User:Aquanafrahudy/Sandbox the Second

Sorry for anyone reading this, for it is another long post
''I hope nobody minds my using headers, I don't think I'd be able to organise my thoughts otherwise; it'd all just be a jumbled mess, and besides, Najawin and Scrooge did it. Yes, I know that's no excuse, but I'm taking it as evidence that using headers isn't really a truly terrible crime, if I'm wrong please don't hesitate to tell me off.''

What, exactly is validity?
Following the trend started by Najawin and Scrooge MacDuck, I think I shall start by turning my mind to this little question.

From how I understand it, the validity/invalidity split exists to let us cover sources that are not intended to be set in the DWU. See User:CzechOut's comments quoted at the top of the page, which I will requote here because a) it's a bloody long way to scroll and b) Czech is quoted multiple times at the top of the page, so one can't be sure that one has found the right comment, even if a comment is found:

"Tangerineduel has made the point that we can't believe a writer who says that their work is canonical. That's very true. But, in my opinion, he's incorrect on the reverse. I think we do have to believe a writer who declares, "Look, this isn't a part of the mainstream continuity." After all, we've believed it before. I don't see any rational argument for doing something different in this case. Moreover, it's kinda stupid to say that as the author, unless you mean it. Saying something is out of continuity will have a negative impact on sales. So if someone says it, you do take it seriously, because they're acting against their self-interest."

- User:CzechOut

But we also say that parodies, fourth wall breaks and the like invalidate something. And there is also Rule 4 by proxy, which I think comes under the same subsection. So it appears that validity is really some intersection of the underlying reasoning behind Rule 4, and the question, "What is most helpful for us to present to our readers as valid?"

Does this make sense? I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. And do parodies, fourth wall breaks and r4bp fulfil that question?

Perhaps a more useful question would be "What ought validity to be?"

Authorial intent and where to place information
And so we return to the age-old debate: Where should information be placed. We are back to the same split we had back in Forum:Loosening T:NO RW. Well, technically have, seeing as that thread still hasn't closed or come to a consensus.

I do feel that we would be incomplete as a wiki were we to fail to mention The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) on Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows), but similarly I feel that we lose nothing by having them as two separate pages.

My feeling is that we should have Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) and Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows), and, if we are in any way unsure which one to place information on, we should place it on both. In the end, I don't really feel that "we have to decide where to put references to previous stories anyhow, so changing how we cover that story based entirely on later references doesn't have any problems" is an entirely convincing argument.

Authorial intent, 4 by proxy and logic
Having said that, seeing that rule 4 by proxy is primarily defined by retroactive authorial intent, theoretically, an established DWU author simply has to say "I consider x, y and z to be part of the DWU" for us to validate it. Why we have chosen to focus primarily on continuity references eludes me. Just something to think about, perhaps not entirely relevant.

The split of T:VS
Is the T:VS/T:CS split a massive change, like Najawin seems to think? I don't think so, but I can't be sure. Whether this is easy, sensible, or even possible, is an entirely different matter.

Firstly, what would be T:VS and T:CS are fairly intertwined, currently, and always have been. For a start, if we do decide to enact the change, we should at least wait until we've validated stage plays, LEGO Dimensions, escape rooms, and other things which are covered but are held to fail rule 1. Oh, and possibly deleted scenes, but I'm not sure enough of Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy to say for sure.

Secondly, what are we to do with minor licenced appearances? They're either covered and valid, or not covered at all. Do we put this on T:VS or T:CS? Both? Or do we just have to change it entirely? (No, I don't actually have an obsession with minor licenced appearances, they just interest me.)

Now, these aren't immediate deal-breakers, but they should give us food for thought, but my main bugbear with the split is that it doesn't change anything. It might make our policies slightly more coherent, and it arguably has some wide-reaching consequences for the rxbps (more on them below), but ultimately it changes nothing.

Informing the community, whether this is a good idea
Of course it's a good idea, I just wrote that because it worked well aesthetically as a title. If we do decide to do a major rewrite of T:VS, then we should definitely inform the community, post something in Discussions, perhaps social media, if it's a sufficiently large change, maybe we could do a thing where every user is invited to join via their talk page? (I don't know if this would be possible any more, or if we'd want to do it, but CzechOut did it for Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?, so there's arguably precedent?)

The Web of Coverage: Seeking mathematical perfection in validity
Seeing as my knowledge of algebra is significantly below that of one who has just passed their maths GCSE, I'm not entirely sure that this is a good idea.