Forum:Validity: Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet?

Opening post
I think the BBV film Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? should be validated due to the "Chiropodist" character having an officially authorized mention in The Bloodletters, which is considered a valid source on this wiki. This is a clear case of Rule 4 by proxy. Cgl1999 ☎  05:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
The past discussion here is Forum:BBV and canon policy. I think I've made my sentiments on the subjects of obvious parody of Doctor Who, R4bp, and reading into authorial intent quite clear in prior threads. Najawin ☎  05:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the question in my mind is if it's valid to read the story as purposefully taking place in an alternate universe. From what I remember about the special, I think the main plot revolves around "Unlicensed Earth" and its relationship with those from "real Earth" who want it destroyed. As we established in a recent forum, something being a parody is not universally disqualifying if there's some question of Rule 4.


 * Furthermore, The Chiropodist appears in The Bloodletters, which in any other case would be a clear cut case of Rule 4 By Proxy, which is current policy. In my opinion, this story passes Rule 4.


 * To me the actual issue is Rule 2. At the start of the film, Rassilon himself has a fully animated cameo. This is clearly done as a gag, but an angled reading of T:VS could clearly indicate that, due to this quick cameo, we can't allow the story to be valid because it wasn't 100% licensed. Personally, I would be in favor of just letting this slide and probably creating Rassilon (Do You Have a License to Save This Planet?). But I could see why others would think it was more complex than that.


 * So, again, at the end of the day I would argue the full debate is down to if you think the Rassilon cameo makes the story unlicensed. Either way, I do think that this story justifies coverage, which historically it hasn't had. Basically, the story is technically not only non-valid but non-covered, and I think that's silly. OS25🤙☎️ 15:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My hot take is that using The Bloodletters as a means of validation through Rule 4 By Proxy would be a huge mistake and I can't really see this thread as anything other than an attempted stress test of R4BP. Even setting aside my own opinions on BBV validity, R4BP should not be used for "brief allusions" --such as the reference to the Chiroprodist --it's meant for far more robust secondary uses. Rule 2 should definitely bar this anyways, but I think it should be made clear that this level of use should not be sufficient for R4BP. NoNotTheMemes ☎  15:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and I think historical precedent in previous debates has made it clear that a reference this overt is perfectly fine. Besides this, I again want to emphasize that I don't think we need Rule 4 By Proxy. I think the original special was intended to be an AU adventure, thus we should cover it as one. I also would hesitate to assuming that the forum was created under bath faith, especially as I think it's a little rude to someone who appears to be a new editor. OS25🤙☎️ 15:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, it's obviously a mistake. But I've consistently called for more than brief allusions and people have consistently rejected my suggestion, so I don't think that this will be a sticking point here. Najawin ☎  17:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)