User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-6032121-20200906000538

I quite agree, and that would indeed be a useful thing for this thread to achieve.

For example, Robot of Sherwood is by all accounts a parody of classic Robin Hood movies and lore, albeit a loving one. But it's not a parody of Doctor Who, and so it's clearly valid.

I too am fairly sure that "No parodies" in T:VALID was only ever meant as a descriptor for a wide class of Rule 4-failing stories — that is to say, stories that are parodies of DW and as a result are not meant to be part of the DWU. Though if someone else who was present when T:VALID was written has evidence otherwise, let them please come forward!

EDIT: @User:Shambala108: Sorry, I was already typing this when you posted your reply. I apologise for misunderstanding you, but I did get the impression from earlier comments of yours in the past that you found no particular joy in administering inclusion debates, far from it. Again, if that's not the case and I misrepresented your opinions I'm sorry.

But I find your statement that "if there's a chance something is a parody, then it's obviously non-valid and should be discussed" frankly baffling. "If there is a chance something is a parody it should be discussed" makes sense to me, but if there's a discussion to be had it's not "obviously" anything, whether that be valid or invalid.

And to answer your question, I believe that exclusion debates based on Rule 4 concerns should only be opened if there is new evidence on the matter — statements from the writers or producers regarding whether it's set in the DWU. Idle speculation along the lines of "it seems a bit silly, are we sure this Doctor Who story was meant to be set in the Doctor Who universe?", with nothing to back it up but personal feelings, should be disallowed.

That is indeed the wording of T:VS:

"If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination."

- T:VS

The key here is intent, and even when we have intent T:VS itself tells us that it's only probably not allowed, and that a community discussion will be needed to make sure if it should really be excluded. There is nothing about excluding stories without an authorial quote to back it up.

In short, I believe that unless someone brings forward a coherent opening post to an inclusion debate, with factual evidence and an argument based on that evidence, a story's current validity status should not be questioned. This would serve as a bulwark against random users' whims dragging us back into Board:Inclusion debates every which when, ensuring that a story's coverage is only revised if there are people on the Wiki who are committed to a careful and factual analysis of the case.

And T:VS agrees with me (in an archaic portion which, I think, is clearly talking about Rule 4, from a time before Rule 1 was added): "Although behind the scenes comments are pretty much the only way that a story can be disqualified under Rule "3" [sic], such information cannot be used in the writing of in-universe articles."

- Also T:VS

EDIT2: Well, typo or anachronism, I've put forward a request for that edit to be made at last.