User:OttselSpy25/Commercial fiction sandbox

This is going to be a curated list of potential commercials/advertisements/idents that should be validated in the future, given specific circumstances.

Essentially, all fiction disqualified for "being commercial" should be retired. Thusly, all "commercial fiction" which are more than just compilations of clips and images should be reconsidered under rule 4: if they are intended to take place in the Doctor Who Universe.

TV stories

 * 2009 BBC Christmas idents - Famous "TARDIS with Reindeer" idents. Calling these commercials is a little iffy in the first place, as I don't think idents are advertisements. Nevertheless, these are fictional stories clearly intended to be set in the DWU.
 * Step Into the 80's! / On Through the 80's! - The reason for validity here is a direct reference to the spots made in PROSE: Christmas on a Rational Planet. The novel features Chris Cwej searching through the TARDIS and finding a disconnected computer bank labeled PRIME, clearly referencing these spots. Thus, this is a pretty clear example of Rule 4 by Proxy. Regardless of this, there's no certain evidence that these stories don't pass Rule 4. They feature Romana II, are fully in-character, and were written by Tom Baker. I've never seen any proof that they don't pass our standards for being set in the DWU, so they are a pretty easy validation example.
 * Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars - This one could be debated, but the story being narrated by Peter Capaldi and ending on the reveal of the Twelfth Doctor makes it more a Doctor Who story than anything else
 * CBBC idents - This can hopefully be fleshed out with more info? But it sounds like it might qualify
 * Any of the Collection trailers... Which are mostly already counted as valid due to some loophole.
 * Luckily for me, I have a time machine (TV story) - This title seems bunk, but as this is invalid currently just for being "promotional" I'd say it should be valid.
 * UNIT Recruiting Film - I've not been able to figure out why this is invalid. But I presume it's because it was a marketing stunt to promote the re-broadcast of The Green Death.

Webcasts

 * ''A return to Skaro for the First Doctor... - This is a classic example of something that clearly isn't a trailer, but was called one once and was thus invalidated immediately.
 * Genetics of the Daleks
 * The Ninth Doctor vs the Cybermen
 * Doctor, Doctor, Doctor - Our judgement on invaliding Lego Dimensions fell entirely on the game having multiple-path easter eggs. It was generally thought that the Doctor Who portions passed Rule 4 with flying colours. So there's no reason to invalidate the shorts made to tie-into the game.
 * Time Lord Victorious: Trailer (webcast)
 * Strax Field Reports - My understanding is that this was invalidated because the webcasts featured spoilers for future TV stories. Now that that isn't a concern, there's no reason to keep this invalid.
 * More Than Human... (webcast)
 * He Who Fights With Monsters (webcast)
 * Most Big Finish webcasts. Despite what some might say, these do indeed only exist to sell Big Finish audios.

Short stories

 * Can I Help You? (short story) - Short story printed on a t-shirt. It could be argued that the story "is a commercial item" since it's printed on a t-shirt. I think stories printed on paper and sold in books are also commercial items.
 * The Cult of Skaro (short story)
 * Dalek Wars - this one just doesn't make any god damn sense in my opinion. When a 1960s story is used to sell candy cigarettes, we give it a featuring page! But when a 2000s story is used to sell baseball cards? No. >:( Even if the proposition doesn't pass, this being invalid makes no sense with our rules.

Comic stories

 * Dr Who and the Turgids - at the very least qualifies for R4BP, as the TARDIS tuner has been evoked often in stories.
 * On the Icy Edge of the Galaxy...

Audio stories

 * Introducing Doctor Who: Redacted - Presuming none of this story appears in Redacted, I think it qualifies
 * The First Doctor: Volume Two trailer (audio story) - this is a controversial one, as the title has the word trailer in it. But it's not a trailer at all, it's an entirely separate prequel that's been invalidated just for using the wrong keyword.

Stories I'm less certain about

 * The Trip of a Lifetime and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the Bootstrap paradox. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
 * Famine Appeal - After studying it, if Colin never breaks character, I'd say this should be valid. But I've never seen this one.
 * Friend from the Future - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, as Steven Moffat intended. However, because it was invalidated originally for more than one reason, and because it is contentious, this will need its own debate.
 * Meet the Thirteenth Doctor - This one is odd, because I don't think it qualifies for Rule 4. Now, if a future story were to give context to what's going on here, I think this would qualify for Rule 4 By Proxy.
 * Doctor Who: 50 Years (trailer) - Another great example here where there's no real proof that this was intended to be set inside the DWU. But you could also argue that this trailer simply depicts a Multi-Doctor Event that Day doesn't show. It's certainly more of a promotional short than a trailer, and certainly something that would qualify for Rule 4 by Proxy if some other valid fiction referenced it. But as it stands, I think it deserves to be in the middle here.
 * WeLoveTITANS - I think as these were disqualified for being commercials, they might justify another debate, but I just don't know how many people WANT to go down that rabbit hole again
 * Time Is Everything - Presuming we revoke the widespread ban on advertisements, this would be a contender for coverage. The only hiccup is the fourth-wall breaking, which is an issue we've long gotten older but have never codified in a debate. The DWUness of this has also never been contended, but if it was the only thing standing in the way of this being valid I'm sure someone would change their minds, so this probably needs its own debate.
 * Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death (trailer) - A little unsure about this, I've gone back-and-forth on it and it's difficult to make a call without this in front of me. I don't want to set the precedent that old footage with a new framing device is always a trailer. But I also wouldn't put up a fight for this unless someone else wants to as well.
 * Death of the Doctor (trailer) - Also the same situation

Advertisements which do not qualify

 * Christmas Gift Guide: LEGO set - This is lost media now, but I recall at the time thinking it shouldn't be valid. Same for the two other Christmas Gift Guides.
 * The Appliance of Science - offensiveness and historical significance put aside, I have never seen evidence that this passes Rule 2.
 * Walls' Sky Ray lollies advertisement - I've long considered this one, and I think it's suffice to say that this a trailer for the story included in the packaging: Dr Who's Space Adventure Book. It's really a commercial with the aesthetics of a fictional story, not a fictional story that happens to sell something.
 * Denys Fisher Toys Advert - Same applies here, and for all the old Character Options commercials we don't have pages on
 * BBC Choice ident - was clearly not intended to fit into the DWU
 * It's Showtime (2012 BBC Christmas ident)
 * Consider Yourself One Of Us... (2011 BBC Christmas ident)
 * Everyone's Home For Christmas (2011 BBC Christmas ident)
 * 2016 BBC Christmas ident
 * 2014 BBC Christmas ident
 * 2010 BBC Christmas ident