User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4189499-20190530165552

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4189499-20190530165552 Let me be clear here that I wasn't advocating for either side of the argument here in my last post, but simply trying to codify what I could see as the only real argument specifically against it that I'd read so far in this thread.

Now, I've read all those pages and discussions that User:Shambala108 brought up, except for the archive*, along with way too many old forum posts from around the time the four little rules were created. As far as I can tell based on information from others in this conversation and the ones read, there are no reasons under current policy to exclude these three stories.

A little history here for context. The four little rules seem to have been developed during a major redo of Tardis:Canon policy between June 6 and June 8 2012. Before that, the "Canon policy" (note that it was canon, not validity) was basically a list of approved and not approved publications and concepts for use on this wiki rather than a list of generalised rules to follow. This means that the inclusion debates for each not-obvious story were largely based on precedent and the preferences of those taking part in inclusion debates rather than being able to refer to actual criteria as to what is or is not allowed.

To sum it up nicely, according to User:CzechOut in Forum:BBV and canon policy, the policy for inclusion prior to the June 2012 rewrite was this:

We must draw a line in the sand and say that if it doesn't legally exploit a copyright, it's not something we cover. Otherwise, we have no firm definition of what we cover.

As you can see, that policy is quite different from what we have now, with legality of the use of characters and concepts the only formal inclusion criteria. (Interestingly, this was also the case for the first day of the big rewrite, before what is now known as rules 3 and 4 were added on the second day, finally rounding out the four with the current rule 1 on the third and final day.)

Now, as to where the four little rules specifically come from, I can't exactly say as I can't find any forum discussion where they were discussed. I'm not sure if this is because such an explicit discussion didn't exist or just that my forum trawling skills have failed me tonight. ** However, the rules are now codified at Tardis:Valid sources and therefore, unlike in the time prior to June 2012, we now have a solid set of principles to use to evaluate whether or not a story is valid.

Why is this important? Well, the earliest of the discussions brought up by Shambala, Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?, the one in which these stories were de-canonised in the first place, concluded on 11 January 2012, about 5 months before the rewrite and therefore before the basis for the current validity policy was introduced. Notably, Fixing a Hole (short story) was deemed invalid on the basis of it being canon with an invalid story.

While canon was a legitimate argument for validity back in early 2012, this is no longer the case in 2019 as the concept of canon was officially abolished in June 2012 with the rewrite. This wiki does not care about contradictions and inconsistencies that would break a particular canon, such as the circumstances surrounding the Doctor's birth. This wiki does not care about canonical information from invalid sources, such as the life and times of Jean-Luc Picard outside that which happens in Assimilation² (comic story). All that matters under current policy is validity, a concept primarily determined by the four little rules. As per Tardis:You are bound by current policy, the validity of this story needs updating to fit current policy.

Now let us look at Thread:136969 which outlawed Rescue (short story). Practically no discussion took place regarding this story. I'm assuming this was because of one of two reasons, although as I'm not a mind reader and as one word answers leave little in the way of interpretation, these may be wrong.

Firstly, it may be due to the precedent of Fixing a Hole (short story). As I have discussed, this precedent is no longer valid under current policy and therefore the ruling is also no longer valid if this was the reasoning.

Alternatively, due to the lack of description in the initial post regarding the extent of the Dimensions in Time (TV story) content within Rescue (short story), CzechOut may have been given the impression that the stories were more closely linked than others have been clarifying here, again leading to a ruling based on inaccurate information.

Thread:179548, which again discusses Rescue (short story), hits many of the beats already brought up here. There's nothing really new to take out of that which has not already been discussed here. It's basically just re-iterating the point that, despite using ideas that were present within Dimensions in Time (TV story), the story doesn't rely on Dimensions and, as there is no canon, narrative connections between them can't be enough on their own to exclude the story.

I haven't found any other discussions relating to Storm in a Tikka (short story) but I'd imagine it'd be much of the same.

Considering we're re-evaluating these stories under current, post June 2012 policy, it's worth noting this line from Tardis:Valid sources:

Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4.

Do any of these stories have "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence" contradicting their validity, or is it all just narrative continuity nods to invalid stories? Remember that invalid doesn't mean non-canon, ie it doesn't mean that the events didn't happen. It just means that we don't have a primary source to state that the events definitely did happen. Referring to stories or adventures that we don't have a primary source for in another story is relatively common in valid media, such as Rose discussing a trip to Woman Wept with Mickey in Boom Town (TV story) or Clara discussing kissing Jane Austen in The Magician's Apprentice (TV story). I don't see how this is any different from a policy standpoint.

So, let's start from the beginning and look at the rules that do count towards a story being valid or not in 2019.


 * Rule 1: Are they stories? Yes
 * Rule 2: Are they fully licensed? Yes
 * Rule 3: Have they been officially released? Yes
 * Rule 4: Is there "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence" that the stories were not supposed to take place within the Doctor Who Universe? No
 * Do they contain elements relating to the existing Doctor Who Universe? Yes
 * Are they charity publications? No
 * Are they deleted scenes? No
 * Do they break the boundary of in-universe and out-of-universe like the Tom Baker narrated Shada or A Fix with Sontarans? No
 * Do the stories differ between encounters as a stage play would? No
 * Are they adaptations of existing valid sources akin to a novelisation? No

Looking at the rules for validity present in 2019, these stories pass them all. It is true that these stories did not pass the test back in 2012, but the rules have changed since then. As User:Josiah Rowe said back in 2012:

we should remember that although precedent matters, and the opinions of the people who're actually willing to do the work matters even more, consensus can change. None of us should be so wedded to established [...] that we can't reconsider it.

We are allowed to change our minds when the facts change. In this case, the policy changed to rule out classifications of canonicity and gave us a solid set of rules on which to base our discussions of whether or not a story is valid. The precedent set is out of date. It's time to reevaluate it based on 2019 facts.

TL;DR: Existing positions are based on old policy. Under current policy, these stories should be re-validated. Let's wrap this up.

Yes this is long. Yes it is almost 3am. Yes I should be pouring the hours spent on researching and writing this post into the New DWA. Yes I'm procrastinating. Yes you can ignore me if you want. I've not been an active part of this community for years now, so I know my opinion carries little weight. But I do have experience on the policy front, and one of the main things I have learned from that is that, if you don't make an active effort to close out a discussion, it will never be done, only peter out into a state of inaction. I believe there's enough evidence presented to close out this discussion in favour of re-validating these stories. If you disagree, please give specific evidence as to why, in reference to existing policy. Otherwise, this discussion will end as previous discussions on the matter have, with inaction that neither reinforces nor overturns the existing position.

* I didn't read it because of the amount of talking 41 did on that page. 41 (who these days edits with an IP starting with 197) is a person who wore out my patience years ago and I have only recently been freed from his presence due to the closure of Doctor Who Answers on Wikia. Trying to read his posts is like fingernails on chalkboards to me personally, so I just can't read that discussion, no matter how informative it may be.

** If anyone else is curious/procrastinating, the closest I can find to discussions triggering the change in policy are Forum:BBV and canon policy, Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time, and Forum:Iris Wildthyme: should she stay or should she go?. Interestingly, several of those discussions refer to in-universe story contradictions as part of their arguments for/against certain story inclusions. That just goes to show how much the policy has shifted between then and now!