Talk:BBC Writers' Comics

Why this article
Had these stories simply been fan submissions I'd have let them go (except maybe for one overall article like this). But considering these stories, simple as they may be, are mostly written by people with DW episodes and novels on their resumes, this pushes these stories up a level. We should make sure, however, that only stories by established writers, and published in this form by the BBC, are listed here. If Joe Doe, 10, from Inverness, does a comic strip using Comic Maker, that's great for Joe, but it shouldn't be included here. 23skidoo 21:45, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Invalid
These should be made invalid, they're clearly parody-esque. - Denchen: Lord of Invalidness  ☎  12:16, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Validity
Someone above called the validity of this series into question nearly four years ago but never received a reply, and I cannot find any other discussion (although I'm not very familiar regarding where to look for certain threads).

Alas, I cannot comprehend why these stories are considered to be valid - they are very clearly stories that are just for fun as a way of introducing fans to the Comic Maker and, as said above, things like the Moxx of Balhoon using what is actually a miniaturised Platform One as a device reeks of parody. Then there's the fact that some pages suffer because of the validity of these stories; Richard Lazarus's page suggests that sometime during The Lazarus Experiment (TV story) he visited the planet Penhaxico Two, despite us following the character's journey from start to finish.

I don't believe these stories were ever meant to be officially part of the DWU, or then you could argue that any story created with the Comic Maker was too. Xx-connor-xX ☎  18:52, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly the whole appeal of the thing is that it allows you to make nearly-official stories set in the DWU. Most individual fans' submissions will fail either Rule 2 or Rule 3 (that is to say, they have no commercial license and/or never received an official release). These things do not apply to the Writers' Comics.


 * As lengthily explained on the page itself, the reuse of monster and machine designs is a function of the technical limitations of the Comic-Maker, not an intentional connection; we're not "supposed" to notice that the Moxx's device looks like a tiny Platform One. And perhaps we're not supposed to notice the recycled design from Lazarus Experiment, for that matter. But this (reusing an alien design for a background cameo despite it not really making sense at all timeline-wise) is nothing that unquestionably valid comics haven't done, as you can see at Human-Dalek. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:10, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * I recall creating my own material on the Comic Maker all those years ago, but I don't remember the appeal ever being that it "allows you to make nearly-official stories set in the DWU". It was always presented as just a bit of fun, and the writers clearly would not have seen their own material as valid due to their own limitations.


 * Right now articles pick and choose which parts of this is valid. It doesn't matter if we're "not supposed" to notice the Moxx's device is Platform One - it is at the end of the day, so why doesn't Platform One's page mention this event, or the time that the Doctor also received a miniaturised Platform One as mail. It is very problematic.


 * Also, the lengthy explanation on the page repeatedly uses the term "canon" - doesn't that go against this site's stance in regards to there being no such thing as canon? Xx-connor-xX ☎  19:26, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

I started a validity thread at Thread:272468 so that we can get all the information necessary to decide on this. I included this entire page on that thread, and any further comments should be posted there. Shambala108 ☎  20:50, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Xx-connor-xX ☎  20:51, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Mentions of 'canon'
This page makes repeated mentions to 'canon' which, as to better conform with T:CANON, I feel should be removed. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  18:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted! Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Xx-connor-xX above pointed this out above and there was a validity thread created, perhaps this was simply overlooked rather than approved upon. RadMatter ☎  20:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean. The term "canon" wasn't used in the debate created at Xx-connor-xX's impetus, and he was at any rate correct to ask for the "canon" language's removal, which, if it wasn't clear, I have now performed. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that the issue was first raised by Xx-connor-xX above; "Also, the lengthy explanation on the page repeatedly uses the term "canon" - doesn't that go against this site's stance in regards to there being no such thing as canon?". But I think that this was overlooked rather than disagreed upon (although I can't view the subsequent thread Shambala created). RadMatter ☎  22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! Yeah, as I said, that was just a side-point no one picked up on. The thread wasn't about that at all, it was a straightforward exclusion debate. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)