Forum:P.S.

User:Tybort has removed references to P.S. (webcast) from articles because it was an unshot scene, so it's not a valid source. However, given that the scene was later released as an animated webcast, I do think that it is a valid source as much as any live-action ones, since the animated webcast version is a narrative source. 78.8.5.21talk to me 12:52, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:06, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * i'm also agreed Imamadmad ☎  03:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

The Beeb's stated purpose in producing and posting it was to respond to the fans' clammour for answers concerning whether the Doctor and/or River paid Brian a visit or if he was to never be given closure, and about to when Amy & Rory were sent. So, yes, it's clearly canon and thus not only valid, but of TV series-level validity/canon.


 * The fact that the BBC have officially released a scene does not automatically make it a valid source under our policies. There are a number of scenes included on (classic) DVD releases which can't be considered valid.  Officially showing us "what might have been" is not the same thing as showing us what was.  For instance, we were officially shown the Eighth Doctor's regeneration in Endgame (graphic novel), but this site does not record that unpublished scene as the fact of Eight's regeneration.


 * Tybort was quite right to sound a note of caution. We need to discuss further whether this is actually what happened or merely a scene that might have been.  After all, it's known to have been written by Chibnall, and Chibnall wasn't the writer of the broadcast episode.  It's another author's addendum to Moffat's work.  That's problematic, in my view.  We really do need to thrash out specifically why this thing should be counted as a valid source — not just let it go through "on the nod".   04:33: Thu 25 Oct 2012


 * It wasn't going to be an addendum to the episode, but was going to be released as a webcast/DVD extra epilogue, just like Pond Life is a prologue. If we count Pond Life and other webcasts, I don't see why we shouldn't count this one, even if it was realized in animated form instead of the one originally intended because of Brian's actor not being available. 78.8.96.10talk to me 22:54, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Got a source for any of these assertions?  16:05: Sat 27 Oct 2012
 * here. It was meant to be a DVD extra, just like series 6's Night and the Doctor. 78.8.10.168talk to me 16:52, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Chibnall's own admission is that this is a "scene that might have been". He says himself that it's not a DVD extra, it's not an alternative ending.  It was a thing that might have been a DVD extra, had not actor availability interfered.  We're seeing storyboards to something that didn't get filmed.  It's not a valid source.  Obviously, we can have a page about P.S., but it is not the valid continuation of Brian Williams' story, and it should not be used in the in-universe sections of articles.  This scene did not occur between the Eleventh Doctor and Brian Williams.  00:25: Tue 30 Oct 2012
 * I beg to differ. The scene was played out in the utmost seriousness. Rory's actor was recalled to do voice work. I think we should take this as just another webcast. It's really no diffrent from Shada or Real Time except for that it has captions. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:17, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an open and shut case, unfortunately. Chibnall's Twitter remarks sink it.  It was intended to be a DVD extra, but cancelled due to the actor's unavailability.  Therefore, it's just an animated storyboard of a proposed scene.  If it were always intended as an animated storyboard, that'd be one thing.  But this is cobbled together from what remains.  It's rather like all those extra scenes on either the season 3 or season 4 release that are introduced by RTD.  They're all played "seriously".  They were all potentially scenes that could have been.  They're all "officially released".  But they aren't part of the final narrative for various reasons. Same thing here.  P.S. extends an official narrative.  It could have been a DVD narrative.  But  it doesn't count because it was axed for cause. It was intended as a filmed, live-action DVD extra.  It ended up as an animated storyboard that was delivered over the internet, with the writer going out of his way to tell us that the project failed due to an actor's schedule.  It's just an interesting "might have been", like any other deleted scene.  04:38: Tue 30 Oct 2012

I beg to differ. It "could" have been a live-action webcast, but is an animated webcast. The medium changed due to actor availability, but not its validity as a source, given that it was released. And will likely be an animated DVD extra. 78.9.154.147talk to me 18:21, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also scratch my head at the sentance 'It's not a DVD feature, so it isn't canon. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 18:54, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * A loooooong time ago, we decided that deleted scenes don't count in the writing of our articles. This is a deleted scene.  By the author's own admission, the plug was pulled on it.  P.S. is very much "what might have been". It's therefore not a valid source.  Doesn't mean we can't have a page about it.  Doesn't mean you can't refer to it in behind the scenes sections.  I've been careful to preserve the vast majority of text about P.S. that was already on the site.


 * @79.9.154.147, you're misstating the facts. It was planned to be a live-action DVD extra, not a live-action webcast.  It ended up being animated storyboards released on the web.  That's quite a big jump from intent to actuality — big enough to say that the project was cancelled, big enough to call this a deleted scene.  It's definitely not an animated extra in the currently-on-the-market DVD.  Even if it were — even if it becomes one on some hypothetical series 7 box set — there are plenty of deleted scenes on officially released DVDs that we've never for a moment considered valid.


 * For clarity: if there is clear evidence that a project was cancelled, or a scene was deleted, that scene is not a valid source for the writing of in-universe articles.


 * Look at it from the other side. If we allow P.S., then we have no creditable rule preventing the admission of deleted scenes that are on a high percentage of DVD releases in the classic and modern series.  Not only that, but we would have no real protection against the ramblings of RTD in The Writer's Tale (or even his column in DWM) about scenes he was considering. We'd have to say that the Eighth Doctor's regeneration we saw in the extra features of Endgame (graphic novel) was in fact the "real" regeneration of Eight to Nine.  We'd also have to conclude that the actual title of The Claws of Axos was The Vampire from Space, since there's an officially released title card on the DVD.  Of even greater difficulty, we'd have to somehow have to grant the TV version of Shada some kind of legitimacy, even though major parts of it — really, most of the narrative's concluding scenes) — were never filmed at all.


 * Allowing P.S. legitimacy would bring into question literally hundreds of items that are, quite sensibly, locked away. Some of these would admittedly be "nitpicky", but a number, as in the case of Shada and Endgame, would be huge.


 * It would be a major sea change in the policy we currently have to allow storyboards to substitute for story. As our policies sit now, it is an absolutely simple call — which doesn't even require discussion — to say that P.S. doesn't count.  I changed the coverage we gave to P.S. in absolutely the same way that I would change the spelling of color to colour.


 * If you want P.S. to count, then you will have to change the underlying policy by starting a thread arguing for the inclusion of all deleted scenes. We absolutely cannot have a situation where this single failed project gets to be counted but others aren't.   18:10: Sat 03 Nov 2012
 * Czech, if you still think Shada isn't a valid source then I have to say your insane. That discussion on the film's legitimacy ended with multiple users saying "... Yeah, why wouldn't it be a legit source?" Because you have to be 97.65% insane to say "Yeah, that one televised story that many count as canon? Not valid due to our policy." If we have a policy that does that, it needs to be removed. But yeah, Shada is valid... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:54, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

OS25, you are aware that Shada was never completed and never televised? TV Shada is not valid. Anyway, I don't think that discussion is for here.  Tardis1963   talk  22:59, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Shada's continuity is a matter of opinion. Anyone can have their own opinion on the subject. Just like anything ever. Thus it should be counted as canon. But anyways, like you said, this is not a discussion for here. It's a discussion that already ended months ago with it being a valid source. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:24, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not aware of any discussion on Shada that ended with it being declared a valid source. Far as I know, it's been considered invalid for years, which is why current policy clearly labels it an invalid source.


 * And, yeah you're free to believe what you want to so far as canon is concerned. But we're not talking canon here.  As you know, our canon policy is that DW has no canon.  What we're talking about is whether it's a valid source for the writing of in-universe pages.


 * And it's not.


 * I think I've kind of explained why, but I'll do it again. Shada wasn't finished.  The parts of it that weren't finished include the vast majority of the plot's resolution, and several threads having to do with the guest protagonists (the two students).  We can't go on what might have been the conclusion.  Especially when there is a legitimate, finished version of the story.  Shada is a bit like Human Nature.  There, we have a book and a TV version.  Both are very different to the other, but both have equal weight.  With Shada, we have Shada (novelisation), which is the valid version of the Fourth Doctor version.  Then we have Shada (webcast), which is the Eighth Doctor version.  Both were completed; both were officially published by the assent of all license-holders.  There's also Shada (audio story), but it's best thought of like we think of Target novelisations.  It's mostly an exact duplicate of the webcast.  Any differences between the audio and the webcast are valid unless they contradict the webcast.


 * The TV story, though, was never finished. It's thus  a big  ol' deleted scene and it just doesn't count.  How could it?  We don't really know how it was going to end.


 * Finally, please watch the language. Directly calling me insane is an obvious violation of tardis:no personal attacks, which you know this wiki strictly enforces. Please bring the level of your rhetoric down to discussing the issues only. Please try to avoid questioning others' sanity.   06:38: Sun 04 Nov 2012
 * Oh, my bad. Never take anything I say too seriously. Look, so I've said it before, and I'll say it again:


 * Shada is, wheather telivised or not, a TV story.
 * Some magazines even count it when listing episodes by number
 * Many people take it very seriously.
 * Thus if "our policy says it isn't canon" can be stated"
 * Then,
 * there is something weong with our policy.
 * I suggest a rule change, for both Shada and P.S.. I think we should add on to the "No deleted scenes" policy with a sentance such as: "...if the deleted scene, however, is presented as it's own seperate narritive source instead of in a compilation of other deleted scenes, it shall be considered canon."
 * There. That fixes your proplem. Shada and P.s. are then canon. I think this is the perfect solution to our ancient solution. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 09:04, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. The underlying reason for excluding deleted scenes hasn't changed just because they're "presented on their own as a separate narrative".  They're still scenes that didn't get finished according to the original plan.  Whether they're seen on their own or as part of a compilation is really quite beside the point.


 * And your proposed change wouldn't cover several instances where there's only one deleted scene on a DVD, or the Eight --> Nine regen in The Flood (graphic novel) (sorry, I think I've been wrongly saying Endgame (graphic novel) above).  It's presented as a "separate" point in the extra features there, as well.


 * I do happen to think that Shada counts when it comes to numbering the stories, and have argued that elsewhere. But that's a behind-the-scenes thing.  Policy doesn't deny the TV version's role in the history of the production of DW, because the rule is not, "Something is a valid source if it has a production code".


 * The point about Shada is again that it's so unfinished, major parts of the plot simply aren't present in the Baker version. If you try to fill in that part, either you go with the bit of fairly superficial linking narration by Baker, or you turn to other sources.  So you end up mixing media to come up with a complete story.  We don't allow that for any other story, so we're not going to start with Shada. There are multiple versions of the story that were completed.  That's more than enough to be getting on with.


 * Oh, and technically it's not a TV story. Its proper prefix would of course be HOMEVID.


 * Anyway, if you want to change the rules, please make your attempt in another thread. Again, as things stand, P.S. is clearly not a valid source under our current rules.  17:10: Sun 04 Nov 2012
 * Another point about HOMEVID: Shada. The linking narration has to be thrown out because of Baker's problematic use of the first person "I" and "me".  Is he meaning the Fourth Doctor or Tom Baker?


 * If he means Tom Baker, then it's clearly non-narrative and we therefore have no narrative for the points of the story that weren't filmed.


 * (By the time you get to episodes 5 and 6, you're talking segments that average to about 15 minutes that are almost entirely narration.)


 * But if he means the Fourth Doctor, we also have a problem. At the start of the whole programme, he's going around some Doctor Who museum where he's dressed exactly the same as he is during the narration — which is to say not like the Fourth Doctor.  Actually, he's as not dressed like the Fourth Doctor as you can get: double-breasted suit, hanky in the pocket, the full-on "Thatcherite businessman" look.  His hair looks nothing like it did even when he regenerated.  And he breaks the fourth wall in that opening segment with impunity, not by just his own actions (which obviously he did as the Fourth Doctor), but by mentioning the names of actors and writers.  I think on balance, one would have to say that he's presenting himself more or less as Tom Baker to begin with and that, in the narration, he's probably referring to himself, rather than the Fourth Doctor.  On balance, I think you could reasonably conclude — based on everything we know about Tom Baker — that he sees little difference between himself and the character.  Put in a way that would probably delight Mr Baker himself, it's entirely in Tom Baker's character to refer to himself as the character of the Fourth Doctor.


 * Otherwise, because this is a visual medium, you'd be forced to say that this was actually an "appearance of the Fourth Doctor", and you'd have to rationalise why he's wearing this suit, why his hair looks so different, that there's a museum in the DWU that clearly shows various races to be nothing more than full suits that can be worn, why there's a standard "EXIT" sign in a museum that includes races that have never been to Earth, and so forth.


 * Thus although the linking narration is fine for the composition of, say, the plot section at Shada (TV story), there is no valid linking narration that could be used for the writing of in-universe articles.


 * The in-universe sources for Shada are the webcast, the audio and now the novelisation. Like Human Nature, we can sorta squint our eyes and say that the same adventure happened to two Doctors — Eight on audio and web, Four in the novelisation.  But the home video is a collection of deleted scenes — which means that even under OS25's proposed new language for policy, it wouldn't count as a valid source.  17:54: Sun 04 Nov 2012