User:OttselSpy25/Sandbox/Speedround Two

This isn't quite an OP, more a place to write down ideas. I figure that I might do a second "Speed round" eventually, hopefully with segments written by other users.

So this is both a rough "planning area" for the concept and just a place to write down topics I might want to discuss in the context of validity. As I've said elsewhere, I find fewer and fewer topics I care about these days. So if I have an idea for one, it's nice to have somewhere to jot it down.


 * Intended title: Speedround 2.0: Charity stories, Infidel's Comet, Hacker T Dog, K9, and Sleeze Brothers

Feel certain about including in Speedround
(Last time I did 10 topics. That was too many, and I apologize. This time I want five at most.)
 * 1) Charity stories - See finished OP below.
 * 2) Infidel's Comet
 * 3) The Robot Reveal - I've watched this over a few times. I would say this is my #1 story that I feel should be valid. I could even write an OP now if I wanted.
 * 4) "The Kermit Factor"
 * 5) K9 Appearances
 * 6) The Computer Programme - The Thinking Machine - Untitled Maze Segment, where someone has a K9 Unit named "Spot"
 * 7) K9's Question Time
 * 8) Some other fifth thing, might have someone do a guest slot about the Sleeze Brothers

Licensed Charity Stories
So I originally considered putting this one at the end, because out of everything we have today it's the least... interesting. Honestly. But it is the topic that is going against the longest amount of established precedent. So, some of you will quickly say, if it's going against precedent, why is it in the speedrounds? Well... Because I can literally only come up with two stories impacted by this. And they're short stories, the kind you'd find in a completely forgotten back-issue of Short Trips or the like. But I think it's clear that we have a situation here where our rules got really... confused about something, and we should just quickly correct it. Trust me, when you hear what I'm talking about it won't sound so sensational.

So our rules about Charity novels and anthologies basically date back to one of the first rules we ever had on the website: No fan fiction. The belief was that Charity publicans, while occasionally made with approval passive or otherwise from the BBC, were still fan creations. You can see this cited in Forum:Response to user introducing info from charity publications into in-universe articles. This was apparently especially a controversial topic when it came to the famous Time's Champion, a Sixth Doctor Charity novel that began as an official pitch.

In February 2011, Forum:Charity anthology short stories was launched. The forum meant to clarify that Charity stories which used licensed DW concepts and characters were no different from fan fiction. User:CzechOut, User:Tangerineduel, and User:Revanvolatrelundar spoke of this through June before the forum closed after few words. The topic was seen as unanimous and quite obvious, and saw no pushback from any other users (at least in those few months).

Since this, it has consistently been policy that whenever the BBC occasionally allows someone to use BBC-owned concepts only if the work benefits Charity and the creator sees no other profits, we recognize the existence of these stories but do not even create special pages for them. This is why Rule 2 in Tardis:Valid sources has that specific phrasing. "A work of fiction which isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count."

So what am I seeking to change about this policy today? Not a damn thing. I don't want to change a single thing about everything we've spoken of so far.

However, we have recently come across at least two stories which are more complicated that this topic has historically been treated.

Consider this. Paul Magrs owns the character Iris Wildthyme. If Magrs writes a charity story with Iris and the Sixth Doctor, we don't cover it, obviously. But what if he's writing a charity story, uses Iris, and no other concepts he would need permission to use... Would we cover that story?

Historically, you might be shocked to hear, the answer is no. Because it has essentially been our position that in said case, Paul Magrs has given himself a non-commercial license to use his own creation. This... Doesn't make any legal sense.

Basically, while someone needing a "commercial license" is written into Rule 2 of T:VS, Rule 3 has no such distinction. It's "a work of fiction must be officially released to be valid", not "a work of fiction must be commercially released to be valid." So if someone has a commercial license, then uses that commercial license to create a non-commercial story, that is not against our rules! But we functionally act as if it is.

I'd also like to bring up that, realistically, there are probably several Red Nose Day and Children in Need segments which should be effected by this implied rule but aren't because... Duh. The BBC doesn't give themselves a non-commercial license. So it's just a rule we're not using in a coherent way!

Again, changing how we do this is moving against active precedent. BUT it's for the sake of validating, as far as I can tell, two short stories while codifying a novel which is already valid despite being an example of this. And it's a topic the original debates never even brought up because they were clearly discussing charity publications that used the Doccy, the TARDIS, etc. Not Paul Magrs doing a little charity work with a character that is owned only by him.

So, as far as I can tell, these are the stories which would be effected by this idea:
 * 1) Baron (Count) Dracula and Count (Baron) Frankenstein in Perfect Timing - Features licensed use of Miles Dashing and Crocker, uses some public domain characters but there's no Doctor, TARDIS, etc.
 * 2) Being an extract from "The Amazing Adventures of Iris Wildthyme on Neptune" by Paul Magrs - Features Iris but no other DW characters or concepts.
 * 3) Mother, Maiden, Crone - This almost is kind of an example of this, as we currently cover it as valid but with a long paragraph explaining why it should be okay. Something I hate is when an article has as much or more content explaining our rules than the actual material of the story... :/

If you can think of any more examples or have any reason we shouldn't call these valid, please tell me. OS25🤙☎️ 21:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Licensed Charity Stories discussion
to be added