User:OttselSpy25/What If OP

Intended title: Removing the blanket ban on "What If" stories

Introduction
So one of the things that I think continues to be a massive problem on Tardis Wiki is that on the landing page for T:VS, we have numerous rules still listed which are... fundamentally obsolete. That is, these rules were created specifically to invalidate one specific story. Then, later in history, said story was validated. So the story was moved from the invalid section of the page to the valid one. But the rule, which existed exclusively to deny that story, stays in place.

In my opinion, no example of this is more obvious that this one, listed under the subsection "What doesn't count":

Now, what stands out to you the moment you look at this rule? To me, it's that the story currently listed for it, An Adventure in Space and Time... is not actually an example of the topic. An Adventure in Space and Time is not a what-if story, and it's certainly not a what-if story tangential to the Doctor's universe... Which is what this rule is clearly here for.

So why was this part of the table added? Well, we only have to rewind a few short years to find our answer:

Yes, this was a rule introduced exclusively to disqualify the Big Finish audio series, Doctor Who Unbound. This series was eventually changed to valid in 2017. However, the rule remained, meaning that we still have a few lingering stories effected by it, despite this generally being seen as a former rule which we no longer enforce.

Today, I would like to discuss with all of you why I am in favor of deleting this rule from T:VS, which three stories I think are still invalid because of this rule, why I want those three stories valid, and the theory of coverage that I would suggest. Let's begin!

History of validity
So in late 2009 and early 2010, our wiki's history with finding a "list of valid sources" really started to kick into high gear. This was partially caused by User:CzechOut, who rapidly began adding Template:Nc to pages (this was later renamed Template:Notdwu and then Template:Invalid). 1 2 3 4

This was notably done unilaterally, without discussion, and in spite of the site's official rules, located at T:CANON. For instance, the official policy of the website going back half-a-decade was that the 1960s Dalek films starring Peter Cushing should be covered as "valid" but as an alternate universe. Czech added the "non-canon" template to the films in spite of this, again without any debate I can find. This represents that absolute allegiance to precedent and the rules written down on-paper hadn't quite been invented yet.

In 2010, an argument breaks out at Talk:The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story) over if the story was non-canonical or a potential alternate future for the Eighth Doctor. The evidence of the Tomorrow Windows is cited, although others still think it was never meant to be canon. User:Tangerineduel rules that the story should be covered but as an alternate reality.

A similar debate then begins at Forum:More canon questions. Here, a user complains that the Tardis Canon policy isn't nearly as specific or strict as they would like. One specific brought up is that T:CANON states that "all Big Finish audios" are canon, in spite of this including Unbound. The user things that T:CANON should specify the difference between canon stories set in the main Doctor Who Universe and stories which are set in some other universe (as examples, they list the Cushing films, Unbound, and Iris Wildthyme novels).

User:Tangerineduel enters the scene and states that both Unbound and the Cushing films are canon but only as alternate universes. User:CzechOut appears and questions the Dalek films being alternate realities. "How can they possibly be canon?" he asks. "They're non-canon, full-stop."

In spite of this, User:Tangerineduel does not remove the five-year standing official validity of the Dalek films. Instead, he makes this specific alteration to T:CANON, expanding the "alternate universe" defense used for the Cushing films to numerous other stories.

This includes The Curse of Fatal Death and, shockingly, Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? and Tonight's the Night, the logic being that both are intended to be set in alternate Doctor Who universes (I think it's hard to make that case for Tonight's the Night but I can only imagine that wikifying that story was more popular in 2010).

BUT most importantly, I believe it is here that the site created its first, written down policy about Unbound.

The audio series is listed in this new section, officially canon but only when wikified as a series of alternate universes. This would stay on the page through 2012.

However, this policy seemingly was never acted on in spite of being written down for several years. You can see here that Czech had added Template:Nc to all of the Unbound story pages by this stage, and these remained for the time.

In February 2011, Forum:Should we class Big Finish's Doctor Who Unbound series as non-canon? is held, being the only stand-alone debate the series had at the time. The forum starts with User:Revan attempting to argue for the stories still being canon.

"I don't think these stories should be classed as non-canon by the wikia as they simply are "what-if?" stories that take place in parallel universes and do not attempt to take place within the main universe as non-canon stories do. Even The 100 Days of the Doctor depics the Sixth Doctor travelling to another universe to meet one of the unbound Doctors. Therefore I believe that we should class the unbound stories as canon but existing in other universes to the main Whoniverse."

- User:Revan, on why Unbound should be canon.

After this, User:The Thirteenth Doctor entered and stated that he did not believe that Doctor Who has a canon, and thus the site shouldn't try to establish one. However, User:Tangerineduel enters the picture and notes that it is the wiki's job to set boundaries. His main issue is that the Doctor Who Unbound series does not go out of its way to establish that the stories all take place in splintering universes. Because no stories turns to the viewer and whispers "This story is set in a universe, but it's a parallel universe to the one that was featured in the TV show," we can't say for sure that this was the intention.


 * (Confusingly, Tangerineduel seems to ignore here that he himself wrote Unbound being a series of alternate universes into policy a year earlier)

Czech soon enters, and defends the site's historical use of the term "canon." He notes that the idea of Doctor Who not having a canon is a new idea, and this is why he had recently moved Template:Nc to Template:Notdwu, because...

"It is better and less confusing for us to now move away from using "canon" to describe things. That's why notdwu no longer includes the word "canon", and stresses the fact that it's a decision of our wiki that the topic isn't part of the DWU."

- User:CzechOut, on why saying something "isn't Doctor Who Universe" is different from saying something "isn't canon"

"Put more simply, our current use of the word, "canon", is actually used in two ways. We need o phase out our use of the word "canon" entirely, in favor of two different expressions. Tangerineduel has usefully coined the phrase "what this wiki covers" as an expression to help draw the line between articles that can be on the wiki and those that can't.  Thus, The Stranger isn't "non-canon", it's simply something we don't cover.  And Doctor Who Unbound is something we cover (because it's derived from a full BBC license), but it deserves notdwu because it's clearly, purposefully outside the narrative continuity of any other Doctor Who stories."

- User:CzechOut on why Doctor Who Unbound should be called non-DWU

Now, it is my opinion that at this point in the site's history, by moving "canon" to "Non-DWU" Czech really fixed one or two issues and opened up a whole bunch of new ones. The largest one being Czech's clear reading here that stories set in a universe parallel to "N-Space" automatically fail his litmus test of being set inside "the DWU." Thus, stories which were then-currently listed as valid in T:CANON were not considered DWU.

This issue was fully represented at the controversial Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?

Here, while discussing if the Infinity Doctors should be canon, non-canon, or covered as a semi-parallel universe, Czech states:

"And I'm not lumping this into "licensed but parodic" works. I'm saying it's a part of the "licensed but outside continuity" gang, which includes not just parodic stories but also Unbound, Shalka and other "serious" stories. The things we exclude are deliberately very limited. We don't count the 1960s Dalek movies because a) the Doctor's a human who invented the TARDIS, and b) it's a remake of a television story. We don't count the "Unbound" Doctors because they're deliberately outside of Doctor Who continuity. We don't count The Curse of Fatal Death and Scream of the Shalka because, among other reasons, the narrative of the TV series from 2005 on clearly doesn't follow the Doctor(s) depicted therein. And that's about it. And that leads us to the question of whether we must treat TID as an individual case, or if there are other works which should be treated the same way. I think that depends on what decision we make about TID. There are other works whose canonicity may be disputed, but I don't think that there are any which were consciously created with an ambiguous relationship to the ongoing narrative of Doctor Who. Of the works we already exclude, they were either not intended as a link in the narrative chain (e.g. the Unbounds, Curse of Fatal Death) or were superseded by other developments (Shalka). The former in a sense cut themselves off from the canon upon their creation; the latter was cut off by diktat. Death Comes to Time chooses to ignore a major strand of the ongoing narrative (the Eighth Doctor) and attempts to strike off on its own, but such an attempt is by its nature not going to be part of the strand which it denies. TID is different from any of these. TID sticks its tongue out at continuity and says, "You don't know if I'm in or out.""

- User:CzechOut

Now, here's the interesting thing to me. Czech will later cite the lack of anyone disagreeing with him here about Unbound as the reason why consensus says it was made invalid. However, in this debate, Czech speaks of Unbound being non-canon as if it site policy... When it had never been written down as such. The closest thing to it being site-policy was that he had added the non-canon templates in 2010 and it hadn't been taken down yet.

This entire time, the rule about parallel continuities remained at T:CANON now being live for two years despite being widely disregarded. And it wasn't removed because someone caught this - it was removed because T:CANON was taken down and replaced by the version we have today. Then, User:CzechOut created Tardis:Valid sources to replace T:CANON.

And so on the 8th of June, 2012, in this specific edit at wikia time 14:53... Czech added the rule "No what if stories" to T:VS, which he had written from scratch. From this moment forwards, it was official site policy, and still is today.

Now one thing that I think is instantly offensive about this rule, once you see it in context, is the implication it carries. "Some completely serious works of fiction have been explicitly tagged by the publisher or author as being outside the DWU." Now, to me, what this implies is that the "Doctor Who Universe" we describe in Rule 4 is literal. That it, the Doctor's universe, and specifically the version of the Doctor that we see on TV. So a story which is set in a universe not populated by the "TV Doctor" fails rule 4, at least according to the blurb given on this post. This is mirrored by the removal of Faction Paradox content around the same time, as some admins decided that the series splintering into an alternate timeline meant it was no longer the "real" DWU.

I think this is representative of the post-canon mentality of the time, and how this is far less in-line with our current mindset and standing precedent.

Around the time I joined the website and I had several chances to debate the validity of Unbound with Czech in the wikia chat window. His argument remained that because the Unbound series never directly stated "This is an alternate universe, and not simply non-canon," it was the job of the wiki to cover this as not congruent with the DWU and thus invalid, rather than a universe parallel to the DWU. It was always my stance that it was blatantly obvious that the stories being a series of splintering universes was always the intention. But, he argued, until a story featured concrete evidence of Unbound being a literal parallel universe, he was not going to budge.

(His stance was that the Unbound Doctor's cameo in The 100 Days of the Doctor was a throwaway line, and thus didn't count)

So obviously things changed on this front in 2016, when AUDIO: The Library in the Body released. This story featured Bernice Summerfield falling into a parallel universe, and... What do you know! It was the universe of the Unbound Doctor, as we call him today.

This started a long series of debates where Czech finally admitted that there was in-text evidence of Unbound being "non-DWU" in the sense of being a parallel reality, and not "non-DWU" in the sense of being non-canon. Thus, on the 12th of June 2017, Czech himself removed any mention of Unbound from T:VS.

However... What he didn't do was remove the rule which specifically only ever existed to invalidate this one specific story. So, starting on that specific day, this existed in the fine text of T:VS:

That was it. Just a rule, sitting there, with no story it was actually effecting.

This changed on the 2nd of October 2020, when User:Scrooge MacDuck began cleaning up T:VS, as it had many outdated elements. While doing this, he decided to add an example to justify this rule:

This... is almost an example of a what if story... but not really. Basically, there's an ongoing argument that Death Comes to Time was written with the believe that the Eighth Doctor and the 1996 TV movie were probably "not canon" to the writer. But it wasn't really "What if the Seventh Doctor was a god and died battling some dude", it was "Oh I want to write the REAL Doctor Who ending, this won't age poorly at all."

So in other words, Death Comes to Time wasn't a what if. It tried to make the 1996 TV movie into a what if.

In early 2023, the wiki passed Rule 4 by Proxy, and since numerous stories have referenced the events of Death Comes to Time as either being the Eighth Doctor's past or being a parallel universe, this rule was once again left without a clear story. As Scream of the Shalka was still non-valid for a brief period of time after this, that story was then moved to the table.

... In spite of Scream being, by no acceptable definition, a "what if" story. Soon, Shalka was validated in its own thread, leading to...

Which is what we have today, in spite again of An Adventure in Space and Time not being a what if story. So in other words, for the past three years this abandoned rule has simply been a convenient place to stick any non-valid story which isn't set in the primary Doctor Who Universe, to the point of it now being used to list a story which was supposed to be set in the real world.

It is my full intention with this post that the "no what if stories" rule be removed from T:VS. It was never a justified rule, and we are running so low on what if stories still considered non-valid that we haven't actually had a real what if story listed on the page since 2017. And that story... was Doctor Who Unbound.

Why Doctor Who Unbound should be valid
... Yes, I know that it already is. HOWEVER

I believe that to properly represent why this rule isn't justified, I need to prove my side of the argument, which is that Doctor Who Unbound should have been valid as a series of parallel realities from day one. Even before the Unbound Doctor returned in the Bernice Summerfield audios, we should have been covering all of these stories as alternate realities.

to be expanded

What stories apply to my suggested rule change
Now, I've said several times throughout this post that there are stories which are currently non-valid because of this rule. Well, it's finally time to present them. Here are... The main three.


 * 1) The Last Dalek - What if the Dalek had won TV: Dalek?''
 * 2) K9: Deja Who - What if the Ninth and Tenth Doctors had their own K9 unit during series 1 and 2?
 * 3) Daleks v Cybermen - What if the Cybermen had won the Battle of Canary Wharf? (and the Doctor hadn't been present apparently)

The last one I'm the least confident about. But as someone who played the first two games A LOT as a kid, I knew even then that the stories where what ifs. A game where you play the Metaltron, and you kill the Ninth Doctor, becoming the new Dalek Emperor? Yes, I knew that was a what if. And I was eleven.

The same for  Deja Who. It's a game about a model of K9 being present in series 1 episodes. I knew it wasn't the main Doctor Who universe, but a parallel one.

On top of these three, I think there's one extra story we might consider throwing into this discussion:


 * 1) Voice from the Vortex!

So this is one of the hardest stories to get a gauge on. It was printed in DWM 364 and is a parody of the short stories and comics present in the early Doctor Who Annuals. The story addresses the Ninth Doctor as "Dr Who", presents him traveling with a companion named Rosie Taylor, and purposefully gets numerous details about the TV series wrong.

The big controversy is that when writers in the 1960s did these mistakes on accident, the stories are valid. But when an author does the mistakes on purpose, it's non-valid. I think it would be justifies to basically treat this story as an honorary what if story.

So my opinion is that Voice from the Vortex! is this really weird... conceptual what if story. Like, not a what if story from the point of view of an event, but a what if story from a creative standpoint. So:


 * What if Ninth Doctor tie-in media was written like First Doctor tie-in media?

The logic being that we would allow people to present in-universe articles about this story in the valid space, but we would make it clear that this was some tangential version of the Doctor. It's my opinion that this is where the information would fit best, as it doesn't really work at Ninth Doctor nor Ninth Doctor/Non-valid sources. The Doctor presented here is purposefully like a new incarnation, and thus it's fitting to treat him this way.

What stories do not apply to my suggested rule change
One thing I would like to clarify here is that not every what if story which has coverage on Tardis should be a valid source.

I believe that creating a what if story immediately makes that story a sort of fictional parallel universe to whatever the source is. So when you do a "what if" about a DWU concept, you're making a DWU parallel universe. BUT, if you make a what if story based in the real world, you aren't necessarily establishing that as a DWU story.

So.


 * 1) What If? - This feature depicts a universe where Doctor Who wasn't canceled and Richard Griffiths became the Eighth Doctor. This is not a what if story depicting an alternate DWU, it's a what if story depicting an alternate real world.
 * 2) Father Time: "Set Visit" - "What if PROSE: Father Time was a TV story in a full Paul McGann season?" Exactly the same circumstance. What if story staked in our world.

Now, in the future perhaps evidence will persist showing that these two universes are parallel to the DWU, being set in worlds the Doctor could visit. But when it comes to this one debate, I don't think they qualify for what I'm talking about.

And, perhaps, if we really want some version of that old rule on T:VS, we could change it from "No what ifs" to "No real world what ifs."

Additionally, I only think this rule change would effect direct what if stories, not parodies or any story set in an alternate DW universe. I also am not trying to validate An Adventure in Space and Time, which is not actually a what if story.