Forum:The Daft Dimension and Doctor Who? as parallel universes

Opening post
Alrighty! I can't claim to be all that great at forming long-winded arguments of this nature, so I hope you're all willing to bear with me here.

To cut to the chase: Doctor Who? and The Daft Dimension should be validated as taking place in parallel universes. Or at the very least just acknowledged as taking place in parallel universes in general, "valid" or not.

The strongest case I can make for both works is authorial intent.

For Doctor Who?, said authorial intent is already addressed on that series page: as a product of DWM under Marvel UK, the gag comic is classed as a part of a reality in the official Marvel Multiverse, specifically, Earth-333333333, explicitly a different reality from the main Whoniverse (Earth-5556). A bunch of other Marvel properties are all also a part of this reality, but I'll leave that up to those who are more knowledgable on the strips.

As for The Daft Dimension, look no further than this post from the man himself; Lew Stringer not only considers it to be, as the title of the strip implies, set within its own, "daft" dimension where everything is much more silly, but he even goes as far as to suggest a shared universe with his other works.

Whether these universes should be classed as "validly existing in the Doctor Who multiverse" is something that you guys can decide on, but the intention is still clear in that these are not supposed to be in the Doctor's universe. The Doctor (Doctor Who?) and The Doctor (The Daft Dimension) are two completely different characters from the Doctor (N-Space). Their respective universes, and their inhabitants therein, are different from N-Space and those therein. It's as simple as that. WaltK ☎

P.S: As a side note, I'd like to give a special thanks to our own Scrooge MacDuck for directing me to Lew Stringer's testimony on the matter. WaltK ☎

Discussion
I support validating these two series and treating them as parallel universes, per authorial intent. Pluto2 ☎ 19:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Ditto Pluto2 Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  20:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I support validating these but only under a specific condition which might involve actually changing the text of our rules.


 * Here's my stance. I think, in practice for at least several years, the website has functioned with the idea that T:NPOV does have an exception when it's a case of an alternate reality. So, while Spiral Scratch and The Brink of Death are both treated with equal weight, two different universes are not. We don't need to cite Exile's off-color theory about gender-swapping regenerations every single time the topic comes up because, well... To use a phrase I once came up with that's been misappropriated recently, it's a universe, not the universe.


 * So if we allowed these two topics in the valid subspace, I would only want it with the promised condition that not only do these two universes not qualify for universal T:NPOV, but in-practice we're actually implementing the opposite. The Tenth Doctor's page only needs to mention or link to Tenth Doctor (The Dark Dimension) a single time in the "alternate realities" subsection or subpage. We do not need to constantly be saying "Oh this might have been true, but it was contradicted by one source. (COMIC: The Daft Dimension).


 * It is only if we accept this sort of anti-T:NPOV that I would even begin to consider that allowing these pages in the valid space would actively do anything other than making the website worse. OS25🤙☎️ 20:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with bestie OttselSpy25. These should be valid, but under those rules. Also I think the wiki would benefit from a rule that doesn't exclude official parodies straight away as sometimes, rarely, but sometimes parodies are intended to be in the Doctor Who multiverse. Also I think the wiki would also benefit from differentiating between Doctor Who comedies and Doctor Who parodies some more. The aforementioned often gets declared invalid because it's mistaken for the latter. See: Looking for Pudsey. 81.108.82.15talk to me 20:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You have some good points there! Technically, we've never validated a "satire" or "parody" for being DWU by proxy of intention to be a parallel universe.

Also, I wanted to mention quickly that my Anti-T:NPOV idea isn't really a new policy, as it's more of a T:BOUND issue of a rule we've been acting off of for years which we've never written down.

Finally, I have a question. What are we going to do about the occasional Quinnn & Dicky stories which we do cover as valid? For instance, COMIC: Nostalgia Corner. Does this story feature John Who, or should the information in the story be moved to John Who (Doctor Who?)?

Are we going to continue and presume that there are Quinn & Dicky stories set in the "primary" DWU, or will we now retroactively say that all currently-valid Quinn & Dicky stories take place in Earth-33 1/3? See also: The Test of Time, Enlightenment. OS25🤙☎️ 20:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have ...misgivings with validating Doctor Who? in this manner, but I could accede at the end of the day if everyone really really wants it? Given that parodies are strictly verboten on T:VS and this is a parody of Doctor Who, unlike CoFD, I think I'm against validity. (Gonna guess that it's more controversial than the people above suspect though.) I simply can't imagine validating Daft Dimension based on the evidence linked. That's so astonishingly poor that it boggles the mind. I have no qualms with treating either as alternate universes that are invalid, if that's authorial intent. Though it is a bit odd. ("According to an invalid source there is a parallel universe in which xyz happened, but that invalid source tells us nothing about what the main DWU universe would be like that we still couldn't cover on IU pages because it would be invalid". I mean, sure. A bit weird, but knock yourself out.) Najawin ☎  01:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The title the Daft Dimension seems enough proof to me it’s set in another reality. Another dimension. Even without the authorial intent. Even if I hated the idea of these being valid, I’d have to concede due to the overwhelming evidence that they pass rule 4 on title alone 81.108.82.15talk to me 01:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, to be absolutely fair, the comic is named after The Dark Dimension, which itself wasn't set in a dimension but a timeline. But semantics. OS25🤙☎️ 02:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The title is very much a reference to The Dark Dimension. I don't in any way see that as "overwhelming evidence" for rule 4. Najawin ☎  02:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That’s fair, but the author’s intent then backing it up as well. Fair enough if you disagree, but I’m firmly in the “valid because they fit the rules, even if I don’t like it” category. 81.108.82.15talk to me 10:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The source provided says no such thing. It's a blatant misrepresentation of that link to portray it as suggesting that authorial intent takes it to be in the mainline DWU. If there's other evidence, I'm willing to consider it. But the evidence provided is nowhere near sufficient. Najawin ☎  19:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair, but disagree. The evidence for validity seems clear rule 4 pass to me. 81.108.82.15talk to me 19:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've been really bad at making time for participating forum threads recently, but as the creator of the pages for the vast majority of Quinn & Howett's stories on this Wiki I've made contributing to this one a major priority. I have less knowledge of The Daft Dimension, so my thoughts here refer only to Doctor Who? and its close relatives.

My take is that yes, Doctor Who? should be validated due to authorial intent placing it in a parallel universe. "Earth-333333333" (or "Earth 33⅓") was created by Tim Quinn and Dicky Howett, the people behind Doctor Who?, a couple of years prior to the start of their Who? work and this dimension was where all their parodic stories for Marvel Comics took place. As the OP states Earth-333333333 is part of the larger Marvel Multiverse, the same multiverse where the Doctor's adventures in Doctor Who Magazine occurred. The fact that Earth-333333333 is truly where Doctor Who? is set is alluded to on several occasions but in my opinion is no clearer than in the first story, wherein the Fifth Doctor meets several superheroes, including Quinn and Howett's pre-existing parodic creation Jet Lagg, with precisely zero indication of travel between universes.

With that out of the way, I'll now move on to the more difficult question of how much Quinn & Howett material to classify as a parallel universe, with some of these stories currently considered valid and deemed to take place in N-Space. And, saved for last, but certainly not least:
 * All weekly instalments of Doctor Who? from DWM 64 to DWM 225: As stated above, these clearly take place in Earth-333333333.
 * The Doctor Who? story published in Channel 33⅓: Another clear candidate for parallel invalidity. This story was originally intended to be published as part of the main series in DWM 64 and the name of the publication Channel 33⅓ also alludes to the name of Earth 33⅓.
 * Doctor Who? 350 and Doctor Who?: Although produced after Marvel stopped publishing Doctor who Magazine, these stories are a continuation of the series in the same vein and should be classed as part of the same universe, with the latter referencing this by stating Quinn and Howett were "in their 33⅓rd regenerations".
 * The eleven stories making up The History Tour: Despite creating these as valid as I thought it was a separate series, I now believe that was wrong. There was a thread on the old forums which had pretty much agreed on invalidating this series when the forums blew up. Since that discussion was abruptly concluded, I have also discovered that the series was sometimes called the "DOCTOR WHO? HISTORY TOUR" on the contents page. A clear spin-off, meaning it should be in the same universe as its parent series.
 * The four Quinn & Howett stories from "special issues" of DWM: These are very much cut from the same cloth as Doctor Who? and should be classed as the same universe. The Next 20 Years, An Unearthly Child: The Unscreened Edition and Ever Wondered What Happened At.. The Auditions For The Seven Doctors? would be valid in this context, but So You Think You'd Make A Good Companion For Dr Who! should remain invalid pending the result of the proposed fourth wall and branching narratives threads.
 * The other four (invalid) Quinn & Howett stories from regular issues of DWM, not explicitly labelled as Doctor Who?: Again, these are almost instalments of Doctor Who? in all but name and should get parallel universe validity. Everyone Wants To Read Doctor Who Magazine and Untitled (DWM 181) would have been invalid for being ads not long ago, but this is no longer a problem.
 * Enlightenment from DWM 105: I created this one as valid too, but with hindsight I think that was incorrect. It's status as a story set in the main Doctor's universe is currently hindering accurate coverage of its contents. In the story we see several numbered portraits inside the TARDIS: -10, -6, No. 1, No. 2, No. 13 and No. 33. No. 1 and No. 2 resemble William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton, clearly meaning that we are supposed to interpret all these portraits as incarnations of the Doctor. But we don't, because it would be a bit silly. Retaining validity but reclassifying to the parallel universe would help us to cover these portraits as was originally intended. Additionally, No. 13 is identical to an actor considered for the part of the Seventh Doctor but rejected in favour of Sylvester McCoy in Doctor Who? 128 so there's clearly some sort of relationship there.
 * All the currently-invalid (and yet-to-be-created) contents of The Doctor Who Fun Book and It's Bigger on the Inside!: I see no reason why these shouldn't be given parallel universe validity as they are essentially extensions of Doctor Who? in the same way The History Tour was. The Doctor Who Fun Book was published by Target Books, not Marvel, but there are very similar styles between the two and the Fun Book was given an in-universe counterpart in a couple instalments of Doctor Who?.
 * The three currently-invalid Quinn & Howett stories from Doctor Who Yearbook: Very clear candidates for parallel universe validity, with both The Complete Guide to Doctor Who? and Doctor Who's Infamous Moments in History both being explicitly identified as part of Doctor Who?. Untitled (DWY93) isn't, but presents no issues.
 * Untitled (DW94), from Doctor Who Yearbook 1994: I apparently created this as valid but can't for the life of me remember why. Very much in the tone of the Doctor Who? and should be reclassed as happening in a parallel universe.
 * Untitled 1 and The Doctor Who Awards Cermony 1989 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: These should be valid as a parallel universe because they were both seemingly omitted from publication in Doctor Who? and It's Bigger on the Inside! respectively by mistake, to such an extent that It's Even Bigger on the Inside purports that they were originally released in this manner.
 * Untitled 2 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: We cover just the reprint of this because it's claimed to be another appearance of the Duke of Bath from Doctor Who? 90. I'd probably grant it parallel universe validity on that basis. The original version from would remain not-covered, unless someone wanted to argue it as a case of Rule 4 by Proxy?
 * Untitled 3 and Untitled 5 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: These are early drafts of Doctor Who? stories which were later given full releases in Doctor Who Magazine. We should re-classify these as taking place in a parallel universe but due to them being replaced by superior versions I think they fail Rule 4 and should remain invalid.
 * Untitled 4 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: A completed instalment of Doctor Who? featuring Harry Sullivan which was originally intended for publication in DWM 121 before being pulled due to the death of Harry's actor Ian Marter. Unlike the two stories above, this was never released for real-world concerns rather than simply being unfinished, so I'd say its 2015 release qualifies for parallel universe validity.
 * Untitled 6, Origins of Who? and Untitled 10 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: All three of these were originally produced for fan conventions during the era of Doctor Who?. I'm unsure of what to do with these, but the unlicensedness of the originals and the fact these were made for conventions about Doctor Who in general, I'd probably leave them as they are, invalid but in N-Space.
 * The six instalments of A Moment from 'Doctor Who' from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: These were taken from Dicky Howett's private collection so parallel universe authorial intent is doubtful at best. Again, I'd leave these as invalid but in N-Space.
 * Untitled 8, Untitled 9 and Character portraits from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: These are all private commissions so, once again, I doubt there was any parallel universe intent at the time of their production, meaning they should remain invalid but in N-Space.
 * Untitled 11 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: This is a weird one, being promotional material from an unproduced fan audio starring Richard Franklin as Mike Yates. Without opening up any potential can of worms, I think it's fair to say this one can remain invalid but in N-Space.
 * Untitled 12 from It's Even Bigger on the Inside: This one doesn't come with much explanation but it seems parallel universes would not have been on Howett's mind when he drew this. As such, it can remain invalid.
 * All eight stories from the "From Other Worlds" section of It's Even Bigger on the Inside: As the name suggests, this is the section of the book featuring stories by Quinn & Howett with small Doctor Who references. These are entirely divorced from Earth-333333333 and should remain invalid in N-Space.
 * The six stories the Wiki covers from Quinn & Howett's autobiographies, Drawing Breath and Argh!: Similarly to the above, these are not related to Earth-333333333 in the slightest and are often small Doctor Who-related cameos. They should stay invalid in N-Space.
 * The Test of Time and Nostalgia Corner from The Doctor Who Fun Book and It's Bigger on the Inside! respectively: I've saved these for last because they are probably the stories most deserving of discussion here. The "big" stories of their respective publications, they are both currently valid, which I believe is the correct decision. The Test of Time is much more serious in tone than anything else Quinn or Howett did and its status as a genuine entry set in the Doctor Who universe is backed up by its tie-ins to the television stories An Unearthly Child and The Web Planet. Nostalgia Corner is admittedly less serious than The Test of Time but I do think (as a story featuring the First Doctor, John and Gillian) that it's as faithful as possible to stories of the TV Comic era without descending into parody and does try to tell an actual story with this TARDIS team. Compare John and Gillian's depictions here to their appearance in Doctor Who? 72; you'll see a world of difference.

Very briefly (because this is probably one of my longest single posts ever) I also wanted to address the naming conventions for Doctor Who? and The Daft Dimension. The system I established for the many unnamed instalments of these series which can only be differentiated by issue number in page names (e.g. Doctor Who? (DWM 64 comic story) and Doctor Who? (DWM 65 comic story)) was to render these in text as Doctor Who? 64 and so on. I did this for two reasons: firstly, so that the number in the link matched the number in the page name; and secondly, because (in my opinion) people are more likely to know the issue number of a particularly instalment than the in-series number. For example, if I've just read DWM 201, Doctor Who? 201 is much more useful to me than Doctor Who? 138. Similarly, I feel Doctor Who? 350 for DWM 350 is way more intuitive than Doctor Who? 162. This way of doing things was acknowledged as T:BOUND-style de facto policy at User talk:Bongolium500 but this is a good opportunity to properly codify it (or choose a different method altogether). Borisashton ☎  23:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful, thank you Borisashton. OS25🤙☎️ 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't planning on having an opinion in this thread, but I've been very persuaded by Boris' analysis. I second his recommendations in full, including establishing the naming format, which I think will very usefully generalize to other contexts as well. – n8 (☎) 23:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have the same reservations of allowing Parodies of DW to pass R4, as they're specifically verboten, but this a very exhaustive analysis. Still against. But pretty much so on technical grounds. I'd say like 55/45 against. Najawin ☎  23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That’s why I say use this thread to change that rule. Make it so parodies don’t fail rule 4 by default, but instead should be investigated to see if there’s specific authorial intent that it’s in the DW multiverse. As rare as it is. Or if rule 4 by proxy comes knocking. Parodies should be assumed invalid, but not barred from validity in certain circumstances. Also, side note, the no parody rule causes Doctor Who comedies to be invalid. There should be a rule that non parodic comedies shouldn’t fail rule 4 for being funny: see Looking for Pudsey. As mentioned above. 81.108.82.15talk to me 23:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The "no parody" rule does not cause Doctor Who comedies to be invalid, this is flatly false. This was explicitly ruled upon in the most recent CoFD thread. See User:Scrooge MacDuck/The Lost Closing Post. The work in question need not be merely humorous, but a parody of Doctor Who to fail this rule. Najawin ☎  00:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I personally think that there's clearly a difference between a parody that says "This doesn't count" and a parody which says "This exists in its own universe, a universe which has different internal values." OS25🤙☎️ 01:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. As I understand it, the section of T:VS with regards to parodies ("What doesn't count") is just providing examples of applications of the four rules. Parodies are listed as an application of rule 4— i.e., most parodies are, by nature, not "intended to be in the DWU". However, as the evidence above shows, Doctor Who? and The Daft Dimension don't seem to follow this pattern. I think that section could do with better wording because not all parodies fail rule 4 in this way, and the current phrasing implies they are mutually exclusive.


 * Anyways, I fully support the proposal as well. I basically said as much on the talk page a while ago. I had found coverage of Doctor Who? confusing because it's very much set in its own continuity, and even in the invalid realm, explaining what happens in those strips with links to usual pages like Fifth Doctor is pretty misleading. Parallel universes aside, it's clear he's not only different from the usual Doctor you just saw on TV, but is also his own distinct version. So valid or not, these ought to be handled separately. But I do think there is sufficient evidence that these comics are intended to be set in the DWU, as parallel realities, and as such do pass rule 4. Chubby Potato ☎  03:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal, while I think Najawin is right to be cautious, I think OS25 and Chubby Potato make a compelling argument about why this is different from most parodies. Time God Eon ☎  16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this characterization of parodies if they were only mentioned in the first chart. But they're also mentioned in the list of exceptions at the bottom.
 * Though almost everything which is licensed by the BBC and other rights' holders is considered a valid source here, our community occasionally rules certain works of fiction out of bounds. [...] If something is blatantly a spoof of the DWU rather than an "earnest" DWU narrative, it can safely be created as invalid even without a thread to specifically rule on the matter. However, "obvious" implies no significant disagreement; if there are conflicting opinions on whether a work qualifies asa parody, it should be taken to the forums.
 * This isn't a mere case of example, it's an explicit disallowal of parody. Maybe we should change this! But at the very least it's a pretty damn big deal, and isn't the same as just treating these things as "alternate universes", this is a much more serious discussion we need to have. Najawin ☎  19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed that if this is passed we should change that rule.
 * Though almost everything which is licensed by the BBC and other rights' holders is considered a valid source here, our community occasionally rules certain works of fiction out of bounds. [...] If something is blatantly a spoof of the DWU rather than an "earnest" DWU narrative, it can safely be created as invalid. This is however unless there is specific authorial intent that places the official or licensed parody in the DWU or a later story brings the parody into the DWU. Official parodies should not be barred from validity due that nature, but can be assumed rule 4 failures until the aforementioned evidence is presented.
 * We should change it to this. 81.108.82.15talk to me 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And as said, this is an absolutely massive change that needs substantially more evidence and motivating examples than what we have here. Maybe we should! But I'm not going to support doing such a thing in this thread on the basis of the evidence provided. We'd be turning over a decade of wiki jurisprudence, that's a big deal. It needs to be handled with care. (PS: In case you missed it, I addressed the Pudsey issue on your "talk page", such as it exists when you're an IP user.) Najawin ☎  20:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Moving back to the debate, I had somehow missed this page linked in the OP. I think this is pretty convincing, that Lew actively agrees that Daft Dimension is a parallel universe and part of this greater works "Lewniverse". OS25🤙☎️ 22:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's precisely what I consider to be not even slightly convincing. :P Najawin ☎  23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I did some reading on this topic, and I was actually wrong to say that Tardis Wiki has never validated a parody story for being set in a parallel universe. In fact, it was once site policy that we were supposed to do this by default. So I think there is some precedent to do it for individual stories like these. OS25🤙☎️ 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * More complicated than that. It was policy, for about a year. But it's not clear that it ever meaningfully applied to anything except the Cushing films in that time. See Talk:The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story). There's an application of a proto R4bp and CoFD is taken to be DWU 3.5 months into the span of this policy. This change is applied to the page on October 4th. This was reversed in March, CoFD becomes outright notDWU, and things begin to slide towards valid/invalid. I note also that the thread this policy was "derived" from was Forum:More canon questions - which very much did not come to a consensus. It was just Tangerine trying to clean up the canon policy as he thought best, but ultimately didn't have community consensus.


 * I would be deeply hesitant to derive anything meaningful from this, given the surrounding historical context. Najawin ☎  18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It still seems to me that the "no parodies of any kind under any context" rule wasn't nearly as unanimous as our wiki's history books would suggest. So it seems to me there no fault in doing things in a case-by-case basis, instead of just invaliding everything or invalidating nothing. There's a good place between the two extremes.


 * As per that talk page, it seems to me that Tangerine was adopting the policy which had been suggested by others and is actually what we should have had in the first place, in regards to things like Curse of Fatal Death and the Unbound series. OS25🤙☎️ 21:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Timeline doesn't work, if I'm understanding you correctly. It goes Forum:More canon questions -> Tangerine changes it -> Talk:The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story) happens and CoFD gets validated into the mainline DWU on the wiki. Tangerine's not changing it because people suggest this specific change, he changes it unilaterally in response to someone pointing out that the canon policy is just vague and ambiguous in general on certain issues. Czech pushes back quite hard on the way in which he changes it and the issue is just never addressed. (You're free to do your own search through the forums and talk pages during this time period if you don't believe me. I honestly don't remember seeing anything.)


 * This is not something we want to base policy off of. It's precisely the opposite of why I think we should consult prior threads and talk pages, this was a decision done by fiat, no matter how well intentioned, we simply don't have substantial arguments here for this change, and do have dissent. I don't see a way to square the idea that we should take this as precedent with your earlier idea that we shouldn't listen to policy from 10 years ago as a guide to the wiki today.


 * Regardless, we've got a ruling that CoFD isn't a parody of Doctor Who, so I don't think it matters if it's ever been valid before as to the question of whether parodies should be valid. It's also not what you were suggesting this period in the wiki's history is precedent for - rather, that we validate things as an alternate universe. Najawin ☎  22:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * All I'm seeing here is one admin repping for a policy which was then written down, then a different admin saying he disagrees. Why am I supposed to assume that the rule of law of the latter admin has any more weight than the former?


 * And indeed, the Cushing films were listed as valid as far back as 2005. So in the case of the forum you listed, it is of more historical note that the films were considered acceptable as a parallel universe than that Czech said he disagreed one day and actively ignored the rules we had written down?


 * All I'm saying is that this concept clearly goes back as far as the start of the wiki, and a much more extreme version was written down in T:CANON for two years. So it seems logical for us to study these in case-by-case basees, as we are doing right now. OS25🤙☎️ 03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But it's even more complicated than this, in February, 4 months before the discussion in question, Czech moves the Cushing films to NC. Yes he did so unilaterally and shouldn't have, but Tangerine edited the page linked in April and didn't remove the template at the time. Czech also recategorized parodies and pastiches as explicitly noncanon in February, during a large change to categories. And while Tangerine didn't comment on this specific change, he actively thanked Czech for the overall category changes being made and noted that he notices most stuff on the wiki. (Note that the time on the last comment is after the change made. Not proof that it was seen. But the issue was complicated!)

Prior to the change Tangerine made in June, the sources are explicitly called secondary, which means they're not to be used without a primary source backing them up, as well as non-canonical. I don't think the issue is as clear as you're portraying it. I'm not saying "oh, no, we can't do this, it would be awful and horrible". I'm saying I don't think this is good precedent for that decision, a rather major change. I emphasize that many of my qualms in thread after thread have been about the reasoning presented. This is no different. I'm not thrilled at the idea of validating these, but at the end of the day I think there's a decent case for validating Doctor Who?. But overturning our explicit disavowal on parody is a large deal, and I don't think you're pointing to well thought out precedent. Najawin ☎  05:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * All I'm doing here is citing a historical viewpoint and a historical rule which was written down on paper. If you disagree that's fine, I'm simply saying that it's clear that historical consensus on this topic was not unanimous. I also think you're incorrect in saying that the "secondary canon" distinction is important, as again the rule states that these stories were to be covered as alternate universes. Of course they were "secondary", they were secondary universes. OS25🤙☎️ 16:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I said they were secondary sources. See the language prior to the change:
 * These sources are as[sic] also valid resources, however should not be the only resource of an article.
 * I agree the issue didn't have unanimous agreement! But that's not all you said. You began this section of conversation with saying:
 * I did some reading on this topic, and I was actually wrong to say that Tardis Wiki has never validated a parody story for being set in a parallel universe. In fact, it was once site policy that we were supposed to do this by default. So I think there is some precedent to do it for individual stories like these.
 * The reality is more complicated than that. That's all I'm saying. This would make for poor precedent. Najawin ☎  17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the language prior to change, and I'm here to tell you it says what I've been saying it says.


 * Both Dalek movies starring Peter Cushing (i.e., Dr. Who and the Daleks, Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 AD) These are valid provided they are dealt with in article specific articles relating to the theatrical movies and characters developed in the universe established in the movies.


 * I.E. The Dalek films are their own universe, and are to be covered on their own relevant pages (Dr. Who, Louise (Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.), Ian Chesterton (Dr. Who and the Daleks)). This is what the policy said, even if it was filed under "secondary canon" that's not what the actual policy for the Dalek films states.


 * And on the topic of parodies, all I'm saying is that as we once had a rule going strongly in the opposite direction, studying satirical works in a case-by-case basis is justified. Historically, one admin said no parodies ever and another said all parodies as presumed alternate universes, we are finding a reasonable middle ground. OS25🤙☎️ 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It does say that. While also listing them under secondary sources. This "secondary canon" thing you're getting at isn't in the policy. Anyone reading this is free to check! It's about sources. It explicitly names them as secondary sources, which are stated to only be used in conjunction with other sources. Adding additional comments to that doesn't change what is said about secondary sources. But this is a pretty esoteric point about a policy that's been out of practice for 10 years.
 * Historically, one admin said no parodies ever and another said all parodies as presumed alternate universes
 * Changes in policy are not the same thing as admin disagreement. Even if this characterization were accurate, which it is not, it wouldn't matter after the changing of T:CANON into T:VS or Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, where User:Josiah Rowe agrees with the parody criterion, and Tangerine appeals to it as well to explain why Infinity Doctors is different. I don't know what more to say. Najawin ☎  18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to say either. I had assumed, and quite reasonably I think, that saying "Secondary sources when it comes to Tardis Canon" and "Secondary Tardis canon" are synonyms, at least when talking about policy history in context.


 * And I simply don't understand why a policy written down from 2010-2012 is something we need to universally ignore as historically existing, while three people agreeing in a different debate must universally be respected 13 years later. OS25🤙☎️ 18:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I also generally think that the historical ban on all parodies is staked pretty heavily in the Wiki's political history with DWU once meaning that parallel universes were invalidated by default, such as the Unbound series being non-valid until 2017. OS25🤙☎️ 20:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the term "Secondary Tardis canon" isn't used, it doesn't seem to be a synonym. Secondary sources, as I understand them were sources you could use to support and fill out an article if a primary source already established the fact. There were attempts to delineate different levels of "canon" early in the wiki's history, using italics to differentiate TV sources from EU sources. See Forum:Let's Get Organised and Talk:The Doctor/Archive 1, but this was abandoned. So this doesn't seem to be what "secondary source" means.


 * Why does it matter that these people agree in a thread as opposed to disagree earlier? Well, let's be clear, I brought up Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon? to note that policy had changed, and that there was consensus, rather than that there was unilateral action to clear up confusing wording and disagreement on the part of users. But the reason why I think we should, at times, listen to old threads and talk pages is when there is reasoning present in them. Mere agreement or disagreement is interesting, but ultimately not determinative of best practices for the wiki. What is interesting is the arguments used in such a thread. This is why long drawn out threads with lots of back and forth tend to be helpful, because they allow users to expand on their thoughts and try to convince others.


 * I note again that it's entirely possible that we should make this change and that it's a good idea. I just think that this is very bad precedent for doing so. I think the reasons we give to enact change are at least as important as the change we enact. I don't like this reason. That's all. Najawin ☎  21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

With regards to covering The Daft Dimension as a parallel universe, I must admit the idea appeals to me but as it stands I'm not satisfied with validating such a large body of work based entirely off of a statement which arose due to prompting from a fan in that specific direction. If further statements can be found in which Stringer refers to "a daft dimension" or something similar then this comment is lovely supplementary evidence but in the absence of anything else the fact he says the alternative universe idea "sounds good" doesn't suggest to me that it was his authorial intent for any of the seventy instalments from before The Daft Dimension 553.

All that said, I have attempted to do some research on the web to look for more evidence, though as I said upthread this is not my area of expertise. Stringer has mentioned the "Lewniverse" as far back as 2017 so that seems to be an original coinage. In 2021, he stated:

This reference to Skegpool, originally from Stringer's Combat Colin strip for Marvel UK, is especially interesting because the location has appeared in two Daft Dimension stories which we know of, The Daft Dimension 568 and The Daft Dimension 581. He also refers to Skegpool as "the linking theme to the Stringerverse" here.

Diving deeper down the rabbit hole, I discovered that there exists a "Marvel Lewniverse" covered by the Marvel Database in a similar vein to Quinn and Howett's stuff, namely Earth-8377. Although the Wiki coverage is stubby, I was able to glean from Combat Colin's that Colin's stories were set in this universe at least to some degree, with the series featuring "humorous cameo appearances from Transformers and characters from the Marvel universe". One story in particular sees Colin trapped in "The Place of No Return", where "Stringer's comedy back-up characters for Marvel UK" have been residing. Expounding on this, this could mean that The Daft Dimension is set in Earth-8377 through its connections to Combat Colin and provide a route for parallel universe validity using the same Marvel Multiverse logic as Doctor Who?.

To be honest, I'm still not completely convinced with this myself for the big reason that The Daft Dimension is not published by Marvel and is only implicitly brought into its multiverse by virtue of crossovery elements. I think the argument is certainly better than before but I'd still say I'm reluctant to validate these. If some more Daft Dimension-specific quotes can be found, my position would be subject to change. Borisashton ☎  21:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal. Danniesen ☎  10:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A new development in regards to The Daft Dimension; new testimony from Lew Stringer! This definitely reads as explicit confirmation to me. WaltK ☎  16:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Why? "Alternate reality" can refer to many different things on this wiki, some of which are valid, some of which are invalid. That doesn't read as confirmation that it's intended to be a parallel universe within the same literary universe. If all we're discussing is the original topic of the thread, then what's being suggested is "According to an invalid source there is a parallel universe in which xyz happened, but that invalid source tells us nothing about what the main DWU universe would be like that we still couldn't cover on IU pages because it would be invalid". Going beyond that is explicitly verboten by T:VS, it's a parody, we have explicit rules against parodies. You need more evidence to overturn that than simply saying a source passes R4. Even if a source passes R4, if it's a parody it's still disallowed. Najawin ☎  18:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * With respect this is just a fan wiki run for fun. Policies are helpful for editing, but let's not pretend that because something is policy that it's impossible to chnage. It'd take all of five minutes for an admind to close the thread saying "parodies can count with rule 4 intent" and add it to the valid source page. Easy. Precedent shouldn't be a barrier in changing the precedent. The response is to a question asking if the daft dimension is alternative to the Doctor’s main universe. That’s pretty clean cut. 81.108.82.15talk to me 18:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, they can change. The question is whether it's good jurisprudence to do so ignoring precedence based on evidence that merely refers to R4 intent on two individual instances, rather than as a larger conversation (it is not), and whether this would be a good policy change overall (also no, since R4 assumes validity by default). The 4 rules are a summary of T:VS, they are not its entirety. It really doesn't matter that this passes R4 unless there's a larger discussion to revisit the issue of parody. Najawin ☎  18:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello.

Not presently resolving this thread because 1) I don't think there's a consensus on how to interpret Stringer's comments yet, and 2) this is a fairly big endeavour deserving a bigger time-span on principle.

But I feel I must step in to resolve the broader policy controversy. This thread is empowered to overturn the no-parodies-ever rule. The point that this is something quite different from User:Najawin's interest in past "dissenting opinions" is well-taken, but nevertheless it does count for something that default, blanket validity for parodies was once the explicit, textual policy of this Wiki. The sky won't fall if we revert to that; it's not the very heart of T:VS or anything. And the policies exist to serve the Wiki, not the other way round. If the community comes to a consensus to overturn some minor part of T:VS, that is within the community's power through a lawful Forum thread.

In any case I believe the rule has in the past been misconstrued and overinterpreted. Consider this an extension of the points I made at Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Inclusion debates speedround: the four little rules are the heart of T:VS. Anything else like "does this break the fourth wall?" or "is it a crossover?" or even "is it a branching interactive narrative?" only matters insofar as it is felt to be evidence that something fails one of the actual Four Little Rules. In the case of parodies, it has been a long-standing assumption that if something is intended to be a parody, then it must not be intended to take place in the literary universe of Doctor Who in earnest.

But if we have even stronger evidence of Rule-4-compliance to counterbalance it, we should not act as though being a parody is a conversation-stopper in absolutely all cases. Like acute fourth-wall-breaking, it's merely strong circumstantial evidence that something should be assumed, by default, to fail Rule 4. (I do say if, i.e. for the sake of argument; again I am not presently ruling about the strength of the evidence for DW? and TDD in particular.)

I cannot say for certain whether this is what has always been intended when people have cited that rule. But it's what's in line with the rest of our policies and with the evident wishes of the community. And it's in line with the fact that "Parodies don't count" has never been "Rule 5"; just a footnote, an extension of the Four Little Rules. So let us agree that this is what it means going forwards. I'm sorry about Najawin's procedural scruples, which honour him as always, but for pity's sake, we're human beings doing this in our free time. There is no sense drawing out the elimination of a misshapen policy that is simply not in line with what T:VS and Tardis are actually all about in 2023.

(The one actual, rather than procedural, worry expressed thus far has been Najawin's concern that it would not be good policy because "R4 assumes validity by default", so let me clarify my earlier point that parodical nature is to be treated like egregious fourth-wall-breaks as one of the few things that do justify something being invalid by default, placing the onus on people wanting to argue validity. Valid parodies are to be a special case. But it is a special case that sometimes happens, we are now coming to realise, and if there is one thing I have steadfastly refused to do in my tenure as an admin, it is to ever stand for the throwing out of any babies with the bathwater.)

Though as a post-scriptum… For what it's worth, even if both series were to remain, I don't think the question of whether TDD and DW? are intended to be their own universes is as abstract as Najawin fears it would be. For example, it's the difference between coverage amidst other Rule-4-failing sources at Eleventh Doctor/Non-valid sources, and coverage of exclusively Stringer sources at an -tagged Eleventh Doctor (The Daft Dimension)! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scrooge (not that my opinion hardly matters). I think that whenever we have random rules which have nothing to do with the "foundational four rules," we should feel free to amend them. As parodies do not all fail the four rules by default, it's fair to allow a few to be valid under specific circumstances.


 * The presumption has always been that they fail rule 4. But clearly here we have as situation where we have at least one exception. OS25🤙☎️ 02:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm still deeply hesitant to validate these things at this time due to the explicit ban on parody. We don't have the forum archives back, and the one thread I remember on the subject that was archived is very explicitly against parody in general, even if some of the details have changed since that specific discussion. See User:CzechOut's comment:
 * By contrast, Doctor Who is not Doctor Who?. The former is the thing which is the major creator of the DWU, and therefore the main topic of this wiki. Episodes which belong to it are explicitly valid on this wiki. The latter is a parodic comic strip, which the authors and publishers have called parodic, and its individual strips have no validity when writing of articles here.


 * We absolutely can and will kick parodies to the curb with extreme prejudice. Please note that Tardis:Valid sources specifically outlaws parodies.
 * multiple people in this thread express similar sentiments. My suspicion is that there is even more evidence for this in the forums that we can't see. People are suggesting overturning 10 years of wiki jurisprudence because of two strips, one of which still has, imo, wildly ambiguous authorial intent. This is a really bad idea. Najawin ☎  23:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally, I've been around this website for over ten years. And it's always been my take that the rules are designed to be written and rewritten by us - the users. We are bound to two kinds of policy - policy which is written down and policy which is actively followed in the current era. Both can easily be debated and altered if the views of the editors evolve over time.


 * But you seem to much more personally believe that there's a third side to this - that we are not only bound to the current practices and the policies written down but also every potential argument ever made about this topic at any point in the site's history. The idea being that to change a rule I need not only debate everyone in this forum, but also the ghosts of inactive admins and users. That before we enact any new policy, we must first consider something User:Mini-mitch said about this in 2015!


 * I just don't see it that way. And going through what historical forums we do have, it seems the admins of 2008-2012 didn't see it this way either, as they were constantly "starting from scratch" without considering former decisions and rules. And if we get back the old forum archives tomorrow, there is not a bone in my body that will accept the idea that we have to re-do any of our recent debates for any reason, no matter how many new ghost arguments we end up finding. OS25🤙☎️ 02:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * But what you're objecting to is to some extent written into the rules of the wiki. We are required to consider old threads on topics we're discussing or else we're violating T:POINT. Insofar as there is even a possible dividing line, it must be between making the same arguments as users in the past have done that were found not to be compelling, and arguments that users are making against positions slightly adjacent to the ones you're currently promoting. (I note also that neither T:BOUND, T:WRITE POLICY, nor T:POINT were written until 2012. Perhaps there was a rather large change in how the wiki functioned at that time, and we shouldn't take pre-2012 wiki as being the best guide for post-2012 wiki, yes? In the same way that late2020-2022 wiki is also not indicative of other times.) Najawin ☎  03:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And yet, as someone who again has been on the website 11 years, I have never once seen a recently discussed forum topic be thrown out because we suddenly found a previous forum that disagreed with it. And I think we are doing are due diligence to consider the topic at hand and the historical beliefs about it, and it is my reading that parodies are currently banned because they violate Rule 4. As we clearly have at least one case which does not violate rule 4, it's a non-issue. OS25🤙☎️ 03:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a mischaracterization of the discussion, since the issue is one of considering precedent in the thread, rather than reversing decisions after the fact. Indeed, the fact that decisions aren't reversed after the fact due to prior precedent should give us more pause, since it means that the idea that bringing up "new" (ie: old) evidence to reverse these decisions would likely be unsuccessful, though having the information in the first place is less likely to cause the decisions to proceed.

As for the other issues, I note again that the thread cited explicitly mentions parodies as an exception, even outside of the context of the plain text of R4, and we clearly are not doing our full due diligence, since we can't even see 8 years of forum discussions, the 8 years after which T:VS actually, you know, exists. Najawin ☎  03:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And you are to believe that this is our fault somehow? That we must cease all communications until the Lost Media Wiki can get on this case? Call me crazy, but I think the experiences of everyone in this forum, and especially our active admin team, holds more bearing on the site's history and rules than a handful of old forum posts no one cared to take screen grabs of. We absolutely have all the tools we need to make a decision in this debate, with no need to revisit the topic. OS25🤙☎️ 13:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying anyone is at fault here, just that key information is lacking. I'm much less cynical than you on the prospect of our archives being returned, but I think it's wholly misleading to characterize them as
 * a handful of old forum posts no one cared to take screen grabs of
 * We are required by wiki policy to consider previous threads. This is enshrined in T:POINT. Whether or not we're required to have defeaters for old arguments as opposed to simply not rehashing old ground in the points we personally make seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.


 * I strongly disagree with applying pre-2012 forum standards to post-2012 discussions, as alluded to above. With that said, the two discussions we have that take place after the advent of T:VS or literally 2 months prior both explicitly say parodies are a no. If we have all the tools necessary, precedent is surely on the side of invalidity. Najawin ☎  14:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Still very much support validating the two subjects in the OP. Danniesen ☎  14:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We have not discarded any argument, and none of us are arguing in bad faith. Most of us were present for these "lost" debates, remember both sides, and we are not mis-representing them. OS25🤙☎️ 16:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody has been accused of arguing in bad faith, but you're certainly encouraging us to discard past arguments. (You're very open about this fact!) Similarly, some people clearly do misremember these older discussions, see:
 * As I understand it, the section of T:VS with regards to parodies ("What doesn't count") is just providing examples of applications of the four rules. Parodies are listed as an application of rule 4
 * I'm also not sure who this "us" is. The only people who has presented a positive case for reframing R4 in light of past discussions is you and arguably Scrooge. Everyone else has just said that they support changing it because of these issues of authorial intent. Najawin ☎  17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've spent the past few hours being deeply frustrated with this thread, and I don't think it would be healthy for me to continue further. My final statement on the subject will be this.
 * I am deeply concerned with our tendency in these forum threads to move forward with sweeping changes based on both three weeks of discussion and the forum threads up until the end of 2012, when many of our policies only crystalized in 2012.
 * I think all of these should be reconsidered when the forum archives return, including the ones I supported, but ultimately I have little faith that this reconsideration will be a fair hearing of the evidence. We are all, after all, only human, and it's easy to get swept up in the fervor of motivated reasoning for the position we want the wiki to take, rather than what the evidence entails. (I know I've done this myself!)
 * I think enshrining "it was different before --> we can go back to that without considering the reason for the change" would be disastrous precedent, and I am deeply concerned that my involvement in Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1 might have suggested this to some, when it was the furthest thing from my intent.
 * We should all be concerned with the idea that rules generated through prior discussion may be abandoned at the drop of a hat. If there's no there there, that's one thing. But often times people have reasons for doing the things they do, and it's important to consider that there might be an angle we've missed. (Indeed, in reading talk page discussions I do occasionally find such an insight.)
 * With that said, I will highlight the following from the WeLoveTITANS thread
 * Guys, lemme clarify our four little rules here. Rule 4 allows us to simply say — about any story — that we don't think it's valid. Seriously, just a show of hands will do at this point, because we've talked a lot about them. - User:CzechOut (nb: an earlier post makes it clear that parody -> invalid even without the vote, but this is being quoted for rhetorical effect, no affirming the consequent here.)
 * I think the tide is clearly against me. But I think Daft Dimension's authorial intent is wildly ambiguous still, and should stay off the island even regardless of further research into forum archives that may come back. Doctor Who? I would keep off the island for the time being until I can see more context. That's all. I fully expect the end result, though, to be both of these back on the island. I think it's bad precedent, and I think we will come to regret it. Najawin ☎  23:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's where I stand on this. I'm satisfied Doctor Who? passes Rule 4, that it was intended to be set inside the Doctor Who universe, yet T:VS claims that all parodies fail Rule 4 without any consideration of authorial intent which might support validity. Thus, something needs to be done to resolve the contradiction. What I'd personally do is remove the restriction that parodies are invalid in every case but retain the presumption of invalidity for them. This means that for a parody to be validated it would have to go through a dedicated inclusion debate and I'd also put a higher burden of proof than normal for a verdict of valid to be returned in said debates.


 * It might be some comfort to Najawin to know that I'm also against validity of The Daft Dimension at this time. I don't feel it's entirely clear what the "Lewniverse" is in relation to Stringer's other works and I could never support the validity of 100+ stories without being completely sure it was the right thing to do. Borisashton ☎  23:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * …You people are making me wonder why I bothered with the explicit admin-hat-on semi-decision. I used the golden box and everything! It was hard to miss! So let me restate the operative bit in what I hope will be an even more legible format.

"Consider this an extension of the points I made at Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Inclusion debates speedround: the four little rules are the heart of T:VS. Anything else like "does this break the fourth wall?" or "is it a crossover?" or even "is it a branching interactive narrative?" only matters insofar as it is felt to be evidence that something fails one of the actual Four Little Rules. In the case of parodies, it has been a long-standing assumption that if something is intended to be a parody, then it must not be intended to take place in the literary universe of Doctor Who in earnest.

But if we have even stronger evidence of Rule-4-compliance to counterbalance it, we should not act as though being a parody is a conversation-stopper in absolutely all cases. Like acute fourth-wall-breaking, it's merely strong circumstantial evidence that something should be assumed, by default, to fail Rule 4.

[This] is what's in line with the rest of our policies and with the evident wishes of the community. And it's in line with the fact that "Parodies don't count" has never been "Rule 5"; just a footnote, an extension of the Four Little Rules. (…)

[Of course,] parodical nature is to be treated like egregious fourth-wall-breaks as one of the few things that do justify something being invalid by default, placing the onus on people wanting to argue validity."

- This very thread


 * As User:Borisashton summarised above, what we essentially have here is an errror in the wording of T:VS, a contradiction — the occurrence of a paradox where two different rules are in contradiction with each other, existing because its existence simply was not foreseen in the past. The Four Little Rules, which are paramount, state that Rule 4 invalidation works only through authorial intent; but then other parts of the policy and jurisprudence act as though it's trivial that parodies fail Rule 4, smuggling in an, it now turns out, inaccurate assumption that all parody-authors' authorial intent would fail regular Rule 4.


 * Boris continues:

"(…) Something needs to be done to resolve the contradiction. What I'd personally do is remove the restriction that parodies are invalid in every case but retain the presumption of invalidity for them. This means that for a parody to be validated it would have to go through a dedicated inclusion debate and I'd also put a higher burden of proof than normal for a verdict of valid to be returned in said debates."

- User:Borisashton


 * Which is all very nice, but he didn't need to say it's "what he'd personally do". I already ruled that this is what we will do. Days ago. An error in T:VS had been identified and I had fixed it and you could now all focus on the object-level issue of debating the specific authorial intent of DW? and TDD.


 * I truly do not understand how this was unclear, and how people have continued fighting over the policy question since. You want to talk about something that could be uncharitably characterised as T:POINT breaking, there it is.


 * But at the risk of making it the first Forum thread in history with three closing posts, I suppose I must step in a second time before my eventual return to adjudicate the authorial quotes on DW? and TDD. So let me address a few things and, perhaps, alter my earlier ruling slightly in light of new evidence (that's how things work). To address some key points:


 * "I think all of these should be reconsidered when the forum archives return, including the ones I supported,"


 * No. Just no. Absolutely not. This would promote a state of fearful paralysis completely opposite to the Wiki's needs as an evolving community. T:POINT already exists for this: old threads can be reopened in light of new evidence. We cannot waste time reviewing every damn T:TF decision on principle and I will not under any circumstances allow such a time-wasting scheme. If people want to actually put in the work to review the Archives once they're available, and if they then find evidence or arguments which were not addressed in the matching T:TF thread, they will be allowed to open a new thread on that basis (i.e. the degree to which this would normally be improper because by definition evidence from an Old Thread isn't "newer", will be relaxed/inverted). That makes sense and is only fair enough. But we are not reviewing all thirty-something decisions just in case.


 * "I think enshrining "it was different before --> we can go back to that without considering the reason for the change" would be disastrous precedent"


 * Yes, it would. Perhaps I was not clear enough on this, but it was not my intent to enshrine such precedent; noting that we had once had a similar policy to what is now being proposed (similar, not identical) was merely a rhetorical flourish and an acknowledgment of that part of the discussion. It's not a reason to do anything in and of itself. Furthermore we should of course in any situation of this type "consider the reason for the change". It's just that in this instance there is no good reason for the change to be found, at least not one which stands up to the current form of T:VS. There cannot be. As I have ruled, restated, emphasised, bolded above, the four little rules are what it's all about: everything else is commentary. If there is a part of T:VS which does not in fact logically flow from the 4LR by at least some intelligible argument, that part of T:VS stands in error, and should be corrected. And it's very very clear that prima facide what happened here is a fair, and yet, we now see, factually wrong assumption that "I intend this to be a parody" always corresponds with "I do not intend this to be set in the DWU". There's nothing mysterious here.


 * If this assumption about what happened is wrong, and the Archives reveal it to be so, then yes, we should reopen the discussion. But we have a pretty good guess about what the reason was; if it's correct, then the reason is trivially wrong in light of new evidence; so, we shouldn't paralyse ourselves from making a much-needed correction to policy just on the off-chance that the reason might have been something cleverer than that. It is not that we are failing to consider that "there may be an angle we've missed", it's that a reason that stands up to scrutiny for why we'd have a rule where its application contradicts the Four Little Rules (i.e. would see us treating something intended as explicitly DWU as explicitly invalid) is an extremely tall order, and we simply cannot policy based on an over-generous assumption that such a reason exists when the null hypothesis is that the special case simply wasn't foreseen.


 * …all of which said. All of which said.


 * Something's changed since I made the first semi-closing post. Namely, User:SOTO's technical odyssey to recover the Archives has kicked into high gear. So for all the flailing and hand-wringing on all sides about what to do in the absence of the Archive, it now turns out we may have them very soon. Very, very soon.


 * So soon, in fact, that I think we can cut the Gordian knot and just keep this thread open until we do in fact have access to the Archives, so that it can be closed in full, unambiguous, non-assumption-based knowledge of the history behind the no-parodies rule. I truly think my assumption (that the case of an authorial-intent-passing Rule-4-breaker was simply never considered) will be validated by such research; but fine. We now have the option. There is no reason, now, not to wait and see.


 * It's not entirely impossible that the Archives will be here before this thread's three-week span elapses, but in case it's not, and in recognition of the concern about sweeping decisions made in three weeks, this thread's maximum span is hereby prospectively expanded to six weeks instead of three. This does not mean it will have to last six weeks if conversation dries up before then, but it can if the community wills it. I trust a month and a half will be felt to be sufficient time allotted for a decision like this.


 * …And on that note, carry on. But please, this time, take note of the bolds and the borders and explicit statements of such, and understand that this was a partial admin ruling, not the user Scrooge MacDuck presenting a personal argument. Crikey.


 * But I like to end this on a positive note, so despite the frustrations all-round, let me restate my usual thanks for everybody earnestly participating in this and other difficult discussions, despite the stress and the strife they might entail. For all the conflicts we've been seeing, I truly and earnestly believe that we're all people of goodwill here, acting in good faith and with respect of the other fellow; which was not something you could always say of the Old Forums. And it goes a long way. So thank you. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hand on heart, I have nothing really to contribute to this thread other than my support for validity. @Borisashton's views on the contradiction in T:VS is exactly how I feel on this matter, so I won't clog this thread with a relitigation of what has already been said. 17:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-valid template
I encourage everyone to keep discussing this topic in the main section above this, but something occurred to me just now. If we go ahead and validate Doctor Who?, that means we'll have to also change the image for Template:Invalid. So I decided to do a few mockups of ideas for replacement images.

It's getting increasingly harder to find images that look good at this resolution. On top of that, I think we need to mark a distinction between non-valid and non-covered. So I tried to focus on images that represented non-valid material which we would still allow coverage on (so no An Adventure in Space & Time, etc). I also tried not to pick images which could also be mistaken for valid stories, so most of the main Doctors were out.

We also might consider changing the text itself, as these days I'd say we try to use non-valid and notvalid exclusively, invalid has been sort of phased out imo. OS25🤙☎️ 23:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My vote would be for Idea 3, Doctor Whoah!. I quite like the image of K9 but I feel like I remember Tom Baker putting his hat (and scarf?) on K9 in one of his episodes so I'm not sure it would be entirely suitable for its intended purpose. Borisashton ☎  23:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My vote too lies with three. Having done a little bit of graphic design (and absolutely hated it) I do see that option three has the most legible image for such as small size.
 * Although, I do find it interesting how "invalid" has disappeared from usage in the past few months we've had T:TF, instead with the introduction of "non-valid". I do kinda wish we had done a slightly more official thread about officially changing the terminology but I'm not gonna kick up a fuss about such a small matter. 17:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)