Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222080541/@comment-1789834-20161222093353

Well, if you look at it this way- the timelines up until those stories are not stated to differ from the established timeline in the Whoniverse. The Warner Doctor is an alternate Third Doctor (for example), but he was still Hartnell and Troughton and did all of the stuff that they did. Nothing suggests otherwise.

The story featuring the Doctor and Susan (who never left Gallifrey)... well their lives were exactly the same up until the moment they decided to not leave rather than leave... if you see my thought process.

Now, this differs from Dr. Who from the two movies as Dr. Who shares no relation to the Doctor, it does not come under the franchise of Doctor Who, whereas the others do (via Big Finish). Is it fair to raise at least two main criteria: 1. Must be the same timeline as the original Doctor but with a deviation at some point. 2. Must be incorporated into the main franchise umbrella of Doctor Who.

For me, the different versions of the Ninth Doctor shown in The Tomorrow Windows are all official alternate versions because up until the Eighth Doctor's regeneration, they were all essentially the same men... just parallel to one-another in space-time. Whereas, the Mark Gatiss version of the Doctor in The Web of Caves can only be invalid because it breaks at least the first criterium (as well as other validity rules on the Wiki). At no point are we told his relation to the main Doctor.

Just some ideas to throw into the pot. I'd like to think that I'm just playing devil's advocate and stoking the fires a little for this conversation but this is genuinely how I see alternate Doctors. The Atkinson Ninth Doctor (and all those who succeed him) break at least one of the criteria. Their backstories are also not specified, whereas, as you say, Big Finish state that their Unbound range adds a small change to the Doctor's original (unaltered) timeline and sees where it leads.

Anyway, I'm interested to see where this goes.