User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200510214412/@comment-45692830-20200510214527

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200510214412/@comment-45692830-20200510214527 The discussion in question:


 * Just watched the webcast, and I'm a bit interested if this fits into the wiki's "canon", as at the start of the webcast it has the writer's name pop up on the computer screen, and at the end it has the two Osgoods begin to watch the Zygon Invasion.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎  21:25, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * We use the word validity rather than canon, but I have to agree with you. It breaks the fourth wall from start to finish - with there being a promotional image of the show before the Osgoods even long on. It does try to fit in with the already established lore, such as there being one human and one Zygon left (as revealed in Narcissus but at the end of the day I think the fourth wall breaks are too severe, they literally watch an episode of Doctor Who. Xx-connor-xX ☎  21:33, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Now first off, this Wiki deals in validity, which is a different concept from canon. For a story to be valid, this Wiki only asks that it be intended to take place inside the Doctor Who universe (and, of course, be properly licensed and officially released, but that's no object here). Mayhaps even Harness wouldn't include this story in a "serious canon", but I think he very much does intend for it to take place in the DWU without being an actual parody and that's what matters.


 * The name and title of the story appearing briefly on the computer monitor is clearly just a case of the titles appearing for the benefit of the viewer, as is common in film. It's no more "there" in the story than the credits in Extremis are really part of the recording the Shadow Doctor sends to the Twelfth Doctor, or, if you will, it's no more then than giant floating "JOHN HURT AS THE DOCTOR" letters next to the War Doctor at the end of The Name of the Doctor.


 * As for the appearance of Doctor Who inside itself, there is a long and storied history of such metafictional nods. If there is reason to think that's what's going on is "Peter Harness establishing that a Doctor Who TV series exists in N-Space" as opposed to "the Osgoods are being transferred to our real world for the purposes of a nonsensical sketch", it's no object to validity. And aside from the came of Doctor Who in-universe, there are many attempts to make this fit into the broader DWU: the status-quo of the Osgoods themselves, but also the presence of the Thirteenth Doctor, the reference to the concept of a time eddy, and the various UNIT files visible on Osgood's desktop.


 * The story cuts before they actually watch a full episode of Doctor Who; we don't know that the in-universe The Zygon Invasion is identical to the real one, even if that's the implication. Since the end credits run over the repeat of the "The Day fo the Doctor summary" that serves as the cold opening of real The Zygon Invasion, there's even an argument to be made that all the Tennant-Smith-Hurt footage is no longer an actual part of the narrative of The Zygon Isolation.


 * Connor is welcome to take his concerns to the forums if he really must, but this story really isn't breaking the fourth wall any more than many already valid stories. Doctor Who exists in-universe; deal with it. You're free to exclude it from your personal canon, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid, and that's what matters. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:37, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * It is hardly similar to the John Hurt comparison, that was purely for the audience and wasn't actually part of the show. Xx-connor-xX ☎  21:40, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, neither is the title card saying The Zygon Isolation - Peter Harness, is what I'm saying. It's the title card. Doctor Who and other TV shows might have gotten us used to strictly-delineated credits, but they're far from an absolute rule. The TV show the Osgoods watch at the end is another thing, but the brief appearance of the short's title on the screen in the close-up is clearly for the audience's benefit and not part of the diegesis. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:43, May 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation. Xx-connor-xX ☎  21:48, May 10, 2020 (UTC)