Talk:The Kidnappers

Invalidity
Once again, for what I feel is the millionth time, why is this story invalid? I can see that User:DENCH-and-PALMER added a tag in 2016. I would call this spurious, if it were not for a few mysterious forum posts linking to The Kidnappers. If anybody knows if this story has a rationale for its invalidity, please let me know. If not, and it was assumed as it was about Doctor Who "therefore it couldn't be possibly be in the DWU", I swear to bleeding Rassilon... Epsilon the Eternal ☎  05:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, I have the same question about Extras: The Special. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  13:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Extras clip straightforwardly fails Rule 1. It's a clip of a story that doesn't exist, and packaged into a non-DWU narrative. If the same thing were rereleased as a standalone TV extra you'd maybe have another argument.


 * As for this… This is in Parodies and pastiches, so presumably it was deemed to be a Doctor Who parody and invalid on that basis.


 * Although also, we also don't really have any particular reason to think this takes place in the DWU. This isn't a story primarily about DWU concepts which happens to mention Doctor Who (N-Space) — and it's not even a story primarily about Doctor Who (N-Space) with a few DWU elements. Flat-out, I do not remember there being any DWU characters or concepts, or any reference to such, in the script. It could hypothetically be redeemed as valid, but only if there were specific reasons to think it was set in the DWU and if it turned out the categorisation of it as a parody was spurious. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate for Extras. As for The Kidnappers, I'm not sure if it's a parody (I'll watch it soon to detirmine if it is or isn't), but as for you saying that "we also don't really have any particular reason to think this takes place in the DWU", that statement is true for a lot of valid material. Lack of elements doesn't necessarily mean it's not set in the DWU. Epsilon  📯 📂 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. Lack of behind-the-scenes data on whether it's set in the DWU should still result in "validity by default". What we have here is, as it were, a lack of relevant data for Rule 2. So far we appear to cover this because it's part of the Doctor Who brand, but it's not actually utilising a commercial license to any preexisting DWU character or concept, even in a loose framing-devicey way à la "these stories are all translated from the in-universe Dalek Chronicles". Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)