Talk:Untitled (1986 TV story)

Invalidity
Just found out about this short story on Twitter, and upon watching it, I'm unsure as to the rationale behind its invalidity. Looking back though the edit history, it was given an tag by User:DENCH-and-PALMER, but I could find no discernable reason why the user gave it that tag. If its becuase the Sixth Doctor mentions Doctor Who, then how is that an issue? Is it because the Wiki is only covering this certain segment of what could potentially be part of a larger story? (Though I think this acts as more of a seperate prologue/epilogue to Roland Rat.) Either way, if there's a rationale somewhere, anywhere, please let me know. If not, can the validation of this story be discussed? Epsilon  📯 📂 03:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, before we even start digging into its validity I'd like to look deeper into that business of us "only covering the bits with the Doctor in it".


 * This seems like an archaic way of doing things, one which runs contrary to the spirit of our not-so-recent forum decisions concerning The Worlds of Big Finish and The Incomplete Death's Head. To wit: an case of a single crossover release which is all meant to be one narrative, involving the DWU elements as some of its major players, then we cover the whole thing (including the bits without the DWU characters), we don't slice up the individual episodes.


 * Consequently, valid or otherwise, I think we ought to be covering this TV story in full, instead of doing this weird slice-and-dice thing. Unless, of course, the Sixth Doctor skit(s) are completely unconnected from the broader narrative of this sp-called special, but I'd honestly be slightly surprised. And why do we call this a "special", anyway? Was it a special in any reasonable sense of the word, within the wider Roland Rat series, beyond happening to be a crossover with Doctor Who?


 * It's possible that the weirdly truncated thing the page currently tries to be about fails Rule 1, but even if it did, the episode in its entirety wouldn't. So, absent licensing concerns, it all falls to Rule 4, otherwise known as "the tricky one". Things being more loosey-goosey and cartoonish than they were on the Doctor Who television series isn't in itself grounds for invalidity (see our decisions about Titan backup comics and about the Dr. Men books). However, I think it would be disingenuous to not give some weight to the claim that the writers may not have meant for this story to "count," for all that it does nothing that other valid stories have not.


 * However, in such matters, when the evidence isn't black-and-white, the onus is on the people trying to prove that the story was meant to be outside the DWU, not the other way around. So what I want you (and by you, I mean you the community, not you Epsilon) to do is:


 * First, whip this page into shape and, unless the skit truly is completely unrelated to the rest of the episode narratively speaking, make it cover the entire episode.


 * Second, make a good-faith effort to find reliable reference material about this story, to see if its makers (or the BBC itself) ever made any comments about whether it "counted" or whether it was "set in the DWU". Note that, for notorious reasons, quotes about it "not being canon" would not qualify.


 * However, while the invalidity tag, if it was added by DENCH without discussion, is indeed spurious, I shan't remove it until the first of these two instructions is either carried out, or shown to be unnecessary. Again, as it stands, something in such a state as what the lead currently describes wouldn't pass Rule 1. A standalone skit packaged into an anthology show would; a larger narrative which features the Sixth Doctor in some scenes would; but "the scenes with the Sixth Doctor in them, covered as if they constituted a single serialised skit" probably doesn't. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)