Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-27280472-20161225013009

Bwburke94 wrote: Shalka is an admittedly unique case, because it was produced as part of the DWU, but the question isn't its production.

Yes, Shalka was undeniably intended to be set within the DWU as it existed at the time it was produced, but by the time it was released, was it still intended as such? By the time the first instalment of Shalka was released, the BBC Wales series had been announced, which means that the DWU existing as of 13 November 2003 was a universe that cannot in any way be reconciled with Shalka.

That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced. The DWU, as defined by this wiki, does not ever include unreleased stories. And Shalka was still meant to feature an extension of the character seen in An Unearthly Child, the TV movie, and The Shadows of Avalon.

Bwburke94 wrote: The other anti-Shalka argument, which unfortunately involves the c-word, is that Shalka is a part of the only case where the canonical order of Doctor regenerations was unambiguously changed. (The 2013 specials did not unambiguously change the order, because there was never any evidence Eccleston's Doctor was the ninth body. In Shalka, the Doctor directly states he is on his ninth body.) Every other "alternate" Doctor was intended to be non-canon at the time, or was not intended to follow from the last televised Doctor.

As you mentioned yourself: this entire argument is invalid because it relies on "canon" — which does not exist, and the very concept of which is both stupid and toxic. Also: if we bring in the fact that Eccleston wasn't explicitly the ninth incarnation of the Doctor, but Grant was, we have to admit that until Hurt was introduced in The Name of the Doctor, Grant was the ninth incarnation of the Doctor.