Forum:Validity: Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet?

Opening post
I think the BBV film Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? should be validated due to the "Chiropodist" character having an officially authorized mention in The Bloodletters, which is considered a valid source on this wiki. This is a clear case of Rule 4 by proxy. Cgl1999 ☎  05:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
The past discussion here is Forum:BBV and canon policy. I think I've made my sentiments on the subjects of obvious parody of Doctor Who, R4bp, and reading into authorial intent quite clear in prior threads. Najawin ☎  05:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the question in my mind is if it's valid to read the story as purposefully taking place in an alternate universe. From what I remember about the special, I think the main plot revolves around "Unlicensed Earth" and its relationship with those from "real Earth" who want it destroyed. As we established in a recent forum, something being a parody is not universally disqualifying if there's some question of Rule 4.


 * Furthermore, The Chiropodist appears in The Bloodletters, which in any other case would be a clear cut case of Rule 4 By Proxy, which is current policy. In my opinion, this story passes Rule 4.


 * To me the actual issue is Rule 2. At the start of the film, Rassilon himself has a fully animated cameo. This is clearly done as a gag, but an angled reading of T:VS could clearly indicate that, due to this quick cameo, we can't allow the story to be valid because it wasn't 100% licensed. Personally, I would be in favor of just letting this slide and probably creating Rassilon (Do You Have a License to Save This Planet?). But I could see why others would think it was more complex than that.


 * So, again, at the end of the day I would argue the full debate is down to if you think the Rassilon cameo makes the story unlicensed. Either way, I do think that this story justifies coverage, which historically it hasn't had. Basically, the story is technically not only non-valid but non-covered, and I think that's silly. OS25🤙☎️ 15:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My hot take is that using The Bloodletters as a means of validation through Rule 4 By Proxy would be a huge mistake and I can't really see this thread as anything other than an attempted stress test of R4BP. Even setting aside my own opinions on BBV validity, R4BP should not be used for "brief allusions" --such as the reference to the Chiroprodist --it's meant for far more robust secondary uses. Rule 2 should definitely bar this anyways, but I think it should be made clear that this level of use should not be sufficient for R4BP. NoNotTheMemes ☎  15:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and I think historical precedent in previous debates has made it clear that a reference this overt is perfectly fine. Besides this, I again want to emphasize that I don't think we need Rule 4 By Proxy. I think the original special was intended to be an AU adventure, thus we should cover it as one. I also would hesitate to assuming that the forum was created under bath faith, especially as I think it's a little rude to someone who appears to be a new editor. OS25🤙☎️ 15:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, it's obviously a mistake. But I've consistently called for more than brief allusions and people have consistently rejected my suggestion, so I don't think that this will be a sticking point here. Najawin ☎  17:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hang on, now, whoever said Rassilon was unlicensed? Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? features the Sontarans as licensed from the Holmes estate. Rassilon was created by Holmes. It's not clear to me why we should assume foul play here. (Okay, some would argue that the reason we should assume foul play prima facie is "it's Bill Baggs", but you know what I mean.)


 * I'm also not at all convinced by the Rule-4-on-its-own credentials of Do You Have a Licence…. What is meant by "Unlicensed Earth" is exceedingly unclear, and the villains are certainly not from a distinct "Licensed Earth" or anything of the sort — I don't think there's any suggestion of parallel universes in the story, just space-time itself being destabilised. Indeed there is an infamous almost-cameo by the Second Doctor (only he's not at home, hence why Rassilon phones the Chiropodist instead).


 * The story also goes and breaks the fourth wall above and beyond this notion of in-universe "licensedness" - towards the end the Chiropodist "regenerates" into himself-wearing-a-wig, lampooning Time and the Rani, and immediately throws off the wig and mutters "I told Bill it wouldn't work", or something of that nature. McCoy essentially breaks character for comic effect, in a way that lastingly destabilises the narrative, since the Chiropodist for the rest of the story is not a regenerated version. I really think we're looking at one of these stories that fail Rule 4 as much by "not taking place in a coherent fictional universe" as much as by taking place in "a coherent fictional universe that isn't the DWU [but could conceivably be a parallel universe ] ".


 * As regards the R4BP of it all, as I've said in the past, continuity references are what we're looking for with R4BP; and we look for them insofar as they're circumstantial evidence of intent to bring the past story into the DWU, moreso than in themselves. Now, brief allusions can be continuity references — I will not budge from the rock that if the Doctor looks into a multiverse portal and sees [Invalid Story X], even if it's a "brief allusion", the null hypothesis should be that they're bringing the past story into the DWU. Morris's bizarre apparent authorial non-intent regarding Tomorrow Windows is an aberration and should not be the basis of policy.


 * But as the affirmed significance of Morris's quotes denying the significance of Tomorrow Windows established, an authorial quote can cancel out in-narrative circumstantial evidence. A quote about the explicit intent behind an apparent reference is better than just our assumptions about what the reference means, even if I still think using references as circumstantial evidence is fine when quotes are nonexistent and unlikely to be obtainable (as, for example, would be the case with trying to bug Lawrence Miles abotu that Prime Computers reference in Christmas on a Rational Planet — to say nothing of people who are deceased). So if what's going on here is contentious, the obvious thing to do is to ask Ryan Fogarty directly whether he intended for the name-drop in The Bloodletters to be a genuine continuity reference establishing Do You Have A License… as being in-continuity. He does have an online presence.


 * So I did, and he got back to me in record time:

"Well as the writer the Chiropodist’s 2nd appearance, I am of the opinion that while all of the characters from ‘Do You Have a Licence...’ should exist in the Whoniverse proper, the events in the special itself (at least most of them) probably did not occur there."

- Ryan Fogarty


 * Now I'm not closing this for various reasons (among them straightening out what we're assuming with regards to Rassilon), but that seems rather clear-cut invalidity to me — and a good example of getting a sensible outcome from the common-sense next-step provided in such a case by the existing R4BP framework, to boot. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just don't agree on any statements made here.


 * First of all, I am not convinced that Holmes owns Rassilon. If he did, I think BBV would have used the character in more than just a silly VHS parody.


 * Secondly, I thought the agreement about fourth wall breaks is that minor moments are not disqualifying when the rest of the topic are not bound by those moments? The fourth wall gag in that film is pretty throw-away, and I don't buy calling it non-valid just for that reason.


 * Thirdly, what we all obviously have to keep in mind is that "Doctor Who universe" the wiki term and "Whoniverse" the fandom term are not the same thing at all. For instance, one might easily say that The Daft Dimension is not "Whoniverse" but is DWU by the wiki's terms. As I said, it's been a common reading of the tape that it takes place in an alternate reality or universe - so the authorial intent above is clearly irrelevant. The real question to ask them is if the Chiropodist in their story is the same character whom had previously experienced DYHAL in question. Is this a copy of the character which did not experience the film? Or is it the same character having traveled to the DYHAL universe and then back to the DWU? OS25🤙☎️ 19:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with OS25 in that Holmes almost certainly did not own Rassilon. He was serving as script editor when he wrote The Deadly Assassin and so the rights would have vested with the Beeb (and before somebody opens the Sutekh can of worms, he originated from a draft by Lewis Greifer). Lord knows if he had power over Rassilon, he would have shown up in Faction Paradox Protocols or True History of Faction Paradox. As for the rest of it, I disagree with the characterization of DYHALTSTP. The whole darn thing is a fourth wall gag. NoNotTheMemes ☎  19:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm more agnostic on the subject. I think the argument Memes is making applies equally well to the Osirians, iirc. It might be the case that Rassilon is considered so derivative, for the purposes of The BBC that they kept the rights, but I'm not convinced that it was just that he was the script editor. (Also, slight editing of that comment for obvious reasons.) Najawin ☎  20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Rassilon was licensed, I just think (abstracting away opinions of Baggs's character) the circumstances are nowhere near clear-cut enough for the Wiki to go around treating "Rassilon was unlicensed" as fact based on perceived likelihoods. Down that way lies Amorkuz. That's all I'm saying. It's in the space where if it were the only DWU element in the story I would say "not enough evidence to support putting it on the Wiki on that basis", say, but not listing it as "fanfic" without positive evidence — similar to the current treatment of LEGO Batman.


 * Anyway, minor fourth-wall-breaks aren't always grounds for invalidity, sure but as I tried to lay out in the closing post of that thread, there are very many kinds of fourth-wall-breaks, some more damning-as-circumstantial-evidence than others; characters acknowledging their own fictionality in some way is not the same thing as an actor breaking character altogether. Sylv breaking character is different from the Cyberons calling themselves unlicensed. And furthermore my point was to argue that the fourth-wall gag is essentially a pivotal plot point, in the literal sense of the plot mechanics: it's why we stay with the same Chiropodist even though the previous one got zapped to death. It's the equivalent of Peter Capaldi blinking at the end of The End of Time, breaking character, going "you know what, nah, I don't want the part after all — Matt, you good to stay on?", and Matt Smith back on and resuming his role and carrying on into Deep Breath.


 * As for further ambiguities in the Fogarty quote — well look, again we here have the good fortune of an author who's out there answering questions, not dead, or offline, or rendered hostile to the general concept of Who fandom. So I asked him again, and he says this:

"I never said non-canon! I think the Un-Licensed Earth is an other-dimensional realm or something like the Land of Fiction! Just not *inside* the Whoniverse, the extreme hinterlands. I mean, that’s just how I interpret a story that isn’t even my own. My story doesn’t say anything about it. (…) I never meant to firmly establish one way or another if DUHaL2STP was ‘canon’ to the DWU or not. The appearance by the Chiropodist in The Bloodletters definitely is canon, but DUHAL maybe happened… or maybe it didn’t."

- Ryan Fogarty


 * So people who quibbled about what he meant by "Whoniverse" were right — but so were those who questioned whether the reference was meant to do the R4BP thing of establishing proxy-DWUness. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Are there not issues of The Daft Dimension which feature similar fourth wall gags? Referencing the comics as pieces of fiction in a magazine? I know there are issues of Doctor Who? which are like that. It just seems like a very arbitrary thing to use to pass judgement.


 * As per that quote - if seems very clear to me that the Chiropodist's cameo is a continuity reference to the special. Again, the author seems to be consistently measuring DWU as "the universe where Tooth and Claw took place", not our unique definition of "the Omniverse of universes surrounding the Doctor's". I am not convinced that the Chiropodist there is not simply the same character after the events of the film. OS25🤙☎️ 00:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes! Precisely right about TDD and DW?! Precisely!!


 * I think you're missing parts of the quote.
 * My story doesn’t say anything about it.
 * But this was said in response to being asked to clarify the whole DWU/whoniverse thing, and I'm just reminded of the prior discussion of TDD. I was being accused of not taking yes for an answer at a certain point. If this is the case then surely this is not taking no for an answer, it was in direct response to a question about his interpretation of the literary universe / IU universe/multiverse distinction, which is analogous to the stuff in said thread. Najawin ☎  01:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that saying "This can't be valid because the character name drops the writer" feels like gatekeeping, and sporadic gatekeeping at that. I don't think it's a good enough standard. OS25🤙☎️ 01:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * With regards to fourth wall breaks, surely they're purely a r4 concern? And therefore can be 4bproxied? Otherwise we have invented a fifth rule not derived from any of the other four? Aquanafrahudy 📢  08:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thread being referenced is Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround (and previous thread referenced is Forum:The Daft Dimension and Doctor Who? as parallel universes). Conclusion was that fourth wall breaks are not inherently disqualifying but that it depends on the broader context of the author(s'/'s) work and how we should think of these fourth wall breaks, as comedic in nature, or representing some sort of postmodern/magical realist spin of the familiar world of the DWU. I, again, note my objection to the characterization of merely voting off 4th wall breaks as "inventing a fifth rule not derived from any of the other four" - this is ahistorical, it would be derived from rule 4, but we've chosen not to go down that route.


 * So the question becomes simply whether the 4th wall breaks in DYHALTSTP are supposed to be a part of some clever postmodern toying of the normal rules and procedures of a DWU story, playing with its own textuality, or, well, whether it's a spoof that acknowledges its own fictionality. If it's the latter it's right out and you need R4bp to bring it back in, as we're currently construing R4bp jurisprudence. Najawin ☎  08:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin's post above is correct.


 * To say it in another way, fourth wall breaks are not in and of themselves disqualifying, they are — once again — circumstantial evidence of a Rule 4 breach. If DYALTSTP? had evidence of being actively intended as a DWU (albeit as a parallel universe or something), or if it had a solid R4BP, the fourth wall breaks would not stand in opposition in themselves, as indeed they don't in the cases of TDD and DW?. We have done the very opposite of "inventing a fifth rule…", we have clarified the way in which the fourth-wall-breaking-related "rules of thumb" (heuristics, to be fancy) derive from Rule 4. A massive fourth-wall-break like the regeneration gag is very strong circumstantial evidence of non-Rule-4-intent, but it doesn't matter how big the TDD or DW? breaks might get so long as we've got external quotes establishing "those are parallel universes in the same wider multiverse".


 * I may need to rewatch it, but in terms of Rule-4-on-the-merits I just don't buy User:OttselSpy25's reading of the "Unlicensed Earth" line as being about a parallel Earth. Indeed I think the capitalisation may be spurious — in my understanding of the plot it was analogous to "this is uncharted earth" or "this is enemy ground" or something — the Chiropodist has tricked the Licensor into a specific location that's "unlicensed", but the wider planet is just Earth. Which isn't the only angle of attack, I suppose; the lines from Rassilon about "the balance of established canonicity being threatened" or the like in the opening could be construed as positing the special as an "abnormal state of space-time", Infinity Doctors or Wedding of River Song-style… I wouldn't be entirely convinced by that either, as a Rule-4-on-the-merits argument, but it'd certainly feel closer to the thrust of the actual text.


 * As for the R4BP aspect — oh, I don't know. If the consensus is that Fogarty's quotes demonstrate intent to use The Bloodletters to establish that DYALTSTP? is in-continuity with the DWU, then I'll defer to that consensus! I've quite deliberately placed myself out of a position to close this thread anyway. (I think R4BP is a good, indeed, a superlatively useful policy — though of course I won't go so far as to claim that it has reached its ideal form and will never need a small tweak or two. But that is not an opinion I feel comfortable bandying about if I'm the only admin ever to litigate it, notwithstanding the original thread closure. It's not "my baby" or some kind of one-size-fits-all secret weapon that only I resort to, but a principle which I think has objectively correct and incorrect applications in any given case, that any reasonable discussion and closing admin can identify. So it's time to put my debating positions where my mouth is, I feel.)


 * But I do want to stress that the original concept of R4BP was a valid story bringing a purportedly-discontinuous one into the DWU. So a continuity reference is evidence of R4BP intent insofar as it seems, as a default reading, that readers are intended to read it and go "ah, so the author is treating [X] as being in-continuity with their DWU story". When somebody mutters about three Ninth Doctors, the implied reader is meant to go 'tilt' and think "ah, so this author is saying the Shalka Doctor and Curse Doctor are somehow continuous". When somebody finds an old Prime Computer in the TARDIS, people are meant to go "aah, cheeky, so the Prime Computer ads did happen according to this…". That ' s the significance of continuity references as circumstantial evidence of "I intended to use Valid Story X to bring Valid Story Y into continuity" authorial intent — sometimes bits of in-universe text are phrased in such ways as to have a kind of metafictional significance, to be precisely equivalent to a BTS footnote that says explicitly "I'm treating X as continuous, hehehe".


 * So from my point of view the question is whether Fogarty wrote the Chiropodist reference with the intent of people going "tilt! so Do You Have A license… is 'real' in some way?!". And from prior conversations with him I'd gotten the impression that no, he didn't mean anything that definitive by it. And those quotes I've obtained from him seem to bear that out — i.e. he has a personal view of how it all works, as far as he's concerned it's the same Chiropodist, but he didn't mean for the name-drop to "establish" that in a firm way in the minds of readers. It just raises the possibility, then refuses to elaborate.


 * And again our default hypothesis absolutely should be that such a reference did carry such R4BP intent, I don't recuse that, so if people aren't convinced by the Twitter quotes I won't stand in the way of validation; that's proper R4BP procedure, and not the end of the world. (A story very well could R4BP something like DYALTSP? and if we go that route I don't think it'll be to the detriment of the Wiki.) I just do, on balance, suspect the Twitter quotes are saying this is one of those weird Jonathan Morris edge-cases where the reference isn't intended to in itself convey intent-to-bring-into-the-DWU. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)