Forum:Just how do we cover that time when Katy Manning, in character as Iris Wildthyme, showed up at the Utopia convention and was interviewed by Paul Magrs?

More or less what it says on the tin. At the 2012 Utopia convention, Katy Manning, in-character as Iris Wildthyme, was interviewed by Paul Magrs, and, well, I'll just quote Magrs' description of the procedings:

"The freewheeling, improvised, slightly crazy and surreal afternoon consisted of my beginning a talk about writing Iris... and then the fictional character herself gatecrashing the function room, which ended up in a bizarre, double-entendre-stuffed and fourth-wall-smashing interview - which then turned into Iris and Panda (who appeared from seemingly nowhere) hi-jacking the entire audience, parading them through the stately home hotel, out onto the main driveway (stealing a golf buggy on the way) and ending up with everyone piling aboard the bright red double decker that was waiting for us. Where more hi-jinks ensued and I gave a reading from 'Enter Wildthyme.'"

- Paul Magrs

But how on Earth do we cover it? And, for that matter, do we cover it?

Do we cover it?
A very complicated question. It feels exactly like the sort of thing which we ought to cover, but let's look through the four little rules.

Rule 1: Is it fiction?
Well, I think we're going to have to look at some definitions of fiction to decide that.


 * literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.

Not terribly relevant, considering that we're a wiki about a television show.


 * something that is invented or untrue.

Well, it's certainly invented/untrue that Iris Wildthyme visited the Utopia convention in 2012.


 * the type of book or story that is written about imaginary characters and events and not based on real people and facts

Well, it's based on the fact that Katy Manning, dressed as Iris Wildthyme, was interviewed by Paul Magrs, but if we go down that route we'll be invalidating. (sorry about this, I'm just going through the list of fiction definitions that I can find)


 * something invented by the imagination or feigned

Well, the fact that Iris Wildthyme led Paul Magrs, Panda and the like across the lawn of wherever it was and into the Celestial Omnibus is definitely feigned/invented by the imagination.

As a further note, as Paul Magrs says that he acknowledges the possibility that it might have actually been the actual Iris who turned up (he says it in a way that makes him sound a lot less mad than that, but that's more or less the gist of it), that sort of muddies the waters a bit.

Sorry about that, I find it hard to work with anything that I haven't a dictionary definition for.

Rule 2: Is it licensed?
Yes. Moving swiftly on.

Rule 3: Was it officially released?
Ah. The contentious one.

I'm leaning towards saying "yes", because it's an event that happened in a public place, and honestly I see no difference between this and other stage plays. (Although I think stage plays might be invalid due to possibly failing rule 3? Heaven knows.)

If you want to disagree, go ahead.

Rule 4: Was it intended to be set in the DWU
Or rather, was it not intended to not be set in the DWU?

I'm fairly sure this passes rule 4, in the ordinary sense, and there's no evidence to suggest that anybody considers this something that didn't happen in the DWU. I think the onus here is probably on anybody who wants to argue that this isn't set in the DWU.

How do we cover it?
Personally, I'm inclined to create Utopia convention 2012 (stage play) and be done with it. Arguably that's not the best fit, but I can't really think of anything else to do.

Or alternatively we could use the name that Magrs uses to describe the incident, or possibly he uses it to describe the article he wrote about it on his blog, "Wildthyme in Person!".

As another note, unless we decide to call it something that isn't a stage play, it probably ought to be invalid until such a time where we have a forum thread that validates stage plays, because T:BOUND.

To be honest, I could've probably created it without a forum thread, but thought it was a strange enough example that it probably ought to have one.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Thanks for reading, Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I think we should cover it, but probably as invalid until stageplays are validated. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  14:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's certainly fiction. But I think there's some questions to be asked about whether it's a complete work of fiction, though on the whole I'm leaning towards "yes". To fulfill the "complete work of fiction" clause it's important to know when something began and ended (see, for example, the ultimately-dismissed but theoretically-valid concerns in Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround regarding Dermot and the Doctor). The beginning is easy enough, but Magrs's quote summary just sort of trails off after people get in the bus. I think there's two ways to read his comment. One is that "ending up" means that the performance ended at the doors of the bus — that after everybody got in, kayfabe was over even if the party wasn't finished. Another though would be that "where more hi-jinks ensued" implies further metafiction with Manning still in character; and if that was what happened, then I don't think Rule 1 is really fulfilled. It could still get coverage, of course, like many partial-Rule-1 breakers e.g. various sketches in The Fan Show that bleed into the real-world documentary stuff instead of ending at a specific point. But validity would be off the table even if we ever validated stage plays.


 * On which topic, yes, I would agree that "stage play" is probably the best dab term we're going to get at present for a thing like this — that is, aside from something I'm going to bring up in the next paragraph. It's not technically a stage play in the conventional sense, but neither's Time Fracture, really. Free-range/open-air theatrical performances are generally lumped in with "theatre", and this is clearly one of those. Now this does mean that — unless there was an official recording, which doesn't look to be the case — this can't be valid, because currently, stage plays aren't valid in general. It's something which I think has some traction to change to one degree or another in the future, though I'm not sure it's a degree that would extend to a thing like this, as the prevailing theory-of-coverage would trend towards "validating the script", which this doesn't have — but that whole thing is a discussion for another time. In the meantime coverage as an invalid stage play sounds reasonable (whether it be due to default stage-play invalidity or the Rule 1 concerns). Except…


 * Except, well, I do want to raise an eyebrow about Rule 2 here before we do anything rash. "Moving swiftly on" seems less than reasonable. Oh, there's no Earthly doubt that this was licensed to use Iris and Panda, but… we don't have the detailed contents of the dialogue, here. It seems plausible given the context that Iris might ramble on about her relationship to the Doctor or something at some stage in the interview. A couple of mentions could be excused, but if it were at the level of summarising whole off-screen encounters/adventures, I do think that would downgrade this to a partially-licensed-fan-work situation. As per the conclusions of Forum:Relaxing our fan works policy (within reason) this would mean that it would get a less detailed real-world page at, I guess, Utopia convention 2012 (fan work).


 * (Actually, I wonder if Untitled (Utopia convention 2012 stage play)/Untitled (Utopia convention 2012 fan work) might not be wiser as a title, though I could swing either way.) --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Short of asking Paul Magrs, there's no earthly way of knowing whether it touched on her relationship with the Doctor, and even then, there's no guarantee that he'll remember something that happened over ten years ago. How, then are we supposed to know whether it featured any unlicensed elements?


 * Ooh, hang on, I've found another reference to the 2012 Utopia convention (should probably have looked a little harder earlier):

"On the Saturday, Katy was a hoot, dolled up as her Big Finish alter ego Iris Wildthyme and sailed off on a double decker bus."

- Patrick Mulkern, recounting the 2012 Utopia convention in a recent Radio Times article


 * I agree with you that Untitled may be a better name, but not quite sure.


 * On rule 1, why would having further semi-fictional adventures in the bus be an argument against? Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  14:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well hold on! Stage plays arent invalid because they're stage plays, they're invalid because:

"Stage plays are deemed to be invalid because they are ephemeral. You may see something in the evening performance that wasn't there during the matinée. Or by the time it comes to your town, an entire section might have been removed from the performance. An actor that was at the Glasgow run may have given a line-reading that was meaningfully different to the guy playing the same part in London."

- T:VS


 * So a "stage play" with a single showing does result in the problem as to why stage plays are invalid. So it surely would be valid, and the lack of a copy of the performance is just like lost media, which ain't a reason for ... 15:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aquanafrahudy: Because it would mean we wouldn't have a record of a specific ending for the performance. Did Manning just sort of slowly drift out of character on the ride home, or was there a specific point when The Show Was Over? That's the question we must ask. If you can draw a line of "this far it's part of the story, after this point it's just real-world stuff", Rule 1 is fulfilled; if you can't, it's not. Based on Magrs's quote we can read it as "the show began with Iris showing up and ended when everyone got to the bus", which is nice and bounded; if the "ending up" doesn't mean it ended at the bus, then we don't know if there was a clear ending or not. Maybe there was anyway and he just doesn't mention it, but we need to know for sure.


 * @Epsilon: A thought-provoking view, but not one, I think, supported by precedent; I think the prevailing understanding of the policy has been "Because most stage plays have this problem stage plays as a whole are invalid", as opposed to "stage plays which have this problem are invalid". --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Because most stage plays have this problem stage plays as a whole are invalid" is not a sensible or logical reason at all. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think so, no. It's why a thread to reform this is one of the things on my docket. But plenty of things over the years have been live policy while being based on dumb rationales! --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that the correct reading of the policy is "Because most stage plays have this problem stage plays as a whole are invalid"? Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yet we have valid stage plays because we have an officially released recording of them!
 * If the ephemeral, multi-showing "problem" can be "fixed" by a recording, then it can be fixed by the fact that there was only ever a single performance.
 * Granted, stage plays being invalid in genral should be addressed in another thread, but I see no current justification to invalidate this based on it being a "stage play" (and in the loosest damn definition of one too; I wouldn't call an actor appearing in-character at an event as a stage play).
 * There may be issues about if this is a complete narrative or not, but I want to specifically address the "stage play" point. 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's important, as always, to look at what the original discussions say regarding validity here, not just T:VS.
 * I'm not sure if the Stageplays are/should be considered canon as they're practically impossible to verify User:Tangerineduel
 * I'm not personally of the opinion that stage plays are valid references according to our canon policy, because it's not a recorded medium. There's no no guaranteeing what actually appeared on stage, unless you were physically present at the performance. Even then, it's all hearsay, not verifiable content. For all we know, references to "based on the Dalek Chronicles discovered and translated by Terry Nation" only appeared in the script or on advertising, and didn't actually appear in the performance itself — even if it was a line of dialogue in a script that we may have gotten our hands on. User:CzechOut

This is the original thread to establish invalidity, and the thread cited in T:VS for the rationale. It's later, in Forum:Prefix simplification, that the ephemeral nature is mentioned, and it's not mentioned as the underlying reason for invalidating them, just a reason.
 * No. Just no. This is a big ol' can of worms. Plays are different from night to night. How can they possibly be relied upon for information? I don't think they're valid sources. I'm sure we had a discussion about this at some point. User:CzechOut

I'm of the opinion that Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? was establishing, obviously without using the language because the language didn't yet exist, that stage plays violated R3. I believe, as such, that this does as well. Najawin ☎  19:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Aye, thank you for the archaeology, Najawin; I was going to bring the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" aspect of the question, in fact, though I didn't have the hard quotes to hand. That being said, I don't actually think this really can be chalked up to Rule 3, even in retrospect. I see how you'd ascribe it to that if somebody puts a gun to your head and demands you lump it in with one of the 4LRs, but ultimately, it's really very round-peg-square-hole. The idea that a play that's had its official debut hasn't been "officially released" is so far from common language as to be almost unintelligible even to someone well-versed in the ways of the Wiki, and has very very little in common with spoiler-related issues of "please don't cite leaks/trailers even if we're absolutely certain about their objective contents".


 * This just seems like a whole other can of worms — a practical question — "we can't reliably cover these for lack of evidence" rather than "these things have some feature which would make it unwise to cover them even if we had perfect knowledge". And not an unreasonable qualm, as far as it goes. Of course, personally I would object that clearly we wouldn't invalidate a missing episode even if we had no off-hair recordings and telesnaps and so couldn't be sure how much of the original script had made it to air, such that this doesn't seem like a remotely generalisable sort of objection to something's validity… but at that point we're getting into the weeds of altering the broader policy, and this isn't the thread for that. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I once again blame the fact that R3 has basically no jurisprudence here. And I'm not sure I can even find discussions justifying it in the form it exists in at T:VS - I don't recall seeing any from where I've looked so far. The best I can find is User:CzechOut/Sandbox8.
 * Scenes that were not originally broadcast or published do not "count", unless they were created specifically for home video release.
 * Obviously you've since ruled otherwise, but I think this is going to be the best we can get in finding the "original intent" of R3. (And I think the fact that User:Tangerineduel also thought deleted scenes violated R3 supports this analysis, that this sentiment is where R3 comes from.)


 * I also, of course, blame the fact that all of T:VS is now reduced to solely the 4 rules, when this wasn't the intent. :P Najawin ☎  21:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)