Spoilers are precisely defined here. Rules vary by the story's medium. Info from television stories can't be added here until after the top or bottom of the hour, British time, closest to the end credits roll on BBC One. Therefore, fans in the Americas who are sensitive to spoilers should avoid Tardis on Sundays until they've seen the episode.



When you write an article on our wiki, you need to cite your statements. Knowing which sources are valid is therefore crucial to the writing — and reading! — process. Without a clear sense of what stories will be discussed here — and which will not — your writing may be considered untrustworthy.

Therefore, only valid stories can be used to describe an "in-universe" topic. For instance, if we were writing about Sarah Jane Smith's experience of the country of Italy, we could use anything within The Masque of Mandragora or even The Ghosts of N-Space. But we could not use something from a 1986 fanzine in which Sarah Jane was described as having visited Florence (which is not something we cover) or even from a strip in Doctor Whoah! where she'd have met Rory Williams in Ancient Rome (because that's an invalid source).

For our real world articles — that is, articles about behind the scenes personnel and other things tagged with {{real world}} — it's equally important to know what sources you can use. After all, someone in South Dakota writing on ilovetennant.blogspot.com shouldn't be considered a valid source for our article about David Tennant.

In-universe sources


The Doctor Who universe is a tricky place when it comes to defining what should "count" and what shouldn't. You should make sure you understand why the DWU isn't like other franchises before you go on. Suffice it to say here that the word "canon" is not applicable to any attempt to define the boundaries of the DWU, least of all our own — and that more generally, no definition of the DWU is truer than another.

However, as a matter of common sense, any reference guide about the DWU has to make certain choices about what to include – and what to kick off the farm. Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.

We also specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story. Instead, we are guided by the legal status of a work as well as the authorial intent. Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded. Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid. In these discussions, sufficient evidence must be provided that that the story either doesn't have permission from all relevant copyright holders, or that there are solid non-narrative reasons to believe the story does not occur in the DWU.

In practice, there are three broad statuses that stories can possess on the Wiki, detailed on the table below.

“Valid sources” These are stories which pass all of the "four little rules" described below. They are the most common "kind" of work of fiction on this Wiki, and its primary focus.

They can be used to source statements on the vast majority of in-universe pages on this wiki — those written as if the DWU were real.

City of Death;
Political Animals

Thirteenth welcome aboard (AITUK).jpg
“Invalid sources” Works which we cover, but do not use as sources on our "normal" in-universe pages about elements of the DWU.

Information about, say, the Fourth Doctor in an invalid source can only go in the "Behind the scenes" section of the page "Fourth Doctor".

If such a source introduces concepts not featured in any valid sources, they can be covered on in-universe-type pages, but these must clearly be tagged as "invalid" too, and should not be placed in the same section of the category tree as their counterparts.

The Final Script;
The Web of Caves;
Death Comes to Time

Introduction to the Night 1999.jpg
“Not covered” Works which we do not cover at all, usually because they have no legal link to any part of the DWU. They do not warrant pages of their own, except for series overviews where applicable.

Such works are not sources, invalid or otherwise. As such, they should not be used as sources for any pages about fictional concepts, even those tagged as invalid.

However, they can be briefly mentioned in "Behind the scenes" sections of valid pages if relevant to the real-world history of things we do actually cover.

The Audio Visuals
Big Finish's Sherlock Holmes

Big Finish Sherlock.jpg

Four little rules

It is important that we as a community work to a common understanding of what "counts" and what doesn't. Otherwise, our articles will gradually become "muddied" over time, with some people viewing certain stories as "okay" and other people thinking the opposite. Over the course of several debates in our forums, four main rules have emerged to determine whether a work is a valid source.

Note that these four rules are not quite the be-all end-all of our validity policies, as all the text after this table will demonstrate. We've got specific jurisprudence that "rounds up" some edge cases to failing or passing one of the four rules, but which cannot necessarily be intuitively derived just from the rules.

Still, these work 99.9% of the time. If you want to understand what our validity policies are all about, first spend time with these; worry about the fine print later.

1 Only stories count.
2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.
3 A story must be officially released to be valid.
4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.

Explaining the rules

Rule 1

Rule 1 may seem redundant or just plain unnecessary. It's not. There are a lot of things about the DWU that aren't, in themselves, narratives. Most obviously, the thoughts of someone on the production team shouldn't be used to write an in-universe article, and this is the main situation Rule 1 was created to prevent.

But there are plenty of other disqualified circumstances under Rule 1. Sometimes you'll find a prose piece in a magazine or annual that describes in-universe locations or technology; it may even be written as if it's "real life" journalism from the DWU. Or you may encounter a game in an annual which sets up the puzzle by having the Doctor or his companion "telling" you the rules. Or there may be information about a DWU character on the back of a playing card or in the packaging on a toy. There are even entire books that contain fictional, but non-narrative, content. None of this counts on this Wiki.

Rule 2
A story has to exploit a lawful, commercial license to at least one DWU concept to qualify for coverage on this Wiki — invalid or otherwise.

Rule 2 is also relatively self-explanatory. A Wiki like ours has to draw a line somewhere for what sources it will or will not cover: fanfic, fanfilms, and even professionally-printed charity books with no license to use the characters they feature, are that ultimate boundary for Tardis. Except for very special cases, Rule-2-breakers do not even deserve pages of their own on Tardis, and any truly notable information about a DWU concept's use in an unlicensed production should be kept at a short note in the Behind the scenes section.

Rule 2 also excludes stories which don't infringe on any copyrights, but simply don't have any. BBV Productions' direct-to-VHS feature Cyberon was ostensibly meant to take place in the Doctor Who universe, and was a perfectly law-abiding product — but at the time it was released, it did not contain any preexisting DWU element to license. Thus, we don't cover it, though we do cover later uses of the Cyberons or Lauren Anderson in stories that also exploited licensed DWU concepts.

However, "relevant copyright holders" is an important word. A one-line namedrop is not legally a form of copyright infringement, for example, so as long as a story is fully licensed for the use of — say — the Brig and the Great Intelligence, it doesn't necessarily need a license to briefly mention New Earth for us to cover it anyway. The rule is also only meant to apply to DWU concepts — if it should hypothetically turn out that Assimilation² did not actually have the license to use the Borg, we would still cover it as valid, because it was licensed to use the Doctor, the Cybermen and so on.

Note that the BBC do sometimes issue what they call "creative licenses", which allow fans to make things that have the "approval" of the BBC, but which cannot be sold. Such things are not covered by this Wiki in any way.

Rule 3

Of the three rules, Rule 3 is by far the most easily grasped, and the most frequently used. Is a televised episode of Doctor Who valid? Obviously — as long as it has been released in its entirety. But, as a natural extension of our spoiler policy, you can't start writing about the events in it based on trailers, early previews, or leaked — even if you are 100% certain your knowledge of what the story will contain is already accurate. This rule exists not only due to concerns about spoilers, but also because in cases of leaks, last-minute changes can, in fact, occur before the true release of a story. Work-prints of several episodes of Series 8 of Doctor Who leaked online ahead of their broadcast, but the spuriously-released Into the Dalek famously killed off Rusty, which is no longer the case in the TV version; and, indeed, Rusty's survival later became essential to the events of a later TV story.

Is a Sarah Jane Adventures audiobook that you've downloaded from AudioGO something you can use on the Sarah Jane page? Of course, because if it's downloadable it's by definition officially released.

This rule also disallows stories which were never released, whether it be because their production was interrupted before completion or, in rare cases, because they were withheld from release even after completion. Notably, such sources, even if backed up by reliable real-world sources, are not even "invalid": they should not give rise to in-universe pages cited to them, only a single overview page for each unproduced or unreleased stories. Unproduced story pages do not get the {{invalid}}, but instead the {{unprod}} banner.

Rule 4
The DWU has messy continuity. A story can't be declared invalid just because it contradicts other stories.

Rule 4 is rarely invoked because there are very few stories which are deliberately set outside the normal DWU continuity.

Most stories are trying to be narratively continuous at the time they're produced, even though they may be superseded by later stories. Even when there is an intentional contradiction, it is generally a matter of retconning or "overwriting" the earlier story, rather than setting itself in a radically separate universe: Terry Nation was aware that he was contradicting earlier Dalek material when he wrote Genesis of the Daleks, but that doesn't mean he was writing outside the DWU itself. Because Doctor Who stories have contradicted each other since the 1960s, a story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories.

Consequently, extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story wasn't intended to take place in the DWU at all, but merely make use of DWU licenses to tell a very different story — must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4.

What doesn't count

Most Doctor Who-related stories so obviously pass our rules that you don't really have to even think about it. The chances are very good that if a story bears an official logo from any of our covered television shows — and an appropriate copyright declaration — it'll be a valid source.

But let's take a look at the kinds of things that don't work for us. Seeing how these rules eliminate sources will probably help resolve any lingering questions.

Class of story Explanation Examples Rule offended
Fanfiction Fan fiction isn't allowed. Seriously, NO FANFIC. That doesn't just mean that users — obviously — shouldn't use Tardis as a place to post their fanfics. Any fiction, by any author, where the copyright holder hasn't given permission isn't allowed, even if it's written by someone who has also written official DWU fiction, or if the fanfiction's events are later referenced in an official story. The Audio Visuals 2
Charity publications And no, it doesn't matter that the story was written by someone who has otherwise written licensed fiction. Or that the publisher did a nice thing and gave his or her profits to charity. Or that the work was almost published by the BBC. Time's Champion
Stories that have been both unlicensed and licensed A few stories have appeared in charity publications or fan-published media and then were made into professional, licensed fiction. We only cover the licensed version. 2
Stories from series that crossed over with the DWU once Sometimes, a valid DWU story will have DWU characters interact with concepts from an unrelated preexisting series, with the implication that the rest of that series is also "applicable" to the DWU. However, those series had no DWU licenses at time of release, and their authors didn't intend for them to exist in the Doctor Who universe at the time — in fact, quite a few of those predate the broadcast of An Unearthly Child. All that stuff may be "canon" in some abstract way, but we have better things to do on this Wiki than cover every Sherlock Holmes or Star Trek story ever. The Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle 2, 4
Stories written by people affiliated with "official" Doctor Who Some things seem like they might be licensed cause they're written by people associated with the DWU. But they're really not licensed at all. That also falls under the "No fanfiction" rule.
The Killing Stone
Pastiches with DWU actors Fan-run companies have generously employed a lot of DWU actors over the years, sometimes in roles meant to evoke their better-known DWU parts. But we don't cover everything Sophie Aldred and Colin Baker were in. It must be a licensed DWU story.
The Airzone Solution
The Stranger
2, 4
Parody Stories that are explicitly parodies rather than "earnest" DWU stories are things that cannot be used to write an in-universe article. But we often do allow there to be a page about the parody. Additionally, a story can be a parody of something else — such as Robot of Sherwood lampooning the Robin Hood myth — and still be valid; it's Doctor Who parodies we disallow. 4
Non-parodic "what if?" stories Some completely serious stories have been explicitly tagged by the publisher or author as being outside the DWU Death Comes to Time 4
Trailers Trailers — especially the "Next Time" trailer that appears at the end of episodes — are considered spoilers here. They can't be cited before the episode they preview airs. And if they contain information which doesn't make it into the final cut of the episodes, that information is considered a cut scene, and therefore doesn't count. A couple of the The Waters of Mars trailers contained information not in the final product. Also, you can't say, "The Tenth Doctor's TARDIS was pulled by reindeer," just because of the 2009 BBC idents 1, 3
Commercials Some advertisements (including some things labeled "trailers") have a clear narrative, and seem like they depict events in the DWU. However, this Wiki holds that as narrative concerns are secondary to commercial ones, these things can't be taken seriously as accounts of events in the "real" DWU. Ace Returns!, Dr Who and the Turgids 4
Review copies If you receive a review copy of a story in advance of the official release date, keep it to yourself. 3
Merchandise Unlike that which obtains at w:c:starwars, packaging for merchandise is not a valid source here. 1
Fictional information presented non-narratively Sometimes, publications like Doctor Who annuals, Dalek annuals and Doctor Who: Battles in Time — or even some reference works — will present "scientific" information about characters and situations in the DWU in a non-narrative style — describign characters, technology and locations instead of describing events in the DWU. Maybe this will be information on the back of playing card, or even an article presented as if it came from an in-universe document. None of this is allowed. Most of the Dalek history in Battles in Time; most reference books with an in-universe focus; anything in Category:Non-DWU features 1
Most "interactive stories" Most games and "choose your fate" games present alternative, branching storylines rather than giving a definitive account of events in the DWU. Additionally, some of them will cast "you", the player, as a character, instead of having you play as an actual DWU characters. Decide Your Destiny novels
Anything in Category:Non-DWU games
1, 4
Behind the scenes information Although behind the scenes comments are pretty much the only way that a story can be disqualified under Rule 4, such information cannot be used in the writing of in-universe articles. PCOM: The End of Time establishes that Julie Gardner believes the Woman is the Doctor's mother. But her opinion is not reflected in the story itself, so it can't be included in the in-universe portion of the article about the Woman. 1

Stories that have been specifically disallowed

The stories we don't allow in our discussion of in-universe topics are actually few and far between. However, for clarity, we've composed a detailed list below.

Trickier stuff

Our simple little rule works to help you understand what stories "count" on this wiki well over 90% of the time. The rest of this document is concerned with the other 10% — the marginal cases that are a little less clear.

When the licensor isn't the BBC

DWU concepts owned by others

The wrinkle that is difficult to understand for those who are new to the world of Doctor Who is the phenomenon of the author-owned concept. Copyright for individual stories of Doctor Who has long resided in the individual writer, unless the British Broadcasting Corporation made other arrangements. This meant that a lot of characters, locations, and — particularly — species, were owned by individuals, not the BBC. Clever publishers were therefore able to release stories connected to Doctor Who without having to ask for the BBC's permission.

Stories licensed by an individual author are generally allowed here. Click here for a detailed list of these kind of stories produced by BBV Productions, the major publisher of them.

The major publisher of this kind of story was BBV Productions. Typically, they would approach people like Robert Holmes (or, more precisely, his estate) and get permission to write, say, a Sontaran story that didn't involve other characters from the DWU. They then ended up with a story that was, in effect, fully licensed, because they got permission from the owner of the DWU element, and then they created wholly new characters around that copyrighted element.

Our approach is to generally allow these sorts of stories.

However, there are a few exceptions, detailed below.

Character Where decided Covered? Valid? Notes
Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? Forum:BBV and canon policy Yes No Makes use of licenses to several DWU elements in the context of a parody of Doctor Who — and of Doctor Who spin-offs. It is the ur-type of a non-BBC-licensed story that should be covered, but as an invalid source.
Gobbleknoll Hall Thread:207278 No No Although Vince Cosmos appears in this episode of Baker's End, the overall intent of Baker's End was that it would be a sharp break from Doctor Who, "allowing" Tom Baker to star in something non-DW-related for a change. No sufficient evidence was presented about the authorial intent on Gobbleknoll Hall specifically to get around this basic fact.
Big Finish's Vienna Thread:125464 No, except in crossovers No, except in crossovers Although Vienna Salvatori made her debut in a Doctor Who audio, the creators of Vienna have made statements showing that they don't consider the series to be a Doctor Who spin-off, or Vienna's universe to be the same as the DWU. Consequently, not only are Vienna's solo appearances not valid, the Wiki does not even cover them.
Death's Head: The Body in Question Thread:246276 No No Although this story does mention the Doctor and feature a minor appearance by Keepsake's vulture (a character who did debut in a valid story), these elements are deemed minor enough to be in realm of easter eggs, rather than genuine attempts to tether it to the DWU. This is a Marvel story that happens to tip its hat to the one-time partnership between Marvel and the DWU — nothing more.
The Sleeze Brothers Thread:210741, Thread:283828 Yes No The evidence is insufficient that this short-lived spin-off was intended to be set in the DWU. It is thus invalid by default.
The Periodic Adventures of Señor 105 Thread:117545 No, except in crossovers No, except in crossovers Partway through the inclusion debate about the solo series of this secondary Iris Wildthyme character, the Señor's own creator weighed in, telling us that as far as he was concerned, it had "nothing to do on a Who wiki". We obliged.
Non-DWU characters appearing in DWU productions

Very occasionally, a non-DWU character will appear in a "crossover" Doctor Who production and then go back to making appearances in their home series. Sometimes, this character will then be spun off into their own series. In such cases the spin-off is generally not considered a part of the DWU, except in very special cases or within further crossovers with the DWU.

Character Where decided Valid? Notes
Death's Head Lots of discussions, including Forum:BBV and canon policy and Narrowly While we do have articles on the original comic series itself, the entirety of the character is not up for discussion here. Basically, Death's Head is valid to us only in stories directly featuring the Doctor or characters introduced in Doctor Who Magazine — if you want a full explanation of the character, go to the Marvel Database. However, at least one Death's Head run, The Incomplete Death's Head, serialised a singular frame story which did feature DWU characters, so the entirety of The Incomplete Death's Head is considered a valid source.
The Fantastic Four
& other Marvel heroes
Lots of discussions, including Forum:Iris Wildthyme: should she stay or should she go? No The Seventh Doctor may land on top of the Four Freedoms Plaza at the conclusion of the Death's Head story Time Bomb!, but although this implies that a significant amount of the Marvel "canon" exists inside the DWU, these elements did not debut in the DWU. Thus, earlier or later appearances of any Marvel character is not validated by having once encountered a DWU element, albeit the Doctor themselves.
Iris Wildthyme Thread:208795 Mostly Because she was reimagined as an inherently a DWU character (a Time Lady, or later a denizen of the Obverse) upon her introduction into the DWU, all official appearances by Iris Wildthyme after Old Flames are held to be part of the DWU. However, we still do not consider her handful of pre-DWU appearances in the Phoenix Court series to fall within what we cover on this Wiki.
Scott Handcock's Dorian Gray Thread:118228 No, with two exceptions. The Confessions of Dorian Gray audio series is not a valid source. The authorial intent of author Scott Handcock is that it not be considered a spin-off of Doctor Who. The only exceptions of this rule are Shades of Gray (a Bernice Summerfield which happens to feature the charecter) and The Worlds of Big Finish (a crossover event with several DWU ranges).
Big Finish's Sherlock Holmes Thread:118228 and Thread:210966 No, with two exceptions. Big Finish's Sherlock Holmes can only be said to be a part of the DWU because of a crossover in The Confessions of Dorian Gray series. Since that series has been ruled invalid, the Sherlock Holmes claim fails. Similarly to Dorian Gray, however, there are two exceptions to this ruling: All-Consuming Fire, and The Worlds of Big Finish.

When the licensor is the BBC

Though almost everything which is licensed by the BBC and other rights' holders is considered a valid source here, our community occasionally rules certain stories out of bounds. The following is a list of those specific stories, along with references to the debates that declared those stories out of bounds.

Story/series Where decided Covered? Valid? Notes
Death Comes to Time Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time, Thread:240617, Thread:267931 Yes No Solidly invalid, as the three failed inclusion debates will prove. But note that it is not invalid because it kills off the Seventh Doctor, or gives all Time Lords awe-inspiring mind powers. It's invalid because judging by some quotes of his, author Dan Freedman did not consider it part of the "canonical" DWU at the time it was released.
Dermot and the Doctor National Television Awards Sketch 2011: Canon? Yes No
A Fix with Sontarans, Tonight's the Night Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon? Yes No Those two are rare examples of so-called "TV stories" failing Rule 1. What we see of the Doctor and Jack's respective adventures may be set in the DWU, but neither of the sketches actually ends, instead bleeding over into fourth wall breaks. Thus it's a nonstarter for validity in both cases. (Contrast with the 2022 recut of A Fix with Sontarans, which eliminated the fourth-wall-breaking and instead appended a proper conclusion to the in-universe narrative.)
Dimensions in Time Is Dimensions in Time canon, Tardis talk:Canon policy, Thread:211495 Yes No Rule 4 is questionable as far as John Nathan-Turner's authorial intent is concerned, but more to the point, the licensing situation around Dimensions in Time is wonky and idiosyncratic. It's a headache, and one nobody was ever particularly inclined to make special allowances for. That being said, we do consider it a grandfathered-in special case as far as "charity works" go, and cover it like we would any other invalid story, instead of kicking it off the Wiki altogether as fanfic.
PROSE: The Infinity Doctors Is The Infinity Doctors canon? Yes Sorta On this wiki, we make a special exception to our usual rule against authorial intent, to allow us t acknowledge The Infinity Doctors as DWU, yet clearly not part of the "mainstream" continuity. Consequently, we hold its events to have occurred in an alternate timeline, and while references to events from the story are allowed in in-universe articles, they must be prefaced with explanatory language such as "In an [[Alternate timeline (The Infinity Doctors)|alternate timeline]], the Doctor was told that..." or the like.
Scream of the Shalka webcast, and all things flowing from it Thread:207499 Yes No A Doctor implied to be the "Shalka" Doctor has made cameos in valid sources. This doesn't validate "Shalka-verse" media, but per Thread:212365, it doesn't invalidate these later stories either.
Doctor Who? and other obvious parodies a statement repeated without controversy throughout Is The Infinity Doctors canon? Yes No If something is blatantly a spoof of the DWU rather than an "earnest" DWU narrative, it can safely be created as invalid even without a thread to specifically rule on the matter. However, "obvious" implies no significant disagreement; if there are conflicting opinions on whether a work qualifies as a parody, it should be taken to the forums.
Deleted scenes Are deleted scenes canon?, P.S. Yes No Deleted scenes were ruled deleted for a reason and therefore cannot be considered a part of the final narrative; they arguably fail Rule 1 and Rule 3, and definitely fail Rule 4. (That includes P.S., because writer Chris Chibnall admitted it was cancelled DVD extra, not a completed work.)
The Tom Baker version of Shada Are deleted scenes canon?
superseded by
Shada: The Elephant in the Room
Yes No (unfinished and 1992 versions).
Yes (2017 version)
The 2017 version of Shada, presented as a complete story with animated linking scenes, is valid. However, we never considered the VHS version with linking narration by Tom Baker as a fourth-wall breaking future Doctor to be valid; it's more of a really long deleted scene with a fun framing device.
Devious Thread:184791 Yes (trailer)
No (finished serial)
No The home video release is an extended trailer, not any kind of self-contained story, so it fails Rule 1. As for the thing it's a trailer for, it was never licensed and fails Rule 2. Only the home video release deserves coverage — as an invalid DVD extra.
or any licensed DWU stage play Why do prefixes link as they do? Yes No 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.
Because of this uncertainty of content, only fixed "adaptations" of plays, one with clear records that can be gone back to, are valid. This includes Big Finish audio adaptions of these stage plays, and, if it exists, an official televised, webcast or home-video capture of a specific performance. Illegal fan-made recordings do not count, even if they are complete and objectively reliable.
Many official Doctor Who games; Anything like the Decide Your Destiny and Find Your Fate ranges, in their entirety Decide Your Destiny and Find Your Fate are NOTDWU from here on out Yes No (with rare exceptions) Any story with multiple conflicting endings, or otherwise "branching" storylines that vary with every reader's experience, clearly can't be counted as a valid source, insofar as we have no mechanism — unlike Star Wars fandom — by which we can determine which of the endings is the "correct" one. (This rule should not be considered to apply to the likes of AUDIO: Flip-Flop, where the "choose your own adventure" format is pastiched to depict "timey-wimey" phenomena, and the authorial intent is clearly that all the paths are equally and simultaneously real.)
In-universe websites Thread:121084 More or less No (with rare exceptions) Most websites written from an in-universe perspective, such as the Torchwood website, Who is Doctor Who?, and the UNIT website are disallowed, as they are essentially non-narrative. Exceptions exist, such as Martha Jones' MySpace blog, ruled narrative enough for treatment as a story by Thread:185810.
Novelisations Thread:231243 Yes Yes, but After Thread:231243 overruled a previous decision in April 2018, novelisations considered are considered valid sources in their own right for in-universe information. However, contrary to the original proposal of that thread, we still treat info from novelisations differently from other stories in one very specific situation: page names. In other words, points about naming characters at Talk:Miranda (Doctor Who) still stand.
WeLoveTITANS comics Thread:177099 Yes No The #WeLoveTitans comic strips in the back of Titan comic books are not valid sources, because they are essentially commercials — and oft-parodical besides — meaning they break Rule 4. Note, on the other hand, that the humorous hand-drawn backup strips do pass Rule 4.
The Doctor Who Online Adventures Thread:136206 No No The Online Adventures only ever had a non-commercial creative license to work in the DWU, so they fail Rule 2, albeit by a hair's breadth. Since the licensed seasons follow on directly from completedly unlicensed material, it would also be too much of a hassle trying to cover only half of this series for it to be worth our time.
And Introducing... Talk:And Introducing... Yes No Although some very short narratives can be valid sources, the creators of this one-page comic "preview" of the Thirteenth Doctor's Titan Comics run put scare quotes around the word "story" when describing their work. As such, this is a rare case of a story failing Rule 1 based on authorial intent.

The real world doesn't count

It is a great temptation to believe that the Doctor Who universe is very much like the real world. It is not. There are many, many ways in which the DWU's version of Earth history is different from real world Earth history. You should never assume that because you personally know, say, Albert Einstein's birthdate, or the year the film Breakfast at Tiffany's debuted, or the duration of the Second Afghan War, that these dates will be the same in the DWU.

This wiki is an encyclopedia of the known DWU, not the real world. If a DWU source doesn't explicitly give a detail about a real world item, you can't include it in the main body of an article.

Historical episodes of Doctor Who — even from as far back as season 1, when the show was explicitly meant to be "educational" — are replete with historical inaccuracies. Marco Polo's given DWU birthdate is different from the real world date. Modern day episodes of the show, like The War Machines, are based on qualities of British computer science that didn't exist in 1966. And episodes that were supposed to be set in the clear future, like The Tenth Planet, described events that obviously never came to pass.

A DWU source cannot be described as "wrong" about a real world person, place or thing. Differences simply show ways in which the DWU is not the real world.

The long and the short of it: don't write the in-universe sections of articles about subjects that exist in both the DWU and the real world using Wikipedia. Trust only Doctor Who sources. And don't go further than what the DWU source actually tells you. If there are noteworthy discrepancies, they should only be discussed in the BTS section.

When real-world elements are alluded to in a DWU source, but go unnamed, we do sometimes use real-world information to derive a {{conjecture}} page title: if a reader wants to know if U.K. Prime Minsiter Anthony Eden has ever been referenced in Doctor Who, it wouldn't be very helpful to give that page an "unclear" name like Eden (Knock Knock), even though only his last name is mentioned in the TV episode Knock Knock. However, this only applies to page names: the in-universe text of the page itself, including the lead, should not employ the conjectural real-world name.

Out-of-universe sources

When writing an out-of-universe or "real world" article, your sources must be verifiable. Please do not cite sources such as fan forums or fan blogs, as this violates our commitment to establishing a neutral point of view. Blogs and forum posts are generally written by single individuals, without any special intellectual rigour or fact checking. Therefore, to include their opinions in our articles would be to give undue to weight to single individuals.

The broader point, however, is that blogs and forum posts are often simply wrong.

This is especially important when citing information regarding living people, upcoming stories, airdates, and the like. Such sources are notoriously inaccurate. Few, if any, are edited. Especially with regards to information about upcoming stories and other broadcast matter, BBC announcements should take precedence among all other sources. Officially-licensed media such as Doctor Who Magazine are acceptable. Some long-standing websites, such as doctorwhonews.com, are useful as starting points for further investigation, because they always source their stories. However, it is a better practice to cite the original source than to cite doctorwhonews.com. Reports in major media — The Times, Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, BBC News etc. — are also acceptable.

Finally, user-editable sources such as Wikipedia, the Internet Movie Database and this very wiki are to be avoided, as are sites that are built on largely un-edited user contributions, such as the Doctor Who Reference Guide.

Unofficial reference sources

A distinction should be made, however, between the above types of sites which are "forbidden" because of their fan involvement and lack of intellectual rigour, and, for lack of a better phrase, "unofficial reference sources".

Some fans have created sites that are more like interactive reference books, in that they present well-sourced analyses, in exactly the same manner as would any reputable reference writer. Prime amongst this type of allowed fan site is Shannon Sullivan's A Brief History of Time (Travel), which we feel is a genuine attempt at behind-the-scenes scholarship.

Equally, we feel that, due to the fact that John Nathan-Turner historically used fanzines as a way to officially disseminate genuine information about Doctor Who — and very many people involved with the production of the programme followed suit — some articles in some fanzines are completely legitimate sources. Indeed a fanzine like The Frame is almost entirely comprised of primary source interviews with individuals who didn't live long enough to be included on DVD special features. Likewise, the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club's Time Space Visualiser is replete with primary source interviews with a number of figures important to Doctor Who.

Pod- and video-casting have largely replaced fanzines as the highest-profile method of fan communication. These, too, are acceptable sources in some cases. If, say, Radio Free Skaro conducts an interview with Jane Espenson, that's "on the record". If Doctor Who: Podshock secures a video interview with Waris Hussein, that's no less legitimate than something filmed by the BBC. Information given by Dan Hall to a podcast about upcoming DVDs is potentially "news".

A good rule of thumb is that interviews with Doctor Who production figures are of equal weight, regardless of the "professional" status of the interviewer, so long as it can be reasonably established that the person being interviewed is actually whom they purport to be.

Self-reference disallowed

Extreme caution must be exercised with respect to information that comes from the subject of a page. David Tennant's opinion, given to Doctor Who Confidential, about the filming of 42 is perhaps of interest at the page 42 (TV story). However, Tennant's tweet of his age or hometown or other biographical information absolutely cannot be used at the page David Tennant.

It is a fundamental truth of show business that people lie about themselves. Actors will portray themselves as younger (or, rarely, older) in order to get a part. They will say they can ride a horse or speak Spanish or climb mountains — when none of that is true. Janet Fielding is, for example, well known to have lied directly to John Nathan-Turner's face in order to get the part of Tegan Jovanka, misrepresenting both her age and whether she was tall enough to be an Australian air stewardess. Similarly, directors might use the word film in the hopes of connoting feature, even though they may have only done a 15-minute short.

The last thing we want is to become a conduit of deliberate disinformation. Therefore, we do not accept the statements of individuals about themselves as valid sources for the page about them. As an extension of this, if you are yourself the subject of a real-world page on Tardis, please do not edit it; more about this, and related issues, at T:WIKIFY OWN.