity. To declare it invalid is to make that decision for the reader.
- Borisashton
It is blatantly clear to me (as laid out already in the OP) that Death Comes to Time was a product left behind from when this wiki moved from using canon to validity. Under our current rules as outlined at T:VS there isn't really anything that could be used to invalidate the story so all I can say is that I passionately welcome this proposal.
- NateBumber
Great post, and well-argued. I'll add that, along the lines of Tannis in The Gallifrey Chronicles, there are several other inventions from Death Comes to Time that have since been used in real DWU Who: Canisians in Trading Futures, Anima Persis in Relative Dementias and The Tomorrow Windows, and Mount Plutarch in The Three Paths. The Minister of Time himself is also clearly depicted as the "man with a bent nose" in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles.
Because of our current rules against referencing invalid sources in the "Continuity" sections of story pages, these straightforward references and connections to Death Comes to Time cannot be listed alongside all the other references and connections to other stories. The details are instead exiled to the "Notes" section, if they are mentioned at all. I think this is to the detriment of our pages like At Childhood's End, and it absolutely harmfully impacts the coverage of the story on this wiki.
For this reason, and for all the Rule 4 reasons addressed above, I am in favor of the validity of Death Comes to Time.
Edit: For the record's sake, and since Kudos's have a bit of a contentious status in inclusion debates here, it's worth noting that as of 5/6 the following users have left Kudos's on LilPotato's post: Sabovia, Chubby Potato, TheChampionOfTime (who's also commented in support), Danochy, Borisashton (who's also commented in support), LegoK9, and Jack "BtR" Saxon.
- TheChampionOfTime
Something puzzling to me is that this story's status as invalid has apparently led to notes concerning its connections to other DWU stories to be removed from the page.[35]
"Continuity" is, of course, not necessarily evidence of validity, but it runs counter to the wiki's utility to not have these points of continuity clear and available. Moreso, these things are important when interpretations of continuity were clearly a driving force behind declaring this story invalid.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree that continuity references from invalid stories to valid stories, and vice versa, absolutely should be present on pages. The large amount of such references that exist in Death Comes to Time, combined with the extreme lack of clarity of the supposed Rule 4 quotes, can fairly be used as evidence that the story really should be valid to begin with, in this particular case.
But to be honest, the matter of whether continuity sections should exist on {{invalid}} pages is also a matter for its own thread. The decision that invalid story pages couldn't have a "Continuity" section was, as best I can tell, taken unilaterally by an admin on this talk page in 2010; what's more, it was chiefly about Discontinuity, which, of course, we don't have on any pages anymore.
There was a fair argument to be made that invalid stories, especially parodical ones, can't have discontinuity with valid stories — but with that out of the way, I see no good reason why they shouldn't be able to have continuity. Even wholly parodical stories make what are obvious references to stories that came before them — or to each other! There is, of course, a serious proposal to revalidate the Cushing stories as a whole going on; but let us imagine for a moment that the status quo of all Cushing Doctor stories remaining invalid stands. What reason is there to forbid Daleks Versus the Martians from having a Continuity section that mentions its narrative connections to Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. at least?
But that, again, is another and wider matter. Continuity concerns certainly played a part in the original 2012 debate that led to Death Comes to Time's invalidity, but they don't, as such, belong in a debate today. A story could assert that the Doctor is a 3-year-old Venusian, and as long as we have reason to believe the authors did intend for that story to be set in the DWU as they understand it, then that story would still be valid. Whether or not anybody listened. (I mean, Dreamstone Moon cheekily raises the possibility that the Doctor is actually a Partriscisnad.)
- NightmareofEden
Yeah good thread I like this one. Let’s just assume you’re right and be done with it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@NightmareofEden, I'm sure User:LilPotato is pleased at your praise, but it's not really the place of you or I to decide when consensus has been reached and it's time to close a thread, as opposed to leaving more time for arguments against to come to light. That's a job for the Caretakers (administrators) of the Wiki.
- NightmareofEden
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: @NightmareofEden, I'm sure User:Borisashton is pleased at your praise, but it's not really the place of you or I to decide when consensus has been reached and it's time to close a thread, as opposed to leaving more time for arguments against to come to light. That's a job for the Caretakers (administrators) of the Wiki.
Well, I wasn’t making an official statement, just a safe assumption. In the unlikely event that an admin does want to keep it open, I’ll fully respect their good wisdom, but I don’t see why they would.
- NoNotTheMemes
I don't see anything problematic with this argument. Ultimately, it passes Rules 1-3 with no question and it straddles the line on Rule 4. Deeming it a valid source would allow numerous articles to be completed in a more coherent way. Going off of the rulings for the first three rules, the fact that it doesn't seem to exist as a parody or a pastiche --in my eyes --indicates it as a valid source for the wiki. It's just one of many parallels in the sea of hypertime.
- Shambala108
I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time reading white text on blue background and it gives me a headache to read such long posts.
Could someone please summarize the "new evidence" that has turned up that makes this story eligible for reconsideration? Thanks.
- LilPotato
This is the new evidence. In this book exists a passage that shows Ace becoming a Time Lord in the exact same way shown in DCtT. The Gallifrey version of events is also portrayed as a separate and equally-valid divergent timeline caused by the Quantum Anvil. The BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures repeatedly reference concepts such as Tannis and the Minister of Chance. Plus, at the time of the inclusion debate, a "canon" system was in place. We have changed as a Wiki since then, and so too has the state of the story's inclusion.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yes, it's a sort of double-whammy.
- A), the references to DCtT’s events in later, clearly Rule-4-compliant media keep piling up, with one happening in the recent and high-profile release At Childhood's End. We acknowledge that on its own, a reference in later valid media doth not a valid story make — but it's certainly new evidence, which justified, on a formal level, the reopening of the debate. It's not ironclad evidence on its own but it does suggest the old debate's interpretation of Nev Fountain's supposed statement of "it's not set in the DWU" might have been misguided.
- B), a careful analysis of the original debate(s) show that it was overdue for a revisit anyway. The original was carried out before T:VS in its final form existed, it interpreted the supposed Rule 4-breaking quote rather arbitrarily, and even the latest closure of a discussion about DCtT seemed to rely on a personal feeling of "it doesn't fit into the canon" rather than hard facts about authorial intent.
All that being said, User:Shambala108, you really ought to read the original post in full. It explains better than I can why this debate is necessary for the good of the Wiki — and while I share your distaste for the white-on-blue colour scheme of most forum posts, OPs are actually white-on-brown, so there's that. Also, could I recommend, if it really gives you trouble, copypasting the text of the long post into a Word document or similar? I've done so on occasion when wanting to avoid a headache.
- EpsilonGamma
My understanding with canon is that it's not continuity, by that I mean a story can count on the sole basis that it's official regardless if some event or statement in it may contradict another story. I'm fine with having DCTT as "valid" or "canon" just like how I'm okay with acknowledging two instances of the same events such as with Shada and Human Nature. The concept of time travel also allows for contradictions of continuity due to ie. the butterly effect.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@EpsionGamma: We don't strictly speaking deal in "canon" — rather, we use the concept of valid sources.
But you are correct that it's a big part of the whole point of this debate that we don't use (dis)continuity to determine (in)validity. That Death Comes to Time has an unusual concept of what the Time Lords can do does not mean it is invalid, though toa fan it might mean that it is non-canonical. A story could present the Doctor as a retired Venusian physician and be valid, if we had good reason to think the author meant for their odd story to "count".
And although it is often used in headcanons to explain the contradictions away, there's no need to resort to in-universe time travel to explain the contradiction. It is not our job to make up explanations for the contradictions. Merely to report that one account says X, and one account says Y.
- Xx-connor-xX
I think the original post in this thread is extremely well put together, and I completely agree with the proposal.
The main thing to take away here is "validity isn’t canonicity". If the entire reason that this story is invalid stems from the fact that the Seventh Doctor died before the TV movie, how can we then go on to consider work such as the recent 'Doctor Who and the Time War' short story valid?
- Shambala108
So if At Childhood's End (novel) is the only "new" evidence proposed, then there is no change in the validity of Death Comes to Time (webcast). I realize that some of the posters here are new, but we take author/publisher comments about their own work as part of determining whether a work passes rule #4. As Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time stated, the author/publisher didn't consider this story to be part of the DWU. I suggest reading through the quotes posted by User:CzechOut.
Some of the misunderstanding here seems to come from the idea that in-universe material is what determines validity. That is not true on this wiki.
A novel written by someone else doesn't count as new evidence. We don't allow new works to make previous valid stories invalid, and we don't allow new works to make invalid stories valid.
I know everyone was hoping the use of the word "canon" in the original debate would allow for the original ruling to change, but even back in 2012 the ideas of validity were there, even though the terminology hadn't been finalized yet.
This story is still invalid, and please keep in mind Tardis:You are bound by current policy and Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. Thanks.
I did read the original post when it was first posted. My request for a brief summary came after I had spent a lot of time on this wiki (and other sites) doing research on this topic. And to be completely honest, I was trying to say, in a nicer kind of way, that OPs need to keep their opening comments brief instead of writing such long posts to make their points. Since then I've been accused of ignoring the opening comments, which I'm clarifying now did not happen.
Beyond that, I suggest users read through User:CzechOut's closing comments from Thread:221655 regarding the closing of forum threads.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:268687
I discovered the page on GoldenEye 007, a video game that was only mentioned in one of the foreign language dubs of The Ghost Monument. I just wanted to make sure this, and any details added to foreign language versions, are indeed considered valid?
If it is, should that particular page be updated to say "according to one source", since it is technically a contradictory detail (Ryan instead mentions Call of Duty in the English version).
Semi-related: does stuff only mentioned in alternate printings count (something in a PROSE story that was added, removed or replaced in a later printing)?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Palmirinha (from the same dub) was, on the other hand, deleted by User:Shambala108 with the somewhat puzzling rationale "only appears in Brazilian version; this is the English wiki".
I am glad this thread was opened because that definitely seems a bridge too far.
Precedent is unclear on how to handle altered versions — The Five Doctors Special Edition is valid as a story in its own right, for example, as are comics which are reprinted with the art edited so that it now features a different Doctor. But on the other hand, coloured reprints of comics aren't valid. Sometimes altered versions get pages of their own (the special editions with "improved" CGI effects), sometimes they don't (animated reconstructions).
When it comes to whether they're valid, I feel like it could therefore swing either way and have no strong feelings on the issue. But I definitely think material from dubs and localizations should be covered, albeit with an {{invalid}} tag if need be. I frankly don't know what to make of Shambala's statement that since the info is Portuguese-only, it doesn't belong on the Wiki. Surely if there were licensed, original Doctor Who stories printed in foreign languages, and never dubbed/translated into English, we would still cover those?!
This might be a good moment to step back and look at how other Wikis handle this. Sure enough, the Harry Potter Wiki and the Disney Comics Wiki both document information original to foreign printings of their material, and even consider the information "canonical". (Of course, we don't use the term "canon", but note that the latter Wiki's understanding of the term is very close indeed to our "validity", conflicting accounts and all.)
That we are the English Wiki means we should give information in a format English-speakers can understand, but that hardly means we should limit the scope of what we cover on the Wiki to English-language media. If new, licensed information about the DWU was put out in a foreign production such as a dub, that is something that I, and I assume many other English-speaking fans, will want to know about.
Again, I am of two minds as to whether, to accord with current policy, dub-only information should be valid. But I insist that it should be covered.
- Gowlbag
I imagine that adding a "Localisation" section to articles about stories with interesting localisation differences would solve this. By their nature, localisations are highly unlikely to make substantial narrative changes, so this particular detail could probably be relegated to a bullet point under The Ghost Monument's "Localisation" section. (For example: "In the Brazilian dub, Ryan mentions GoldenEye 007 rather than Call of Duty. In the X dub, he mentions Y game..." etc.) It'd probably be better to use out-of-universe language within such sections, as the alternative is to give this information without stating which dub it comes from, which would be patently ridiculous. Unless we were to create a special prefix standard, like "(LOCAL: The Ghost Monument – Brazilian dub)"? Gowlbag ☎ 20:01, March 19, 2020 (UTC)
- WaltK
Having thought this over some more, I wonder if maybe including details from foreign dubs may be more hassle than it’s worth, if only due to the sheer number of foreign versions that are out there.
Sometimes foreign dubs completely change certain lines to change the tone of the scene (e.g. I happen to know the French dub of The Poison Sky replaces the Doctor’s “are you my mummy?” joke with a sterm reiteration with his dislike for firearms), so I don’t know if it’s humanly possible to be that thorough. It could also be confusing for people reading since we can’t exactly tag a paragraph with something like (TV: The Ghost Monument- Brazilian-Portugese dub only).
On a related note: I have always liked the idea of doing articles that cover the histories of Doctor Who output in other countries ("Doctor Who in France", "Doctor Who in Germany", "Doctor Who in China", etc.)
- WaltK
Totally agree with Gowlbag’s notion of having localisation sections. I also wanted to recommend listing stuff like story titles in other languages.
- Danniesen
I fully support the idea of having alternate mentions to that of the English version. Agreed with the nonsense statement. Just because it's the English Wikia doesn't mean that we have to only cover stuff given in the English version. And frankly I don't get why the two alternate name-drops were deleted when GoldenEye 007 was not.
On another note, the way I handled the GoldenEye 007 mention was, as you can see on the page, that I mentioned the reference and pipeswitched the episode title to the Portuguese title and afterwards mentioned "according to another account" with the English version's mention and the English episode title.
However, we could have a BTS section as well for good measure.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It is true that there are many dubs out there (though surely not many as there are translation of Harry Potter and Disney media, yet those are the Wikis where all translations are canonical!), but I should imagine that the number of translations which mention entirely new concepts or characters are few and far between.
I consequently see little harm in allowing that there be pages like Palmirinha and GoldenEye 007, either with invalid tags or with alternate-account language using the foreign title, as can be seen at GoldenEye 007 currently. Which, yes, would be linked to from a behind-the-scenes section called "Localisation" or something of the sort. This is really not very different from the way we cover Magpie Electricals's cameo in the animated The Power of the Daleks recon.
There is, of course, Thread:259163 still open; there, we are debating how best to source information from CGI additions and reconstructions which feels sort of relevant to how we might want to cite dubs in pages like GoldenEye 007. Something like what's currently done at that page, but linking to the #Localisation (or, as it were, #Reconstruction) section under the pipe trick, sounds like a strong proposal, however.
(Oh, just so everyone's on the same page, I'll mention that Carmen Miranda, from the same source as Palmirinha, was also deleted with an identical rationale.)
- RingoRoadagain
it might be relevant to remember this announcement from the admins some months back:
Dub actors are not covered because "it is not clear why English-speaking readers of this wiki would benefit in any way from knowing names of actors who have no presence in English-speaking media."
This reasoning is probably extendable for localisations at large.
BUT, foreign covers of books are still allowed on prose articles for the moment. So I would like to discuss what should be allowed or not.
I assume that the sensible thing would be to state that other versions exist but are not to be detailed at all?
- Scrooge MacDuck
While this is an interesting precedent, I feel that we should not be led astray by an unthinking conflation of behind-the-scenes information and in-universe information. Whether to cover any and all technical aspects of dubs and translations is not the same as whether to cover new in-universe information from dubs when they surface. I think we can, without tipping into policy schizophrenia, enshrine that we care about the latter but not the former, easily enough.
Empirically (and please if anyone feels otherwise, do tell) it doesn't leave a gaping hole in my heart if I don't know who dubbed Winston Churchill in the Polish version of Victory of the Daleks, but if in that Polish dub, dialogue were altered so that the Doctor gives previously-unseen details of his past adventures with Churchill, that is something I'd like to hear about.
- Borisashton
Ah, I had forgotten about that thread. A follow-up to that announcement occurred at User talk:Borisashton#Doctor Who auf Deutsch concerning German dubs of The Tenth Doctor Adventures released by Big Finish Productions. The judgement is reproduced below.
"I tried to leave as much information as is not harmful. To be honest, I do not know why English speakers would benefit from knowing the names of German actors voicing the Tenth Doctor Adventures in German. But at least this information is available on an English-language website and, hence, easily verifiable for an English speaker. In addition, the scope of the potential additions is limited as it pertains to one British company (Big Finish) and, in fact, to one range of its stories. So there may not be useful, but they do not make things worse."
In a further dialogue, it was also deemed necessary to list all dub actors in a single bullet point on the English version of the story pages to avoid certain cast members from appearing on Special:Lonelypages.
- 86.187.236.151
RingoRoadagain wrote: it might be relevant to remember this announcement from the admins some months back:
Dub actors are not covered because "it is not clear why English-speaking readers of this wiki would benefit in any way from knowing names of actors who have no presence in English-speaking media."
This reasoning is probably extendable for localisations at large.
BUT, foreign covers of books are still allowed on prose articles for the moment. So I would like to discuss what should be allowed or not.
I assume that the sensible thing would be to state that other versions exist but are not to be detailed at all?
>it is not clear why English-speaking readers of this wiki would benefit in any way from knowing names of actors who have no presence in English-speaking media
I have nothing to comment either way on the central debate of this thread, just to say that this specific line brings to mind Tom Baker in Robot "Naturally, of course, the rest were all foreigners@,
- Thread:211198: Special Editions and Movie versions, which ruled that separate editions do not get their own pages, and are instead covered in Story notes
- Thread:149385: Different versions of The Five Doctors, which ruled that "Both [versions of The Five Doctors] are valid. We deal with it as we do with any other conflicting information, one account suggests X, another account suggests Y."
What remains is to apply these rulings specifically to the question of "foreign language" dubs, and, if the "different versions" ruling does apply to dubs, how best to source information.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:269195
Do we cover amateur-filmed content on the page?
The Doctor Who accounts on Facebook and Twitter recently posted a video filmed by Jodie Whittaker of herself in-character as the Doctor (in costume too no less) talking about tips to stay safe (obviously due to COVID-19). She claims to be hiding from Sontarans.
Do we cover that sort of stuff?
Here's a link: https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/1242783288571211776?s=20
- Danniesen
In any case we can cover it on the COVID-19 page. I just wanted to know if this should be covered as some sort of in-universe element...
- Shambala108
No.
- Danniesen
Right. I wouldn't just go ahead and do it if we couldn't.
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:Shambala108 correct me if I'm mistaken, but you mean that it isn't valid, right? Which is true, but I think Danniesen was asking if we should have a page about it, and there precedent suggests that we should (we cover tons of webcasts and suchlike consisting of a vaguely-in-character Doctor actor giving good advice(TM) to the viewers, such as last year's Children in Need video with Jodie Whittaker).
- SOTO
It was uploaded by the official BBC Doctor Who account, which does lend it a bit more credence than the opening question of this thread woild imply.
- Sabovia
It should be an article, but most likely given an INVALID tag, given it features Jodie Whittaker in character as the Doctor, in the same vein as Dan Starky in Strax Saves the Day (webcast) — which is allowed on the wiki but is given an INVALID tag.
- Danniesen
That story had a different precedent for being created. It was clearly advertised as being a skit meant as a new introduction to the 50th.
This one is a video made by Whittaker herself, which happened to be shared by the Doctor Who accounts, therefore requiring further discussion.
- Danniesen
I should note that I too agree that this should have its own page.
- Sabovia
"This one is a video made by Whittaker herself, which happened to be shared by the Doctor Who accounts, therefore requiring further discussion."
That's a bold assumption. It was released by the official Doctor Who account, not "shared" by them (which would implies something entirely different). The character refers to herself throughout as "The Doctor", and not "Jodie Whittaker".
Personally, I think it should have a page on this wiki, but not be counted as a valid adventure of the Doctor. Unless of course it gets referenced later down the line even then that doesn't mean it will be counted (cough body swap ticket cough)
- NateBumber
Seems like we all agree that the story should be covered as invalid (as it currently is on Message from the Doctor (webcast), despite the T:BOUND violation)?
- Danniesen
I strongly would like to advice Sabovia to not connect "Strax Saves the Day" and "Message from the Doctor". They have no bearing on each other's existence on this wiki. Thus there isn't a COVID-19 "series". Strax Saves the Day is an introductory skit created for the special 50th Anniversary watch-along a couple of days ago, and such has a connection to "Cinema Introduction (The Day of the Doctor)" and "Prequel (Deep Breath)". It isn't a message about Coronavirus just because it happened to be released during that time. "Message from the Doctor" is specifically aimed to talk about the virus and therefore is its own thing, unconnected.
- Sabovia
I am not the person who made the original connection if you look at the edit logs of Message from the Doctor (webcast) edit log. However, I don't think you should just be reverting edits with "No" as your reasoning. My advice would be to leave the connection until it's determinated whether or not the article has a place on this wiki, and if he has, keep it and if it doesn't, obviously remove it.
Regardless, both pages are invalid sources and were released to help ease the COVID-19 worries and thus a connection can be made. Originally, you made no argument on why there isn't a connection, only reverted the edits stating there isn't.
- Danniesen
So was Things She Thought While Falling (short story). But that has no connection either.
- Sabovia
Danniesen wrote: So was Things She Thought While Falling (short story). But that has no connection either.
Because you claim it hasn't, it seems. Like I said, I am not the person who made the original connection of a "COVID-19 release", I only made the connection that they were both webcasts until someone changed the caption to say it was a COVID-19 release, it should be reverted back to connect to the Strax video because it's a webcast, in my opinion.
- Danniesen
I see about the one who made the original connection. Apologies for that. I hadn't seen it until you began editing. But that doesn't change that they have no bearing on each other just because they were released under the same circumstances. Strax Saves the Day makes no reference to the pandemic except for the tiny toilet paper gag.
- Danniesen
Not all webcasts have a connection.
- Sabovia
Danniesen wrote: I see about the one who made the original connection. Apologies for that. I hadn't seen it until you began editing. But that doesn't change that they have no bearing on each other just because they were released under the same circumstances. Strax Saves the Day makes no reference to the pandemic except for the tiny toilet paper gag.
I originally had "Strax Saves the Day" be the "previous" page because they were both webcasts, that's all — there didn't seem to a problem with that.
- Danniesen
As I said, I hadn't seen it. I didn't even see that Scrooge made the edit in the first place.
- Danniesen
Fine. I'll leave it in. Then we'll see what happens to it. Let's not turn it into an edit war.
But still, when you edited the "Strax Saves the Day" page you removed "Prequel (Deep Breath)".
- Sabovia
I edited that article to reflect the updated connection that somebody made, true. But like I said, I wasn't the one to made the original connection, so I don't really care either way, I just wish a discussion be held first.
If you want to revert the webcast connection, I won't stop you. But that was the original connection that I had intended, though I do somewhat agree with the idea of a "COVID-19 releases" thing, but a discussion would need to be had on it.
- Danniesen
Last quib (not a reply to your latest reply), I'd appreciate it if you don't call me a vandal. A vandal purposefully attempts to destroy the pages. And usually I have a fair good share of what I'm doing when I revert someone's edits on here. Another's edits being reverted does not in most cases constitute it someone's "personal opinion".
- Borisashton
A method of navigation for Strax Saves the Day that would be far more approriate would be Who at Home prequels because that is a real series of things, also related to COVID-19.
- Sabovia
Danniesen wrote: Last quib (not a reply to your latest reply), I'd appreciate it if you don't call me a vandal. A vandal purposefully attempts to destroy the pages. And usually I have a fair good share of what I'm doing when I revert someone's edits on here. Another's edits being reverted does not in most cases constitute it someone's "personal opinion".
To be fair to myself, you weren't giving valid reasons to remove the captioning (which I have already mentioned), with one of the reasons you gave being the word "No."
Like I said, a discussion should be held on whether or not to make a connection with COVID-19 releases, rather than just reverting edits because you feel there's no connection.
- Danniesen
I gave my reasoning when I edited the other page. I don't like to be repetitive. But fair enough.
- Danniesen
Borisashton wrote: A method of navigation for Strax Saves the Day that would be far more approriate would be Who at Home prequels because that is a real series of things, also related to COVID-19.
True. And until there are more releases on that front, we can't really make a "series" out of it. We'll see tomorrow, which will be the "Rose" watch-along.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Technically, one can make a series out of it. There is a precedent in Doctor Who for a single-episode series, namely K9 and Company. And series are sometimes defined by real-life circumstances such as method of release, rather than narrative or stylistic connections. The various stories in an anthology, for example, are usually connected via the next and prev variables, even if they've got nothing in common narratively speaking.
But I second the suggestion to use "Who at Home releases" or suchlike instead of "COVID-19 releases". I made up that term because I saw that someone had put in Strax Saves the Days as "prev", and thought that it wasn't really proper to have a "prev" section filled in without specifying which series it was previous in, so I took my best guess.
- Danniesen
Hmmm... So it wasn't you after all who began connecting them... interesting.
- NateBumber
I feel like all this debate about Who at Home belongs on a talk page, not a Panopticon thread about whether Message from the Doctor deserves an article. Let's postpone the argument about who added what until the page is restored and we can see the actual edit history.
Right now, the priority in this thread should be closing it in accord with the apparent consensus and restoring Message from the Doctor (webcast), so we can give proper coverage to this current event.
- Danniesen
Message from the Doctor exist on the BBC website:
- AeD
First of all, do we know Message from the Doctor was just made by Whittaker, without, say, a script from Chris Chibnall?
Second, regardless of exactly who it was made by, I think Message from the Doctor still pretty cleanly passes the four little rules? It's clearly narrative (rule 1), it was released by the BBC (rule 3) who, obviously, are the commercial license holders of everything seen and described (rule 2), and, frankly, I think you'd have a hard time finding anything substantial that says it's set outside the DWU. (rule 4)
- Sabovia
Danniesen wrote: Message from the Doctor exist on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p087nx4l
I think that settles it then, it should be covered by this wiki. I think it's got more of a right to exist than the Strax Saves the Day webcast, for example.
- Danniesen
Why more???
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, Strax Saves the Day is conspicuously fourth-wall-breaking. This, though — the Doctor is speaking to the camera, but it's not even confirmed that she's speaking to you, the viewer in 2020, even if it's sort of implied. At first, before watching it, I assumed it would be straightforwardly invalid, but yeah, come to think of it, I'm not sure it's any less Rule 1- or Rule 4-abiding than Before the Flood.
- Sabovia
AeD wrote: First of all, do we know Message from the Doctor was just made by Whittaker, without, say, a script from Chris Chibnall?
Even if she did write it herself, should that really disqualify it? Mark Gatiss wrote and appeared in Victory of the Daleks. Dan Starkey wrote and appeared in Terror of the Sontarans — does that disclude them from being covered on this wiki? — Of course not, because that would be a very silly criteria.
It was released by the BBC's official Doctor Who twitter page, it features Jodie Whittaker as The Doctor and not as herself, it's got it's own narrative, it's clearly intended to be set in the Doctor Who universe with references to the Sontarans — so like User:AeD says — it passes the four little rules.
- Danniesen
And even though it's not narratively said out loud, it makes a clear reference to COVID-19. And why can't that exist in the DWU as well?
COVID-19 of course can't be written as part of the in-universe material until it is directly named in a story, but still.
- Danniesen
Should we call them the "Who at Home" series?
- Danniesen
I vote for the "Message from the Doctor" to be recreated.
- Scrooge MacDuck
What Danniesen doesn't mention above if that there were any remaining worries about the official status of the thing, it's now been rereleased on YouTube on the BBC YouTube channel (under the alternative title of 5 things the Doctor does in any worrying situation).
- Shambala108
Apparently I need to post a reminder that Tardis:You are bound by current policy means you cannot act on anything in an open thread until it has been closed by an admin thanks.
- SOTO
Certainly now that the BBC have put this webcast out on their official YouTube channel, there should be no lingering doubts. Message from the Doctor (webcast) will be covered on the wiki.
Now, the scope of this discussion does not really include the question of validity. For now, the broad consensus above that said page should be marked {{invalid}} is what will be respected. That is not to say this cannot be discussed in its own thread. This closure, however, is quite necessary to allow for the page to be re-created without violating T:BOUND.
As for the series issue, "Who at Home originals" works perfectly well for stories that are actually released as part of one of its events. Strax Saves the Day and Revenge of the Nestene certainly belong to such a series, released in conjunction with the TDOTD and Rose Who at Home showings, and expressly produced by Emily Cook. The question of whether other stories, like Message from the Doctor or Doctor Who and the Time War, also belong to this series (backed up by evidence) is a matter for those stories' talk pages.
- Sabovia
User:Shambala108 has again deleted the page — though I had presumed that a consensus had been reached that the story does indeed pass the four little requirements it needs to be covered, with a similar webcast already having an article on this wiki. Surely if this isn't valid, then neither is Incoming Message?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I completely agree with this proposal. Battles in Time isn't at all "reference material" of the sort that made the Wiki decide to exclude reference material - firstly because it provides new information about the DWU, as opposed to summarizing TV episodes, and secondly because that information is fully narrative.
|- !269310 |20200326121602-4000564 |Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4000564-20200326121602 |2864657 |2020-03-26 T12:16:02Z |4000564 |User:TheCoud'veBeenKing |4136{{{1}}}
And, as such, Tardis:Valid sources has ruled that the information from DWBIT (aside from the comic stories, which do have articles) is not valid. This is similar to the reasoning behind not allowing any story info on merchandise packaging.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:269368
Curiously, a webcast which serves a very similar narrative purpose to Message from the Doctor is being counted as "valid", while the other one is not.
I originally thought that Message from the Doctor should be considered invalid due to its fourth-wall-breaking narrative (even comparing it to Strax Saves the Day) — however, my thoughts have since changed after watching the aforementioned webcast which Strax openly breaks the fourth-wall referring to John Hurt (although so does a Torchwood episode but in a different context) and Billie Piper by name. Message from the Doctor doesn't break the fourth wall in the same regard as Strax Saves the Day does, the reason the Doctor is talking to the audience is explained within the narrative, with no references to anything outside of the DWU, with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak of our world only being alluded to.
What do you guys think?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Upon reflection, I agree that both should be considered valid sources — especially in the case of Incoming Message, where Russell T Davies bothering to point out why Yvonne Hartman is alive despite her death in Doomsday (namely, that she's the Pete's World Yvonne from Big Finish) seems a very obvious sign that this is meant to take place in the DWU, albeit during events which eerily echo what's happening in the real world.
Yes, both are filmed as the actor talking to the audience, but both are clearly and unambiguously in-universe broadcasts aimed at the British population/whoever the TARDIS telepathic circuits pick up is "in trouble" (respectively). They're not addressing "you, the viewer" in a fourth-wall-breaking way. If we let in Before the Flood, I see no reason to invalidate those when they have more of an explanation of quite who the character is talking to in-universe. In fact, it's best likened, I would say, to The Woman Who Fell to Earth and Love and Monsters's framing devices with Ryan Sinclair and Elton Pope's vlogs. It looks like they're talking to the viewer, but the viewer is just being put in the shoes of the intended in-universe audience of the in-universe video is all.
- 72.194.244.165
I actually think Strax Saves the Day is far less obvious than people are taking it to be. After all, it refers to "all the original Doctors" teaming up, when this clearly didn't happen for the actual movie. If anything it seems to fall under the "All stories are true" idea Davies had with Doctor Who and The Time War. At best fourth wall bending, not breaking.
- Danniesen
I've just now come in again today right now, and saw that new one and I too consider it very inconsistent that this new Incoming Message is allowed to exist if Message from the Doctor is not.
- Danniesen
Never mind, I just saw Message from the Doctor was recreated.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DWM 551 has some new information about the production of both Message from the Doctor and United we stand, 2m apart in the "Production Notes" by Chris Chibnall. It makes it clear what a word of difference there was between the two production-wise (Message was written and thought up by Chibnall and Whittaker entirely on their own accord, whereas Untied we stand was written at the BBC's request and to a lengthy list of government specifications), and also, I think, contains a pretty strong Rule 4 statement regarding Message from the Doctor: Chris Chibnall wanted a video featuring the Doctor, not a "weakly-in-character Jodie".
(…) And the Doctor had started talking to me, little sentences cropping up in my brain. Question is: would Jodie be up for doing something?
Before I could ask her, on the 18th of March at 10.17am, a voice message pinged into my phone. Jodie’s voice. “I’ve just had a really random thought, and I don’t know how you feel. But I’ve got my costume with me. And I just thought maybe I could do a video to post...”
(…)
By Friday at 13.30 (this is all time-stamped), I’d tapped and re-tapped a speech into my phone. I WhatsApp Jodie the text. She responds an hour later (14.30 exactly), with a note about the first paragraph (she’s right!). I rewrite it and send it back at 15.01. Jodie texts: “I’ll get learning!” at 15.09. We talk about logistics, how she’s going to do it. She’ll film it over the weekend. I read it all again and send an amended second paragraph at 15.26. Two thumbs up from Jodie at 15.28.
(…)
Ping. 09.39 Monday morning, 23 March. A video lands on my phone via WhatsApp. There’s the Doctor, in the dark, bright light beyond her. I watch the take Jodie has sent. She leaves me a voice message: “Happy to do it again.” I watch it. It makes me feel pretty emotional, despite knowing the content. Because there’s the Doctor, and I really need to hear from the Doctor. Because I’m still eight years old inside.Interestingly, another article further along in the same DWM issue also has a bizarrely nonequivocal Rule 4 statement about Strax Saves the Day, and this in spite of its apparent fourth-wall-breaking. (But then, let me remind you that Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood) exists.)
My dad found it odd that his great aunt's punchbowl, is now canonically in the Doctor Who universe!
That's main star Dan Starkey emphatically acknowledging the webcast as being "canonically in the Doctor Who universe". Not only does he use the term "canon" (and while we don't deal in "canon", I think it's fair to say that anything its authors say to be canon presumably passes Rule 4…), but it also the actual phrase "in the DWU".
I'm unsure if a separate inclusion debate is warranted or if this thread should generally be about all disputed Doctor Who: Lockdown webcasts in general. Would appreciate second opinions.
- 72.194.244.165
I said above that I actually thought Strax Saves the Day wasn't obviously invalid, but this apparently was seen as a joke or something and was removed. Obviously at the time I didn't have this reference, but I stand by my statement. Strax doesn't himself acknowledge that he's in a show, merely that he watches a show with various actors.
And if we do add it to valid sources, what does this change? What groundbreaking revelations change the fabric of the wiki? 1. Strax and the Master fought - apparently Dhawan, and Strax thought they were a lady. 2. The Master used the Tissue Compression Eliminator on Strax. Earth-shattering.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Leaving aside the issue of Strax Saves the Day for now, I want to add that the latest Doctor Who: Lockdown! webcast, Doctors Assemble!, which doesn't have anyone speaking to the camera or such and is thus, I think, pretty unambiguously Rule-4-compliant, has a direct continuity reference to Message from the Doctor. Each of the Doctor has a "user icon" on the group chat on the TARDIS scanner, and the Thirteenth Doctor's is a picture of her hiding in a closet from a Sontaran, i.e. exactly where she was during Message from the Doctor.
Continuity references do not a Rule-4-passing story make, but I daresay, when the referencing story comes out so quickly after the referenced one, and both are ultimately overseen by the same person (Chris Chibnall), then they can certainly help "seal the deal".
The reference in Doctors Assemble!. - Sabovia
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why Message from the Doctor (webcast) was ever deemed "invalid" to begin with — especially when similiar webcasts such as Incoming Transmission (webcast) is considered valid. There's little difference between them, neither "break the fourth wall" that hasn't been broken before in other TV stories. Technically speaking, Incoming Transmission breaks continuity by suggesting that Pete's World has a Queen, when it's apparent by the existence of a President that they do not.
Message from the Doctor was written by Chris Chibnall, officially released by the BBC, and passes this wiki's four little rules.
It should be considered a valid source.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i had no idea this story was treated as invalid, why is that?
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Sabovia, I generally agree with all of this, but you obviously meant to link to Incoming Message (which is indeed valid), not Incoming Transmission (which isn't).
And Incoming Message is presumed to take place in N-Space, following the Pete's World Yvonne smuggling her way into the "prime" universe as depicted in Big Finish. So the mention of a Queen isn't problematic.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:270437
A bit of a weird one today. The Curse of Fatal Death has been invalid (or, in the olden days, non-canonical) on the wiki since its article was created in 2005. This is for the simple reason that it is commonly considered a parody or spoof and is listed at Tardis:Valid sources as an example of an "explicitly parodical" story. However, after discovering the wiki notes that Steven Moffat said in DWM 510 that the story could have been seen as a legitimate continuation of the programme, I examined the original forum debate on the subject located at Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?. After doing some research and following this advice from the debate:
This statement strangely doesn't seem to have been followed up on and apparently viewed as such an obvious fact that nobody seems to have checked. I have now and I can firmly say I believe the wiki was wrong to deem this a parody because in reality it is nothing of the sort and this opinion is backed up by several sources.
Background and administration[[edit] | [edit source]]
The quality of the original debate[[edit] | [edit source]]
I mean no offence when I say that the quality of analysis in Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon? was shockingly poor. As one might say, the past is a foreign country.
I should rephrase. The analysis of what was discussed was perfectly satisfactory but the title given to the debate is a bit misleading. The entire debate surrounds whether the apparent references to Curse in PROSE: The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles retroactively canonise it. There is absolutely zero discussion of the merits of Curse as its own story nor is there much discussion about authorial intent past people agreeing it's spoof or parody without giving any reasons other than the fact that such is obvious. It seems that this was just taken as given, even by the people in support of its canonisation! Rather amusingly, there is detailed talk about behind-the-scenes intention but in reference to 2003's Scream of the Shalka going along the line of reasoning that If we say Curse is canon then Shalka has to be canon for the same reasons but the production team on Shalka knew their story would be disregarded in canon before it was released. Fairly logical, but we now have several precedents regarding this to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Despite this, the closing statement does not reference its status as a parody saying only this regarding the evidence presented.
I think I've proven my point here. This section is here to illustrate the wiki is overdue in giving Curse a full and proper discussion with our up-to-date validity policies.
The first three rules[[edit] | [edit source]]
The first three of our "four little rules" at T:VS won't really come into play during this debate but I feel it's important to restate them as this is the first debate I can find with any of them.
| 1 | Only stories count. |
| 2 | A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. |
| 3 | A story must be officially released to be valid. |
- Pass: It is a story of four constituent episodes that has since been released as two-parter and a one-parter.
- Pass: It was released by the BBC and fully-licensed.
- Pass: It was broadcast during Comic Relief on 12 March 1999.
Compatibility with the DWU as it exists now[[edit] | [edit source]]
Before moving on to consider if this is valid I think it's important to get the elephant in the room out of it and look at if it could be valid in the Doctor Who universe as it exists now, in 2020.
First, a look at Tardis:Neutral point of view:
In that same vein I'd argue that an especially funny episode of Doctor Who that happened to be broadcast during Comic Relief should not be treated differently from a "real" full-length episode of Doctor Who such as The Curse of Peladon or Gridlock.
I don't think this wiki should judge Christopher Eccleston's Ninth Doctor to be any more valid than Rowan Atkinson's Ninth Doctor but I'm not stupid. Eccleston's incarnation should certainly remain most high profile with Atkinson's keeping the dab term. This is not a violation of policy, merely catering to readers' needs. The two can co-exist but the simple fact of the matter is that Eccleston is a Ninth Doctor but is the one that is most recognisable to casual viewers (and the vast majority of fans).
Additionally, there is no need to use "account" language in the main Doctor articles or the Curse ones because I don't believe there is enough narrative evidence to support that. Yes, Atkinson was described by the media as the Ninth Doctor "(thus following the one played by Paul McGann in the 1996 TV Movie)" but the episode itself only calls Atkinson the Doctor's "ninth body". As I'm sure students of the Master's timeline will tell you, "body" is a different and separate term from "regeneration". The distinction is enough that I don't believe site-wide change to be necessary should we use the exact wording the source gives us.
Before 2013, the lead to the page for "Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death)" might have said something like:
In his ninth body, the Doctor travelled with a companion named Emma who later became his fiancé. (TV: The Curse of Fatal Death) According to another account, the incarnation of the Doctor that travelled with Rose Tyler was his ninth body. (TV: Human Nature, The Lodger et al.)
I don't think there's any need to make it more complicated than that. The source doesn't explicitly say that Paul McGann was Atkinson's predecessor so we don't need to assume it if it just makes things more difficult but we cover our bases by mentioning Eccleston briefly anyway.
Obviously, after the introduction of the War Doctor things have changed slightly but the line of context about the "mainstream" Ninth Doctor could just as easily say the incarnation of the Doctor that fought in the majority of the Last Great Time War. (TV: The Day of the Doctor) The recent addition of The Timeless Children also complicates matters (and introduces continuity concerns for greater than Atkinson and his crew with it) but it's not too much of a big deal is my point.
You might have noticed that I used 2007's Human Nature and 2010's The Lodger above to source for the Eccleston incarnation. This is because Human Nature marks the first implied connection between McGann and Eccleston (through illustrations in the Journal of Impossible Things) and The Lodger marks the first time a number is used to describe the Doctor's incarnation on television in the BBC Wales version of the programme. This isn't really a point in itself, just the fact that if we had been so strict with in-universe statements that we might have not acknowledged 9 as being 9 five years after he left the role is a bit mind-boggling.
Does it pass rule 4?[[edit] | [edit source]]
| 4 | If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. |
And finally we're at the meat of the argument. Was The Curse of Fatal Death "intended to be set outside the DWU"? Let's look at the evidence.
A parody?[[edit] | [edit source]]
A word from the author[[edit] | [edit source]]
Everybody (including those in the debate on the old forums) has apparently passed this off as a parody but the writer of the piece Steven Moffat has made it very clear on multiple occasions this was not his intent nor the intent of the rest of the crew. This fact is made clear in the articles on Curse in DWM 278, DWM 328 and DWM 510. Issue 278 was the original feature on Curse at the time of its broadcast and issue 328 was an archive on the story. It was very helpfully published in early 2003, giving us an idea of how it was remembered without that memory being corrupted by "more canon" Ninth Doctors in Richard E Grant and Eccleston. We'll be here all day if I give you all the evidence that confirms this but I'll quote a passage from each of the issues to show that Moffat has remained largely consistent.
From issue 278:
Ah, but this isn’t really Doctor Who, is it? It’s just a parody, a spoof, I [ Alan Barnes ] claim. "I’m not sure I would call this a parody or a spoof, I would call this a 'Doctor Who comedy' - taking things from Doctor Who and realising them comedically. [...] That’s not a parody of Doctor Who, really. [...] We don’t break any rules, we don’t have him [The Doctor] do something he can’t normally do. So I wouldn’t call it a parody. The first rule we made was "Absolutely no jokes about shaking sets or wobbly monsters or crap acting’, or any of those things."
From issue 328:
Rather than produce an out-and-out spoof or parody of the show as had been done before, Moffat attempted to make his script as authentic as possible within the bounds of the original format.
From issue 510:
My view at the time, which everyone was very keen on, was "Let’s just make it a funny episode of Doctor Who, rather than a spoof".So it could just about happen in a real episode, it doesn’t break any rules. I remember Jonathan Pryce improvising the line "Doctor and Mrs Who", and although it was funny, I said, "We just can’t, because the rule of the show - more or less, but not as completely as many think - is that he’s never called 'Doctor Who'!" So we had to make it right, and as far as the continuity that existed up to that point, it was all perfectly fine. But it doesn’t fit anymore, obviously.
Apart from the line in the latter example about the story not "fit[ting] anymore" which is clearly a reference to NuWho (and he is right. It doesn't fit perfectly but the rules of the wiki say that we don't consider continuity or the quality of the story when judging stories so this shouldn't really matter. The Doctor was a human for many stories in the 1960s that this wiki considers valid but I doubt many lose sleep over this not fitting with their history as a Time Lord. They simply ignore them, because in the grand scheme of things they (and Curse) are very obscure stories. Anyway, throughout the years and the issues of the magazine) Moffat is clear that Curse was never intended to be a parody or spoof.
I don't know how clearer it can get to be honest. He says it at the time of broadcast, the sentiment is reflected in DWM's archive of the story and again by Moffat almost two decades on.
More evidence of comedy over parody[[edit] | [edit source]]
The word of the author of a story about their intent is one thing but there is far more evidence of Curse being a comedic rather than parodic in the array of articles on the subject. In DWM 278, a big font proclaimed:
From DWM 328:
All throughout this article is the emphasis on comedy that Moffat put on his Doctor Who work at the time. He writes the material he writes with his vision and asks for the somewhat controversial additions to not be taken too seriously. This certainly reminds me of the many additions to lore Moffat made during his time as showrunner but we wouldn't dare to call Hell Bent invalid.
It's worth noting that the approach of "comedy over parody" also reached much of the crew, also mentioned in DWM 328:
Julia Sawalha[[edit] | [edit source]]
One thing the original forum debate had going for it was this piece of evidence from Julia Sawalha from the behind-the-scenes documentary, Comic Relief Doctor Who Uncovered, that accompanied the story upon its VHS release.
This is juxtaposed by her position in her Doctor Who Magazine interview in issue 278:
The companion she had the opportunity of playing would be revealed to be Ace in a different article, a character who appeared in two full seasons of classic Doctor Who when the budget was at its lowest rather than a single episode that put an emphasis on the comedic aspects of the show. She even refers to the companion role as an "actress graveyard". I would certainly find Sawalha's job much more fun than Sophie Aldred's on the main show.
I'm not saying we should disregard her statement, but the two phrases "spoof version" and "actual programme" do contradict each other and it is easy to see why she might have thought it was a spoof during the three days of recording but the mounting evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Discussion of "real" Doctor Who also leads into the question of...
What defines a "real" episode?[[edit] | [edit source]]
There's no point in not being transparent on a case such as this; there are several statements from Moffat which put the validity of Curse into question.
I don't know exactly what Moffat meant here but all we can do is speculate. I don't think this quote is at all damning evidence. In this context, I would liken the word "real" to "regular". Curse is not a regular episode in the show in that it was broadcast outside of a particular season and does not contribute to the overall story count. Similarly to Time and Space, Curse is of a slightly shorter episode length than normal and because it was broadcast during Comic Relief puts a greater emphasis on certain comedic aspects. That does not, however, mean it is any less valid than The Twin Dilemma or In the Forest of the Night. Time / Space is of equal validity to those two stories and yet we don't have any trouble with covering it. If we have the wibbly lever, why not the Sofa of Reasonable Comfort?
Although I disagree with the notion, I'm perfectly happy to accept that some people only consider the main TV show canon, excluding audios, books and minisodes. And, although it could have been seen as a legitimate continuation, the hope of revival was not riding on this in the same way it was with the 1996 TV Movie just three years prior, hence why Moffat used the qualifier new in conjunction with real. People are entitled to their opinions, but this wiki believes all media has equal weight so our coverage of Curse should reflect that.
Potential sequels and references in later media[[edit] | [edit source]]
Potential sequels[[edit] | [edit source]]
DWM 278 brought up the idea of future material with Rowan Atkinson's Ninth Doctor. Richard Curtis was asked about the prospect:
The implication here is clear: if Atkinson had wanted to do more work as the Doctor he likely would have gotten the job with the distinct likelihood that his Doctor would have been recategorised as mainstream as more stories were released.
Joanna Lumley's Thirteenth Doctor was also used as the "incumbent" Doctor of two proposals to BBC Books after the broadcast of the episode; one by David A. McIntee and The War by Lawrence Miles. The latter would have been set during the War in Heaven from the BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures providing a direct continuity link. This premise would have also preserved the ambiguity of, in Miles' words, "whether the Thirteenth Doctor's canonical or not". As a result, even if not promoted to mainstream status after the publication of the book, the Curse Doctors would have certainly been considered canon as characters from an aborted/divergent timeline.
Later references[[edit] | [edit source]]
The Curse of Fatal Death has been referenced in other media as late as 2019. In The Bekdel Test, Missy refers to spending time in the sewer systems of Tersurus.
More concretely, however, The Taking of Planet 5 mentioned that the Fendahl Predator consumed the Tersurons and the Delphons' best forms of communication so they had to evolve for the most tenuous forms of communication. This clearly refers to the language of Tersuran being spoken by farting. It also creates an awkward situation on our page for the species which consists of one sentence in the main body and then a behind-the-scenes section full of culture, technology and history subheadings. This is more than just a reference; it builds upon the backstory of the species which creates a direct link between the two.
Canon[[edit] | [edit source]]
Finally, a few words on canon. As defined in Tardis:Canon policy:
Steven Moffat takes a similar approach to the concept of canon in DWM 278. He says:
Yes, I know lots of fans like to think about The Curse of Fatal Death as non-canon. However, we as a wiki rule that there is no canon and the author of the story thinks there is no canon so why are we validating one of his stories over another. If Curse is invalid then why aren't The Day of the Doctor and Heaven Sent invalid too?
News just in![[edit] | [edit source]]
Unexpectedly, this topic has garnered developments as recently as this week. Doctor Who and the Time War was finally released in March after being shelved in 2013 due to the impending broadcast of The Day of the Doctor. The reason for this: it shows the Eighth Doctor regenerating into a Ninth Doctor instead of the War Doctor as depicted in Day and The Night of the Doctor in an apparent prequel to Rose, which Christopher Eccleston's Ninth Doctor. He clarified he thought of Time War as a "glimpse of parallel events" and also more broadly stated he believed in light of The Timeless Children that "all Doctors exist" and "all stories are true".
Fast forward a couple of weeks and RTD has now "liked" a comment containing the question of "whether the Ninth Doctor here could also be interpreted as the Shalka Doctor or the Rowan Atkinson Doctor for the hat trick of alternative Ninth Doctors". I don't need to say why this is such a major development; we now have confirmation from the writer of the story that a valid reading of the text is that the Ninth Doctor from The Curse of Fatal Death was a product of the Last Great Time War, echoing the previous intent of Lawrence Miles that the Curse Doctors were somehow products of a different time war. The Doctor's testament in Curse that he has grown "weary of all the evil in the cosmos, all the cruelty, all the suffering" and is therefore planning to retire is actually extremely similar to the War Doctor's response to needing to end the conflict ("Too long I have stayed my hand. No more") as well as Eccleston's Ninth Doctor's initial reluctance to involve himself in events. In short, this isn't just an off-the-cuff response; it would fit with Atkinson's character and currently-valid incarnations of the Doctor have been shown to act in a similar way after the effects of the Time War.
Even more intriguingly, the phrase "for the hat trick of alternative Ninth Doctors" shows that RTD likes the idea that the Ninth Doctor from The Curse of Fatal Death and the Ninth Doctor from Scream of the Shalka (who is excluded from this thread) are equally valid alternatives for the title of "ninth incarnation" of the Doctor to his own creation, the Ninth Doctor from Rose.
It is also worth clearly mentioning that the wiki's policies have already required us to take action regarding this ambiguity by moving info about Time War that was on [[Ninth Doctor]] over to its own page at [[Ninth Doctor (Doctor Who and the Time War)]].
Of course, as out-of-universe statements these things are only to be mentioned in the "Behind the scenes" sections of our articles. The amount of inference we can draw from an Instagram like rather than an explicit "yes" or "no" is limited also. However, RTD even considering this idea coupled with his thoughts on canon that are associated directly with the release of the story he is referring to, as well as a possible new appearance from a Curse Doctor after over twenty years should not be understated or ignored.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
That's the proposal: The Curse of Fatal Death should be deemed a valid source. In short, although it is commonly thought of as a parody (including currently at T:VS) the authorial intent has always been perfectly clear that the story was quite the opposite. Additionally, T:NPOV is one of our most vital policies and I vehemently believe that we are violating it by not covering the story.
I look forward to this debate getting underway, especially as RTD's testimony that "all Doctors exist" have provided this thread with a current relevance to editors and visitors of the site alike!
- Gowlbag
I agree with this proposal - it seems clear to me that the story passes all four rules required for coverage as valid.
And, while continuity isn't a requirement for coverage as valid, I'd also like to point out that The Timeless Children has recently demonstrated - for anyone who'd like one - a very clear, in-universe mechanism by which entire cycles of Doctors can be granted, live, die, regenerate, and then have their memories completely erased, along with any apparent record throughout the universe of their ever having existed. As such, any lingering idea that Doctors have clear, reliable numeric designations, with the implication that any contradiction must mean invalidity (or at least segregation into alternative universes or parallel timelines), clearly no longer holds any water. I won't go so far as to venture a specific explanation, but I think it's now quite clear that Atkinson, Grant, and Eccleston's characters can easily all be Ninth Doctors, even without recourse to "by another account" hedging. (OK, just for fun: when Atkinson's Doctor is dying, the Master states "This is only his ninth body. He has many, many more!" If this really is, in any sense, a Ninth Doctor, that would mean he has exactly four bodies left - hardly "many, many"! Which rather suggests, going solely by the text of Curse of Fatal Death, that this is a Doctor with substantially more regenerations.)
I don't think this comparison to The Timeless Children is a trivial point: Russell T Davies pretty specifically cited series 12 when explaining his decision to release Doctor Who and the Time War at all. "This chapter only died because it became, continuity-wise, incorrect. But now, the Thirteenth Doctor has shown us Doctors galore, with infinite possibilities. All Doctors exist. All stories are true." It seems to me that now is a good time to reconsider how we cover quite a few texts.
- TheDarkBomber
I've always considered the events of The Curse of Fatal Death as taking place in a parallel universe to N-Space, one where The Time War may not have happened, or The Master had not used up all of his regenerations to begin with. I agree that The Curse of Fatal Death should be considered valid, like any other valid story that disagrees with the """main timeline""" (such as the prose Doctor Who and the Time War, to give a recent example).
- Xx-connor-xX
I completely agree with 'The Curse of Fatal Death' being made valid.
In any event The Doctor (The Tomorrow Windows) is definitely referring to the Rowan Atkinson Ninth Doctor; "a listless-looking man [who] sat on a sofa beside a girl in a red dress in an unconvincing medieval dungeon". The pages should be merged.
- Najawin
While I'm fully on board, given the context surrounding Thread:267931, and how a thread was closed based on posts in the past still being held to be true without addressing the parts of the thread rebutting those older posts, I think for the health of this thread, and so we don't see a rehash of the circumstances there, it would be useful to have someone attempt to argue the negative. So let's try to do that.
Validity vs Canonicity[[edit] | [edit source]]
The Old Discussion[[edit] | [edit source]]
It's stated in Thread:267931 that even though the terminology was distinct and the concepts were not quite the same back in 2011/2012, the rudimentary ideas of validity was still present, even if it was argued through the lens of canonicity. We can see this oddly fractured discussion coming through here in the discussion of The Adventure Games and Scream of the Shalka (webcast), where they're taking perhaps the two statements ever at that time about things that were "canon" or "not canon" and then trying to reconstruct an entire universe from that point onwards. The fact that this is impossible in principle, since Scream not being in the DWU can't actually tell you much was forcing some disjointed discussion, where people said canon, but meant valid, and said canon but meant canon, or said universe but meant timeline. It was just a mess. So we can't rule out everything said in the old forum thread just because the language used is archaic, we have to carefully sift through to find what is and isn't relevant.
The New Discussion[[edit] | [edit source]]
There is, quite frankly, an elephant in the room. And that elephant is Scream of the Shalka. Scream is definitely not valid. Davies is the one that rendered it invalid, he's on record as hating Grant's performance in it, saying he was just doing it for the money. So the comment you're citing as evidence, that includes "for the hat trick of alternative Ninth Doctors", is going to be causing us a lot of problems here. One obvious alternative interpretation of this "like" is that Davies has a broad view on canon, just like Moffat and Cornell, and so when someone suggests to him that you can rescue obscure works from "non canon" status and bring them into the fold, he's going to be pleased about that, regardless of whether or not he thinks that works. It's a general statement about Davies' disposition, not that he's specifically agreeing with an interpretation of his work. And unless we get a re-evaluation of Scream from him or other people involved in the events that made it invalid, this is going to continue to be a problem moving forward.
Filming the Actual Programme?[[edit] | [edit source]]
I mean, this is just an obvious response to make, the same sentence juxtaposes "filming the actual programme" with "a little sketch". All she's saying here is that this was an extensive filming process, not that she's filming the actual show.
What Makes a Parody?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Generally when writers discuss parodies they discuss something where traits of the show are exaggerated for comedic or rhetorical effect. Now, I can understand why Moffat of all people might not think that this episode exaggerated, but many others might disagree. (nb: This is not my personal view, behead those who profane the Moff) Parodical quality (not the same thing as it being a parody) is in the eye of the beholder. So while Moffat might have intended this to only be a comedic episode, it may be parodical, it may look like a parody, only being safe by his authorial intent. But, you make think he's safe here because we have his authorial intent, I can assure you he is not. Namely, there's no clear definition of parody on this wiki, and the page Doctor Who parodies includes many things that aren't parodies under this normal definition. Instead they're simply humorous references to various characters from Doctor Who. And under this notion of parody, one that Moffat would not be commenting on, indeed, could not be commenting on, The Curse of Fatal Death would indeed be a parody.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
Now, I'm not sure any of these arguments are all that good. But I'd rather have serious discussion of this proposal for the health of this thread than have it fail for a similar reason as Thread:267931. So I'm hoping this opens up discussion, both for and against the thread's thesis.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Watching this thread for a while now - I'm currently working on a rebuttal to the invalid side of the argument, so if you bear with me, I should have it ready soon.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:270580
I'd like to reopen these for discussion; mostly as the originals aren't readily available to read, but also I'd like to bring up the four rules as I understand them.
1 - Only stories count. These are both stories. 2 - Commercial license. This was released by the BBC, who own all four characters featured. 3 - Official release. Both stories have been released in their entirety. 4 - Non-DWU Unlike The Sixth Doctor is on Trial Again or The Home Assistants of Death, these two stories aren't pastiches or tongue-in-cheek, and are clearly intended to feature Jo and Ace as they are in any other DWU stories. We can assume that the clips featured in Ace Returns! are meant to be flashbacks akin to the flashbacks seen in Death of the Doctor or Journey's End.
We should also take authorial intent into account; these were very explicitly intended to be part of the DWU, and the writer has gone on record to say as such.
- Borisashton
What new evidence do you have that wasn't covered in Thread:255994?
- ToyStoryFan123
Borisashton wrote: What new evidence do you have that wasn't covered in Thread:255994?
That, functionally, even though Ace Returns and Jo Returns serve to promote Seasons 10 and 26, they serve more as short films, that happen to feature "Coming soon, the collection boxset!" at the end. Much in the same way that episodes from the new series have "Coming soon, next week!" at the end.
- Borisashton
That fact that Pete McTighe referred to Ace Returns as a "short film" and the fact the "promotional" part of it was seperate from the "story" were both discussed in the last thread. I didn't like the verdict of that thread either but if you have no new evidence then this discussion should be closed without further delay.
- ToyStoryFan123
Conceded.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:271986
This book doesn’t necessarily tell a story, however I believe that the way the eleventh Doctor recalls his past adventures in diary format is valid for discussion. Also, the book fits perfectly into the events of ‘The Time of the Doctor’, as the Doctor is old and has lots of time on his hands, and this just seems like the kind of thing he would do. It may also be worth mentioning the ‘Doctionary’ as potential canon.
- Borisashton
What exactly is the purpose of this forum thread? How to be a Time Lord is already considered a valid source on this wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:272072
So, I've recently found that there was a song called "The Doctor and I" way back in 2010, sort of a parody of "The Wizard and I". I'd like to push for its inclusion on the wiki.
We cover "Doctor in Distress", which is a similar parody to this, so I feel that including this wouldn't be too out of character.
- 72.194.244.165
As inclined as I am to think the wiki should be inclusive, rather than exclusive, I don't think the two situations are comparable. The former was, to my knowledge, done entirely by Barrowman on his own, for his own reasons. I don't want to say self promoting, but it was published on a commercial album, and effectively just takes "The Wizard and I" and swaps out the bare minimum of words to make it Doctor Who related.
The latter was on a charity album with multiple people from the cast explicitly about the show's history intended to promote the show in the public eye, an important part of recording the history of the show.
Now, if we want to open up the wiki to be a broader historical record of events surrounding the show, since there really isn't one, and you sort of have to piece it together like patchwork, I think that including facts about how Barrowman has acted in relation to the show would be kosher. But that would be a massive change to how the wiki operates, and a massive undertaking, especially to events that took place in the wilderness years, since a lot of that is very poorly documented.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If there isn't already, a paragraph could definitely be added at John Barrowman, but I think a page about the song per se can only be justified if Barrowman/whoever published the album had obtained a license from the BBC to use the character of "The Doctor" in a piece of merchandise.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Ah, I see. I'll retract that then.
- Shambala108
I just want to be clear about something - Doctor in Distress is a charity work?
- 72.194.244.165
That's what it says on the page, and the album cover says "profits from sales of this record go to Cancer Relief."
It's not a charity work in the usual sense of "the profits go to a charity" as far as I know, just an attempt to peer-pressure the BBC higher-ups into bringing back Doctor Who.
tl;dr, it's (I think) not a "charity work" in the sense we usually care about on the Wiki — a project borrowing DW copyrights to raise money for, or promote, an independent charity.
(All that being said, as Doctor in Distress is not a story, and certainly not valid, I don't know quite how relevant this all is.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:272468
I'm posting below a conversation at Talk:BBC Writers' Comics as to whether or not this is valid. One thing I need to make clear here: just because these stories are written by people who have written for DW before, does not mean they have a license to publish the stories. So that information will be needed for the discussion.
- Shambala108
Here is the discussion:
Why this article[[edit] | [edit source]]
Had these stories simply been fan submissions I'd have let them go (except maybe for one overall article like this). But considering these stories, simple as they may be, are mostly written by people with DW episodes and novels on their resumes, this pushes these stories up a level. We should make sure, however, that only stories by established writers, and published in this form by the BBC, are listed here. If Joe Doe, 10, from Inverness, does a comic strip using Comic Maker, that's great for Joe, but it shouldn't be included here. 23skidoo 21:45, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Invalid[[edit] | [edit source]]
These should be made invalid, they're clearly parody-esque. - Denchen: Lord of Invalidness ☎ 12:16, November 26, 2016 (UTC)
Validity[[edit] | [edit source]]
Someone above called the validity of this series into question nearly four years ago but never received a reply, and I cannot find any other discussion (although I'm not very familiar regarding where to look for certain threads).
Alas, I cannot comprehend why these stories are considered to be valid - they are very clearly stories that are just for fun as a way of introducing fans to the Comic Maker and, as said above, things like the Moxx of Balhoon using what is actually a miniaturised Platform One as a device reeks of parody. Then there's the fact that some pages suffer because of the validity of these stories; Richard Lazarus's page suggests that sometime during The Lazarus Experiment (TV story) he visited the planet Penhaxico Two, despite us following the character's journey from start to finish.
I don't believe these stories were ever meant to be officially part of the DWU, or then you could argue that any story created with the Comic Maker was too. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 18:52, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly the whole appeal of the thing is that it allows you to make nearly-official stories set in the DWU. Most individual fans' submissions will fail either Rule 2 or Rule 3 (that is to say, they have no commercial license and/or never received an official release). These things do not apply to the Writers' Comics.
- As lengthily explained on the page itself, the reuse of monster and machine designs is a function of the technical limitations of the Comic-Maker, not an intentional connection; we're not "supposed" to notice that the Moxx's device looks like a tiny Platform One. And perhaps we're not supposed to notice the recycled design from Lazarus Experiment, for that matter. But this (reusing an alien design for a background cameo despite it not really making sense at all timeline-wise) is nothing that unquestionably valid comics haven't done, as you can see at Human-Dalek. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:10, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
- I recall creating my own material on the Comic Maker all those years ago, but I don't remember the appeal ever being that it "allows you to make nearly-official stories set in the DWU". It was always presented as just a bit of fun, and the writers clearly would not have seen their own material as valid due to their own limitations.
- Right now articles pick and choose which parts of this is valid. It doesn't matter if we're "not supposed" to notice the Moxx's device is Platform One - it is at the end of the day, so why doesn't Platform One's page mention this event, or the time that the Doctor also received a miniaturised Platform One as mail. It is very problematic.
- Also, the lengthy explanation on the page repeatedly uses the term "canon" - doesn't that go against this site's stance in regards to there being no such thing as canon? Xx-connor-xX ☎ 19:26, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Xx-connor-xX
Thanks for starting this thread, I've never actually made a thread myself - I always head straight for the talkpage as I am unfamiliar with which topics have / have not already been discussed.
The intention of the writers was primarily to encourage new people into making their own comics on the BBC website, I do not believe that they were ever intending the stories to be set within the DWU - they were just examples of what other fans could create on the site, and are therefore themselves fan-fiction. Any indication that these stories were valid parts of the DWU would have led fans to believe that their own stories can be considered canon too, this is not the case.
These stories being seen as valid have led to editors picking and choosing what parts are seen as "valid" and assuming the writer's intentions. As I stated above, the miniaturised Platform One could be intended as a different device altogether - but we are not able to make that assumption, so with this story being seen as valid we then have to change Platform One's page to state that it was once shrunk and used by the Moxx of Balhoon (and then even weirder was portrayed as mail for the Doctor).
- SOTO
The original discussion (which seems to lack a clear conclusion) took place here: Forum:Web comics
- Xx-connor-xX
SOTO wrote: The original discussion (which seems to lack a clear conclusion) took place here: Forum:Web comics
Thanks for that too.
Reading through that thread it seems that some of the people voting *for* were actually voting for these stories to remain on the site rather than remaining valid. Obviously these stories should remain on the site as they were written by Doctor Who writers and were published on the BBC website, however they can still remain on the site as non-valid.
- Najawin
Regardless of the issue of license or intent, I think the idea that the comics were meant to be parody-esque can't be seen as inherently disqualifying, similar to the discussion taking place regarding Curse in the other thread.
The interesting thing I think is that the page says "Doctor Who writers show us their stories created with Comic Maker". This can be read in multiple ways, but it doesn't say something like "new Doctor Who stories made in Comic Maker written by Doctor Who writers, see what you can do yourself". It seems to push the contents of the stories firmly onto the writers themselves, meaning I think I'd agree with Connor on these not being intended to be part of the DWU, but instead being more examples of how the Comic Maker could be used.
- Shambala108
Najawin wrote: Regardless of the issue of license or intent, I think the idea that the comics were meant to be parody-esque can't be seen as inherently disqualifying, similar to the discussion taking place regarding Curse in the other thread.
Incidentally, this statement is incorrect. Parodies are specifically disallowed as valid on Tardis:Valid sources.
- Najawin
"Parody-esque" is distinct from "parody". The latter is something specifically exaggerating traits for comedic effect. The former refers to something that seems bizarre to some viewers/readers but wasn't intentionally created to be over the line.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Indeed. "Parodical quality" is often in the eye of the beholder; you could very well argue that Robot of Sherwood is a parody of a celebrity historical, or at the very least a parody of a Robin Hood movie, yet we're hardly going to call it invalid on that basis. "Parody" in T:VS means "a parody of Doctor Who", I think it's fair to say — and even then, only when it is clearly the authorial intent that it is a parody. Where essentially, authorial intent that a story be a parody is equivalent to authorial intent that the story isn't set in the real DWU — hence failing Rule 4.
I don't see that in these stories at all. Escape to Penhaxico is a direct sequel to Voyage of the Damned, dealing with the fallback of Max Capricorn's disappearance. Destiny's Door doesn't seem to have any comedic elements to speak of, and is likewise a continuity-heavy, flashback-focused sort of thing. There are clear efforts at play to fit into the series' continuity.
Sure, they reuse visuals to depict new things. But do you have a minute to spare about prop reuse, and dodgy backgrounds, in the Classic Series? It hardly invalidates The War Games that for no logical reason to speak of, the War Chief is wearing a Zephon medallion — or, for that matter, that one of the Time Lord judges looks exactly like Lemuel Gulliver because the BBC only had so many actors on hand. I think we're allowed to exercise some amount of common sense in these matters. The First Doctor isn't supposed to have a different face in The Five Doctors, and you're not supposed to see the wires, and that device is not Platform One.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, and to answer User:Shambala108's concerns about license, that these things were written by established DWU authors isn't the reason they're held to be licensed. The reason is that the BBC commissioned them and then released them on bbc.co.uk, to raise awareness of the Comic-Maker app thingum. These aren't random things that Paul Cornell & Co. created on their own accord and posted on their blog, if that was what you were afraid of.
- Xx-connor-xX
The only reason that these stories are considered valid is because they were written by Doctor Who writers, CzechOut said it best when he wrote; "If we say this, then every single piece of fan fiction Paul Cornell or Rob Shearman — or whoever — wrote is suddenly debatable".
These writers were simply showing fans how to make their own stories by writing their own fan-fiction in the same format and on the same site, the only difference is who they are.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You write that “the only reason that these stories are considered valid is because they were written by Doctor Who writers”. Well, no. The reason they're considered valid is that they were released on the BBC website, and thus, pretty clearly licensed.
You also write: “these writers were simply showing fans how to make their own stories by writing their own fan-fiction in the same format and on the same site, the only difference is who they are.”
That is factually incorrect. As I said and linked to before, the BBC website itself collected and pointed out these specific stories. They got an official release on the actual BBC website, and a release set aside from all the unsorted fan submissions. For that reason if none else, they belong on the Wiki in one form or another.
The question is thus, "did the authors mean for these stories to be set in the DWU". That they went about it the same way the prospective clients of the Comic-Maker app, namely the fans, might go about making fanfiction is, while perfectly plausible, an unsupported assumption about the writers' state of mind. Further, even if it were true, how does that mean the stories fail Rule 4? If I write a fanfiction today, then unless I'm marking my story as an AU or something, I'm going to intend for it take place in the DWU. Obviously. Fanfiction is forbidden on the Wiki because it's unlicensed, not for nebulous Rule 4 reasons.
So we're reduced, I think, to guessing at the Rule 4 intent on the basis of the stories themselves. You think the "reused props" indicate intent that this not take place in the real DWU, but I've attempted a rebuttal of that idea, and countered the fact that at least one of the stories is a straight-up sequel to a TV story, pretty clear intent that the story is meant to take place in the DWU. Please address those points, since I have addressed yours.
- Najawin
I don't think it's quite that extreme. I think it's more analogous to if Paul Cornell wrote DW fanfic at the behest of the BBC to keep people entertained during the quarantine, and was then released through official channels. :>
Joking aside, it seems they were specifically asked to do this by the BBC, and it was hosted on a BBC site. That's not at all the same as them just writing fanfic. I still think they understood it was just to promote the Comic Maker given the wording of the website, but it's a much greyer territory than that.
- Xx-connor-xX
I have already said that these stories deserve a place on this site regardless, Scrooge. This discussion is about their validity.
It is extremely clear that these stories were promoted on the BBC website to encourage new users to use the comic maker, whether they are valid or not that just goes without saying. The page that these stories were promoted would have been the first a new user visited, and would inspire them to make their own stories. This was the unarguable intent of the stories themselves.
Why does the fact that the BBC website promoted these stories make them "officially licensed"? My memory is foggy of the time, but I seem to recall that several fan-created pieces were also promoted as "comic of the week", etc. Does that then mean that these are valid articles?
Being direct sequels doesn't change the fact that these were made on the same site / using the same format as all of the fan creations, these were just promoted by the site. To say that promotion grants validity is ridiculous in my opinion, I have seen several official Doctor Who sites (lets take the official Doctor Who twitter page for example) raise awareness of fan-projects such as; stories and home-videos, does that mean that they are equally valid due to being promoted by the site?
Conclusion -
I think it is fairly reasonable to consider that the Comic Maker as a whole was licensed so that images from the main show could be used. Known writers were then asked to try out the site first, and their material was promoted on the main page to encourage newcomers. Not individually licensed, probably not even paid work - just writers using the service the same as any fan would, to create fan-fiction.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You're saying several inconsistent things. If you believe that this was a "the writers were invited to give the thing a try, and then they 'featured' the results in much the same way they later 'featured' noteworthy fancomics" situation, then the stories don't have a place on the Wiki.
But I don't think that's what's going on. I think what happened was that to promote the Comic-Maker, the BBC commissioned the various writers to create the comics, with the full intent of then publishing the lot of them on the special page I linked to. Doctor Who comics whose creation was specifically requested by the BBC, and which were then published on the BBC website, are as officially licensed as it gets, I should think.
- Xx-connor-xX
There's no proof of anything in your last paragraph, though. There is a lot of "I think" going on, not just from you but from me as well, and at the end of the day what we think is irrelevant and speculation. You think that they were commissioned, while I think it was likely asked as a favour / to try out the new features and was promoted on the site to encourage others. The solution is to include the stories on the site but as invalid works. What part of that is inconsistent?
- Scrooge MacDuck
That there isn't a clear invalidity rationale? Like, what is the precedent for what you are proposing? If there's no question of Rule 4, and it's Rules 2 and 3 that are in question, then either we err on the side of "probably wasn't properly licensed" and do not cover them at all, or err on the side of "it was on the BBC website, good 'nuff", and we cover them as valid. But what possible rationale per T:VS would there be for a weird compromise of "we're going to cover this thing but because the copyright is slightly unclear it's invalid"? What are you even talking about?
The only precedent I can think of is noted charity work Dimensions in Time, which is invalid not because of Rule 4 reason, but because it's a charity work of questionable licensing — hence infringing Rule 2 — but which is just too important a part of Doctor Who’s history to just ignore the way we do most charity works. But that was, I'm pretty sure, a very specific grandfathered-in decision, not something to base precedent around.
- Xx-connor-xX
I would be totally fine with the work not appearing at all on the site at all. I am not as familiar with all the rules and guidelines as some, although I have read them and do try to understand them, and I proposed the compromise simply because of the questionable licencing.
- Xx-connor-xX
Anyone interested in revisiting this discussion?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I guess I'll wander in, since I've got nothing else to do.
In summary, I'm not 100% percent sure. The links to the things are broken: You can see the list, but when you click on the actual stories, it takes you to a "bad link" page.
That being said, I have read a few synopsis for the stories and.....they seem to be stories? There's obvious limitations, but it sees to be a narrative.
HOWEVER, the thing is, since we can't read them, there's a problem. Is this promotion or not? Does it say at the end, make a story like this with Comic Creator? Then that would be promotional material/trailer, and therefore invalid. If it doesn't, then it's not promotional and therefore a story.
There is another problem though; as Shambala said, if we did this, we're (rightly) only supposed to cover the ones made by the writers, not the fanmade ones. But what if some random fan comes on here, who doesn't read the policy (seems to be common these days) and decides to make a page based off a fan comic? Plus, we've been a lot harsher on content that was licensed in the past (not gonna say what to avoid opening a pretty big can of worms)
It's complicated. I don't know where I stand. Could someone with a twitter like DM a writer or something like that?
- Scrooge MacDuck
If one of the writers can be asked about how the project was presented to them way back when, that'd certainly be very helpful. I'll see what I can do, and invite others to do the same.
However, since the page covering them is clearly titled "BBC Writers' Comics", I don't foresee much trouble with people thinking it would apply to any Comic Creator comic. Heck, as you say, that entire part of the BBC website is now offline, so the idea that someone would go through the touble to dig up an equally-missing fan comic from the same era and try to smuggle it into the Wiki is… fairly far-fetched.
We cover licensed BBV audios like I Scream even though it can and does cause people to occasionally try to create pages about Punchline or The Stranger. That never deterred us before, and the line is (for non-Wiki-users) a lot blurrier for BBV than it is for this.
(I mean, 'cor, we objectively didn't, to my knowledge, have to deal with any such attempt to add a page for an unlicensed Comic Creator fancomic, in all the many years the BBC Writers' Comics are unquestioningly covered on the Wiki.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: However, since the page covering them is clearly titled "BBC Writers' Comics", I don't foresee much trouble with people thinking it would apply to any Comic Creator comic. Heck, as you say, that entire part of the BBC website is now offline, so the idea that someone would go through the touble to dig up an equally-missing fan comic from the same era and try to smuggle it into the Wiki is… fairly far-fetched.
We cover licensed BBV audios like I Scream even though it can and does cause people to occasionally try to create pages about Punchline or The Stranger. That never deterred us before, and the line is (for non-Wiki-users) a lot blurrier for BBV than it is for this.
(I mean, 'cor, we objectively didn't, to my knowledge, have to deal with any such attempt to add a page for an unlicensed Comic Creator fancomic, in all the many years the BBC Writers' Comics are unquestioningly covered on the Wiki.)
Yeah, I'm now just realising I didn't fully grasp the title's meaning. Oops.
However, I'm still on the fence. I'd be fine if these are still valid, I like having a big universe, it's just that it's very shrouded and such with speculation. I'd like to have the full picture.
- Najawin
So let's refocus the debate here. What would it take for these comics to be invalid?
Licensing[[edit] | [edit source]]
It's certainly possible that none of these comics were licensed, as I don't know enough about copyright law to be certain. However, my assumption is that the assets in the comic maker are licensed for non commercial use for anyone who cares to use the comic maker. (EG: Creative Commons) (Arguably, since these assets are outright given to creators this is an example of an implied license, which isn't actually forbidden under wiki rules, and would also satisfy this requirement.)
Reuse of Assets[[edit] | [edit source]]
I think this argument is quite poor. Effectively this is a technical limitation of the medium, and as we all know, Classic Who had many technical limitations it struggled with.
Rule 4[[edit] | [edit source]]
And this is the one I think has the most interesting line of attack. The wording of the statement is "Doctor Who writers show us their stories created with Comic Maker". It is not "Look at the all new Doctor Who stories made with Comic Maker to inspire you to make your own". It's placing the stories firmly onto the writers, rather onto the BBC or Doctor Who. It's "their stories". Now, I'd also like to note, what matters for rule 4 is not just the writer's intent, but the copyright holder's intent. So even if the authors thought "oh, this is in the DWU", the wording of the statement we're given suggests that this is not how the BBC thinks of it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Najawin, you're fighting a strawman with licensing. These things were released on the Doctor Who website. It's ludicrous to think they'd be unlicensed, regardless of the status of a run-of-the-mill Comics Creator production.
As for Rule 4, I'm frankly not following the argument that these stories being the stories of their writer somehow means the BBC doesn't think they're in the DWU. I'm sure you could find BBC sources calling, say, Heavent Sent, "Steven Moffat's story". That's just an objective fact.
- Najawin
Multiple people have called into question their licensing. Just because you and I think the idea is ludicrous doesn't mean it's a strawman.
As for the rule 4 issue, it's not saying that the comics were owned or made by the creators, but it's the emphasis, it's how they were presented to people. Instead of "look at new Doctor Who stories made with this", it's "the writers used this tool, now you get to use it". Perhaps you don't get this emphasis from the statement, I don't deny that there's going to be some ambiguity in this type of wording. But the issue at hand is one of how the only description of these comics is thrusting the responsibility onto the writers, not the BBC.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's fair enough re: strawmen. However, I was simply baffled at the discussion of how and whether the Comic Maker is licensed for use by ordinary people. Clearly arguments about whether the BBC Writers' Comics are licensed are going to hinge on the method of release of these comics through the BBC website — the Comic Maker itself isn't really relevant.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
to me it seems that these were just known writers using the facilities like any fan, but their work was being promoted to spark interest.
what would really be lost by their removal?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: to me it seems that these were just known writers using the facilities like any fan, but their work was being promoted to spark interest.
what would really be lost by their removal?
I'm kinda concerned by this way of thinking, not going to lie. Yes, we wouldn't necessarily lose "much", but the wiki isn't supposed to be biased in our coverage. If these comics are licensed and such, then they stay, regardless of quality. If they aren't, they go.
Also, @Scrooge, how goes the Twitter query?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
how is it being biased? questionable licensing and not a major loss.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
It's not rightly asking questions about the licensing, it's the idea that we can dump something if it's "not a major loss". That right there is a biased viewpoint. What's small to you is significant to others. Basically, let's focus on the licensing and such, not the "quality" or whatnot.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
never did i say just dump it because it wasnt a major loss. i questioned its validity, then said that it wasnt a major loss as a side point (which actually wasnt in the original comment but edited in).
id appreciate you not to twist my words.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
It's not the validity question I have issue with. It's just that saying that its, "not a major loss" hurts your argument, because that phrasing is biased. Again, I'm neutral right now. I'm just here to make sure the facts are layed out.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
there are serious concerns when it comes to these stories (that were first raised over a decade ago...). so my side comment simply meant that as these were no major loss i was completely dumbfounded as to why it had taken so long to make a ruling. it hardly hurts my argument, as it wasnt part of my argument.
new evidence isnt going to magically appear, and i find the notion of asking on twitter ridiculous as the strong likelihood is that the writers wont even remember these ever existed (and even so it should have been done a long time ago and not a decade after the validity was called into question!).
so as it stands there are still concerns about the validity, no new evidence is likely to appear and these are not major losses for the site - so why has it taken a decade?
- Najawin
I don't think the licensing is at all questionable, at the very least there seems to be an implied license.
But Never is completely correct that your characterization of the comics is a bad one, indeed, we have a policy about it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
a story is not just licensed because it appeared on an official site.
otherwise all of the stories made on comic maker would be official... or maybe you could say only the promoted stories are official but @Xx-connor-xX stated that several fan pieces were promoted as "story of the month".
perhaps you could say only the stories written by Who writers were official, but doesnt that take away the whole premise of the comic maker? that any fan could become a Who writer.
the way i see it these writers were invited to make their own stories, and due to the lack of work and effort i cant imagine there was even payment. i dont believe any of these stories had any more licensing rights than the stories written by fans at all.
- Najawin
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: a story is not just licensed because it appeared on an official site.
otherwise all of the stories made on comic maker would be official...
No, then all of these stories would be licensed (rule 2 of T:VALID). Licensing is a legal issue related to whether or not the BBC has granted you permission to use certain characters/concepts. They explicitly give you assets related to those characters/concepts and encourage you to use them to make stories, there was an implied license if not an explicit one (we can no longer tell, as the comic maker no longer exists) granting permission to use these things in a limited capacity.
Something being "officially released" is rule 3 of T:VALID, a completely separate issue.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so what you’re saying is that these have the exact same license as the fan made stories, why are these favoured?
- Najawin
Let's consider our four little rules shall we?
Rule 1[[edit] | [edit source]]
Both these and some (probably most) fan made stories pass.
Rule 2[[edit] | [edit source]]
Both these and all fan made stories pass.
Rule 3[[edit] | [edit source]]
Only these pass. Perhaps, if Connor's memory is correct, it could be argued that the "comic of the week" might also count, but that's very, very tenuous. Especially if the comic of the week wasn't archived, but was just rotated each week, we might have precedent for ruling them all invalid, see near the bottom of Burning with Optimism's Flames (anthology)? (tbh I really don't understand the Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire ruling, I understand the situation, but not the ruling and how to apply it to "unpublished" work)
Rule 4[[edit] | [edit source]]
Arguable that neither grouping of these pass, but if either one passes, the writers comics do and the "comic of week" does not, as it wasn't commissioned by the copyright holder and they're obviously just promoting it to get people engaged.
Okay, so, four little rules, arguable that neither group passes all four, but it's clear that fan comics don't pass all four. Is there anything else relevant? Yes. Yes there is. Note that T:VALID does not begin and end with the four little rules. They are a shortcut, a rule of thumb. There is something else that makes all fan comics invalid.
And what is that?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Technically it says that fanfic is an example of violating rule 2, which isn't always the case, as we see in this instance. But we are explicitly told "Fan fiction isn't allowed." And given this, no matter the outcome of the four little rules, the fan comics cannot be ruled as valid.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
these were not officially released anywhere. they were published to the site like any other fan story, but were promoted. if that is all that it takes for it to be "officially released" then how are the promoted fan stories only a tenuous link if they too were promoted?
i argue that the Who writers were acting as fans here too, no proof of being commissioned or payment.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: i argue that the Who writers were acting as fans here too, no proof of being commissioned or payment.
That's part of the reason why I'm calling for people with twitter to ask.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
as i said about twitter it should have been done long ago, not a decade after the validity concerns were raised. the way i see it this debate has been open long enough, with no proof of commission, or validity, they should be immediately removed. the discussion can be reviewed in the future if new evidence ever turns up, but are we really meant to wait forever for someone to even find a scrap of proof?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Let's not rush this. There's still some unanswered questions and I'd prefer to have the facts first.
(Of course, if the stories conflict with policy, then I'll 100% support the removal.)
- Najawin
That's just... Not true? They were published to the Doctor Who website under the "stories" tab. Similar such stories include What I Did In My Christmas Holidays - By Sally Sparrow (What I Did on My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow (short story)), Blue Moon (Blue Moon (short story)), The Advent of Fear (The Advent of Fear (short story)), etc.
No fan comic ever got that level of release.
As for the idea that they weren't commissioned, uh, are you seriously suggesting they weren't asked to do this? No money needs to have changed hands for this to be valid. But if they were asked, in their capacity as writers, to do this, they're not acting as fans.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
3,843 days is certainly not rushed.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin Well, let's just make sure first.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the comic creator literally propositioned everyone to write their own comic...
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: 3,843 days is certainly not rushed.
Two comments in seven years is hardly a debate. This discussion has been ongoing for a little over two months.
- Najawin
Of course Never. I have nothing against asking them, I absolutely want to know more about how this was presented to them. I just think the suggestion that they weren't asked to do this, and instead sought out the comics maker and thought "hmm, I really want to make a series story using this" absolutely absurd.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
are we to wait until this discussion too fades out and is picked up years later for the cycle to repeat? it was first raised a decade ago, if the discussion fizzled out - because @CzechOut made logical statements that couldnt be refuted - then it should have been dealt with my admins.
- Najawin
I'm sorry, what does CzechOut have to do with anything? Are we relitigating a different thread entirely here?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: I just think the suggestion that they weren't asked to do this, and instead sought out the comics maker and thought "hmm, I really want to make a series story using this" absolutely absurd.
do not put words into my mouth.
nowhere did i say that they sought out the comics themselves. some might have, but i think that some likely had a hand in testing out the facilities and then their fanmade stories were promoted to encourage new users, simple as that.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: I'm sorry, what does CzechOut have to do with anything? Are we relitigating a different thread entirely here?
i am very clearly talking about the original discussion from over a decade ago, have you not read it?
- Najawin
That was my bad, I've read it, I was thinking of the talk page. Deleted the comment instantly. Working on a reply to how inane the idea that Czech's response is a good one is.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
also, stop calling my viewpoint "insane", "absurd", "ludicrous". these nasty little jibes are starting to really get on my nerves. have i ever once said the same about your view? no, because i have some manners and self control.
- Najawin
Okay, Czech's response basically only works if you ignore the stories tab on the old website. It doesn't matter how things originally were, what matters is whether or not they were ever given an official release. And they were.
As for them being "commissioned", Czech has latched on to this idea of "payment" which is entirely irrelevant. Commissioned just means asked/ordered to do so. It often involves payment, but doesn't necessarily.
- Najawin
but i think that some likely had a hand in testing out the facilities and then their fanmade stories were promoted to encourage new users, simple as that.
Then that would be them being commissioned! You're admitting exactly what you said you weren't sure of! Being commissioned does not require payment.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
then testing out the facilities (if that’s even what they did) means they are no more commissioned that the fans that use them!
- Najawin
If they were asked to do so, in their capacity as BBC writers, then they were commissioned, regardless of whether or not they were paid.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
commissioned is formal, so only if they were officially propositioned. but ten years on and we still have no proof of that.
- Najawin
You seem to have a skewed view of what "officially propositioned" means in this context. The following would qualify:
"Hey Paul, we're trying to make some comics using our comic maker to get kids interested, could you make a real story for us we can release so we can show them what all you can do using the technology? An actual Doctor Who writer doing this should blow them away."
"Sure, sounds like fun."
- Shambala108
General warning:
Stop the arguing now. Just make your points; stop worrying about what the other posters say and top accusing each other of misinterpretation.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
if people are throwing names like “insane” around I will worry about it, and if that puts me in the wrong I’ll respectfully return to not engaging with said individual.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: "Hey Paul, we're trying to make some comics using our comic maker to get kids interested, could you make a real story for us we can release so we can show them what all you can do using the technology? An actual Doctor Who writer doing this should blow them away."
that looks nothing like a genuine conversation to me. would they really say “real story” rather than just a story? here’s what a more realistic conversation would look like;
“We’re making a Comic Maker to encourage people to write their own stories, fancy trying it out?”
simple as that, they make their fanfic and it gets promoted on the site.
- Shambala108
@User:DiSoRiEnTeD1, please take issues with other users to an admin talk page. And speaking for the admins, it's difficult enough to wade through all the comments on a forum thread before closing; we don't need the extra "you said this" "no I didn't" that comes from the arguing.
And everyone needs to carefully read Tardis:No personal attacks because way too many of these threads lately have featured near-violations and violations that I've tried to overlook but will not be able to if they continue much longer.
- Najawin
One letter can make a lot of difference in a word. That will be my only comment on that issue.
As for the Cornell issue. "Real story" as opposed to just a short 4 panel comic or something vacuous and silly. Like something with meat in it. Your proposed example basically removes all of the meaning in mine and reduces it to, well, fanfic. So it's a blatant example of question begging. I proposed an example of what "officially propositioned" would look like in order to meet your qualifications, and you said "that's not realistic", and your proposed realistic solution is one that basically grants you your entire argument.... What?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I took an issue to an admin once, yourself in fact, and was completely ignored. I understand you are busy but it doesn’t exactly enthuse me to do it again, I will just distance myself from certain individuals / discussions from now on because I won’t be able to stop myself from biting back against comments like these.
- SOTO
Admin are not paid staff, and also lead lives of their own. T:ATTACKS lays it out clearly: attack the point, not the person. Disputes of a personal nature do not belong in the forums, and hostility is not the way about it. Let's keep on point here.
- Najawin
Actually, reviewing the four little rules again, I think I've convinced myself that these comics aren't licensed, at least, not by the metric we care about.
Certainly they're licensed in the sense that people are allowed are allowed to use the assets, but they're probably not allowed to do so commercially. Rule 2 explicitly asks for a commercial license. And I'm not sure we have that. (I will say that I don't think "commercial license" is a term of art, but I think that's what's meant by the rule.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Something for all of us to consider: This isn't a one off. A Stitch in Time is pretty similar to this situation.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Actually, if the BBC was indeed using these comics to advertise the Comic Creator as many people have said that they were, then logically that means that the license they gave the authors of the BBC Writers' Comics must have been a commercial one. Those comics are being used for commercial purposes.
At any rate, A Stitch in Time is a very different situation. It's not a comic created using the finished Comic Creator and released on the BBC website as promotion; it's packaged in with the Comic Creator itself when you download it (and expansion packs to it). It was never publicly available for free; you have to buy the Comic Creator expansion packs to read it in full. It's a lot more like Daleks Invade Zaos or the Sweet Cigarettes Dr. Who and the Daleks short stories than the BBC Writers' Comics.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
nobody said advertise, they said promote. they weren’t advertising these stories anywhere but were just promoting them on the page.
- Najawin
Aside from DiSoRiEnTeD1's point, I think the issue we're having is that "commercial license" isn't exactly a term I can find a precise definition of, it doesn't seem to be a "term of the art". So we're left with what the admins here think it means. If they grant the usage of assets to these writers, that would be a license. But if they then advertise (again, this is unclear if they do this in a commercial sense) using these comics, the BBC itself is no longer licensing the assets, as they're using them themselves, even if they're now using them for commercial purposes. So the commercial use doesn't necessarily imply the license of assets to the creators gave them the ability to use it commercially.
By analogy. Let's say that the BBC decided to offer a bunch of props at their Cardiff studios for fans to make their own mini episodes. And they invited a bunch of people to try it out. Whittaker, Chibnall, etc etc. Not required, but asked. That said, understanding how much Doctor Who means to everyone, they jumped at the chance. A lot of these were garbage so they were thrown in the trash, but one or two were good, so they were put up and played on a loop in the studio next to the props, to "get the creative juices flowing".
That seems to me to be a somewhat analogous situation. And I don't think this analogous situation would count either.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I didn't mean the BBC advertised the BBC Writers' Comics; I'm saying the release of the BBC Writers' Comics by the BBC on their website served to advertise the Comic Creator game itself. If the BBC releases some comics on their website as a way of promoting the game, then clearly, the release is a commercial move, not a mere matter of giving non-monetized attention to fan productions by famous people.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@User:Najawin, I agree with your analogy but not your conclusions; I think in such a scenario, the hypothetical minisodes absolutely should have pages on this Wiki. The BBC putting them up on their own screen as a promotional gimmick should absolutely count as a BBC-approved, commercial release of this material. The examples of Devious, and of various short stories originally printed in charity anthologies, give us precedents for stories originally created without licenses, but later commercially released by the BBC with the agreement of their original creators, to be covered.
Of course, I may be wrong. But if I'm bing honest, I believe that if a close reading of the letter of T:VS were to yield the conclusion that a Tenth Doctor story, by Paul Cornell, originally released on the BBC website isn't something we should cover, then — well — that would be an argument for tweaking the letter of T:VS. An argument for closing this ridiculous loophole that would impair our coverage of Doctor Who for no clear practical reason.
(Of course, in such a case, this thread should still be closed against the BBC Writers' Comics because T:BOUND, albeit with a separate Panopticon thread immediately being opened about the alleged loophole.)
- Najawin
So Devious is somewhat not analogous, as it was released on something the BBC sold. But even if we ignore that, it's sort of famously not valid?
I think everyone in this thread agrees, except perhaps DiSoRiEnTeD1's "what would really be lost by their removal?" comment - I've been told not to interpret other user's comments, that they should remain on this site. The question here is validity.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I dunno about "famously", but yes, Devious is invalid. However, the inclusion debate for the thing (Thread:184791) ruled that we can cover "the preview — as opposed to the film itself, (…) but it's not a story". Hence its continued invalidity. If Devious as released on the BBC DVD had been recut and presented as a completed viewing experience, it very well might have been valid, although there might also have been Rule 4 concerns.
That being said, while I agree that what we should discuss is validity, I don't think it counts as overinterpretation to say that there are people in this thread who were arguing that it was no different from individual fans' Comic Creator creations, and, as such, should not be covered on this Wiki either.
- Najawin
I was told we should just ask them how to interpret their comments. :>
I agree though, in my hypothetical the minisodes should have pages on the wiki. I think most everyone agrees except perhaps one user.
BBC Writers' Comics are ruled invalid on this wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:272784
So a small inclusion debate is starting over at Talk: The Zygon Isolation (webcast), and I can definitely see that it looks like it will be hotly discussed. I figured I'd go ahead and move it here, I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds in doing so. I just think it's naturally going to be a contentious issue, so should be discussed here.
- Najawin
The discussion in question:
- Just watched the webcast, and I'm a bit interested if this fits into the wiki's "canon", as at the start of the webcast it has the writer's name pop up on the computer screen, and at the end it has the two Osgoods begin to watch the Zygon Invasion.
Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 21:25, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- We use the word validity rather than canon, but I have to agree with you. It breaks the fourth wall from start to finish - with there being a promotional image of the show before the Osgoods even long on. It does try to fit in with the already established lore, such as there being one human and one Zygon left (as revealed in Narcissus but at the end of the day I think the fourth wall breaks are too severe, they literally watch an episode of Doctor Who. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 21:33, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Now first off, this Wiki deals in validity, which is a different concept from canon. For a story to be valid, this Wiki only asks that it be intended to take place inside the Doctor Who universe (and, of course, be properly licensed and officially released, but that's no object here). Mayhaps even Harness wouldn't include this story in a "serious canon", but I think he very much does intend for it to take place in the DWU without being an actual parody and that's what matters.
- The name and title of the story appearing briefly on the computer monitor is clearly just a case of the titles appearing for the benefit of the viewer, as is common in film. It's no more "there" in the story than the credits in Extremis are really part of the recording the Shadow Doctor sends to the Twelfth Doctor, or, if you will, it's no more then than giant floating "JOHN HURT AS THE DOCTOR" letters next to the War Doctor at the end of The Name of the Doctor.
- As for the appearance of Doctor Who inside itself, there is a long and storied history of such metafictional nods. If there is reason to think that's what's going on is "Peter Harness establishing that a Doctor Who TV series exists in N-Space" as opposed to "the Osgoods are being transferred to our real world for the purposes of a nonsensical sketch", it's no object to validity. And aside from the came of Doctor Who in-universe, there are many attempts to make this fit into the broader DWU: the status-quo of the Osgoods themselves, but also the presence of the Thirteenth Doctor, the reference to the concept of a time eddy, and the various UNIT files visible on Osgood's desktop.
- The story cuts before they actually watch a full episode of Doctor Who; we don't know that the in-universe The Zygon Invasion is identical to the real one, even if that's the implication. Since the end credits run over the repeat of the "The Day fo the Doctor summary" that serves as the cold opening of real The Zygon Invasion, there's even an argument to be made that all the Tennant-Smith-Hurt footage is no longer an actual part of the narrative of The Zygon Isolation.
- Connor is welcome to take his concerns to the forums if he really must, but this story really isn't breaking the fourth wall any more than many already valid stories. Doctor Who exists in-universe; deal with it. You're free to exclude it from your personal canon, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid, and that's what matters. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:37, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- It is hardly similar to the John Hurt comparison, that was purely for the audience and wasn't actually part of the show. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 21:40, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Well, neither is the title card saying The Zygon Isolation - Peter Harness, is what I'm saying. It's the title card. Doctor Who and other TV shows might have gotten us used to strictly-delineated credits, but they're far from an absolute rule. The TV show the Osgoods watch at the end is another thing, but the brief appearance of the short's title on the screen in the close-up is clearly for the audience's benefit and not part of the diegesis. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:43, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Your interpretation. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 21:48, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Well, neither is the title card saying The Zygon Isolation - Peter Harness, is what I'm saying. It's the title card. Doctor Who and other TV shows might have gotten us used to strictly-delineated credits, but they're far from an absolute rule. The TV show the Osgoods watch at the end is another thing, but the brief appearance of the short's title on the screen in the close-up is clearly for the audience's benefit and not part of the diegesis. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:43, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- It is hardly similar to the John Hurt comparison, that was purely for the audience and wasn't actually part of the show. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 21:40, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Connor is welcome to take his concerns to the forums if he really must, but this story really isn't breaking the fourth wall any more than many already valid stories. Doctor Who exists in-universe; deal with it. You're free to exclude it from your personal canon, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid, and that's what matters. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:37, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not much of an inclusion debate if you ask me. A very occasional user (no offence), User:Epsilon the Eternal, asked if this story was canon. Just as I was explaining to Epsilon that we don't deal in canon around here, User:Xx-connor-xX weighed in under the impression that the story's validity was under question due to the title of the story being wedged into a shot rather than getting a swirly title card like we're used to for television (but Extremis and the TV Movie are also edited so that the narrative footage bleeds into, and out of, the opening credits!), and that the Osgoods sit down to watch what is clearly spelled out as an episode of Doctor Who at the end — but the fact that I can link to an in-universe Doctor Who page sans {{invalid}} tag is all the proof you need that Doctor Who is well-established to exist within the Doctor's universe (or multiverse).
There is every appearance that Peter Harness meant for this story to take place in the Doctor Who universe, from the custom-modeled UNIT desktop including files about Zygon sightings to the use of a DWU concept like a time eddy. An appearance by Doctor Who in-universe doesn't change that, and until we see some hard quotes from Harness about this story not being set in the DWU, I see no reason whatsoever why this story's validity should be questioned.
Folks, The Terror of the Umpty Ums is valid. We can surely deal with this without worrying about our precious (nonexistent) canon like Mary Whitehouse clutching at her pearls, and I fully trust this community, including Connor and Epsilon, to recognize this.
- Najawin
I think it's probably valid as well. But the fact it's got, you know, the exact episode titles being shown, exact episode images, etc, might make it a bit too fourth wall breaking for some people's comfort. I'm fine with it. But I think a thread is appropriate.
- Xx-connor-xX
Unfortunately I am not a trained psychic and therefore I had no idea that you were already writing your long and rambling speech, and for that I can only apologise. However, I did not "weigh in" just because of the user's concerns - but for my own. In my personal opinion the fourth wall breaks were so severe that they would encourage an inclusion debate at some point, no time like the present.
All of your similarities; Name of the Doctor, Extremis, etc, are completely plucked from thin are and are actually nowhere similar. How is a title card announcing a new Doctor (which goes unnoticed by any of the characters and is purely for the audience) in any way similar to characters logging in and watching themselves on the show that they're on.
- Scrooge MacDuck
In addition to the above, this thread seems redundant with Thread:269368, which seemed to be shaping up to be the thread to discuss all disputed Doctor Who: Lockdown stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Xx-connor-xX: you write: “How is a title card announcing a new Doctor (which goes unnoticed by any of the characters and is purely for the audience) in any way similar to characters logging in and watching themselves on the show that they're on.”
Urgh. As I said before, I am mentioning Extremis and The Name of the Doctor in relation to what can be seen at 0:05 in the YouTube upload, which I believed to be one of the supposed fourth-wall-breaks you were referring to. Not about the business of the Osgoods watching an episode of Doctor Who. In that respect, I can only point you towards the pages Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood), Doctor Who (TV Action!), The Doctor in popular culture and mythology and more, and just… sort of look at you in baffled askance.
- Borisashton
Yep, totally agree with Scrooge's reasoning. The truth is, although some may flinch at the references to Doctor Who, there is nothing that has not already been shown to exist in the Doctor's universe. Doctor Who is an established force within the DWU:
We already know the Doctor was played by a woman who looks like the Thirteenth Doctor as per The Terror of the Umpty Ums, we know that it starred individuals closely resembling the Twelfth Doctor and Clara as per In the Forest of the Night, Doctor Who Magazine and as specific episodic references as Planet of Giants were depicted in The Thief of Sherwood.
Also, the in-universe version of The Zygon Invasion is not the same as the real world version. The Osgoods talk about life in lockdown and then watch an episode in which "Planet Earth was in lockdown".
- Shambala108
Admin note: inclusion debates belong on Board:Inclusion debates, not individual talk pages. Therefore, User:Najawin was correct to bring that question here, despite what User:Scrooge MacDuck, who is not an admin, has stated both here and on the talk page.
- Najawin
I mean, you'd think that, but as soon as I chimed in saying that I thought Strax Saves the Day (webcast) was okay (before I made this account), the thread dried up. So obviously people didn't want to talk about that. :>
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Shambala108: But this was not an inclusion debate, was my point. This was Xx-connor-Xx and I clearing away a user's understandable but misguided questions about canon, which we don't care about. From what Xx-connor-xX has typed since, it's clear that he wishes to present an inclusion debate (or rather, an exclusion debate), but that's a very different thing from how the conversation at Talk:The Zygon Isolation (webcast) had started.
- Xx-connor-xX
Shambala108 wrote: Admin note: inclusion debates belong on Board:Inclusion debates, not individual talk pages. Therefore, User:Najawin was correct to bring that question here, despite what User:Scrooge MacDuck, who is not an admin, has stated both here and on the talk page.
He was absolutely correct. He didn't "butt in" like he was accused of.
- Shambala108
@User:Scrooge MacDuck, and my point, as I've often had to make, is that you are not an admin and therefore it's not your job to make this kind of decision.
@User:Xx-connor-xX, no one has accused Scrooge MacDuck of "butting in", those were his words.
Keep this debate on the topic; any other comments about whether this thread should have been created will be removed.
- Najawin
Again, I'd like to note, I'm perfectly okay with this story being valid. I think Scrooge's arguments are perfectly fine, and I think the recent discussion at Thread:212365 shows that Harness has a very broad view of "canon" and enjoys messing with viewers.
The story clearly passes rules 1, 2, and 3, and I think given Harness's temperament it passes 4.
- Xx-connor-xX
Shambala108 wrote: @User:Scrooge MacDuck, and my point, as I've often had to make, is that you are not an admin and therefore it's not your job to make this kind of decision.
@User:Xx-connor-xX, no one has accused Scrooge MacDuck of "butting in", those were his words.
Keep this debate on the topic; any other comments about whether this thread should have been created will be removed.
You've misread my comment, I didn't say anyone accused Scrooge of butting in.
- Borisashton
Is there any evidence supporting invalidity aside from the debunked notions of canon and the idea that mentioning or depicting Doctor Who in-universe is an automatic rule 4 fail?
- Najawin
Well Connor has been blocked, so the voice we knew was going to be in favor of it being invalid won't be chiming in. But to be charitable, I think the idea is that the extent of fourth wall breaking is over the line. At 2:12 in the youtube vod we see this website, and pictures/names exactly the same as in the real world for the tv show. At 2:14 it has an actual description of The Zygon Invasion as "When Osgood is kidnapped by a rogue gang of Zygons, the Doctor, Clara and Unit must scatter across the world in a bid to set her free."
(Funnily enough, is this the first reference to this website inside of the DWU?)
And then I guess at 2:38 onwards the credits take the form of a text message being sent out. But that's less relevant.
- Borisashton
I don't think we should consider the end credits part of the narrative just because they've been added in a fun way.
Not to sound harsh but we don't (and shouldn't) postpone debates to wait for the input of users who have blocked for violating the wiki's policies. Again, the level of fourth-wall breaking is nothing we haven't seen before. The Thief of Sherwood literally gives zero indication the Doctor was ever anything other than a fictional character yet we consider it valid. I'll note that story also gives a similar description of Planet of Giants to the one you describe above.
Yes, this is the first time we've come across something of this kind onscreen but to us, that doesn't matter.
- Najawin
Again. I'm in favor of validity. I'm simply attempting to explain the argument against as best I understand it. If somebody else were to want to chime in against validity I would appreciate it.
That said, perhaps the related discussion of "should we create a page for this website from an in universe perspective" is illuminating to the discussion. Doing so could (but does not necessarily) open up a can of worms, such as if other stories reference it and talk about articles being on it us sort of having to create an entire "meta wiki". (As unlikely as this is.)
Perhaps, if I'm again going to be playing devil's advocate here, this is where we draw the line, at stories that reference the wiki itself. Or even if we don't draw the line here, perhaps we should have a policy in place concerning how we handle this issue. And since it is the first time we've seen it, why not discuss that issue here?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Good question and good idea!
It's worth noting that from The Zygon Isolation, there isn't even any evidence that the "Tardis" website of which Osgood had a tab open is anything to do with the in-universe Doctor Who fiction series. It could be something like a LINDA-style online repository of all known TARDIS sightings throughout human history. Or something else entirely. We don't know! Nobody knows! Is there even a valid source defining the word wiki in the DWU?
But even if a future story showed our Wiki existing in the DWU in less ambiguous terms, I don't think that would lead to us having a "meta-wiki," as you put it, even if that is an interesting hypothetical. We don't, that I know of, create pages about individual entries within in-universe encyclopedias. Why should the in-universe text that would be this in-universe Tardis Wiki be any different?
We can live with one more-or-less thorough Tardis Data Core (The Zygon Isolation) page. It might require a slight addendum to the wording of T:TARDIS, perhaps, but that's all the policy changes I foresee being necessary.
- SOTO
I'm not especially concerned about the credits or title sequence, as Sleep No More previously incorporated its title sequence into its framing device. It's a stylisation choice. When text appears giving us the names of locations in Resolution, we're not meant to believe that text overlay is diegetic, part of the in-universe landscape for just a few seconds. Even if they've taken care to give this sort of text a style that fits neatly into the surrounding environment, it's still an out-of-universe element, done in a fun way.
The inclusion of DWM, Big Finish, this very wiki, and Doctor Who on iPlayer is what might give us pause, in terms of rule 4 that is. I'm leaning towards this being just another story, intended to be set within the DWU, with meta elements that show us some real-world Doctor Who things exist in the Doctor Who universe. But it's worth considering what the intent really is here.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It certainly is! And that's why I think little details like the presence of a LINDA widget on Osgood's desktop right alongside the "real-world things" are of interest.
So is, as User:Najawin pointed out, the recent reveal of the fact that the writer, Peter Harness, holds the same broad views on "canon" and continuity in Doctor Who as the likes of Steven Moffat and Paul Cornell. Harness nearly put a line in the actual, televised The Zygon Invasion where the Doctor thought back to the Multi-Doctor Event "with Big Ron", and another where he recalled the First Doctor's perspective on being stuck in a time eddy in The Three Doctors as his having genuinely been trapped inside a TV screen.
Call the above "character evidence" in legal lingo — it would take a lot to get me, and I think any other fair observer, to believe that Harness's intent was for The Zygon Isolation not to be set in the DWU as he understands it, when he gave so many signs that it is set in the ongoing DWU (with the Osgoods' status-quo, the Thirteenth Doctor, LINDA and so on).
- Najawin
My concern about the "meta wiki" issue is that the page would be initially sparsely populated, saying something like, "oh, this thing exists", and then other stories might reference specific articles in it (again, as unlikely as that is), which would then have people saying "and it has articles xyz that say abc" etc etc., primarily to fill out the page.
I don't think it's a major issue. But I do think it's worth considering.
The T:NO RW point is well taken as for the "is this even the same website" question. Which applies equally well to Big Finish and DWM. And I'm still inclined to think this thing is valid. But this is enough to make me look at it a little sketchily.
As for the credits, I only brought them up because the titles were brought up, so I was pointing out that the credits also had an issue and were slightly more problematic. I don't actually think either are a problem in any way. Someone else might, but while some elements of this make me a little uneasy, the credits and title sequence do not.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I see what you mean. But firstly, it's worth remembering that this scenario is only a hypothetical. It's not every day that our Wiki, under its proper name, is going to make a cameo in a licensed story (valid or otherwise!), and the one instance of it happening does not present such an issue. So let's not be scared of shadows of our own imagining!
Secondly, while such an article would be slightly odd to have, it wouldn't really be more or less of a dry or "useless" read than the potential of our in-universe Wikipedia page to devolve into a similar list of things that have pages on the DWU Wikipedia and also on the real Wikipedia. Weird pages like that are just a bullet our Wiki chose to bite in exchange for full and unambiguous coverage of the entire DWU.
- Najawin
My response was going to be something glib about "imagine if Faction Paradox (as a group of authors) somehow gets the rights to use the term 'Tardis', do you trust them to not intentionally do something to mess with that page?" But I think the broader issue is that I care more about having this discussion and coming down with a firm policy on it than I do any particular resolution.
Perhaps we want a very bare bones version of Wikipedia's Wikipedia page, rather than our Wikipedia page. Effectively talking about what the site is and mentioning the stories it appears in, rather than what precisely occurred with it, simply to avoid the recursion.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's not a bad thought — but what if a hypothetical story mentioning some of Tardis's page did so not to emptily repeat pages that really do exist, but rather to purport the existence of pages on the in-universe Wiki which we do not actually have? (e.g. pages for all the characters of the fictional third Cushing movie) Clearly such facts should then be recorded on the Tardis Data Core (The Zygon Isolation) page, but wouldn't they stick out oddly if we did not allow ourselves to also list the other pages that existed on the in-universe Wiki?
Again, this is only a hypothetical. I doubt we'll ever get to a point where the Tardis Data Core (The Zygon Isolation) page mentions more than a dozen in-universe pages, at the most.
But even if we did — while the "recursion" you fear would be strange, is there really a reason why it would be so undesirable as to warrant special policymaking? Even in the most ghoulish scenario imaginable, I doubt any significant fraction of our 81,870 pages (and counting) could ever be mentioned within the DWU. Not in a work that'd pass Rule 1, anyway. If someone's willing to curate it, it wouldn't really do the Wiki tangible harm to have a page largely consisting of a list of articles which also really exist on our very Wiki. It'd just be one more eccentricity for us to relish and for some outsiders to lightly mock.
…Also, I can't help but wonder, for all that this policymaking discussion is engaging and fascinating (which it is!), if this is the best place to do it. You say yourself that you "care more about having this discussion and coming down with a firm policy on it than [about] any particular resolution" — I'm assuming by resolution you mean resolution on this thread on the specific matter of confirming The Zygon Isolation's validity. I'm no admin, as I was reminded by Shambala earlier, but that certainly sounds very much like we've drifted into an off-topic discussion.
- Najawin
I meant resolution about policy related to the page for the wiki. I'd rather there be discussion and then hard policy for the page than I care in particular what the policy is.
But you're right, perhaps this should be a Panopticon thread and we should discuss it only as it relates to the Zygon Isolation here instead. Unless anyone objects?
- Scrooge MacDuck
(Note for future readers: the thread was indeed created.)
- Epsilon the Eternal
Okay, so it's in the Whoniverse. What next? It brings up a number of questions.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The article/episode guide The Lockdown Season in DWM 554 unexpectedly contains a very useful quote from Peter Harness about his thoughts on the webcast:
I really enjoyed seeing how the two Osgoods have moved on. It’s always fun to check in on a favourite character. Ingrid’s a brilliant actor and lovely friend and she did a stellar job, as she invariably does.
I think it's clear that he considers this webcast to be part of the continuing story of the Osgoods in the DWU.
In addition, the description of the webcast by Steve O'Brien in the same article is as follows:
The first of the shorts set during the lockdown period, the two Osgoods Zoom-chat each other while in isolation, throwing up some fan-pleasing Easter eggs.
The Osgoods watching the in-universe Doctor Who is officially recognised as "a fan-pleasing easter egg" — no different from the TV series in Remembrance of the Daleks.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Fair 'nuff.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Nice that he seems to have cleared this up, but interesting how he mentioned nothing about How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) (although not all that shocking as it clearly never had anything to do with lockdown).
- Scrooge MacDuck
Could you stop with the borderline-gaslighting? I feel like a broken record, but while it may not have been an official part of Lockdown (I think it was, you think it wasn't, there's room for disagreement), it clearly had something to do with Lockdown!. It was released as a consequence of the tweetalong, whether or not you agree that it was part of the tweetalong.
At any rate, the reason he doesn't mention it in this quote is that it's part of a little widget about The Zygon Isolation specifically, within an article that clearly sets its boundaries as being about the video stuff. The article doesn't document Dalek alternative script extract either, nor the BBC Website stories, nor any of the documentaries on the Lockdown! YouTube channel save for the Long Song cover.
Either way, all that isn't really within the purview of this thread, which is about The Zygon Isolation.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
It was nothing to do with lockdown whatsoever, and this interview in full will likely prove that (and hopefully give us a definitive list of lockdown releases). No gaslighting here, so I would appreciate you to stop those accusations to yourself. Also, if you’re interested in discussing this further let’s take it back to the correct thread.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Let me clarify something: there isn't a full interview. The quote I posted is all we hear from Peter Harness in the article — the format of it is just tiny widget about most of the Emily Cook Lockdown! webcast, and each one has a short quote, specifically about that webcast, by its writer.
You have yet to explain how something whose existence was causally linked with Doctor Who: Lockdown! — something which would not have been released when and how it was released, had it not been for Lockdown! — could possibly have "nothing to do" with Lockdown!. That's a completely different question from whether it's licensed, whether it's part of Lockdown!, or whether we should cover it.
If Harness talking about the potential Dimensions in Time continuity reference (or some other deleted detail) in The Zygon Invasion caused me to, today, go out and create a fanfilm recreation of how that scene would have looked — then obviously we wouldn't cover it on this Wiki, or even mention it. But my hypothetical wholly-unlicensed fanfilm would still have something to do with Lockdown!. I don't understand why you keep repeating this obviously untrue thing, even though it doesn't actually impact the matter of our coverage of Monk.
Note that the same DWM article also validates the view that while there are some Doctor Who: Lockdown! webcasts that are licensed and some that are not, Emily Cook embraces fanmade, unlicensed tweetalongs as belonging under the name of Doctor Who: Lockdown!.
Shortly after the COVID-19 crisis transformed the way most of us lead our lives, Emily Cook hatched the idea of Doctor Who: Lockdown. This was the umbrella term for online Tweetalongs, where fans could revisit old episodes together, alongside some of the people who wrote, made and starred in them.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
You creating a fan film because of lockdown would have nothing to do with that event. That is absolutely ridiculous. There are hundreds of Doctor Who fan films out there which are not covered by this site as they have nothing to do with the DW brand.
That bold quote has nothing to do with what you interpreted it to mean. She is simply saying that lockdown allowed fans to revisit stories - nowhere did she say their fan films are part of the event!!!
- Scrooge MacDuck
She says it was "an umbrella term for [tweetalongs matching a specific definition]". That is the part I was referring to.
As for your first paragraph, I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what the English phrase "having something to do with X" means. In my book, Doctor Who fanfic obviously has something to do with the Doctor Who brand. Of course it does. That doesn't mean the "something" is "a commercial license" — but it has something to do with the Doctor Who brand. Saying a Doctor Who fanfilm had nothing to do with the Doctor Who brand would, per my understanding of the English language, imply that the presence in the fafilm of a character called "the Doctor", travelling in something called "the TARDIS", was a complete coincidence — that there existed no causal connection between Doctor Who and the fanfilm.
If you define "having something to do with X" as meaning "having an official, legal connection with X", then I see the root of our disagreement but I can only recommend you buy a dictionary.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Umberella term because of the multiple tweet-alongs hosted by her under the brand (as well as the classic rewatches that she promoted)... nothing to do with fan films, unless I’m missing something big...!
Doctor Who fan fiction has nothing to do with the DW brand, so yes you have a misguided definition. Only official sources should be referenced on this site, while some extremely important fan works can get pages of their own this is not the norm.
Can we PLEASE move this onto the correct discussion?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, no, we can't, on account of it's locked due to a technical glitch, and no admin has told us what to do about that yet.
It is clear that only official sources should be referenced on this site. I never disputed that. But that is precisely why you shouldn't take issue with the statement that fanfic "has something to do" with Doctor Who.
Our Wiki does not have a mission statement of covering everything that "has something to do" with Doctor Who — thankfully. It is perfectly normal for things that "have something to do" with Doctor Who to not be covered on this Wiki. I am not at all saying that "Fanfilm X has something to do with Doctor Who" translates to "Fanfilm X is something we should cover". That is in fact my point.
As for "umbrella term", I too interpreted the use of the phrase "umbrella term" as Emily Cook embracing the Ellie Collins classic watchalongs (for example) as being a facet of Doctor Who: Lockdown!, albeit an unlicensed one. And let me remind you, Collins did produce her own webcasts for her Classic tweetalongs, which are fanfilms and consequently are not covered (the only one we ever had a page on, namely The Castellan…, is pending deletion as we speak).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
The Monk discussion is not locked, even if it was a new discussion should have been started rather than it detailing this thread (I would have done it earlier but I struggle to navigate on mobile and had to log onto the computer).
- Scrooge MacDuck
(For the record, I replied to the similar message that User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 left at Thread:275671. We were talking at cross-purposes because I believe the "more relevant thread" on which all this should more properly be discussed is not Thread:275671, but rather Thread:273268, which is locked for technical reasons. I mean, it seems to me like the thread about how to define Lockdown! is the more directly relevant one, rather than the thread about whether to take Harness's arguably-outrageous novelisation claims at face value in the matter of naming one specific page…)
- Najawin
Point of information, I don't believe the discussion Thread:273268 is a technical glitch per se, but instead intended behavior. I just think we probably had the longest ever argument on this wiki with no end in sight, so the admins are wary to reopen a new discussion on it unless they think it will solve something.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:275277
So, 'How The Monk Got His Habit' was first revealed nearly a month ago and since then there has been various discussions regarding its validity namely here; Talk: How The Monk Got His Habit (short story).
For some backstory, during the Doctor Who: Lockdown! tweet-along of The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion writer Peter Harness revealed that he had pitched three Doctor Who stories that never saw the light of day; The Last One To Go To Sleep, Doctor Who and the Cave Monsters and How The Monk Got His Habit. Later, long after the tweet-along had ended - Harness was persuaded by eager fans to go into detail about the unproduced stories. This was when Harness revealed that he had also been working on a similarly unproduced novelisation of 'How The Monk Got His Habit' - here is his direct quote;
Since some of you seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea, here's the similar discarded first page of a novelisation of it.[36]
Some users have suggested that a novelisation of this story was never actually intended, and this was similar to Russell T Davies' Revenge of the Nestene being framed as the fictitious 'Chapter 21' of the 2018 Rose novelisation. However, there's absolutely no proof of that - and until there is, we have to go with what was stated by Harness himself. It was a "discarded" first page of an unproduced novelisation.
Revenge of the Nestene was made extremely clear that it was completely new work - with Emily Cook having helped produced it herself during lockdown, and a timely reference to Boris Johnston within the source material. Then there was the fact that the story had other work done to it; including being designed to look like it was part of the Target series, and having a video posted onto official channels narrated by Jacob Dudman. This is completely different to a guest tweeter posting their own discarded story, in a spur of the moment thing, after realising that "some [of you] seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea".
That is not even to mention that Emily Cook herself has come out to stress that this "story" was not part of her lockdown event.[37] Some have tried to suggest that she was talking about the unproduced television story - but that is a big stretch, why would she ever be under the impression that fans were considering an unproduced television story from 2015 as part of her lockdown event in 2020? She was clearly referring to Harness' mentioning of the Monk story as a whole, and "discarded" goes hand-in-hand with "unproduced". There is even a category on this Wikia for Category:Unproduced novels so there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the word "unproduced" means that she was talking television-only.
All in all, this story pretty clearly fails two of the "four little rules". Not only is there serious evidence, and actual confirmation, against it's official release - but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the story was licensed. And, as User:Shambala108 stated on Talk:The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast), "We have to be strict about licensing just like we have to be strict about plagiarism."
I wanted to start this topic ahead of the inevitable re-opening of the Lockdown-releases discussion later today, after the final release, as 'How The Monk Got His Habit' will cause far more headaches than need be.
- Najawin
Let's address each of these supposed arguments in order.
This is the first page of a discarded novelization[[edit] | [edit source]]
Let's be very clear about what Harness said in his comment before we go any further. He did, in fact, say it was the first page of a discarded novelization.
Why do people think that this is a framing device?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Well, it relies on the fact that he noted it was a novelization. These are not given to unproduced scripts. Given this fact, we have two options. Either to assume Harness was using a framing device, as Davies was, or he was lying to us. So in fact to say "we have to go by what Harness himself claimed" is to call Harness a liar.
"Some [of you] seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea"[[edit] | [edit source]]
If you'll notice, unlike previous participants, Harness just kept talking to people past the end of the tweetalong. There's no reason to think that his framing device couldn't play into this if this is his personality.
Cook's statement[[edit] | [edit source]]
Let's be very clear. Cook did not say that Harness's short story wasn't part of lockdown. Anyone attempting to say differently is flat out misinterpreting the facts at best.
What was asked of Cook?[[edit] | [edit source]]
A fan asked Cook whether Harness's "unproduced story" was part of the event. Note that this is not the same thing as a short excerpt posted on his twitter, it refers to something else he specifically mentioned in his tweetalong. Not to the short story he posted on his twitter.
What did Cook actually say?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Cook said "that was just something he mentioned". Not "something he posted". Something he "mentioned". It's clear from her language that she's not referring to the short story but instead to the unproduced story in 2015. Since, you know, that's what the person asked her about.
Four little rules[[edit] | [edit source]]
Obviously this passes one and four. The issue is two and three. Your evidence against two amounts to not thinking it was part of Lockdown! because of a misinterpretation of what Cook said and your evidence against three is a misinterpretation of what Cook said and an assumption that Harness was lying rather than using a framing device. Quite obviously this fails to be persuasive.
Now, we could assume instead of Harness being a liar he was being sloppy, and meant novelization of an uncompleted script (a truly bizarre idea, but alright, I'm being charitable to your position), which would constitute a novel, but at best this just renders the evidence neutral rather than in your favor, since you're so badly misinterpreting what Cook actually said.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so... you DO think that for some reason Emily Cook thought that a bunch of fans were speculating whether an unproduced 2015 television story was part of her 2020 lockdown event? that would be very bizzare indeed! she was clearly referencing his "unproduced story" which a "discarded first page of a novelisation" is. so please, refrain from telling me that i am misinterpreting.
"neutral" still falls in favour of this being invalid, we have to be strict when it comes to licensing. there's no proof whatsoever this was licensed - so it should be invalidated immediately.
- Najawin
Well they asked her about the unproduced story, not the short story he wrote. So obviously she answered the question they asked. It's incredibly bizarre that you want us to "go with what was stated by Harness himself" but aren't willing to actually read what Cook said and take her at her word. You're quite clearly misinterpreting.
I did say "at best". I don't think this reading is at all plausible. He posted this as part of the Lockdown! event, we know that Lockdown! releases are in some sense coordinated with Chibnall, and we know that similar framing devices have happened before. (Note that his earlier Lockdown! release itself had a similarly meta framing device.)
Also, Shambala, out of curiosity, why the change from Real World to invalid? I'm not sure how these discussions go but that seems to me to violate T:BOUND, changing a neutral stance to a negative one. Does starting a debate instantly change the tag? I'm curious as to why that happened.
- Shambala108
@User:Najawin, some stories get {{Real world}} on release; others get {{Invalid}} until/unless proven otherwise. The {{Invalid}} ones are usually ones that have some question about them upon release and/or are new types of stories. This one should have had an {{Invalid}} tag from the get-go; it's much easier to clean up an {{invalid}} to {{real world}} story page after a forum decision than the opposite.
- Najawin
What causes things to get Real world on release in comparison?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
he didnt write a short story, as he said... that was the first page of a discarded novelisation. a short story never existed, that is YOUR misinterpretation of his comments. the word you are looking for would be an "extract" but definitely not a short story.
therefore there was no short story - there was just an extract from an unproduced story. and Cook was asked about this unproduced story (the novelisation) as nobody would ever think that the unproduced 2015 television story was part of the 2020 lockdown, but someone could (and did) think that the extract of the unproduced novelisation was part of lockdown - which she dismissed.
still, theres no evidence whatsoever that this was licensed. and remains the only lockdown release not to be promoted by emily cook - i think that is a big tell.
- Shambala108
@User:Najawin any DW tv story (and the spinoffs when they existed), and most existing ranges of audios, short stories, comics, etc. are automatically granted {{real world}} status without needing an inclusion debate.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin, i think it is a bit hypocritical for you to cite T:BOUND when Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery was originally created as a real world tag yet you didn't want to stick to current policy and removed it from lists repeatedly, without discussion, because you didn't agree with it.
- Shambala108
Admin note: any off-topic posts will be removed, and violators of Tardis:No personal attacks will be blocked.
- Najawin
You're right, and Davies wrote an extra chapter of the Rose novelization, not a short story. C'mon. Obviously the people who are arguing that it's valid are maintaining that it's a stand alone short story and not an extract.
Again, your reading here is impossible to maintain. They asked about the unproduced story, not the "excerpt", if you want to call it that. She then said he "mentioned" it, not that he "posted" it, or "released" it. But "mentioned" it. Your reading here is just untenable.
Again, I've provided evidence that it's licensed. The only way for you to say it's not is to say it wasn't a Lockdown! release. But to do so is question begging with respect to Thread:273268 since we still do not have firm agreement on what constitutes a Lockdown! story. So when you say that this is the only Lockdown! release not promoted by Cook, I'm reminded of the old saying that one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
no, Davies did not write an extra chapter of the Rose novelisation. as i said here;
"Revenge of the Nestene was made extremely clear that it was completely new work - with Emily Cook having helped produced it herself during lockdown, and a timely reference to Boris Johnston within the source material. Then there was the fact that the story had other work done to it; including being designed to look like it was part of the Target series, and having a video posted onto official channels narrated by Jacob Dudman."
and once again, why would anyone question whether an unproduced 2015 television story was part of a 2020 lockdown event. thats ridiculous. they were asking about the extract from the unproduced story. to which she stated that it was just something he mentioned - which ties in with his comments portraying how it was spur of the moment after he saw that fans appreciated the Monk idea.
you have provided no evidence that it was licensed whatsoever.
- Najawin
Yes, my point is that in insisting that it's an excerpt rather than an independent short story you're begging the question. The people who think it's valid do not agree with you. So obviously I'm not going to use the terminology you think is appropriate because I don't think it's correct.
Again. You can think it's ridiculous, but let's look at what was actually said. They asked about the unproduced story, not the "excerpt", if you want to call it that. She then said that he mentioned it. Not posted, not released, mentioned. It is literally impossible to maintain that she's talking about the "excerpt" (read: short story) in this comment. She's quite clearly talking about his comments about the 2015 story, since that's what someone asked her about.
And, again, I pointed out that Lockdown! was coordinated in some respect with Chibnall and that we have reason to believe that this was part of Lockdown! Obviously you might think this is weak evidence, but to claim it's no evidence is simply false.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i dont care if you dont use the teminology i use, but what i dont appreciate is you repeatedly telling me that i have "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" someone - due to your personal difference of opinion.
the extract was from an unproduced story, as stated by Harness himself. Emily Cook was asked about the unproduced story - what would she think the fan is asking her about? the 2015 unproduced television story or the extract from an unproduced novelisation story that was shared after the tweet-along? also, it makes no sense - if this "short story" was part of lockdown - for her not to acknowledged that in her answer. it is very clear what she meant.
and your only evidence for this being licensed is that you believe that during the tweet-along hour all tweets from the guest representatives are somehow licensed. yet, you then move the goalposts when it is pointed out to you that Harness' tweet-along had ended way before he posted the extract. when, in your opinion, does a guest representative's tweets stop being licensed? a day after the tweet-along? a week? a month? so Harness could still be waffling out "licensed" stories now?
- Najawin
It's not a difference of opinion. Your reading is literally untenable. It requires you to both think the user asking thinks excerpts of stories are equivalent to entire stories and that Cook thinks that "mentioning" is equivalent to "posting" or "releasing". Again, I find it bizarre that you insist we take Harness's words literally, without any analysis of context, yet do not do the same for Cook's. (When proper analysis of both supports my reading, but a literal reading of Cook's words supports mine as well.)
Again. To say that Harness said "oh it's from an unproduced story" and ignore the context in which he said is wholly unreasonable. I've addressed above why people think him saying that is a framing device. So you can't keep insisting that Harness saying that is some trump card. It's not. You actually have to address the arguments made at some point.
Similarly, we can assume that Cook answered the question she was asked and then answered coherently, with the word "mentioned", or answered a question she wasn't asked, and used the word "mentioned", which doesn't actually answer the question she wasn't asked. I think the first is far more likely.
And, of course, I do not believe I ever said that during the tweet along hour all tweets from the guest representatives are licensed. In fact, let me be clear, I wholly disavow that notion. Instead I pointed out that this is a Doctor Who story associated with Lockdown! and such stories are coordinated with Chibnall.
So please, tell me where I moved the goal posts?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Harness calls this a "discarded first page of a novelisation". and i read that as... an extract of an unproduced story - you read that as... his satirical attempt to follow in RTD's footsteps and release his own short story, without it being promoted by anyone but himself.
then Emily Cook is asked about the unproduced story. i read that as... the extract from the unproduced novelisation story that he shared the prior day, you read that as... her thinking the fan truly believed that an unproduced television story was part of lockdown (despite having been pitched five years before lockdown was founded!).
yours is the interpretation which makes no sense.
and it matters not to me what *people* (you and Scrooge) think. there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a "framing device". unlike RTD's Rose sequel and the Dalek alternate script - which were made clear to be new releases posing as old ones (mainly due to the fact that they were produced and organised by Emily Cook).
please find evidence that Chris Chibnall acknowledged this story. he acknowledge the work that Emily Cook was doing, through mention to her on the BBC website, but this "story" had nothing to do with Emily so surely he would have acknowledged it separately.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
one final point before i got to sleep, several of Harness' comments before posting the extract show that he had no intention of releasing 'How The Monk Go His Habit' as a short story. his comments range from "I should definitely do it one day" [38] to "maybe it'll happen one day" [39].
there was no authorial intent to have this story be released as a short story. and, while these two comments don't add much on their own - with everything else, and the fact that Harness literally called the extract a "discarded first page of a novelisation" it proves that releasing a licensed story was not his intent.
it was a spur of the moment thing when he saw how interested people were in the idea. no planning, no teasing / hype, no licensing.
- Najawin
Well, I read that as a framing device to release a short story. Following in RTD's footstep's wasn't exactly part of the equation, this is just a framing device, and one that's existed before and one that will exist after.
As for Cook, I read that as the fan asking the question they asked and getting an answer that made sense for the question they asked. You read it as them asking a question they did not ask and getting an answer that did not make sense for the question that you're interpreting them to actually mean. You can keep trying to spin it all you want, but your reading just doesn't work. The word choice is clear.
Similarly, your insistence that Cook be involved in production and organization for Lockdown! releases is question begging and I have no interest in indulging it further. Suffice it to say that it's not compelling and until that thread is sorted out, T:BOUND applies and you cannot use that is justification.
Chibnall mentioned Cook on the BBC website? Where's that? Certainly he didn't do so here.
As for your links, what they establish is that Harness wants to revisit the canceled story in its entirety, not that he thinks that the short story was itself actually an excerpt. Since clearly the short story does not contain the entire events that would have transpired, arguing that there was no authorial intent to "have this story be released as a short story" is entirely irrelevant, since the story was never released as a short story. Rather, a short story was released that might have consisted of part of what we would have seen had this made its way to the screen.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we can both go round in circles with the whole “you read it as them asking a question they did not ask and getting an answer that did not make sense for the question that you're interpreting them to actually mean“ but im not that petty.
also, you just said that this wasn’t a lockdown release but a lockdown associated release. which is it?
And lockdown was created by Cook, so lockdown being referenced on the BBC website is acknowledging her work - as I said.
- Najawin
I mean, the problem is that you can't account for the word choices used in that screenshot in your reading of the exchange. On the other hand, I can account for the fact that people are talking about a 2015 story in 2020. Cook is simply responding to the question someone asked her, and someone asked her what people were discussing at this wiki. If we look at Talk: How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), we see that you begin the discussion with conflating the short story with the discarded story. The question was made at 1:21 UTC May 17th.
So at this point we have you conflating the two, Scrooge point out you're wrong, you denying this and saying "what short story??? i dont see a short sotry", Scrooge saying "And even if a novelisation was for some insane reason begun in 2015, Harness deciding to release this specific scene in 2020 could still count as a separate short story release", and you beginning your grand theory of Emily Cook as the sole arbiter of Lockdown!.
So very clearly at this point Scrooge has pointed out the distinction between the two in detail on the talk page. Since such a question would not have been asked without this discussion taking place, and Scrooge pointed out the distinction in literally the second comment, it seems obvious that the poster in question knew about the distinction and was doing this for your sake to clear up your confusion.
Now, since I can explain these issues, and you can't explain the word choices, aside from something on par with "they misspoke", that means my reading is by default superior as it has more explanatory power.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it’s getting to the point where I feel like I can not longer talk to you without feeling uncomfortable. you repeatedly tell me that I am “misinterpreting” something - when I am clearly not, and then to lie and say “you can’t explain the word choices” when I have repeatedly explained - and never once did I say they misspoke!
a discarded novelisation IS an unproduced story.
the extract from that story, as it was stated to be, is still an unproduced story. isn’t not now a separately licensed short story just by magic.
Emily was asked about the unproduced story, nobody would ever think that a five year old unproduced story was part of a new event. it was obviously a question about the extract, which she knew fine well - otherwise she would have clarified that the extract was official. she didn’t, because it isn’t.
- Najawin
Clearly a discarded novelization is an unproduced story. A proposed extract, however, would be called an extract, given the discussion going on at the talk page, which was the context for the person asking the question. You can't explain this inconsistency. Similarly, you've consistently failed to address the issue where she merely says he mentioned it. Rather than posted it or released it.
Now, to claim that you addressed the word choices is simply false. You haven't done so prior to this, and quite frankly, you've only done so half way now. You're assuming that the fan is using a word in a truly bizarre way, and ignoring that Cook is using a word that makes no sense, something you have never once even attempted to explain.
As for other statements, I think you'll find that the BBC website I linked does not actually mention Lockdown! on it at all. At best it says "Fans around the world will be remembering and reminiscing this anniversary with a live stream of Rose, with many using the hashtag #TripofaLifetime to chat on Twitter" - which is only there to lead into Davies' prose work, and this is not specifically from Chibnall, unlike another statement made on that website.
As for the idea that I said this was a "Lockdown! associated release", I've never once used the term before now, at best I said it was a release associated with Lockdown!, which is a far more vague statement. I've consistently maintained that I do not believe it possible to erect the kind of barriers you want around Lockdown! releases.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it is frustrating to have you repeatedly dismiss me as having "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" something, and it is ridiculous to repeatedly comment that - if you think i have misinterpreted something, and i think that you have, there is no point whatsoever going round in circles. that is why i dont keep spamming that you have misinterpreted something, i have simply defended by own valid interpretation (that doesnt misquote anything!). and it is even more frustrating to have you repeatedly telling "[someone] has already pointed this out to you" (which you do a lot) or accuse me of purposely ignoring comments / arguments - when i have already addressed all of these comments / arguments.
an extract to a discarded / unproduced story is not suddenly licensed... it is still just an extract of a discarded / unproduced story. Cook doesn't use any words that "don't make sense" when being asked about the extract to the unproduced novelisation - she says what it is, just something mentioned / shared by Harness and has nothing to do with lockdown. if the extract was part of lockdown she would have made that clear distinction - but she didn't.
and addressing the lockdown hashtag on the BBC website ackwoledges Cook's work. that (and several other reasons) are evidence of the licensing these Cook stories possess. but Harness' story has nothing to do with any of Cook's work - nobody acknowledged it other than Harness, who literally called it the "discarded first page of a novelisation".
- Thefartydoctor
Najawin wrote: Clearly a discarded novelization is an unproduced story.
and
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: a discarded novelisation IS an unproduced story.
You both agree. So what's the problem? This debate is getting needlessly long and quite frankly I gave up trying to follow it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we don't agree completely, we agree that a discarded novelisation is an unproduced story however he also believes;
- that an extract from this unproduced story (presented as a discarded piece of work) is somehow a valid story in its own right.
- that Emily Cook wasn't talking about this discarded story when she dismissed it as being part of lockdown... but a discarded television pitch from 2015...
- Thefartydoctor
- An extract is not a story. A story needs a beginning, middle and end. An extract is just a piece of unresolved adventure without the entire context. The problem with that is that that extract could suggest one context, and then placed into the entire story, you could realise it had the reverse meaning. So no, an extract is not a story at all.
- Her tweet clearly makes it not part of the Lockdown! event rather something that Harness had previously mentioned in a conversation. There's no tenable link between the Lockdown! event and that 'extract'.
Those are my interpretations.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
those are exactly my interpretations as well, but apparently we are misinterpreting and misquoting. thank you for getting involved and i apologise for the needlessly long debate.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Cook doesn't use any words that "don't make sense" (…) she says what it is, just something mentioned / shared by Harness
See, this is exactly the misinterpretation/misrepresentation we're talking about. This sleight-of-hand right there. Mentioning something and sharing something have never, ever been synonyms. You can't just say "she used the word 'mentioned', and it was 'shared', so Q.E.D.". Those words mean very, very different things. If I "mention" An Unearthly Child on the Internet, I am within fair use; if I "share" An Unearthly Child on the Internet, I am either a BritBox staff member, or engaging in piracy.
You also have yet to give any kind of answer to the point, made repeatedly and emphatically, that it borders on the absurd to imagine that a Target novelisation of a random one-parter began production in 2015, long before Target revived its Doctor Who novelisations, and even then, for famous stories only — all before the one-parter that was supposedly being novelised had even begun filming.
It is almost as improbable to suggest the above scenario as to suggest that Dalek really did almost feature the Drashig, or that Godfrey Porter wrote a Hartnell-era serial called The Thief of Sherwood, or that Moffat and R.T. Davies had a wrestling match. We should not take any of those claims seriously. This isn't calling the authors liars, this is demonstrating a rational mind.
- Thefartydoctor
So what am I missing here then? This debate is confusing. Are there other points apart from the above two?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think the way to sum up the conflict is that User:DiSoRiEnTeD1:
- thinks that the unfinished 2015 novelisation of How The Monk Got His Habit actually existed, and that what we cover at How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) is in fact an extract from that 2015 draft, as opposed to a new piece of prose written in 2020 and intentionally released with the framing of being part of an imaginary novelisation.
- thinks that when Emily Cook said that the "unproduced story mentioned by Harness" wasn't part of Lockdown!, she was talking about the prose he shared, rather than the unfinished TV story of the same name, which is the thing he mentioned.
- thinks that Cook is the sole determinator of what is part of Lockdown!, and that Harness releasing his story as part of the Lockdown! tweetalong event doesn't "count" unless it's acknowledged by Cook's official Twitter account.
Naturally, the relevance of the third point would be conditional on granting the second, anyway.
I strongly dispute all three points, as does User:Najawin (and IIRC a few other people weighed in on the original talk page discussion this sprang from), for reasons I've shown many times before, which DiSoRieNTed thinks are insufficient for reasons he has yet to write out in an orderly format.
You're correct that an extract, presented as an extract, is not a short story. But Doctor Who and the Time War very much is a short story, just one that pretends it's an extract from a bigger story so that it can get people wondering. I think that How The Monk Got His Habit, the 2020 short story, is doing basically the same thing. It's a finished work that's unseriously "claimed" to be an extract from a nonexistent novelisation, but can and should be read as its own fun little farce about the Monk arguing with his TARDIS.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
that is completely wrong. the comparison to An Unearthly Child is laughable at best. you could absolutely "share" that story online if you so wished and had a link... without being BritBox staff.
this is not an already licensed work, so he is "sharing" the discarded extract after having mentioned it. it is not a release, and just something that he mentioned - i am not misinterpreting anything.
i have answered you comment "that it borders on the absurd to imagine that a Target novelisation of a random one-parter began production in 2015, long before Target revived its Doctor Who novelisations". i dont care, it is pure speculation to suggest otherwise - as that is what we were told. who is to say that Target ever had any involvement - he could have just written the story and pitched it to them, there's too many "what ifs"!
and there's a very obvious different between each and every one of those examples you gave; this extract is nothing like any of them. the Dalek alternative script extract was made during lockdown and clearly a parody - and also isnt considered valid. and the other two examples were just ridiculous and have nothing to do with this at all.
- Thefartydoctor
In this extremely confusing debate where it seems everyone is saying the same things yet also saying completely different things (get the Celestial Intervention Agency to unravel that paradox), I'll just give my takes on your top three points and tell me whether I've understood correctly:
- An extract is an extract. It always will be just an extract. It is not a story, it is an extract.
- If someone in authority claimed it contained enough of a storyline to be a fully fledged, valid story, then we could argue its validity. As far as I'm aware, no-one has claimed validity on the DW team, therefore it isn't and remains an extract.
- Emily Cook's tweet is clear. I don't know how anyone can misinterpret it. She's talking about it being a part of a previous conversation with fans that he probably thought was of interest to them. When Harness tweeted about this Monk fact, it had ZERO correlation to the Lockdown! event.
- Cook is a vital member of the Lockdown! team, but I would suggest those such as RTD, Moff and Chibbs are much more influencial. Cook has done a lot of brilliant work for the DWU but her influence isn't that strong. Cook is one part of a well-oiled team. If Moff turns around and says something isn't deemed 'valid', that's it haha.
Just my opinion. I'm confused because I thought Disoriented agreed with me on the first point... again, this conversation is people agreeing and disagreeing on exactly the same points.
- An extract is an extract. It always will be just an extract. It is not a story, it is an extract.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
please do not try to make my points sound ludicrous.
here's my version of events:
- Peter Harness mentioned three unproduced television stories during his tweet-along. a whole day after this, and after seeing fan interest, he shared a "discarded first page of a novelisation". there was no mention of this being a licensed story reworked as a short story.
- Emily Cook was asked about the "unproduced story" - which could have been either the television or novel (which he mentioned alongside his discarded extract). but no way would she think that people were arguing whether a television story five years prior was part of her event. she was clearly referencing the discarded extract that he released the day prior.
- Harness' hour-long segment of the tweet-along had ended over twelve hours before the release of this discarded story.
also: no date was ever given to the unproduced novelisation (so i have no idea why you keep saying 2015 or "long before Target revived its Doctor Who novelisations"). only the unproduced television story was intended for 2015 - the novelisation could have been intended for any time after that.
now here is your interpretation;
- Harness sought licensing for a short story based on an unproduced television story - but nobody other than him promoted this new story and he released this long after his tweet-along had ended. unlike his actual licensed The Zygon Isolation which was promoted by several others; including founder Emily Cook, and released during the tweet-along.
- that Emily Cook thought fans were arguing whether an unproduced television story five years prior was part of the lockdown event. yet, didnt go on to clarify that the "short story" Harness "released" the day before was licensed in its own right.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You're confusing potential meanings of "sharing". If I send someone the Netflix link to a Doctor Who story or whatever, sure, that might be called "sharing" it. But that's not the sense in which Harness "shared" the bit of prose we currently cover at How The Monk Got His Habit. Whether it's an original work or actually an extract from an unfinished story, it was undoubtedly released by Harness. Before 2020, no one but him had read it; after 2020, it's available to anyone who wants to read it, and we're having this argument. That's release.
He also didn't mention the hypothetical novelisation before releasing the short story/extract/prologue/whatever. He mentioned the TV story, yes. But he hadn't let out a single peep about a 2015 novelisation before the post where he released the page of prose.
I continue to find your "explanation" unsatisfactory. Believing outlandish claims from creators is all fine and good (although… T:NO SELF REF might apply, come to think of it, to statements like "I worked on a Target novelisation in 2015 but it came to nothing"… just a thought), but you have offered nothing but your personal bias for why we should believe these claims but not those about Rob Shearman's own contribution.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge you're really grasping at straws. i think Farty speaks the most sense here - they put my interpretation into clear and precise points.
also, this being an extract and not even a story means that it fails three of the four little rules.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm bowing out here. I've got no idea what's going on and probably never will.
- If this is an extract of an unreleased story, it's not valid. It's an extract. Simple.
- If this is a reworked extract, written into a story with a solid storyline, which could standalone, then the debate should move to who allows it validity - four rules, including authorial intent.
As I say, I've no idea what's going on so... good luck.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Thefartydoctor wrote: this conversation is people agreeing and disagreeing on exactly the same points.
nobody is agreeing / disagreeing on the same points?
me and you seem to have the exact same interpretation. then Najawin / Scrooge seem to agree that the unproduced novelisation never existed and this extract was written for the lockdown event - despite no evidence of that.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The thing is that we are discussing three different (potential) stories called How The Monk Got His Habit in this debate, and it's confusing the discourse quite a lot.
- A would be How The Monk Got His Habit (TV story), which I don't believe anybody is arguing not to cover as an invalid, {{unproduced}}. This story was mentioned by Peter Harness.
- B would be How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation), a Target novelisation started at some point between 2015 and 2020 by Harness, then cancelled. This story was mentioned by Peter Harness.
- C is How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), the page of prose about "Roger" arguing with his TARDIS about woofers. This page of prose was released by Peter Harness, and never mentioned.
———
Now that this is cleared up, the disagreement is that I think that B never existed and is actually a fiction, a framing device for C, whereas User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 thinks that C is actually an extract from B.
This doesn't necessarily preclude a page about C as a deleted scene; we cover Friend from the Future, for example, as invalid, following it being ruled a deleted scene by a lengthy forum thread. But it does preclude C being a valid source.
It is possible that Emily Cook, when she said that the "unproduced Monk thing mentioned by Harness" wasn't part of Lockdown!, was talking about either A or B. It is not possible that she was talking about C, which was released by Harness but never "mentioned" by him.
Harness, for his part, teased the potential release of C in terms of "I may want to return to this narrative" during his comments about a during the tweetalong, and tagged the release of C with the hashtag he used for his part of the tweetalong. As has been pointed out many times before, this seems like pretty strong evidence that one of the two key people involved (Harness) thinks C, whether it be a release of a deleted scene, or a release of a short story, was part of Lockdown!.
- Thefartydoctor
Thefartydoctor wrote: When Harness tweeted about this Monk fact, it had ZERO correlation to the Lockdown! event.
^^ I think Harness wrote it because fans were interested. When you say 'for the lockdown event', you mean separate from Lockdown! but part of his tweetalong, right? The two aren't the same. The way I see it, the extract was Harness sharing a piece of interest to the fans but he did not release any content related to the Lockdown!.
That was what I said/meant.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Rule One: Only stories count
this is an extract, and not a story in itself. it misses a start, beginning and end. it is completely unlike Revenge of the Nestene and Dalek alternative script extract which were made clear to be specially written for the lockdown event (Emily Cook's involvement prove that - be it in producing like Nestene, or organising like Dalek).
Rule Two: A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count
theres no license evidence whatsoever. apparently Harness using the hashtag for a tweet-along (which had ended over twelve hours earlier) is evidence that it was licensed? it is not.
Rule Three: A story must be officially released to be valid
this wasn't "officially released". it was shared by Harness with no promotion anywhere other than his own twitter account. his comments, about sharing it because of fan interest, make it clear that this wasnt planned and therefore not an official release.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
no short story exists. there should only be How The Monk Got His Habit (TV story) and How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation). that is the only two things that were ever presented. an extract is not suddenly a short story.
- Thefartydoctor
Rule One alone invalidates this 'extract'. I think the Scratchman header is perfect enough. That's where I'll leave it. Also, as mentioned, Harness just gave it to the fans as a bit of interest. He didn't release it. Nor was it announced officially, and that's Rule Three. For Rule Two, I assume Moffat would need to weigh in on the license, which would also drag the BBC team in. Hope that makes my opinion clear haha
- Scrooge MacDuck
C very much has a beginning, middle and end, at least as much as a lot of Brief Encounter short stories.
The Monk is listening to some music; then he gets frustrated with the bad sound; he tries to change it; fails egregiously; in the end the proud Time Lord gives up and decides to go listen to some LPs instead.
It's a narrative, and a funny one.
You could argue it fails Rule 1 if it's a deleted scene from a wider story that isn't meant to be read on its own. But on its own merits — in terms of beginning, middle and end — it can easily be its own story, it's just a matter of whether Harness intended it that way.
T:OFF REL also doesn't say anything about promotion and Twitter accounts. If this wasn't "officially released" because it was released on Twitter with little-to-no-promotion, then neither was Incoming Message! In truth, T:OFF REL has nothing to do with this. It's meant to rule out early leaks like what happened with some episodes of Series 8, and also early preview copies available to select individuals. If it was made available to the public by someone with rights to do so, that's Rule 3 covered.
So the questions that remain are really just a variant on Rule 1 (did the novelisation ever exist?), and Rule 2.
But it's not as easy as putting a Scratchman header on How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), since that page is about the story (or "story") about Roger and his hi-fi system, it's not actually describing the full unproduced novelisation. It'd need a complete rewrite, and a rename, if we were to make it about the unproduced novelisation.
- Thefartydoctor
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: no short story exists. there should only be How The Monk Got His Habit (TV story) and How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation). that is the only two things that were ever presented. an extract is not suddenly a short story.
I agree on this point. If it was intended to be a TV story, then the Scratchman pages require it to use that in the name.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Harness has no rights whatsoever to "release" a short story. even if he did specifically write it after seeing fan interest, his tweet-along had long since ended so it had nothing to do with lockdown (and your only evidence that it was licensed is that it somehow had something to do with lockdown).
- Thefartydoctor
So, we all agree that it's invalid...? What's this debate for then? :P
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Thefartydoctor wrote:
i don't think Scrooge or Najawin thinks its invalid, but their argument confuses me greatly.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think the phrasing "it had nothing to do with Lockdown!" is still blatantly false. It had the Lockdown! hashtag and was obviously following from Harness's statements about the unproduced TV story during the Tweetalong proper. It's got everything to do with Lockdown!.
At a stretch, you can pursue the argument that Peter Harness "unlawfully" made it part of Lockdown!; that it's part of Lockdown! fraudulently and he "shouldn't" have released it so long after his tweetalong window had ended. But it's certainly not completely disconnected from #TruthOrConsequences, I mean c'mon.
As for "no short story exists", I'm getting strong "there are no such things as Macra" vibes here. Something in fully-written-out prose was released by Harness. I read it and created a page about the ruddy thing. Maybe it was a standalone work, maybe it was a "deleted scene", but if Friend from the Future and Spider Dalek are (invalid) releases separate from The Pilot and Doctor Who, then the same goes for this. Whether that something breaks Rule 2 as fanfic is another matter, of course. But it exists.
No, @User:Thefartydoctor, we are from all agreeing, at what point did I give the impression that I agreed with this?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i have explained this to you time and time again, anyone can use a hashtag. he clearly used the hashtag because it would then be seen by the same people who had been part of his tweet-along and showed interest in the story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you read an extract from a "discarded first page of a novelisation" not a short story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: he clearly used the hashtag because it would then be seen by the same people who had been part of his tweet-along and showed interest in the story.
Then that's not "it's got nothing to do with Lockdown!", is it? It's "he chose to broadcast the logical conclusion of what he said during the Lockdown! event specifically to the people who attended the Lockdown! event". That's a lot to do with Lockdown! right there at the very least. And difficult to separate from "part of Lockdown!" save by your own arbitrary "it has to have Emily Cook's name on it somewhere" criterion.
Anyway, call it what you like, but the "page of prose" released in 2020 exists. By all means campaign for Friend from the Future (TV story) to be renamed to, I don't know, Friend from the Future (piece of audiovisual content), but something was released in 2020 for the enjoyment of readers, whether or not it is in fact an extract from a "bigger story" that was never actually completed.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
someone posting fanfiction onto a lockdown hashtag doesnt make it have anything to do with lockdown. what are you talking about? in the moment he posted the story (half a day after his stint as a guest tweet had ended) Harness was no different from you or me, shall we go write some fanfiction and post it on the hashtag to have it included as part of the event? ridiculous!
- Thefartydoctor
I am going to leave now since I have no idea what's happening. No-one's fault, I've just lost the thread. But in my opinion, using a hashtag for a Lockdown! tweetalong about The Zygon Invasion/Inversion has no link to another story but the same writer. I just think using that link is somewhat tenuous. I take away from that that his use of the hashtag was just to get people to see it who were also present at the tweetalong. If Harness was providing us with yet more Zygon content, then you could state otherwise. He was clearly using the hashtag for people to find it. That's just my opinion and that's where I'll leave it. I'm tired and confused haha.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we agree completely farty, i struggle to understand any other interpretation.
i have told Scrooge far too many times that the burden of proof is on him, but he has provided no other evidence than "he used a hashtag, it is part of lockdown" and "i personally believe a novelisation never existed and Harness was being satirical". that is not evidence nor proof.
the only pages that should exist are; How The Monk Got His Habit (TV story) and How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation). the extract should be covered on the novelisation page, as it was never reworked as a short story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@DiSoRiENTeD1:
The following isn't me granting that How The Monk Got His Habit is fanfiction, for the record. But hypothetically, if you or I were invited to host a Lockdown! Tweetalong; if we mentioned an idea we had for a Doctor Who story during the course of said Tweetalong; and if then next day we had written the idea out, and we posted it using the Tweetalong's hashtag… then I would very much say that it had a lot to do with Lockdown!.
That doesn't mean it would be "a Lockdown! story" in quite the same way as The Secret of Novice Hame, or that it should be covered on the Wiki. But it wouldn't occur to me to say that such a thing "had nothing to do with Lockdown!". Would you say that, I dunno, the fanmade DW2012 anniversary special from 2013 had "nothing to do with the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who"? And I suppose Gene Genius had "nothing to do" with the Seventh Doctor/Ace era of televised Doctor Who, I expect?
Again, this is just me taking issue with your persistent and, I think, wrongheaded use of the phrase "nothing to do with Lockdown!". We can have intellectual disagreement on whether it was a licensed part of Lockdown!, but arguing that it's got "nothing to do with Lockdown!" is just plain unworkable.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you are being unreasonable. you have no evidence, and the burden of proof is on you. so until you find evidence that the novelisation didn't exist like Harness said it did, or that the story was still part of lockdown - despite Cook dismissing it (she would have clarified that the "short story" was otherwise) - then it should remain invalid.
- Scrooge MacDuck
And if we don't have a page about this on the basis of "it was never reworked," why should we have a page about Spider Dalek, which is just an unreworked bit of a TV movie that never was? This is separate from questions of licensing. Laying the question of Rule 2 aside, I see no reason not to cover the "prose extract" as an invalid "(short story)" in much the way we cover Friend from the Future. One way or another, Harness decided to release it, cut off from the rest of the novelisation-that-never-was-and-may-never-have-been-going-to-be.
I have yet again to ask you for a clear, non-arbitrary reason why we should believe Harness on his claim of presenting old production material, but not Shearman.
- Thefartydoctor
If he had previously mentioned it during Lockdown!, then you could argue a relation to the event. I know what Disoriented means by fan-fiction, but let's be real - it's not fan-fiction. He's written out an example piece of his unmade story. It's not fan-fiction because the story and basic groundwork are already there. But I totally get where you're coming from, Disoriented, I totally do.
In my opinion, this becomes a 'Scratchman' page and we could simply mention the Lockdown! event in the Notes section. Now humour me and explain what's left to debate?
- Scrooge MacDuck
But he did tease it during the Tweetalong! It was absolutely part of the same line of comment as his unveiling of three unproduced stories during #TruthOrConsequences. I'd see your point if he'd randomly started posting about dromedaries, or (to be less strawmanny) a completely new story about the Thirteenth Doctor fighting Davros. But this is closely related to the #TruthOrConsequences Lockdown! at the very least, whether or not we should cover it in full.
@Thefartydoctor, T:NO FANFIC as used on this wiki defines "fanfic" as "Doctor Who fiction that's not licensed". If "C" fails Rule 2, well, yeah, it's fanfic no matter where it came from and what it's based on. The finished version of Time's Champion is considered fanfic, for example, despite being based pretty closely on an outline for a book that began as a licensed project.
And the large number of things left to debate include:
- why should we use DiSoRiEnTed potentially-T:BOUND-violating definition of Lockdown! stories ("stuff promoted by Emily Cook") rather than mine ("stuff published using the official hashtag by the people invited by Emily Cook")?
- assuming the above is granted, why shouldn't C have a page about it, albeit invalid if you lot are going to insist that the novelisation project existed?
- what evidence is there that this is different from the other three times during the Lockdown! "era" that an along-tweeting creator published some text presented as though it was part of an unfinished project?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"I have yet again to ask you for a clear, non-arbitrary reason why we should believe Harness on his claim of presenting old production material, but not Sheraman"
i don't know who on Earth Sheraman is so how can you demand explanation from me for something i dont know about?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Thefartydoctor
i don't believe it was fanfiction, i believe Harness when he said that it was the first page of an unproduced novelisation. my comparison to fanfiction was that, if we included this simply because it had a hashtag, any number of fanfictions could use the hashtag too.
- Scrooge MacDuck
"Sheraman" was obviously a typo for "Shearman" and… if I'm going to be honest, you are testing the limits of how much good faith I'll assume from people. Not exceeding them, but testing them.
Harness released a page of prose fiction about a Time Lord. Whether or not it was an extract from an unfinished, longer piece of fiction about a Time Lord or not, it is T:NO FANFIC-infringing unless he had a license to publish fiction about Time Lords.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
do NOT accuse me of potentially violating a rule, especially as that is a different discussion and completely off-topic here.. this is your final warning. you have done this before, suggesting that i was being libellous for questioning Harness' licensing rights - and it led to personal attacks being updated in favour of questioning licensing rights.
the novelisation existed, no proof that Harness was being satirical, therefore this is an extract of an unproduced story - not a short story.
- Thefartydoctor
Just for the record, Scrooge, I'm not insistant on anything. I'm just trying to get to the facts in this debate but it's so difficult. In fact, this is no longer a debate. The way you're talking to each other leaves a lot to be desired. Quite frankly, there's nothing professional about this debate at all, one reason why I'm leaving you to it. Good luck to the both of you and I hope you find a conclusion that you both are happy with.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
""Sheraman" was obviously a typo for "Shearman" and… if I'm going to be honest, you are testing the limits of how much good faith I'll assume from people. Not exceeding them, but testing them."
and i clearly do not know who Shearman is, spelt right or wrong. so how on Earth can i comment on that completely unrelated subject?! i dont care what you assume of my good faith, expecting someone to have an opinion on something they know nothing about is absolutely ridiculous.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Robert Shearman is the author of Dalek and of Dalek alternative script extract. I didn't assume you "knew nothing about this" because we have spoken several times over the course of this debate about the alternative script extracts.
I apologize if I crossed a line at some point in terms of tone, but I don't see how the thread about figuring out this Wiki's policy for "what counts as a Lockdown! story" would be "off-topic" for a thread one of whose central points rests on whether How The Monk Got His Habit should be considered a Lockdown! story. I mean really now.
To explain it more fully, T:BOUND says you can't assume that a policy that is under discussion in the forum already applies. This Wiki has yet to have a strict policy on when we call something part of Lockdown!, so you shouldn't get to act as though your policy proposal from that thread is already recognised as "the correct way".
- Shambala108
Admin note: I already reminded everyone once to leave the personal attacks out of this (and obviously any) forum thread. Stop interpreting other users' posts and accusing other users of misunderstanding you. Just make your points and stop arguing back and forth.
User:Thefartydoctor's last comment is correct. This is no longer a debate, and if the back and forth sniping and repeating of the same arguments continues, this thread will have to be closed.
- Thefartydoctor
In further response to Shambala's excellent comment, I suffer from severe anxiety and this whole thread is setting me off. I've tried to remain on in the hope that I can provide any piece of help but I'm feeling really uncomfortable being here. Like I said, I hope you guys can resolve this debate in a friendly manner and reach a conclusion that you're both happy with.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I tried only to restate points previously meant when misquoted or when someone asked me to do so, starting with User:Thefartydoctor a few posts ago:
Now humour me and explain what's left to debate?
@User:Shambala108, I completely agree and follow you on the problem with us repeating the same points back at each other and the "sniping".
But… if we're not allowed to "argue back and forth", so long as it is done civilly and in good faith as opposed to in an attacky, war-like way… how is this an inclusion debate? These things are called debates. This leads to an expectation of users in them debating thing, critiquing each other's points, replying to criticisms. It's not going very well in this one, of course. But in the general case…
- Thefartydoctor
Sorry if I confused things but I said that because at the time, I still didn't understand what we were debating and didn't want to sound stupid haha.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i will make a conclusion of my points and leave it;
- Harness' tweet-along guest slot was over, the tweet-along event with the hashtag "#TruthOrConsequences" was long since over too. he released this extract of his own free will, not bound to the event, because fans showed interest. this shows no planning or "official release".
- Harness stated that this was a "discarded first page of a novelisation", and the idea that he was using this as a framing device was complete speculation.
- Emily Cook stated that the unproduced story "How The Monk Got His Habit" was not part of the lockdown. there's no possible way that she suspected fans were speculating whether a 2015 unproduced television story was part of lockdown. she clearly meant the extract of the unproduced novelisation - and she would have clarified that the short story was a licensed lockdown-adjacent release otherwise.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Good idea. I shall do the same, though by all means, User:Najawin, do so as well if my points don't quite represent your position. Then we'll leave this here for people to add new information/ideas to if there are any yet to be scraped from the bottom of the metaphorical barrel.
- Harness used the tweetalong's tag, released this a short time after the tweetalong had completed, and has teased during the tweetalong proper that he "might want to revisit" the idea. Sounds pretty connected to me.
- While it may not be officially part of Lockdown!, it definitely passes T:OFF REL. It's just that if it isn't part of Lockdown!, it's perfectly-released fanfic.
- Emily Cook stated that the "unproduced story mentioned by Harness" was not part of Lockdown!. Two things wrong with this:
- the TV story (A) and hypothetical novelisation (B) were mentioned by Harness, but not the actual page of prose released in 2020 (C). Therefore, Cook was talking about either A or B, but not C, which is what's under discussion.
- with Thread:273268 still ongoing, it remains DiSoRiENTed's personal opinion that Emily Cook's word overrides use of the hashtag when determining whether something posted by a Lockdown! host counts as "a Lockdown! story" for this Wiki.
- Russell T Davies and Robert Shearman were all kidding when they "pretended" that their new prose stories were discarded extracts from old material. Considering how unlikely a Target novelisation of a random unmade 2015 story is, it seems to me Harness was most likely doing the exact same thing, that B never existed, and that C is a piece of original fiction released in 2020 (licensed or otherwise).
- Even if C is in fact an extract from B, then if we agree its release was licensed, it should have its own page, except invalid — just like Spider Dalek and Friend from the Future and P.S. — separate from our coverage of the overall, unfinished, unreleased novelisation.
Now have at it, newcomers to the thread and/or would-be closing admin. I'm outta here.
- Najawin
I largely agree with Scrooge's comment, but have a few points further to add.
- The time at which the user asked Cook on Twitter was a time at which DiSoRiEnTeD1 was both insisting that B was not part of Lockdown! and Scrooge had already made the distinction between B and C clear. This fact cannot be ignored in our analysis of the exchange.
- To claim that there was no official release is to question beg a resolution of Thread:273268 at this point. It's obviously untenable and should be discarded after a second's thought.
- If we apply the principle of charity to both Harness and Cook's comments, we're left with mine and Scrooge's interpretations. As otherwise we're concluding that Harness is lying about the novelization and Cook is wildly confused about how the English language works.
- And in the issue of transparency, Harness does not explicitly say that he was making a Target novelisation. But the only other type of novelization for Doctor Who near this time period was a Doctor Who photo novelisation, an idea even more ridiculous, given the details of that story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you still have no evidence that it was licensed.
- Najawin
I thought you were making a conclusion of your points and leaving it.
Regardless, if it was a Lockdown! release, which Scrooge and I maintain it was, that would imply it was licensed, given the current wiki view on Lockdown! releases. If you want to open a discussion on whether all Lockdown! releases are unlicensed and thus invalid, feel free to do so. But until then, T:BOUND applies, both to the fact that Lockdown! releases are licensed and to the fact that Thread:273268 has not been resolved in your favor and it's question begging to act like it has.
- Scrooge MacDuck
We have evidence that it is part of Lockdown!, as we have thoroughly explained, and out of respect for User:Shambala108's above directives I'll leave it at that. Please do the same.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"I thought you were making a conclusion of your points and leaving it."
this comment is so rude. do not try to make anyone feel uncomfortable to post in an open discussion. i was clearly finished having a conversation with Scrooge, and was leaving the conversation until others began posting again.
there is no evidence that this story is licensed.
i will leave it at that because once again i make a single comment and i am immediately set upon by backseat moderating.
- Najawin
People hadn't begun to post again though? I was making slight corrections to the perceived Scrooge/Najawin conclusion post.
Anyhow, I just gave you evidence it was licensed. You can say "well I think that evidence is weak". But it's factually incorrect to say there's no evidence.
Anyhow, I agree, let's wait for someone else to chime in.
- Shambala108
The lead for How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) currently has the following statement:
- "It was somewhat unclear whether this was merely a fun framing device, or if it was actually a snippet of a larger and cancelled novelisation, but at any rate, the released story featured none of the original TV synopsis's Grigori Rasputin plotline, instead being a single farcesque scene set before the putative Rasputin shenanigans, with the Monk still in his TARDIS and not yet going by the name of the Meddling Monk."
If we're not even clear whether this is a complete story or something from a cancelled story (like for example P.S. (webcast)), then we need to get that straight. Because if it's just an excerpt from a cancelled story, then it is invalid by our rules. Please get this straight before offering up any more arguments.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"Please get this straight before offering up any more arguments."
i don't think we're going to agree. me and farty believe it to be an extract from the discarded novelisation (as it was presented as) but Scrooge and Najawin believe it to be a short story in its own right. they have no evidence to suggest that the "story" being presented as a cancelled novelisation was a framing device, other than the fact that it has happened in the past with stories such as; Revenge of the Nestene and Dalek alternate script extract.
- Najawin
...And the facts concerning novelizations of the time that we mentioned?
To reiterate for @User:Shambala108's sake, since I agree that the two parties are unlikely to agree, Target Books at this time had not yet started Novelizations for the new series, so it would have been talks three years prior to the first release new series Novelizations, somewhat longer than is likely. Target Books has never once to my knowledge given a Novelization to a story that hasn't actually been made already, and certainly hasn't done so for a New Series story, where it's only focused on "big name stories".
And if we ignore this and focus on the other alternative for Novelizations at the time, Doctor Who photo novelisations, given the subject matter and the tone, indeed, the literacy level of the story, it's even less likely that these would be the novelizations that Harness is referring to.
So quite frankly the thing Harness is suggesting is absurd, which means we can't take it seriously as anything other than a framing device.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
once again, there was no date given for the novelisation so i fail to see how you can boldly say that "Target Books at this time had not yet started Novelizations for the new series". the 2015 date was for the television story only.
- Najawin
Fair point, I am assuming that the email he sent with the tweet "Okay, last discarded idea - the vague basis for "How The Monk Got His Habit", from an email back in 2015." was supposed to be part of the framing device related to the Target Novelization. This was not explicitly stated, that's certainly my reading into that tweet more than was there.
Though I'll note that this in no way undermines my case as that was by far the weakest bit of evidence in favor of the framing device.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the email and the "vague basis" was for the 2015 television story, the novelisation hadnt even been mentioned at this point. Harness was going through numerous emails about pitched television stories including plot details for; Doctor Who and the Cave Monsters (TV story), The Last One To Go To Sleep (TV story) and How The Monk Got His Habit (TV story).
the novelisation was given no date whatosever. and youre back at having no evidence for a framing device.
- Najawin
Sending an email about an unmade television story to a book publisher isn't exactly unheard of.
As for the idea that removing the date brings us back to having no evidence, that's so utterly ludicrous that I dealt with it in my last comment. You dismissed the weakest bit of the evidence in favor of it being a framing device and decided that that ruined the entire case. No, the evidence includes the fact that it would be wholly out of character for Target to be considering a novelization of this type no matter the date, and the only other type of novelization between the Zygon 2 parter and now was the one I mentioned. (Since they haven't added any.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
nobody said Target (or whoever) even considered this story - only that it was written and discarded, he could have just pitched it and had it rejected (exactly like the television story...). that is not evidence that this was a framing device.
- Najawin
So instead of Target considering the story we're to assume that Harness is just incompetent, as he thought that this had a snowball's chance in hell, given the facts I laid out above meaning that there was basically a 0% chance that it would get published?
So Harness is incompetent, or this is a framing device. I think I said it best before, the charitable interpretation of events is that it's a framing device.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we don't assume anything, we stick to the facts.
also, i dont understand your comment at all. why are you suggesting that Harness is incompetent? the television pitch was rejected - and possibly the novelisation pitch was too, or was otherwise discarded. so what? not every idea will make it to publish - how does that make him incompetent??
- Najawin
I'm not assuming Harness is incompetent. I'm pointing out that given the facts I've noted about how Target Novelizations have operated, if Harness behaved as you suggested he would be incompetent.
Given this, we now have two options, either Harness is incompetent, or he didn't behave in the way you suggested, and the suggested novelization is instead a framing device. I'm accepting the latter of the two options.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the only evidence you have provided for this being a framing device:
- the dates dont match up - despite no dates ever being given to the novelisation.
- Target dont do those type of stories - despite it never being confirmed that the publisher was Target in the first place, and he may have only pitched it but was rejected.
this is not evidence.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
in what way is Harness incompetent? what are you even talking about???
- Najawin
I'm sorry, this is simply incorrect, and blatantly so. The evidence I presented is the following.
Since the Zygon two parter (ie: the timeframe in which we know he was shopping this), there were only two types of novelizations, Target novelisations and Doctor Who photo novelisations. The subject matter, tone, and indeed, literacy level, are wholly inappropriate for it to be of the second type. Thus if we are to seriously consider it to be considered for a novelization it must have been the first.
However, Target, to my knowledge, has never made an unfinished story into a novelization. Not even Shada. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Similarly, they've only lightly touched NuWho, going for stories that were well received in the context of the season they were in. So for Harness to think that he had even the slightest chance of getting this published given these facts is absurd.
And since I don't believe Harness is incompetent. (Please stop accusing me of saying otherwise) I'm forced to conclude that this is a framing device.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so what if they haven't published an unproduced story before, it doesn't stop him from pitching to them (and would explain why it eventually became discarded if they didn't want to break from tradition). they had only just returned after a huge break from 1994-2018, so no... Harness wouldn't be incompetent in pitching to them (if it was indeed them he pitched to).
am i right in thinking that Target not releasing unproduced stories is your only "evidence" as to why he couldn't have pitched this novelisation? that evidence is poor and speculative.
and you didn't explain why you were calling him incompetent, so i wasn't accusing you - just very, very confused!
- Najawin
Obviously it doesn't stop him, it just makes him, let's say it together, incompetent. Since they quite clearly were not going to say yes.
Regardless, the point remains that we've both said our piece, Scrooge and I clearly do have evidence for why it's a framing device, even if you disagree, and we can leave it at that for other people who want to join in. Since I think we all agree that no resolution will be made on this point either, since you've not changed your position on it literally since you opened discussion about it on the talk page on May 17.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
also, "since the Zygon two parter (ie: the timeframe in which we know he was shopping this), there were only two types of novelizations, Target novelisations and Doctor Who photo novelisations" is so very untrue...
what about BBC New Series Adventures? what about BBC Books novelisation?
Harness is not incompetent for pitching a story that was rejected - it happens to writers every day, your comments make no sense to me.
- Najawin
BBC New Series Adventures is not novelizations, and at least two of the BBC Books novelisations in that time I'm not sure if I'd count. I guess the Douglas Adams and Daleks ones. But 4 Novelizations, none of which feature a new series Doctor (getting only up to 6), over only one series, is hardly "so very untrue".
Similarly, you misunderstand. Harness is not incompetent period, he didn't do what you're accusing him of doing. But if he had, he'd be incompetent for pitching a story that he knew would be rejected. Not merely pitching one that was rejected, but pitching one that had no chance of being published. His Zygon two parter was quite well received. Had he pitched that as a novelization to Target they likely would have accepted it. So we're to believe that instead of doing that he pitched them something he knew would be rejected. That's absurd.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
BBC New Series Adventures: "The BBC New Series Adventures is a banner under which the novels published by BBC Books...".
i could go on... but my point would remain the same, why would you suggest that these aren't novelisations?
and there's a perfect slot of novels featuring the Twelfth Doctor that this Monk story would have been perfect for. yes, i think that Harness likely pitched the story for the New Series Adventures, but was sadly rejected.
- Najawin
Because novels are not novelizations? Hence why you have The Clockwise Man (novel) and Revelation of the Daleks (novelisation)? Two different tags?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
novel and novelisation are used hand in hand by the majority of humans on this planet.
- Najawin
No, I can't imagine that's so. -ation as a suffix is a process, a transformation. Anyone literate past high school English should know this. As Harness is a writer, we're once again forced to conclude that your reading has him as incompetent - though even worse this time, as you're supposing that he's incompetent about what the very terms used in his profession mean.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
keep putting words into my mouth, there's no doubt in my mind that Harness planned to rework this unproduced television story for the BBC New Series Adventures. they have included audio books, and anthologies, so an adaptation of an unproduced television story is not out of the question.
but regardless, even if it wasn't for the BBC New Series - it was intended for someone, because you still haven't provided any evidence of how this was a "framing device".
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
funnily enough there's even a story called The Novel of the Film which is an adaptation of the Doctor Who movie.
- Najawin
You're confusing "putting words in [your] mouth" with 'taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion'. As for the idea that because the BBC New Series Adventures has included audio books and anthologies they would consider releasing a novelization (which they have never done before period) let alone of an unreleased story, that's a truly herculean leap of logic. If that's what you're suggesting Harness made, again, you're suggesting Harness is incompetent.
So to reiterate, we now, to be incredibly charitable to you, have four options.
- Doctor Who photo novelisations - Assuredly not, the tone, subject matter, and level of literacy are in complete contradiction with this line of books.
- Target novelisations - Highly unlikely, if not outright absurd. They've never done an unfinished work, not even Shada, and for the New Series touch prominent stories within that season. If Harness were to pitch a story to Target it would most likely to be his Zygon two parter, to pitch this story is to know it will be rejected.
- BBC Books novelisations - Similar levels of likelihood. They haven't done any New Series work at all and in the relevant time period it seems to be entirely written by James Goss.
- BBC New Series Adventures - Utter lunacy. They don't do novelizations, this reading requires Harness to be using the terms of his trade wrong, and the line is all but dead creatively, as well as only putting out seven books since 2015. He'd be better off going to Obverse.
Since none of these four options, and again, I'm being immensely charitable to even consider four, is likely, we turn to the other alternative. It was a framing device. Reductio ad absurdum is evidence. It not being a framing device leads to absurdity.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
there’s still no evidence that there was a farming device.
- Najawin
Najawin wrote: Reductio ad absurdum is evidence. It not being a framing device leads to absurdity.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you make out that Harness would be incompetent for pitching the story to these publishers, yet suggest Cook would be of sound mind to think that people were discussing whether an unproduced television story was part of her 2020 Lockdown event... nope, that would make her incompetent too!
- Scrooge MacDuck
It doesn't make her incompetent to have answered the question that was asked of her. She can't be held responsible for people asking her a pretty weird (or else badly-worded) question.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it would be incompetent to A) answer a question not asked of her (the discarded novelisation is an unproduced story and no short story existed - just an extract) B) think that people were discussing the unproduced 2015 television story as part of her 2020 Lockdown event and C) not to clarify that Harness’ “short story” was part of HER event.
- Najawin
I'd also note that the question asked was based on the fact that you were insisting that B was not part of the tweetalong in the talk page at this time. Even though Scrooge had already pointed out the distinction between B and C.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Right, right, no short story and there is no such thing as Macra.
(sigh)
Look, call it an extract if you really must, for the purposes of this discussion. (I am not granting the existence of a novelisation project in general, which still seems fairly ludicrous to me.) But this thing, this extract, was released by Harness. It was posted by him. It was not mentioned. Must I return to the A, B, C distinction? Whether you think C is an extract from B or that B never existed, the fact is that Cook's quote cannot be about C, but only A or (if it ever existed) B. That's just how the English language works.
(Please see my rebuttal on the other thread of the "if it had been part of Lockdown! she would have mentioned it".)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
once again Najawin you tell me someone has already pointed something out to me, Scrooge’s word is not gospel - he may have “pointed out” that B and C are different but I am dead set against that and know that they are the same (as this is what Harness told us!). so it doesn’t matter how much you point it out to me.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
sigh all you like, you still have no proof that this is licensed or part of lockdown!
- Scrooge MacDuck
As we have repeatedly pointed out, B being different from C remains true even if you think C is just an extract from B.
That is to say, even if B existed, there would remain an epistemological difference between "the unfinished project of the full Monk-as-Rasputin story told in the form of a novelisation", and "the fully-written out first page thereof".
Let's say we're a pair of paleontologists arguing about the Piltdown Man. It seems to me that whether or not we think a full Piltdown Man corpse ever existed, there remains a difference between "the skull I'm actually holding in my hands right now", and "the complete skeleton some people claim it once belonged to".
- Najawin
Do I really just need to post a quote and nothing else again? Whether or not you think the evidence is sufficient it's assuredly false to say that we have no evidence. (I'm ignoring the idea that proof is at all relevant here, proof is for mathematics and alcohol, everything else uses evidence.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
no it does not, an extract of a discarded novelisation is still just the discarded novelisation. it isn’t distinct.
- Chubby Potato
I just read through this thread and for the most part, I agree with Scrooge and Najawin. However there's another possibility we haven't considered, and this is what I interpreted it to be, a combination of B and C. Based on what Harness and Cook have said, I think Harness wrote a novel, or part of it, based on his rejected script. It is highly unlikely this would be a Target novelisation (and by the way, I must add that a novel is an original work; a novelisation is an adaptation of something else), though I can't even see any mention of Target for How the Monk Got His Habit, unlike Doctor Who and the Time War. But if there is a reference to Target that I missed, I think Harness intended to have some other publisher publish his novelisation— probably BBC Books as they have done Douglas Adams and Gareth Roberts's Shada, Adams and James Goss's Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen, and Tom Baker's Scratchman. Although note the last one is the only one written by the author of the original script, Tom Baker himself. Anyway BBC books is just a guess. Anyway, after Target started publishing new novelisations, and especially after RTD's framing device, Harness took part of his novelisation, of which we don't know what publisher it was intended for, and formatted it as a Target story— if that really is the case, as I repeat I haven’t seen evidence this is framed as a Target story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
proof: “ evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement“.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
your comment suggests that you agree with me @Chubby ...?
- Scrooge MacDuck
He didn't mention Target, but he did call it a novelisation, and aside from the BBC Books things (which are a possibility, I suppose), a Doctor Who novelisation tends to imply a Target novelisation.
Notably, he's very clearly pastiching the classic Terrance Dicks novelisation writing style in the short-story-or-whatever-it-is; opening on "The mysterious traveller in all of Time and Space known only as…" and spelling TARDIS "Tardis", for example.
@DiSoRiEnTeD1, what you propose is just epistemologically wrong. A thing which was never finished, and an extract from said thing, are two different concepts. You can mention the unfinished whole thing (indeed, all you can do is mention it) while releasing the finished extract from the thing.
Again, an ape skull is not consubstantial with the skeleton it may or may not once have been attached to.
- Chubby Potato
I think there's really no way of knowing whether this novelisation existed prior to the extract without asking Harness himself. Reaching out to authors for information for inclusion debates is not a new thing, but they're not always happy about it...
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
nobody said it wasn’t finished, just that it was discarded - the novelisation could have been completely finished but rejected hence it being discarded.
- Najawin
Potato, I'll note that I did correct the idea that it was explicitly mentioned to be a Target novelization when it came up. At the time I was unaware of the BBC Books novelizations, search wasn't returning them, and they hadn't done anything in the NuWho era, so while I was checking the bottom NavBar I didn't go back that far. I still think they're unlikely for the reasons I mentioned.
- Chubby Potato
Hmm, I've thought of something else. If Harness were to publish this novelisation, would we consider it distinct from this extract? I think it may depend on whether the novelisation already exists, or if he created the idea of one for this story. If the former, it's rather like a preview, and I'm not sure if it would count as a different story. But if he extended this "extract" to a novelisation after he wrote it, it's more of an adaptation. Rather like how The Drosten's Curse (novel) is an adaptation and extension of The Death Pit (short story). The first part of the novel uses the short story pretty much verbatim, but they're different stories published separately. So again, we need to know whether this novelisation B already existed— at least, that's my approach.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm not sure. We still consider Friend from the Future to be an thing of its own, with its own page — that thing is invalid, but it is invalid specifically because it was determined by a lengthy thread to have been a preview of The Pilot rather than an independent DWU work.
So whether B ever existed, or will someday exist, the precedent is in favour of giving the released extract its own page. I also cited Spider Dalek, which it is my understanding is preview footage from a version of the 1996 TV movie that never actually materialised.
- "Since some of you seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea, here's the similar discarded first page of a novelisation of it."
This is the same quote used by User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 in the opening post of this thread.
The author's use (twice) of the word "discarded" simplifies things: we do not consider unpublished stories to be valid. None of the arguments for validity were able to get around this fact.
I did forget to address User:Scrooge MacDuck's question to me above. Obviously I am not forbidding back and forth discussion of the arguments for or against. What I was forbidding was the constant attempts at interpreting others' comments, followed by "you're misinterpreting me" followed by "i'm not misinterpreting you, you're misinterpreting me". That is not a discussion, it's an argument. Do not try to put words in other users' mouths; if you don't understand their point, ask them.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:277798
There was a bit of discussion about this on the talk page a while back, but I wanted to bring it here and settle it. Should TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual be a valid source?
So, right now is currently seen as a reference work. First off, I want to say that this is definitely wrong. "This is a work of non-fiction" is just false. It is an in-universe manual. At no point does it mention Doctor Who as a TV series or any episodes or real-world people. There are plenty of examples from the book, but the best one comes from one of the first pages:
If that doesn’t convince you this is fiction, I don't know what will.The case studies contained within this manual are drawn from real-world events from the relative timeline of this TARDIS Type 40 TT Capsule.
Also, this isn’t only an instruction manual. It's not what the First Doctor would find when he stole the TARDIS telling him how to pilot it. It's presented as an index file created by the Time Lord Academy to describe this specific TARDIS and its history to educate prospective time travelers about TARDISes, the Doctor, and the laws of time.
With that out of the way, this passes rule 4 of our validity policy. Rules 2 and 3 are also not points of contention. But there's one more issue to address, namely Rule 1 of our "four little rules": Only stories count.
We have at least two other examples, perfectly valid, that are comparable to this: The Book of the War and A Brief History of Time Lords. They're not typical prose stories, but they do have a narrative. I'll bring up Lawrence Miles's quote about The Book of the War:...it's a continuity in a book, it's an encyclopaedia to the War Era universe. It's got a structure rather than a plot, the way history's got a structure or a Bible's got a structure. Some parts of the universe are cross-referenced with other parts, and it all comes together to make up this great big … vision.
Now obviously this quote was written about The Book of the War, and not TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual. But I'd argue the latter has more of a narrative than the former. Admittedly I have not read The Book of the War, but from what I can gather it is an encyclopedia. TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual is more than this; yes, at its core, it's a description of the TARDIS. But it creates a narrative to explain this, rather like a textbook would. (That actually would be a much better name for this book IMO, something like The TARDIS Textbook.) And we do have a valid in-universe textbook, that being A Brief History of Time Lords.
The various aspects of the TARDIS are described in an order and manner such that it creates a coherent narrative for the reader to understand. Furthermore, specific episodes are referenced and told as mini-stories to demonstrate these aspects. As an example for all of this, it does not just say "the chameleon circuit is what makes the TARDIS change form. Handle with care" as would be expected in a typical instruction manual. It explains what the chameleon circuit is, what it does, how it works, how it was created, and provides a "case study" for it— this being "The Cryon Incident", a description of the events of Attack of the Cybermen.
So while this isn't a full on novel, it isn't just an instruction manual. As I said, it's akin to a textbook, so it has a narrative. (Not to mention it has a wealth of information that would help this wiki as an encyclopedia...) So it passes Rule 1. It passes rules 2 and 3 without doubt, and it's set in-universe so it passes rule 4. So that's why I think this book should be valid.
- Chubby Potato
Well it sure is frustrating to publish this and find a typo in the title... I don’t know if that can be changed.
EDIT: it can, nevermind.
- Scrooge MacDuck
There is an ongoing thread regarding the problem with the current "Non-fiction" template we plaster on reference works even if they're in-universe. So that's kind of its own kettle of fish.
From what you say, I'd agree this seems to be an unusual form of narrative, as opposed to a wholly non-narrative work. But fair warning, I have not read it myself, and it doesn't seem as clear-cut to me as The Book of the War is. TBotW is telling the story of a specific set of events, namely the first fifty years of the War in Heaven. If there is a story to TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manuel, can you summarise it in similar terms? Is it essentially a biography of the Doctor's TARDIS? A history of the construction and usage of Type 40s in general? What?
I'm usually a big advocate of inclusion in most inclusion debates, as is well-known, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Dalek Dictionary has a bit of story in places (a brief bio of Yarvelling in the relevant entry, for example), but as a complete work it is clearly not a narrative, and so is rightly invalid on Rule 1 grounds. This looks like it could be the same thing, from the information you've provided. Though I'm eager to be convinced otherwise!
If uncertainty persists, I would recommend tracking down quotes by the author (or, failing that, the publisher). There is no shortage of quotes from Lawrence Miles or the publisher, solidifying the fact that they see The Book of the War as a novel of sorts, and very much as a story. Could similar quotes be found about this?
At any rate, if it's valid, then I think it's clear that it's a "(novel)" for the same reason the K9 adventures and Dr. Men books are "novels," even if it's not the word a literary critic might use to describe it.
- Najawin
Chubby Potato wrote:
Now obviously this quote was written about The Book of the War, and not TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual. But I'd argue the latter has more of a narrative than the former. Admittedly I have not read The Book of the War, but from what I can gather it is an encyclopedia.
Perhaps we who haven't read The Book of the War shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the narrative elements in it. I don't care to spend the absurd money to get a copy of it, but, uh, given that entries in the book will switch to a character talking to you part way through and these interjections apparently ultimately form something of a narrative as well, I think the argument is far weaker than you're suggesting.
- Chubby Potato
Hmm, so maybe TBotW isn't the best analogy. Anyway, I still think this book has a narrative, it's just unusual. It's actually kind of split into different sections each with their own narratives, but they definitely are that. For an example, let's look at the section about the Desktop theme. It does start by saying what it is— but then it basically details a history of how the Doctor changed the inner appearance of the TARDIS. To summarize part of it: The Doctor's TARDIS started out with the default control room. Since then, it has changed many times. During his exile on Earth, the Doctor made several adjustments to the desktop theme, changing the panels. In his fourth incarnation, he used the secondary control room. And it continues describing the history of the TARDIS interior to the Thirteenth Doctor's time. (Note this isn't the same as the case studies, which are summaries of specific episodes.) Essentially, it goes through the various aspects of a Type 40 TARDIS using specific stories from the lifetime of the Doctor's TARDIS.
Now I’ve thought of a rather good analogy, hopefully that others will be familiar with. It's like if you took the novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but only the parts that are excerpts of the in-universe guide. While it starts on a specific subject, it uses examples to tell the story of that subject, and ultimately the story of the Galaxy. This book is rather the same, and here's how I'll describe it: It tells the story of the Doctor's TARDIS using its components, in the format of an instructional guide.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Thank you! That gives me a clearer picture of the facts. Sadly, they are very fiddly facts. Is there any original narrative information in this thing? Because what gives me pause is that all the "case studies" are, you say, accounts of the plots of TV episodes (albeit in-universe). That smacks of the reference work with a thin in-universe veneer, more than of the experimental novel.
But what gives me some hope for the validity of this thing is the following note on the page:
The section detailing other TARDISes shows contains an illustration of the design Missy used for the interior of her TARDIS, which was never seen on screen.
If it contains significant amounts of wholly new information not seen in any previous stories, then the argument that Richard Atkinson & Mike Tucker were actually telling a story is much stronger. But if it's just a neat way of presenting a lot of TV summaries, I'm not so sure about this.
- Najawin
I will say that regardless of the answer to this, between this and Thread:232095 it seems that our "in universe" tags are beginning to fail us a little bit and might need to be fleshed out a little more. Not just about non fiction vs non narrative.
- Chubby Potato
It actually does provide quite a bit of new information and uses the case studies to explain these. I should make it clear the case studies aren't just plot summaries; they're examples of TARDIS functions using specific incidents. For example, "The M4 Incident" doesn't just tell you what happened in The Runaway Bride, it tells you what happens in context of how the TARDIS was able to fly in 3-dimensional space and why this happened. There are detailed illustrations of unseen TARDIS interiors (including Missy's and an unused one), new information about TARDIS components and particular stories, as well as explanations for things the TV series failed to explain— for example, that Susan did indeed come up with the name TARDIS, and then it came into common use on Gallifrey, explaining various reasons the TARDIS control room changed appearance across the classic series, or providing an explanation that a Time Lord's later regenerations output more energy than the earlier ones, potentially causing more damage to the TARDIS (hence why the First Doctor's regeneration was calm while the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth's were so explosive). Plus a lot more explanations for things we didn't really know. It's kind of difficult to explain though, and if you're curious I'd recommend reading a preview on Google Books to get a grasp of it.
Also, Najawin, I agree with your points, and that probably should be discussed elsewhere, including that thread. It is of my personal opinion that in-universe material, even that not presented narratively (like The Dalek Dictionary), should be valid, but that's a huge policy discussion for another time.
- RingoRoadagain
I think I was one of the first to wonder about its validity in the talk page, thank you for creating this thread.
I consider this book as a collection of NEW lore and setting details from the Time Lord culture perspective but not following a story structure or a chronology. (as @Chubby Potato gave examples of)
Therefore, I see it as a case of encyclopedic novel, which I believe can also be applied to The Book of the War & Brief History of Time Lords. (and why i brought them up in the discussion page)
I believe that the full account of the TARDIS technology and science given in this instruction manual is such an "attempt to render the full range of knowledge and beliefs of a national culture, while identifying the ideological perspectives from which that culture shapes and interprets its knowledge".
I did not think about The Dalek Dictionary, but since it is not written as if it was an in-universe resource, I don't think it should be used as precedent for the TARDIS instruction manual.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Actually, The Dalek Dictionary is very much written as an in-universe resource, as are most similar features in the Dalek Books. Inside a Skaro Saucer, for example, is supposedly based on the information available to "us" humans of the 25th century, which includes a machine which is drawn with very little detail because its functioning is top-secret.
Again, The Book of the War and A Brief History of Time Lords both tell very clear stories in the conventional sense of "account of one or more events within the fictional universe" — respectively, the story of the first 50 years of the War in Heaven (and/or the story of the Shift corrupting a reader of the in-universe Book), and the chronological story of the Time Lords as a species.
The precedent for "in-universe works of fiction that describe stuff instead of telling a story" is that they're invalid. I don't like it any more than you do, but unless it can be proven that TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual is narrative, then we are bound to deem it invalid, I fear, and confine information from it to BTS section.
User:Chubby Potato's account above seems to be that it does present a fractal narrative like BotW and ABHoTL; do you dispute this description? You say it does not "follow a story structure or a chronology", which is concerning. But something can be a story without following a conventional structure (hence BotW), and, of course, without being chronological (The Magician's Apprentice ends with a scene purposefully placed out-of-order for no in-universe reason whatsoever).
- RingoRoadagain
I think the best way to understand its content would be to check the free extract from google books: here
If I understand correctly Book of the War tells an actual story instead of just in-universe "info dumps" article like the instruction manual does? In that case, yeah, I assume we have to follow the Dalek Dictionary as it would become the closest precedent.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, The Book of the War is interesting is that it has the format of what looks like an ordinary encyclopedia (including entries which don't seem to be narrative), but when taken in its totality, serves to tell the complete story of the War — e.g., one entry will be a wholly narrative account of a mysterious event, and fifty pages later you'll find a present-tense description of a bit of technobabble which makes you retrospectively understand what was going on then. That sort of thing.
So it sounds to me like TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manul could possibly be doing a similar thing — a nonlinear biography of Sexy, as told through the various logs and amendments and footnotes of her instruction manual. But it's hard to judge from just the preview whether that is the case, or if the collection of data is just that.
- Chubby Potato
I just looked at The Dalek Dictionary. I can see why that is invalid, it's an alphabetized list of Dalek-related concepts— It does not have a narrative. But I do think TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual is much more than this. Scrooge's description of a "nonlinear biography" works rather well— it's a description of the TARDIS's history arranged by components rather than chronological order, because it explains these components. And this history isn't just summaries of information we could have gathered by watching episodes— it explains what functions of the TARDIS were in use and how so during those events. From the beginning of the book, it basically says something along the lines of "this is an explanation of how Type 40 TT Capsules work that uses the history of a specific TARDIS to do so".
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:278118
really do forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, but i couldn't find it on any of the talkpages. what is the reason that we do not consider these stories to be valid sources? two of them (Iris Explains and The School of Doom) we do not even cover on this site.
it appears to me that each of these releases pass our four little rules with flying colours.
1. each are stories in their own right.
2. all are "licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders".
3. all were officially released.
4. all were intended to feature within the DWU, at least in part.
- Epsilon the Eternal
I believe it was the fact that they were part of the 10,000 Dawns series, and DWU elements crossed over into these stories, rather than the other way around. (So as they weren't entirely 100% DWU stories, like you mentioned.)
I could be wrong though.
However, these stories being invalid is something I'm entirely opposed to, especially the Iris Wildthyme story, which strikes me as completely odd as the only Iris Wildthyme stories that aren't acknowledged by the wiki are charity publications (another interesting topic to say the least), and IW stories that make use of unlicensed elements, A Lady Doctor? for example.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i understand why the 10,000 Dawns series as a whole is not part of the DWU. but these are licensed crossovers, and all the DWU characters used (Miranda Dawkins, Original Mammoths, etc) are officially licensed by the owners.
Like White Canvas and Rachel Survived, [The Gendar Conspiracy is] a licensed crossover, pulling characters and settings from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox.
- Borisashton
The matter of the 10,000 Dawns crossovers is currently with the higher-ups at FANDOM and is pending a final decision by User:CzechOut, which was unfortunately delayed due to the current world situation.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Higher ups as in tardis.fandom.com admins? Or Fandom staff?
- Borisashton
The most recent of the four debates is at Thread:265926.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
how do you find those debates, i searched high and low but i couldnt find anything...! have the other stories been discussed at all?
- Borisashton
- Borisashton
The simple fact of the matter is that this thread should be closed immediately. If you want to discuss the other, seemingly unrelated stories then you should open a new thread.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i will do that, please close this thread thank you.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:278130
apologises for the thread opening the can of worms that is the 10,000 Dawns debate, but i think the other part of my debate is still sound enough to continue on a separate discussion.
in my opinion this site should absolutely cover licensed stories, even if they come from unofficial charity anthologies (or something similar). those that come to mind are Lance Parkin's Iris Explains (from 2001's Missing Pieces) and The School of Doom (from 2002's Myth Makers 12), and Kate Orman's The Caterpillar Room (from 2018's A Second Target for Tommy).
Iris Explains features the licensed use of Iris Wildthyme, and this story as well as The School of Doom features licensed use of Miranda Dawkins. The Caterpillar Room is a direct sequel to The Year of Intelligent Tigers written by the same author.
there are probably tons more examples.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Rule of thumb for charity publications is this - does the author still retain all the rights to these stories?
It's what separates books like Seasons of War and Mother, Maiden, Crone.
Until the policies are reworked to allow licenced charity stories as a valid source, I'm afraid many stories cannot be considered valid, or even be covered on this wiki, period.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
makes no sense to me. Lance Parkin owns the rights to Miranda Dawkins so her appearance in Iris Explains and The School of Doom is an officially licensed appearance of a DWU character and therefore deserves covered on this Wikia?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i am not asking for the charity anthologies as a whole to be covered by this Wikia as per the ruling in Thread:166007. but the individual stories that have fully licensed appearances.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Understandable, but I believe an admin said it was easier to rule out charity publications altogether than go through them on a case by case basis, determining the legality of the stories. If you could provide evidence that Lance Parkin (and Paul Magrs in the case of the Iris Wildthyme story) and Kate Orman still have the rights to these stories, then technically they can be accepted as a valid source.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
where does it say that the writers need rights to the stories? some writers have given permission for their characters to be used in say Faction Paradox. these writers have no rights to the project, but it is still an officially licensed appearance of their character.
- Epsilon the Eternal
And even if the authors own the rights to the characters, they might not necessarily own the rights to the stories and the other characters who appear in said stories.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
but in the stories i have provided all the characters are licensed by the creators so that point is pretty redundant?
- Epsilon the Eternal
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: where does it say that the writers need rights to the stories? some writers have given permission for their characters to be used in say Faction Paradox. these writers have no rights to the project, but it is still an officially licensed appearance of their character.
Which means the story is unlicensed, but the use of the character isn't, ergo, the wiki doesn't cover unlicensed stories.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it is a licensed appearance of a DWU character.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Thread:240280 saw admins affirm (to my personal displeasure, but it is what it is) that we do not cover pure charity works, even if all the characters in them were licensed. A Panopticon thread would be needed to change this policy from the ground up, before any individual stories can be discussed with this kind of rationale.
Additionally, I feel like what everyone is overlooking is that The School of Doom, for one, also features the Eighth Doctor and the Master. Even if Parkin retained the theoretical commercial rights to the text, which is possible, this particular story would still be ruled out on Rule 2 grounds, because it clearly isn't licensed by the BBC. I have not read the other two stories yet, but I'm pretty sure they also include BBC-owned content. Precedents like When Times Change… (short story) show that T:NO FANFIC applies even for stories which licensed one character, but egregiously fail to license others.
(Which makes sense — we can't just give every copyright owner listed at List of recurring Doctor Who concepts not owned by the BBC a free pass to write valid stories about the Thirteenth Doctor or the Daleks, just because they happen to own Adrienne Kramer!)
It is true that "The Caterpillar Room is a direct sequel to The Year of Intelligent Tigers", and similar that School of Doom bridges an important gap in the history of the post-War universe. The fact is that by most metrics which would seek to define such things, these stories are by all appearances "canonical". But see, that's the thing: canon is not the same as validity. There are tons of things which supposedly take place in the DWU, and have a credible claim in the eyes of most fans, which we do not cover as DWU, just like there are many stories we call valid which many would call "non-canonical". We don't cover Gene Genius, for example, even though it has Sylvester McCoy as the Seventh Doctor; we don't cover Time Rift even though it's important background for Vampire Science; we don't even cover the finished Devious even though the BBC released a trailer for it.
Yes, School of Doom and many other charity publications are, more likely than not, "canon". But that doesn't mean they deserve coverage here.
- Epsilon the Eternal
And don't get me wrong, I personally believe that all charity publications should be covered on the wiki, even if they're decided to be an invalid source.
But we have to follow the policies put in place, otherwise the wiki would be an un-organised mess.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:279480
So, very minor discussion, and I admit that I'm not the best person to start this off. Knock! Knock! Who's There? Joke Book has just been released today and is the sort of thing that normally would not be narrative, and so would instantly fail rule 1. However, the author has tweeted that they specifically used a loose framing device for the book wherein characters were trapped in a joke book to make it narrative so it would "technically count as a valid narrative source according to @TardisWiki". I have not read the book, I don't feel like spending money on a book that just came out the day of to see what sort of narrative content we're missing out on (I assume not much), and I can't even do so yet, being a US resident. So someone other than I would be best placed to comment on this.
With that said, I don't immediately see an issue with this being valid, however, due to the nature of the topic, a book that would normally be non narrative, having a very loose narrative placed onto it specifically to work around our ruleset into it being a valid source, I felt it merited discussion.
Potential topic for discussion: Farnell is not actually listed as the book's author, as this is a children's joke book, just the publisher is listed instead. Can we actually be certain he wrote this?
- Epsilon the Eternal
Hats off to Farnell for knowing about the wiki's policies, to add a framing narrative to make it a "valid" source.
So... it ticks off all of the four little rules...
- It's technically a story, as per the framing narrative.
- Released by the BBC, so it's definitely licenced by the BBC.
- It's a book, so it ticks rule three off.
- And of course it's meant to be set in the DWU, hence why Farnell added the framing narrative in the first place.
I wholeheartedly believe this deserves to be made valid.
- Najawin
I guess we could quibble over whether it's the license holder's intent to have it be in the DWU vs Farnell's intent. Again, I felt that I'm not really the best person to make this thread as I don't see that much of an issue with it being valid (as I take a rather broad view on validity generally), but that it at least deserved discussion. Similar to The Zygon Isolation maybe being "a little too close to home for comfort" we might not like the idea of an author specifically trying to "game the system" to get a work to be "valid" when it normally wouldn't be. Again, I see no issue, but I dunno what other users feel.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Well, even if he hadn't have made the statement on Twitter, he still wrote a narrative for the book. Who knows, maybe other stories have been written also to include a narrative to get onto the wiki's "valid" area, but we just don't know about it.
- WaltK
There are a couple of sections that caught my interest when I skimmed through. There’s a "Secret incarnations of the Doctor" section which opens with a message from Elton Pope about the Doctor having many undocumented incarnations, followed by a list of "some of their more embarrassing incarnations" (Doctors with punny, gimmicky names like "The Sore Doctor", who had a bad back). I don't know if those joke Doctors would be valid due to their general absurdity.
There's also a list of additional Satellite Five shows that are twists on existing programmes that could also be interpreted as valid.
- Epsilon the Eternal
While I agree with the idea of those "more embarrassing" incarnations being very silly, let's not forget that a story will be unlikely to be deemed invalid due to humour. As well as humour being subjective, so other fans might not be opposed to it, there is also the fact that many comical stories are considered valid.
- Najawin
I note that the issue of what exactly "parody" means is to some extent being discussed currently at Thread:270437. Personally, I don't think this would count, even though my argument in that thread would imply it would.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@User:WaltK, if we deem this book valid, then while these "silly" Doctors will technically have valid pages, don't forget it will all be wrapped in language along the lines of "The Sore Doctor was documented within a joke book in which the Doctor found herself trapped…". The framing narrative seems geared against us taking the more outrageous info in the book too seriously.
I agree that this should by all appearances be valid. It's true that we also care about the publisher's intent, but in the absence of statements to countermand the author's, surely we can assume the author, as a reasonable professional, isn't going against the wishes of their boss in making such statements. So if we're going by those statements, I think Rule 4 is a clear pass, and this should be valid.
As concerns Rule 1, it also seems to me like we shouldn't argue with the author if the author says "it's a story". But I also want to mention for the record that many jokes are actually narratives, anyway. Something like
The Doctor, the Brigadier and the Master walk into a bar; ‘What a lifelike doll you have there,’ the Brigadier asks, ‘where did you get it?’ ‘Right here,’ the Master answers, gesturing at the lack of a bartender.
is clearly a story, even if, without a clear, explicit statement of "this takes place in the DWU", we wouldn't necessarily deem that it passes Rule 4.
- WaltK
The problem here is, if we were to operate under the notion of the supposed framing device (the Thirteenth Doctor and friends being trapped inside a joke book), then do the prose-style jokes count as actual in-universe events?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, as I said, the specifics remain to be documented, but they probably don't. We'd treat them like events in the Eighth Doctor's dream in The Land of Happy Endings, or better yet, anything that happens in the Land of Fiction in Conundrum. Those events are observed by the Thirteenth Doctor; they happen, after a fashion; but they don't happen-happen.
- WaltK
Additional question: should the page be retitled with the (novel) suffix if it's valid?
Either way, the title is incorrectly rendered as Knock, Knock, Who's There? so that needs correcting.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If it's valid, then yes, I think T:DAB is pretty straightforward on that point: it's a novel.
In fact, even if stays invalid, I think it will still need a dab term. If the framing narrative involves the Doctor and Yaz getting trapped in the joke book, then presumably the joke book exists in-universe, so we need the undabbed namespace for the in-universe book. I could be wrong.
- WaltK
Furthermore: should it be Knock! Knock! Who's There? joke book (as it appears on the cover) or just Knock! Knock! Who's There?
- Epsilon the Eternal
I'd say the latter, as that's the norm.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
All the sites which sell the book include “joke book” in the title.
- Epsilon the Eternal
However, in-universe books never have dabs, such as The Secret Lives of Monsters, Never the Bride, Something Borrowed, Conjugal Rites, and Hell's Belles.
- WaltK
I'm not too sure about the notion of the book existing in-universe. The short story and the jokes are being presented to us, the reader, as the Knock! Knock! Who's There? joke book, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's also the books title in-narrative. All that's said is they're trapped "in a joke book", with no mention of a title.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, that's all that was said in the Tweet. I'd need to read the novel myself to know for sure, but it seemed plausible that it'd list off more features of the in-universe book than Farnell's concise Twitter summary — including its title.
Anyway, yes, User:Epsilon the Eternal mentioned the policy to which I was referring — if the book exists in-universe, it should get the undabbed form, meaning the real book should be dabbed whether or not it's valid.
I think joke book will probably have to be included in the page title, anyway, if that is the thing's legal title. (Could someone who owns a copy take a look at the 'legal' paragraph?) We counter-intuitively call the TV Movie's novelisation The Novel of the Film for comparable reasons. We use a story's legal title, not the name most often used for it in conversation.
- WaltK
I was referring to the notion of saying, from an in-universe perspective, that "the Thirteenth Doctor and Yaz were trapped inside a book called Knock! Knock! Who's There? joke book", which was the impression I was getting from one of Scrooge's initial replies. I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick there.
But yes, "the joke book that they got trapped in" should definitely be regarded as an in-universe object (joke book, or something).
I'm afraid the books copyright page makes no mention of the title, just the usual DW copyrights. Looks like the cover title is all we have to go on.
- Najawin
Worldcat has the "joke book" as part of the title, but as established at Talk:Sleepy (novel), Worldcat isn't perfect. I made my "Knock, Knock, Who's There? Joke Book" page (I didn't see the first one when I first looked) into a redirect, we can always change things around if we decide differently in this thread.
- WaltK
I've been thinking it over, and are we sure the actual joke pages in between the framing ones are valid?
Let's look at what we do know: the Doctor and Yaz are trapped in a joke book. At no point is it stated to be an in-universe version of this joke book. It's also never stated the jokes within the real book are also in this hypothetical in-universe book, nor do we know if said jokes are being observed by the Doctor and Yaz.
I hope that made sense.
- Najawin
I get what you're saying. I'll note that I believe at this point you're the only person who has the book, so only you can answer the question on a technical level as to what is actually said. (At least of those who've commented in this thread.)
I will say that the author clearly intended for the entire book to be a valid source, given his tweet, but we don't base things off of authorial intent on that issue, but on whether the narrative actually supports the entire thing being the joke book in question.
I'll also point out that them being inside a joke book does not imply that the things said by the joke book are true within the context of the story (again, feel free to comment as to whether the book explicitly addresses this point). It just would mean that we know "these people were at some time trapped inside a joke book, the joke book said xyz". If we want to make pages about recursively fictional characters like "The Sore Doctor", sure, whatever. But from what I understand that's akin to just a character in a book within the DWU, not an actual person inside the DWU.
- 86.11.164.109
I try my best to explain how the book is formatted.
The book (the real book) is divided into chapters, with jokes that correspond to each Doctor and their era (Doctors 1 through 13, plus the War Doctor) as well as occasional chapters relating to other things (a chapter were LINDA compiles a list of some of the more "embarrassing" Doctors they've heard rumours of, a list of additional Satellite Five shows not previously mentioned in Bad Wolf, some Master-centric chapters, a chapter set up as Strax telling jokes through a stand-up routine, etc.) Every joke is completely self-contained. In some cases, there are jokes that even have their own little (self-contained) narrative going on; one joke comes in the form of a page-long short story where Amy and Rory discover the TARDIS has a room with a helter-skelter that can give you whatever you want.
Now for the the so-called "framing" sections. The book opens with a knock-knock joke between Thirteen and Yaz.
"Knock! Knock!" Yaz: "Who's there?" Doctor: "Doctor!" Yaz: "Doctor, where?" Doctor: "Well, Yaz, it looks like we've somehow been trapped in a joke book..."
Several more page-long knock-knock jokes like this are interspersed between the chapters, that seem to continue the conversation from that first one ("Doctor, why?", "Doctor, what?", "Doctor, when?", and so on). The narrative these jokes present is about the two of them realising they are in a joke book, figuring out when it happened, and how to get out. This is completely self-contained, as they make no reference to the other jokes in the book.
We could definitely call the framing chapters valid. At a stretch, could we even call the narrative-based jokes like the helter-skelter story valid too?
- WaltK
^damn it, that was me. Forgot to log in again.
- Scrooge MacDuck
In my opinion, the quote makes it clear that the intent is for the entire book to cohere as a novel; it's inconvenient that there's no direct reference in the 13/Yaz frame story to the jokes around them, but the sheer presentation of the thing is, I think, pretty clear on the matter. I'm still in favour of considering the thing a "(novel)".
- Najawin
The quote makes it clear that he intends for the entire source to be valid, I agree. The lack of coherence/reference does put us in an odd position though for the validity of the rest.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well I mean, I feel like precedent is broadly in favour of listening to the official sources when we wonder how to define a story. If the author says it's a story, it's a story — emphasis on a — even if the "how" isn't immediately obvious to us. For a much less extreme example, War of the Daleks contains interludes set in other points of Dalek history and featuring different characters — such as a notorious Daleks vs. Mechnonoids rematch — and despite the lack of any kind of direct connection between it and the main storyline, no one's ever questioned the fact that it's all a novel, because that's how it's always been presented to us.
- Najawin
So I'm not questioning the DAB term, I'm questioning what exactly comes in with validity. (Though I guess we could argue short story over novel for DAB depending on what gets introduced.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, when I say "cover it as a (novel)" I'm bundling it in with the question of whether the whole book is valid or not, because if only the frame segments are valid and we deem the "jokes" to not be part of the same story, then the frame segments can only be a short story.
That being said, phrasing the question as "is the whole book valid or just the framing segment" is just making me realise how close to the precedent of Thread:213311 this is. We don't have Thirteen and Yaz directly commenting on the jokes here, as we did with Hob, but still.
- WaltK
The bit with the "joke" incarnations is also presented as a datafile put together by Elton Pope for LINDA, and they are all presented as Doctors that are "rumoured" to exist rather than actual, officially documented cases.
Ergo a potential page for one of these incarnations would be something like:
- The Sore Doctor was a rumoured incarnation of the Doctor who was said to have a bad back. Their potential existence was documented by LINDA. (PROSE: Knock! Knock! Who's There?)
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd go further: again, if we consider the whole thing valid, it's through the framing device, so you get something more like:
- The Sore Doctor was a rumoured incarnation of the Doctor who was said to have a bad back in a joke book in which the Thirteenth Doctor and Yasmin Khan once found themselves trapped. The joke book attributed the file to LINDA. (PROSE: Knock! Knock! Who's There?)
- WaltK
So you believe things mentioned within the jokes should be counted as constructs within the joke book?
- Najawin
Just to bring this up again, there has been a minor kerfuffle on twitter in relation to people finding The Thyme Lord and absolutely delighting in its existence. While I'm glad they enjoyed it, I think it just underlines that we should really come to a resolution as to how to standardize these pages.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:280332
So I don't know how many of you have read The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic, but after I wrote up the plot summary for Warlords of Utopia, I was going to get around to writing up one for this essay. It was already on my radar as one that was probably non valid from having read it before, but upon rereading it, I think I'm certain. A plot summary of this short story would basically be a list of bullet points, just factoids one after the other, because that's what this story does. As opposed to The Book of the War, which could be seen as "a history textbook", and so has a narrative (+ the story of the shift), this is really more akin to a guidebook or "a cosmology textbook", and so has no narrative.
As much as it frustrates me, because I truly believe this is a great resource for this wiki, and there are pages that use it in the body of their articles which will have to be amended, I believe this story is invalid as it fails rule 1.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think you're overlooking a lot of facts about the nature of this story. For one thing, it does have a narrative element. The very subtitle of the the Cosmology presents its subject thusly:
On the Evolution of Universes, the Creation of History, the Usefulness of Biodata and the Construction of Worlds in Bottles.
At least one element of this self-summary, “the Creation of History”, clearly relates an event in the DWU, not mere facts, and the text does so from an in-universe point of view, so it's not really reference material in the way that (for example) AHistory or The Gallifrey Chronicles are, to take two reference books which deal with the early history of the Time Lords too.
At several points, events in the DWU are related in this same in-universe manner, events not yet recorded in preexisting stories. If that's not narrative, what is? Part V, in particular, is nothing short of a retelling of the beginning of the Eternal War, from a very different lens than the one we're used to — being that it posits that the Yssgaroth were in fact the Great-House-equivalents of the Spiral Yssgaroth, twisted by the process of travelling from one universe to the next, rather than an inherently monstrous species or a mere nonsentient phenomenon (as TBotW in-universely speculates). That story, of course, is told cagily, via a historian's ramblings and theories, but so are The ArcHive Tapes, which were recently ruled solidly valid.
Because, yes, and furthermore, I am unsure why you think this presents itself as an in-universe "history textbook" any less than The Book of the War. It's clearly a companion to TBotW in every respect; the (anonymous) in-universe writer of the text of the story is clearly a character within the DWU, referencing events that are real as far as they are concerned. Just from the first section:
There are other universes. That much is known. They are distanced from us by chronology, in the sense that (…)
Emphasis mine on the wording which makes it clear this is the work of an in-universe cosmologist, talking about their universe at a specific point in time, and within a specific scholarly context (some facts that are known to Lawrence Miles, and to the reader, are not known to the writer).
Ultimately, I think this is a case where it comes down to authorial intent. There is a literal mountain of evidence that TBotW was intended to be a (very postmodern) novel, and both its publisher and its various authors used the term in relation to their work. Have Lawrence Miles or Mad Norwegian Press ever commented on Cosmology in published sources, and if so, did they call it reference material, or a short story? That is the question we must ask ourselves. If the former, well, fair enough, this should be invalid.
But if this was indeed intended to be a short story in the DWU, I think it can certainly be read as such. And as you state, it would be in the interest of the Wiki if this were the case. (Though of course, that is more a problem with our own policies — Rule 1 is due for a revisit someday, as several recent debates have shown.)
- Najawin
I clearly agree that the book isn't analogous to The Gallifrey Chronicles or AHistory. It would be closer to TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, were that to be ruled invalid. An in universe reference text, something we would call "non narrative", rather than "non fiction".
The discussion of "The Creation of History" is about two things, one - specifically talking about the mechanics that go into such a thing, and couching everything into broad terms, rather than discussing the specific history of the DWU. For instance, a scientist who changed the gravitational constant leaving WWI static because he wanted to see what changed when he varied the gravitational constant but nothing else.
Two, a brief, very brief, discussion of the Anchoring of the thread. I note here that this is in the section on biodata just to enforce how non narrative this is. Here is what we learn about the Anchoring from this section:
- They used biodata technology to effect this change, because this is "inevitable".
- It seems to be straightforward but with immense consequences.
- It appears they only designed its simplest principles.
- Based on this we can infer that the Houses lack the skill to manipulate biodata on a universal level or would have been more thorough.
So three of the four are inferences at best, the fourth is still something stated about the event by someone who has no frame of reference except pure deduction. At least two of these, arguably all, tell us nothing about the actions that went into the anchoring itself from a narrative point of view, but instead the mechanics behind the event. Which is the charge I'm leveling at the entire book.
As for the Yssgaroth issue, reference is actually made to history here, in that they specifically say "This brings us, finally, to a lesson from ancient history" - namely, just that this war happened, standard stuff seen elsewhere - before bringing them up and then speculating on their origin. The speculation was non narrative though, couched solely in mechanics.
As for Miles commenting, it was originally written as an "in universe guide" for other FP writers. Pretty much everyone agrees on this (Nate's blog says that it was inspired by Warlords of Utopia), but I'm having a hard time finding an original source. Mad Norwegian Press calls it "an original essay by Miles on the mechanics of the Faction Paradox universe". Not a short story, and makes it very clear that it's about the mechanics of the universe, which is what my contention is.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:281084
Hereby opening an inclusion debate for DWBIT Dalek Wars.
The magazine Doctor Who: Battles in Time regularly featured two-page spreads depicting various Dalek conflicts. Each conflict was accompanied by "source" text and a search-and-find activity.
As they are essentially short stories accompanied by an illustration, I believe they should be counted as valid.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Would you mind sharing an image of one such spread? I'd quite like to see one.
- MrThermomanPreacher
- Najawin
I believe the precedent is this conversation.
czechout wrote:
Not sure what your alternative would be. You'd actually require the admin staff of this wiki to look at every single book ever made and decide on a case-by-case basis? That's completely unreasonable, I think you'd agree. After discussing the matter since 2005, it became abundantly clear that we need a rule that was simple to administer — and that didn't require our administrative staff to outlay huge amounts of cash.
[...]
By contrast we're not getting paid to do this, so we all have to work within our own personal budgets. And if we can't get a copy of a particular book, we can't get a copy of that book. So our rule that "only stories count" is immensely practical. It's something we can enforce without having to buy and sit in judgement upon every single release.
[...]
All rules of the wiki have to be clear and easy to administer.It's specifically referring to an analogous case where what's covered is in universe but non narrative material inside a book that's not wholly narrative, rather than in universe stories inside a book that's not wholly narrative, but the basic principle seems applicable.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Thank you for the image, User:MrThermomanPreacher.
I personally think that this is narrative, as it's a narrator telling a story with a beginning, middle, and end.
- Epsilon the Eternal
czechout wrote:
Not sure what your alternative would be. You'd actually require the admin staff of this wiki to look at every single book ever made and decide on a case-by-case basis? That's completely unreasonable, I think you'd agree. After discussing the matter since 2005, it became abundantly clear that we need a rule that was simple to administer — and that didn't require our administrative staff to outlay huge amounts of cash.
[...]
By contrast we're not getting paid to do this, so we all have to work within our own personal budgets. And if we can't get a copy of a particular book, we can't get a copy of that book. So our rule that "only stories count" is immensely practical. It's something we can enforce without having to buy and sit in judgement upon every single release.
[...]
All rules of the wiki have to be clear and easy to administer.
Isn't this applicable to all non-TV narrative stories though? - Najawin
Again, it's discussing the idea that you have a general book and then within the book there's an "in universe non-narrative source", but the "in universe non-narrative source" and the book are not identical. Or, I guess, the sum of the "in universe non-narrative source"s within the book are not identical to the book. So novels are kosher, anthologies are kosher, but if we had a reference book that was generally out of universe but had an in universe non-narrative section that would not be kosher. It doesn't specifically address what happens if we have an out of universe book that has a narrative in universe section, but the same reasoning applies.
With that said, this was seven years ago, and I suspect that some amount of telephone or reinterpretation has happened in regards to this rule, so a more recent precedent might say something different for narrative sources.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Doctor Who: Battles in Time is not a reference book, it's a magazine, not unlike Doctor Who Adventures.
So it's a case of "oh this magazine has an narrative story, so the story will of course be valid and the obviously out of universe magazine won't be a valid source".
- Najawin
Sure. I used reference book as an example. The reasoning here actually seems to suggest that this isn't the case, but, again, I'm not exactly suspecting that this wiki is 100% consistent over a period of seven years (especially not over rule 1, which I think we can all agree is an absolute mess of a rule). I just brought up the immediate precedent I remembered.
If there's more recent precedent, or more applicable precedent, I'm all for it.
- Epsilon the Eternal
To be perfectly honest, I don't entirely understand what you mean, User:Najawin, but here's what I'm thinking.
Understandably, it's not possible for many of us to afford every story, but User:MrThermomanPreacher does own copies of this magazine, and he's providing evidence that they are narrative and therefore should be covered by this wiki. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
- Najawin
Oh, let's be clear, I'm not agreeing with Czech's comments. I don't like that precedent. I'm merely referencing it as a possible explanation.
- MrThermomanPreacher
Just for clarification. I found the image above online. However, I did indeed amass a complete collection of Battles in Time back in the day, which I still have with me today.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I kinda hate to bring it up because I disagreed with that closure, but… guys, I'm pretty sure T:POINT applies and this conversation shouldn't be happening. Thread:269310 ruled these stories invalid not three months ago, and no evidence has been brought up that I can see.
I don't think that CzechOut quote has anything to do with it. As other people have said, those are not reference books and it's a pretty weird quote anyway. It's just… we've had this debate before, and User:Shambala108 ruled that the arguments for validity were insufficient.
- Najawin
Again, the point was more general than reference books - they were specifically talking about inventing a new category "tie in works", but I certainly agree, it's a weird quote.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Be that as it may, if I read between the lines of User:Shambala108's closure of Thread:269310, the problem appears to be that these stories are “commercials” — they're there, it seems, to complement the sale of non-narrative merchandise and justify it, rather than as stories in their own right, and so they're out for similar reasons to Dr Who and the Turgids.
The closure doesn't deny that those things are narratives — but they fail the "no advertisements" clause of T:VS, or so goes the argument. So that's what you'd need to find evidence against to properly reopen this debate.
- Epsilon the Eternal
But they're not advertisements. Or are the DWBiT magazines thought to be there only to advertise the trading cards? In which case, why are the comics valid?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:282770
Here we go again, another inclusion question posed on a talk page. Posting the to-date discussion here, so that the debate can continue in the proper forum. Everything that follows is taken from Talk:The History Tour (comic series).
Most of the Tim Quinn/Dicky Howett strips are considered invalid because of the no parody rule, so why is this any different? The strips are pretty clearly meant to be parodic and outside of the continuity of the show.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belegityt (talk • contribs) .
- Make sure to sign your comments with four ~. But yeah, I agree. What is the argument for these to be valid? They look pretty parodic to me. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 23:00, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Hold on, hold on! Now, these are not parody. While the artists' art style might be reminiscent of parody, the stories themselves are soley comedy. It's an aesthetic style, really. It's important to see the difference. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 23:06, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just because Quinn and Howett's most famous work is the parodical, fourth-wall-breaking Doctor Who? doesn't mean every story of theirs that happens to be "funny" is a parody.
- Hold on, hold on! Now, these are not parody. While the artists' art style might be reminiscent of parody, the stories themselves are soley comedy. It's an aesthetic style, really. It's important to see the difference. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 23:06, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
- The "cartoony" artstyle is no argument, as their not-even-comedic The Test of Time is drawn in the exact same style. It's just how these guys draw. (The Dr. Men and A Rose by Any Other Name inclusion debates explicitly established that art-style has nothing to do with Rule 4.)
- Do these stories do anything more outrageous than an Iris Wildthyme short story might? Or even an Eleventh Doctor minisode? Really now. There is no evidence that these stories were meant to be set outside the DWU, and they certainly aren't parody (all the jokes area bout Earth history; the Doctor himself is not lampooned).
- If you find evidence in e.g. Drawing Breath that the History Tour series was thought of by its creators as parody, we can of course open an exclusion debate. But right now, I don't see it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:12, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Scrooge MacDuck
…How is this an inclusion debate, exactly? Somebody asked a question. It was answered. And if anything it'd be an exclusion debate, the current state of affairs being thus-far-unquestioned validity.
Beyond that, I've said my piece: there is nothing obviously parodical in these stories, and in the absence of a statement from the authors which might show that it breaks Rule 4, I don't know why these could possibly be invalid. They're undoubtedly licensed, released, and stories.
I think the precedent set by Thread:177099 is fairly clear here, and I don't see why we have to open another lengthy debate just because some new users asked a question on the talk page due to being apparently unfamiliar with the finer points of our policy in this matter.
- Shambala108
@User:Scrooge MacDuck, you say it's not parody, but the original poster said it is. Therefore a debate will be required to determine if it is or is not a parody.
- Scrooge MacDuck
…Must we create a new debate every time a new user (one who didn't even sign their comment!) gets their facts wrong? If somebody goes on on Talk:The Night of the Doctor (TV story) and says "huh, that doesn't look like it's set in the regular continuity to me, because the regeneration effect is weird," would that be cause for a Night of the Doctor inclusion debate?
You're the first one to say that inclusion debates are tiresome, even moreso to close than to participate in. I don't see why you saddle all of us (including yourself!) with this when it's just a matter of a question on a talk page.
- Najawin
Technically speaking, this confusion comes from an ambiguity in the wording of T:VALID. Namely, the "no parodies" clause. There are multiple readings of the word parody here (normally meaning when certain traits are exaggerated for comic effect), whether something is a parody in general or a parody of Doctor Who in particular, or parody in the sense of Doctor Who parodies - which may just be a humorous reference to Doctor Who. This confusion is ever-present on this wiki, as we can see in Thread:282770. Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon? strongly suggests that the relevant concern for T:VALID is only the first of these, and not the second.
I think there's a decent argument to be made that these comics are parodical in the second sense, but not the first, but the ambiguity present in the rules does make things a little unclear. I don't support ruling these invalid without further evidence, but I do support maybe clearing up the language in T:VALID and perhaps renaming Doctor Who parodies.
- Shambala108
Please refrain from telling me what I do and don't think. If there's a chance something is a parody, then it's obviously non-valid and should be discussed. Would you rather I pre-emptorially (sorry that's not a word) decide the stories are invalid based on the claim they're parodies? I'm asking for information here.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I quite agree, and that would indeed be a useful thing for this thread to achieve.
For example, Robot of Sherwood is by all accounts a parody of classic Robin Hood movies and lore, albeit a loving one. But it's not a parody of Doctor Who, and so it's clearly valid.
I too am fairly sure that "No parodies" in T:VALID was only ever meant as a descriptor for a wide class of Rule 4-failing stories — that is to say, stories that are parodies of DW and as a result are not meant to be part of the DWU. Though if someone else who was present when T:VALID was written has evidence otherwise, let them please come forward!
EDIT: @User:Shambala108: Sorry, I was already typing this when you posted your reply. I apologise for misunderstanding you, but I did get the impression from earlier comments of yours in the past that you found no particular joy in administering inclusion debates, far from it. Again, if that's not the case and I misrepresented your opinions I'm sorry.
But I find your statement that "if there's a chance something is a parody, then it's obviously non-valid and should be discussed" frankly baffling. "If there is a chance something is a parody it should be discussed" makes sense to me, but if there's a discussion to be had it's not "obviously" anything, whether that be valid or invalid.
And to answer your question, I believe that exclusion debates based on Rule 4 concerns should only be opened if there is new evidence on the matter — statements from the writers or producers regarding whether it's set in the DWU. Idle speculation along the lines of "it seems a bit silly, are we sure this Doctor Who story was meant to be set in the Doctor Who universe?", with nothing to back it up but personal feelings, should be disallowed.
That is indeed the wording of T:VS:
If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.
The key here is intent, and even when we have intent T:VS itself tells us that it's only probably not allowed, and that a community discussion will be needed to make sure if it should really be excluded. There is nothing about excluding stories without an authorial quote to back it up.
In short, I believe that unless someone brings forward a coherent opening post to an inclusion debate, with factual evidence and an argument based on that evidence, a story's current validity status should not be questioned. This would serve as a bulwark against random users' whims dragging us back into Board:Inclusion debates every which when, ensuring that a story's coverage is only revised if there are people on the Wiki who are committed to a careful and factual analysis of the case.
And T:VS agrees with me (in an archaic portion which, I think, is clearly talking about Rule 4, from a time before Rule 1 was added):
Although behind the scenes comments are pretty much the only way that a story can be disqualified under Rule "3" [sic], such information cannot be used in the writing of in-universe articles.
EDIT2: Well, typo or anachronism, I've put forward a request for that edit to be made at last.
- Najawin
Just checked, it's not written before the addition of rule 1. I suspect it's just a typo instead.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Going to reiterate @Scrooge MacDuck - this was a question, that was answered.
Also of note, isn't this thread in violation of T:BOUND? There's no new evidence to suggest that these should be invalid.
An editor's query about something which is resolved by editors who have read these comics, should never in a million years be interpreted as "evidence".
Edit: I started writing this reply prior to @Scrooge MacDuck's comment (the one above the one the above mine), so I might seem as if I'm literally repeating Scrooge, which I wasn't.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Epsilon, I think the policy about starting inclusion debates without new evidence is T:POINT? Could be wrong. At any rate, it's for an admin to say whether the discussion is indeed in violation of whatever policy, but I do agree that in the absence of any hard evidence I don't really see what there is for us to talk about here.
- Shambala108
@User:Epsilon the Eternal, note that I did not place an "invalid" tag on the pages in question, so no violating of T:BOUND. And there are lots of edits/pages that get made under the radar of the few admins; when something comes up, it needs to be addressed.
I can't speak for other admins, but I have no knowledge of these stories, so I opened the debate to get that information. Maybe, instead of trying to obscure the debate, editors could actually provide information regarding these stories so that an informed decision can be made?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, as I said, if there is any information to be had about the authorial intent behind these stories, it could be found in Drawing Breath, the writer's autobiography where he looks back on his Who work. I don't own it myself, but I believe User:Borisashton does.
- Danochy
We can also look at the stories themselves, as well as BTS evidence. Since the claim here is that the stories are parodical, it's probably worth clarifying how the wiki defines parody, and whether or not every parody is invalid (based on the reading of current policy). These are more than questions, than opinions, in the hope to progress this thread in the right direction. Here's one definiton:
writing, music, art, speech, etc. that intentionally copies the style of someone famous or copies a particular situation, making the features or qualities of the original more noticeable in a way that is humorous.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Again though, T:VS says that “behind the scenes comments are pretty much the only way that a story can be disqualified” for these kinds of reasons. What matters is not whether we call it parody, but whether its authors and/or publisher thought of it as a spoof and therefore as being outside the DWU.
- Belegityt
Hello, OP here, been looking for information on this and finding nothing concrete. All first-person statements from Tim Quinn and Dicky Howett I've been able to find after 2 or 3 days of on-and-off google searches and looking through old DWMs refer to all of their DWU work as "comedy strips" or "humour strips" or some other phrase referring to parody. I've found a few instances in which they talk about the series, but never mention anything about its status as parody. In some instances, they refer to their Who work as parodical, not specifying between their main strip and this series, sometimes even making these claims closely following mentions of History Tour. Now, I'm pretty new to this whole wiki thing, so I don't really know where this leaves us. Do we consider this invalid? Do we keep it valid until we are given proper evidence to the contrary? Does what I've described above count as reasonable evidence towards invalidity? Thanks for being patient with me!
- Scrooge MacDuck
Good sleuthing! Confirmation from the horses' mouth that Doctor Who? is parodical is certainly nice to have, even if I think its Rule-4-failing-ness has never really been in doubt. But Quinn & Howett describing their Who work as parodical in toto can only be an overgeneralisation. There's nothing parodical about COMIC: A Religious Experience or COMIC: The Test of Time.
Nor do mentions of "comedy strips" mean much of anything, I'd say. Comedy isn't parody; the likes of TV: The Lodger, COMIC: A Rose by Any Other Name or, indeed, "The Feast of Steven" are unambiguously comedies.
As for what that means in Wiki terms… the final decision rests with an admin, but being that a sweeping statement from Quinn or Howett about all their Who work being parody can clearly only be a generalisation, I don't think that should be sufficient to hold The History Tour to be in breach of Rule 4. It's just comedic.
- Belegityt
Thanks for the clarification!
I should have been more clear, in my above post I say that they use the terms "comedy strip" or "humour strip" to refer to parody, but I don't take these terms to mean so literally. The context in which they were used makes it clear that they are referring to parody, not simply the words themselves. My mistake, sorry about that.
As for the outcome, I would have thought that it would be a generalisation. That's one of the great things about this wiki - y'all are incredibly meticulous.
One more thing I thought I should bring up - on multiple occasions Quinn and/or Howett discussed The History Tour as a spin-off of sorts from the Doctor Who? strip. I can't remember the exact wording, I'll have to find it again, but by the context, it is ambiguous whether or not this is in an in-universe POV. The incident I remember best was in a mini-doc on the production of DWM comics, which would suggest an out-of-universe POV, but when the status of History Tour as a spin-off was mentioned, they were talking about plot details of both scripts, which would suggest in-universe. It's not ideal evidence, but if I can find the interview again, it might be enough to tip the scales definitively in the direction of invalidity.
Sorry again for the long speech, just want to get all my findings out.
- Najawin
I don't think that follows. We have Doctor Who spinoffs that aren't covered by this wiki or are ruled invalid. Why would we immediately assume that there's a causal relationship between the validity of "a mainline work"'s validity status and its spinoff works'?
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's true, but if it's a matter of trying to align facts between Who? and History Tour, then that means an effort is being made for History Tour to be part of the universe of Who? by Who?’s own creators. So, if we have evidence that Who? isn't meant to take place in the DWU, it would follow that authorial intent is that History Tour doesn't either, even if History Tour is not a parody itself. Might it be worth considering Who? and History Tour a universe unto themselves, I wonder?
But @User:Belegityt — are you quite sure about the wording of "comedy strip"? Again, what makes Who? invalid is that it's intended as a parody, a spoof that's not quite part of the same universe as normal Doctor Who stories. Its irreverent tone and comic-strip-style format do not in itself invalidate it — the Titan backups are, after all, often very similar in outlook, but with those, we know explicitly that they're intended to be set in the DWU, simply adding "slapstick comic strips" to the list of types of stories that can be told in the DWU.
Would also appreciate direct quotes about that "spinoff" business.
- Belegityt
Still trying to find the interview again, but yes, I am sure about the wording. They used the term "comedy strip" to mean "something that shouldn't be interpreted as part of continuity" or something along those lines, definitely meant to mean parody.
I understand what you guys are saying about the tone and style not invalidating it, but as a newer contributor, it's not exactly intuitive to me yet. I really appreciate y'all being patient with me and welcoming me into the community.
Whoops, got a bit emotional there, sorry about that. I'll keep looking for the interview. Also ordered a copy of the Howett autobiography, should be arriving in the next few days. That might have some more conclusive insight.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Your appreciation is appreciated! I've asked around and apparently Drawing Breath mentions The History Tour only in passing, so that interview, whatever it is, is a safer bet for potential evidence of invalidity than anything else.
The point that "set outside the DWU", "comedy" and "parody" are different things is in this context academic, mind you — I think that if we have quotes by Q&H saying "Doctor Who? isn't in the regular continuity", and saying "we made sure that History Tour is in the same universe as Doctor Who?", logic dictates that it's set outside the DWU. I do not, however, think it should go in the Parodies and pastiches category; it's not a parody of Doctor Who per se.
- Belegityt
Alright, I guess I won't hold my breath for the autobiography.
I second your view on the History Tour status, it's not DWU but also not specifically a parody of the show.
Probably not the right place to ask this, but how does one add hyperlinks on these threads? The usual double bracket doesn't work.
I'll keep looking for the interview when I can.
- Najawin
Double brackets should work for in wiki links.
Er, Scrooge did not say that History Tour was notDWU. He said that if some conditions were fulfilled it would be notDWU. Obviously he's unsure if these conditions are fulfilled, so does not currently think this.
- Belegityt
Yep, should have clarified, The series is invalid only if the evidence is sufficient.
Was using the wrong brackets, my bad! Thanks for the help anyway!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Inclusion debates/Thread:283828
As the Sleeze Brothers made their debut in Doctor Who Magazine, are they considered to be part of the Whoniverse and should we include their comic series on the wiki?
- SOTO
Please see Thread:210741.
- Scrooge MacDuck
While we're here, though, I'm not 100% clear on why we don't cover them as invalid. Isn't that the usual procedure when something makes legal use of a license to a DWU concept, but doesn't set itself in the DWU per authorial intent?
No new evidence regarding Rule 4 has been presented so this stays invalid. However, new data in the form of "what the Marvel Wiki have been up to since the original ruling" support the coverage of The Sleeze Brothers mini-series as invalid on Tardis.
However, it shouldn't be a priority of editors, at least until the Brothers' sole valid appearance, COMIC: Follow That TARDIS!, gets a plot summary.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY Warning: Display title "User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2" overrides earlier display title "Inclusion debates/Sleeze Brothers comic series".
.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/4/43/Emily_Cook_tweet_reply.png/revision/latest?cb=20200517135145){kind=link}