Forum:Validity: The Airzone Solution

Opening post
Now that my validity proposal has concluded has concluded, I have another BBV Rule 4 by proxy case that I would like to discuss. This one deals with The Airzone Solution, which I think could have a case for R4bp because the Airzone Corporation is mentioned in Jay Eales' subsection of Burning with Optimism's Flames' Contributors section, which is treated as a valid source by this wiki. Now, I'm aware that the original Airzone Solution film isn't covered on this wiki do to having no official connection to the DWU, however, the novelization of it is, albeit as an invalid source, due to containing officially licensed references to DWU elements. I think it would make sense to validate the novelization of TAZ by R4bp because of this reference. Cgl1999 ☎  05:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
IIRC the original film isn't covered because it has no licensed connection to Who, not authorial intent; so the film, like Cyberon, isn't covered because of a rule two reason, not a rule four reason, so R4BP applies. Even hypothetically, if the original film was covered but as invalid... I still wouldn't believe R4BP applies. Contributors is a very very silly story. I believe it should be valid, but not anything we take so literally. The namedrop about the AirZone Corporation is a joke, amongst others like "saggy arsed Cybermen", it's all very tongue in cheek and on the nose. I don't feel that this story intended to bring the film "into DWU continuity", I think it was just a joke. And the coverage of the novelisation is ancillary to this, as the novelisation came out after the BWOF short story... so R4BP cannot apply to that, surely? Also, IIRC, I do believe that novelisation definitely isn't meant to take place in the DWU given the only licensed concepts it uses being depicted as in-universe fiction. 13:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't comment on the rest, but I think we should be very skeptical of reading any R4bp implications out of Contributors, even on the most maximally charitable reading of the policy. It's very tongue in cheek and I can't imagine that it intends to seriously "bring [things] into continuity", since it itself is only vaguely "in continuity". Najawin ☎  21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the novelisation should be a valid source we already know that a fictional version of BBV exists with in Universe. An in Universe Doctor Who also exists. It may not be valid as a part of the main universe but as an alternate universe, much in the vain of Daft Dimensions or that one unbound audio that is set in a universe in which Doctor Who was never made and only stars an alternate reality version of the in universe Doctor Who. I do not think Arizona should be valid but possibly covered in much the way Cyberon used to be covered before the Cwej crossover? Anastasia Cousins ☎  15:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Anastasia, but I'm having some difficulty parsing your last message. You seem to go from "it should be valid because BBV stuff existing in-universe has precedent in the main universe" to "it should be valid as an alternate universe"? Which is it? Worth remembering that the purported R4BP source treats the Airzone Corp. as existing in the main universe, as far as can be determined. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I read somewhere on-wiki that Airzone Solution novelisation features a licenced appearance of Doctor X. Can't remember where. Aquanafrahudy  📢  20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure what Anastasia is suggesting here, because iirc, prior to the Cwej/PROBE stuff, we just outright didn't cover Cyberons in any valid sources - just DYHALTSTP, and to this day we don't cover Cyberon. There's nothing here that's transferrable to the case of Airzone. (I also, of course, strongly reject any comparisons to Unbound. This isn't even slightly analogous.)


 * As for Aquana's latest comment, this isn't proof. Often people can reference the term "Doctor Who" but don't do so, and just use a franchise instead. Dr. X is a common one to use. It doesn't indicate intent. Najawin ☎  20:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * What's Cyberon got to do with it? Aquanafrahudy  📢  20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing, I'd say, but Anastasia brought it up. I think she just meant that we'd "cover" Airzone in the same sense as we discussed the Cyberon franchise in the BTS section of our in-universe page on the Cyberons — i.e. our pages on the Airzone characters (based on the novelisation alone) would discuss, in brief, who played them and what their role was in the original movie, even if we don't have a page on the movie itself. That's a somewhat improper usage of "covered" in terms of Wiki-lingo, but the idea itself is sound. But it's also got little to do with this thread - we already cover the novelisation as invalid, so we can already do this. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * But Najawin, what reasoning would someone have for choosing to reference an in-universe franchise that they know exists in the Doctor Who universe over referencing the actual franchise itself, apart from the obvious? Aquanafrahudy  📢  21:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)