FANDOM


  • Shambala108
    Shambala108 closed this thread because:
    Closed based on authorial intent as stated at Tardis:Valid sources
    02:39, September 15, 2017

    We've never had a discussion focusing on Scream of the Shalka and its sequel short story, The Feast of the Stone.

    There's only two times the Doctor hints at which incarnation he's in:

    1. He says a cat had used up all of his nine lives, "like me". This suggests he's in a ninth incarnation, but it doesn't change much. He could be in his second regeneration cycle, or his third. Or his fourth...you get the point. Besides, Time Lords don't have a nine-incarnation cycle, they have thirteen incarnations. So I honestly don't know what he was trying to say here - it could be he's just being poetic or something.

    2. He mentions Andy Warhol once painted "all nine of him", but that could mean that back in the Eccleston or Hurt incarnation, he had Warhol paint himself and his predecessors.

    At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.

    In addition, there is evidence that Shalka is valid, coming from the new series:

    1. The Twelfth Doctor mentions "stealing the President's daughter", something that is part of the established backstory for the "Shalka Doctor".

    2. The Eleventh Doctor mentions having an android boyfriend, and the creators of the webcast have stated that, yes, the "Shalka Doctor" and the Master were a couple.

    So, here's my proposal:

    1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".

    2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -

    Essentially, Scream of the Shalka is vague on whether the "Ninth" Doctor is actually the ninth (as in following from the Eighth Doctor played by McGann), and other works have acknowledged parts of Shalka being in the Doctor's past. Thus, I propose we treat it like we do the incarnations from The Dalek Factor, The Cabinet of Light, Party Animals, etc. - refer to him merely as "an incarnation of the Doctor".

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I 100% agree.

      It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has authorial intent changed since? And does the latter matter?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.

      It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?

      The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.

      It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?

      The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.

      Well put sir, I agree.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.

      It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?

      The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.

      Well put sir, I agree.

      Just an FYI...I'm a ma'am.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I 100% agree.

      It passes rules 1-3, 4 was that it was intended to be in the DWU but has this changed since?

      The creators have since deemed it "unbound". However, that's like saying that if Moffat goes back and calls The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe unbound now, we follow suit and deem it invalid. Which doesn't really make much sense at all, really. Authorial intent, when writing it, was that it was set in the DWU.

      Well put sir, I agree.

      Just an FYI...I'm a ma'am.

      Correction: Well put ma'am, I agree.

      Sorry bout that pal.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote: We've never had a discussion focusing on Scream of the Shalka and its sequel short story, The Feast of the Stone.

      There's only two times the Doctor hints at which incarnation he's in:

      1. He says a cat had used up all of his nine lives, "like me". This suggests he's in a ninth incarnation, but it doesn't change much. He could be in his second regeneration cycle, or his third. Or his fourth...you get the point. Besides, Time Lords don't have a nine-incarnation cycle, they have thirteen incarnations. So I honestly don't know what he was trying to say here - it could be he's just being poetic or something.

      2. He mentions Andy Warhol once painted "all nine of him", but that could mean that back in the Eccleston or Hurt incarnation, he had Warhol paint himself and his predecessors.

      At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.

      In addition, there is evidence that Shalka is valid, coming from the new series:

      1. The Twelfth Doctor mentions "stealing the President's daughter", something that is part of the established backstory for the "Shalka Doctor".

      2. The Eleventh Doctor mentions having an android boyfriend, and the creators of the webcast have stated that, yes, the "Shalka Doctor" and the Master were a couple.

      So, here's my proposal:

      1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".

      2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -

      Essentially, Scream of the Shalka is vague on whether the "Ninth" Doctor is actually the ninth (as in following from the Eighth Doctor played by McGann), and other works have acknowledged parts of Shalka being in the Doctor's past. Thus, I propose we treat it like we do the incarnations from The Dalek Factor, The Cabinet of Light, Party Animals, etc. - refer to him merely as "an incarnation of the Doctor".

      It's obvious that he's meant to be the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. Sure, you can do mental gymnastics to try to justify the idea that he's not. But if you care about authorial intent at the time it was written, you've got to admit that he was meant to be the Ninth Doctor.

      But I do actually agree that it should be a valid source. The only reason anybody really argues against it is that it doesn't fit their idea of what Doctor Who should be. Yeah, it's not the same Ninth Doctor as Eccleston. I don't know why anyone cares. Contradictions are supposedly not a reason to disqualify something, but people ignore that if they think that a story shouldn't be canon. Following the precedent of Death Comes to Time, if either Ninth Doctor is NOTVALID it should be Eccleston, not Grant.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Fwhiffahder wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote: We've never had a discussion focusing on Scream of the Shalka and its sequel short story, The Feast of the Stone.

      There's only two times the Doctor hints at which incarnation he's in:

      1. He says a cat had used up all of his nine lives, "like me". This suggests he's in a ninth incarnation, but it doesn't change much. He could be in his second regeneration cycle, or his third. Or his fourth...you get the point. Besides, Time Lords don't have a nine-incarnation cycle, they have thirteen incarnations. So I honestly don't know what he was trying to say here - it could be he's just being poetic or something.

      2. He mentions Andy Warhol once painted "all nine of him", but that could mean that back in the Eccleston or Hurt incarnation, he had Warhol paint himself and his predecessors.

      At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.

      In addition, there is evidence that Shalka is valid, coming from the new series:

      1. The Twelfth Doctor mentions "stealing the President's daughter", something that is part of the established backstory for the "Shalka Doctor".

      2. The Eleventh Doctor mentions having an android boyfriend, and the creators of the webcast have stated that, yes, the "Shalka Doctor" and the Master were a couple.

      So, here's my proposal:

      1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".

      2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -

      Essentially, Scream of the Shalka is vague on whether the "Ninth" Doctor is actually the ninth (as in following from the Eighth Doctor played by McGann), and other works have acknowledged parts of Shalka being in the Doctor's past. Thus, I propose we treat it like we do the incarnations from The Dalek Factor, The Cabinet of Light, Party Animals, etc. - refer to him merely as "an incarnation of the Doctor".

      It's obvious that he's meant to be the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. Sure, you can do mental gymnastics to try to justify the idea that he's not. But if you care about authorial intent at the time it was written, you've got to admit that he was meant to be the Ninth Doctor.

      But I do actually agree that it should be a valid source. The only reason anybody really argues against it is that it doesn't fit their idea of what Doctor Who should be. Yeah, it's not the same Ninth Doctor as Eccleston. I don't know why anyone cares. Contradictions are supposedly not a reason to disqualify something, but people ignore that if they think that a story shouldn't be canon. Following the precedent of Death Comes to Time, if either Ninth Doctor is NOTVALID it should be Eccleston, not Grant.

      Fair enough on the mental gymnastics part - you're probably right.

      If it is deemed a valid source, should we keep the article about its Doctor with its current title, or move it to "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)"?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Fwhiffahder wrote: It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.

      Then should we classify it as an alternate universe Doctor (but still valid)?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      Fwhiffahder wrote: It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.

      Then should we classify it as an alternate universe Doctor (but still valid)?

      It would be more accurate than NOTVALID, but still — strictly speaking, the two should be equally "correct" versions. Just use the "according to one account" language. And comment on the mention of three Ninth Doctors in (I think) The Tomorrow Windows.

      Not that any of it really matters. This thread isn't likely to go anywhere. It's more likely that an admin will swoop in and peremptorily close it, claiming that it's already been settled.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Fwhiffahder wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      Fwhiffahder wrote: It's specifically the Ninth Doctor. I don't see why it should move.

      Then should we classify it as an alternate universe Doctor (but still valid)?

      It would be more accurate than NOTVALID, but still — strictly speaking, the two should be equally "correct" versions. Just use the "according to one account" language. And comment on the mention of three Ninth Doctors in (I think) The Tomorrow Windows.

      Not that any of it really matters. This thread isn't likely to go anywhere. It's more likely that an admin will swoop in and peremptorily close it, claiming that it's already been settled.

      Well, as I've said, we've never had a formal discussion on Shalka, as the decision was just tossed out there during the Infinity Doctors debate and no one commented on it, so it was labelled a decision with no debate at all.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The problem is that the New Series Doctors don't have dabs, and I don't know what to call them if we DO decide to add a dab.

      If we were to deem Shalka valid and not move Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), some might say we would be biased towards the new series. On the other hand, if we move it to "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)", this isn't an issue.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 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.

      Well, it's a story, completely licensed in every way, obviously officially released, and definitely set in the Doctor Who universe. Considering all the plot hooks in the episode, it's clear that it was meant to be continued, so the conditions used to exclude Death Comes to Time (which I still don't understand) do not apply. Seems like all four rules are completely and undeniably satisfied! (Thank you Pluto2 for bringing this up; very strange that it was ruled invalid after zero debate.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You're welcome, Nate!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.

      Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or {{notdwu}}, as it were)?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.

      Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or {{notdwu}}, as it were)?

      The thing is, Shalka passes the four little rules with flying colors. No one actually debated Shalka in that discussion - it was just a single person saying something.

      1. Is it a story? Yes.

      2. Was it licensed? Yes.

      3. Was it officially released? Yes.

      4. Was it intended to be set in the DWU? Yes. It was advertised as a continuation of the series.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not really, actually; several admin confirmed the reasoning behind its status. And besides, it does not pass the four rules. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.

      When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote:

      We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.

      It's kind of surreal to read that inclusion debate. It's pretty obvious that the four little rules hadn't been formalized then - the word "canon" is even thrown around willy-nilly! If we're reevaluating Shalka based on the rules currently formalized in the Valid Sources policy, it seems to fit: it's clearly licensed; it's an officially released story (twice or three times over, nonetheless); and by all accounts, the Shalka Doctor was clearly intended to become the new Ninth Doctor ... before RTD went ahead and got the TV license and chose to ignore it. As a result, the publisher has retroactively described it as being in a different universe, and that seems to be the grounds for its exclusion.

      But I don't think that sort of retroactive justification counts nowadays. If Moffat comes out and declares that he thinks the EDAs are noncanon, would we declare them nonvalid? Remember that one of the main reasons for excluding Death Comes to Time was how the author knew about the Eighth Doctor and was deliberately choosing to cut him out of continuity. But didn't RTD do exactly the same thing with NuWho by excluding Shalka? Just something interesting to consider.

      Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or {{notdwu}}, as it were)?

      I think the reason a lot of old decisions are being questioned is that we have the four little rules now, and they're clearly defined, and they have repercussions that reflect backwards pretty strongly on some of the older, less-formally-justified decisions, which are very disorganized and often self-contradictory to begin with. It's not really a bad thing in the growth of the wiki.

      That said, you raise a very fair point that the pace needs to seriously slow down. No new material is being released about the Shalka Doctor, and most of it is currently covered under the "invalid" tag anyway, so if there were a list of inclusion debate priorities, this would be near the absolute bottom. I propose that instead, some of this energy should be channeled into making actual articles and edits. Shalka is already allowed on this wiki, if not as a completely valid source: if one wants to make an article about something in the Shalka stories, they freely can, as long as it follows the invalid naming and tagging conventions.

      In contrast, more thoroughly debated series like Senor 105 and Faction Paradox are currently completely excluded. Right now, I see 13 open inclusion debates, just from the last week; at this pace, if and when a bureaucrat wanders through, they won't even know where to start. And what does that achieve? Do we really want to focus on stories that are already covered, where no one has anything new to add to the articles, at the expense of stories currently uncovered and full of potential? Patience might be hard, but it's necessary, and picking a dozen little fights won't possibly give any help the big ones. Just food for thought for OP and others.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No, of course statements by Moffat about portions of the DWU not under his control (nay, from before his involvement) would have no significance. But statements by the publishers, before, during or afterwards do have a bearing. We don't necessarily exclude Shalka because of anything said by RTD; rather, we look to its creators, those who hold the license, and, well, the BBC. I see Shalka as the start of something which was cancelled. I'm sure there are quotes from relevant individuals that I could bring up to better prove my point, but it's been a while since I've reviewed this.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: No, of course statements by Moffat about portions of the DWU not under his control (nay, from before his involvement) would have no significance. But statements by the publishers, before, during or afterwards do have a bearing. We don't necessarily exclude Shalka because of anything said by RTD; rather, we look to its creators, those who hold the license, and, well, the BBC. I see Shalka as the start of something which was cancelled. I'm sure there are quotes from relevant individuals that I could bring up to better prove my point, but it's been a while since I've reviewed this.

      That's like saying because Doctor Who was cancelled, Dragonfire-onward is invalid because it started something that was cancelled.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not really seeing the logic. I didn't say just "started something that was cancelled". That wasn't my reasoning at all. It started a whole divergent continuity which was cancelled, and soon after even the pilot was wholly written over.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: Not really seeing the logic. I didn't say just "started something that was cancelled". That wasn't my reasoning at all. It started a whole divergent continuity which was cancelled, and soon after even the pilot was wholly written over.

      So? That's not the point. Just treat it as an alternate universe. Don't deem it wholly invalid if it passes the four little rules. That's the guidelines that we, as a wiki, have decided are the ones used to determine whether something is a valid source. There's no precedent for a cancelled divergent continuity clause.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: Not really seeing the logic. I didn't say just "started something that was cancelled". That wasn't my reasoning at all. It started a whole divergent continuity which was cancelled, and soon after even the pilot was wholly written over.

      You could say that the New Adventures started a "whole divergent continuity." There was a time when some EDA writers (like Terrance Dicks and Lawrence Miles, although the latter changed his mind), and many fans, thought that the NAs were a dead continuity and the EDAs separate. Lots of fans whose brains are too small to handle heretical ideas like looms still insist that it's a separate continuity, or alternate timeline, or similar. But none of that affects this wiki's policy. Contradictions are just ignored.

      You say that the pilot was "wholly written over." But last time I checked, there is no authority with such capabilities. There is no canon.

      But I agree with User:NateBumber that this really isn't the best time for this inclusion debate, and that it might be better for User:Pluto2 to focus more of their energy on editing the articles that already exist.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We're not talking about contradictions here. We're talking about intent, and we're talking about statements from the creators of the story and from the BBC disregarding this as in any way part of Doctor Who continuity.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: We're not talking about contradictions here. We're talking about intent, and we're talking about statements from the creators of the story and from the BBC disregarding this as in any way part of Doctor Who continuity.

      I think I agree with you SOTO pal.

      Though can we add to this discussion, The Web of Caves, which I believe is a similar case...

      The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story? After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote: At the time, authorial intent was that it was set in the DWU. Even if it was later disavowed, it's still a fact that the intent when making this webcast was to set it in the DWU.

      Can we get a quote on that? Because what we get on DWM 465 is:

      "I'm glad we didn't end up being proper Doctor Who," says Cornell, "but I think we gave it a really good shot."

      To give the quote some context: it comes from an article reviewing Scream of the Shalka. More specifically, this quote is from the section "DVD Extras" (the DVD of the webcast was released one month after DWM 465).

      DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Though can we add to this discussion, The Web of Caves, which I believe is a similar case...

      The Web of Caves according to DWM 285 is intended to be set within the DWU, the numbering of Gatiss' incarnation was never stated either off or on screen. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. What do people think about the validity of this story? After giving it the old rewatch, it appears to be more serious the Gatiss' other scripts such as Robot of Sherwood.

      Can we please not go off-topic? The Web of Caves is completly unrelated to Scream of the Shalka. If we are to discuss The Web of Caves, it should get a thread for itself, but not this one.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OncomingStorm12th wrote: Can we get a quote on that?

      From the article "No one can hear you SCREAM" in DWM 336:

      "The Ninth Doctor in a story that sets its sights on the future and provides a starting point for ongoing adventures without reformatting the show. Traditional but original, new monsters that behave like Doctor Who monsters should, and a new Doctor with a new way of doing things who's still very much the Doctor we know and love" - Paul Cornell

      Maybe even broadcast on television - just like like how proper Doctor Who used to be. Actually, according to BBCi, this is proper Doctor Who.

      "It's a new medium, a new start for Doctor Who. No one knows what the next step is going to be." - James Goss

      Also in DWM 336:

      After Eight

      He came back to life before your eyes. But now he's regenerated - and no one thought to tell him. Benjamin Cook caught up with Paul Mcgann to mourn the passing of the Eight Doctor and pass judgement on his usurper [Richard E Grant].

      In an interview with Justin Richards in DWM 338:

      "My thought was that it would be nice to do 'Ninth Doctor' books within the Past Doctors line - there really isn't enough in Shalka to kick off a whole new strand, although it might have been possible if we'd been able to do one extra book every quarter in its own sub-range" - Justin Richards

      The intent during production was most definitely that the story was set within the DWU. If only for a month, Richard E Grant was undeniably The Ninth Doctor. If COMIC: Genesis of Evil remains a valid source after Genesis of the Daleks, why can't Shalka remain a valid source after Rose. We can't go around saying "all media have equal weight" if we only cover the popular stuff.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OncomingStorm12th wrote: Because what we get on DWM 465 is:

      "I'm glad we didn't end up being proper Doctor Who," says Cornell, "but I think we gave it a really good shot."

      Around the time that Cornell said that, he also said this in an interview on Kasterborous:

      Of course, the way things are today, nothing is canonical. But then everything is canonical in a way. If the Time War has changed everything and left continuity up in the air, then Shalka might once have happened…!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.

      When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU.

      So by the logic of you argument the 1960s dalek films with peter cursing are valid as they don't contodict anything said by that point in the franchise

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • TheChampionOfTime wrote:

      OncomingStorm12th wrote: Because what we get on DWM 465 is:

      "I'm glad we didn't end up being proper Doctor Who," says Cornell, "but I think we gave it a really good shot."

      Around the time that Cornell said that, he also said this in an interview on Kasterborous:

      Of course, the way things are today, nothing is canonical. But then everything is canonical in a way. If the Time War has changed everything and left continuity up in the air, then Shalka might once have happened…!

      Ooo CoT has convinced me. Is Cornell suggesting a divergent timeline caused by the Time War?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 178.100.233.86 wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid.

      When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU.

      So by the logic of your argument the 1960s dalek films with Peter Cushing are valid as they don't contradict anything said by that point in the franchise?

      Did Pluto2 say that? I don't think so.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 178.100.233.86 wrote: So by the logic of you argument the 1960s dalek films with peter cursing are valid as they don't contodict anything said by that point in the franchise

      The difference with the Dr. Who movies is that from the start they were meant to be separate from the original show. Scream of the Shalka features the Ninth Doctor, who is a successor to Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor, and is part of the same universe as everything before its release. Labelling Grant's Doctor NOTVALID means considering him a separate character from the one in Doctor Who (TV story) — which just isn't true. The contradiction of which Ninth Doctor is the "real" one is the only thing that makes the story at all controversial. And contradictions are not our problem.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shalka is an admittedly unique case, because it was produced as part of the DWU, but the question isn't its production.

      Yes, Shalka was undeniably intended to be set within the DWU as it existed at the time it was produced, but by the time it was released, was it still intended as such? By the time the first instalment of Shalka was released, the BBC Wales series had been announced, which means that the DWU existing as of 13 November 2003 was a universe that cannot in any way be reconciled with Shalka.

      The other anti-Shalka argument, which unfortunately involves the c-word, is that Shalka is a part of the only case where the canonical order of Doctor regenerations was unambiguously changed. (The 2013 specials did not unambiguously change the order, because there was never any evidence Eccleston's Doctor was the ninth body. In Shalka, the Doctor directly states he is on his ninth body.) Every other "alternate" Doctor was intended to be non-canon at the time, or was not intended to follow from the last televised Doctor.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: Shalka is an admittedly unique case, because it was produced as part of the DWU, but the question isn't its production.

      Yes, Shalka was undeniably intended to be set within the DWU as it existed at the time it was produced, but by the time it was released, was it still intended as such? By the time the first instalment of Shalka was released, the BBC Wales series had been announced, which means that the DWU existing as of 13 November 2003 was a universe that cannot in any way be reconciled with Shalka.

      That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced. The DWU, as defined by this wiki, does not ever include unreleased stories. And Shalka was still meant to feature an extension of the character seen in An Unearthly Child, the TV movie, and The Shadows of Avalon.

      Bwburke94 wrote: The other anti-Shalka argument, which unfortunately involves the c-word, is that Shalka is a part of the only case where the canonical order of Doctor regenerations was unambiguously changed. (The 2013 specials did not unambiguously change the order, because there was never any evidence Eccleston's Doctor was the ninth body. In Shalka, the Doctor directly states he is on his ninth body.) Every other "alternate" Doctor was intended to be non-canon at the time, or was not intended to follow from the last televised Doctor.

      As you mentioned yourself: this entire argument is invalid because it relies on "canon" — which does not exist, and the very concept of which is both stupid and toxic. Also: if we bring in the fact that Eccleston wasn't explicitly the ninth incarnation of the Doctor, but Grant was, we have to admit that until Hurt was introduced in The Name of the Doctor, Grant was the ninth incarnation of the Doctor.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Treating Shalka as valid and treating it as part of the main universe are not the same thing.

      Am I correct in saying that a "valid" Shalka would be relegated to alternate-universe status, similar to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: Treating Shalka as valid and treating it as part of the main universe are not the same thing.

      Am I correct in saying that a "valid" Shalka would be relegated to alternate-universe status, similar to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)?

      It's certainly an option.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Fwhiffahder wrote:

      Bwburke94 wrote: Treating Shalka as valid and treating it as part of the main universe are not the same thing.

      Am I correct in saying that a "valid" Shalka would be relegated to alternate-universe status, similar to The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)?

      It's certainly an option.

      This would be the best course of action, in my opinion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Fwhiffahder wrote: That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced.

      Not really, actually. The logic there was perfectly sound. At the time that the story was released, those involved knew full well that their little project couldn't jibe with the new series they now knew would happen. So between commissioning, recording and release, their stance on the story would have changed. So you get comments like this around the time of release:

      Martin Trickey: "The BBC said it was the ninth Doctor, so that's great. Is it part of the canon? I don't know. There's a big argument raging on the message board. I just hope people enjoy it. That's the main thing. Whether people choose to see it as the official Ninth Doctor or not is really up to them."

      So it's clear, even just from that one quote, that by the time that Shalka was officially released, it wasn't really considered to be part of the main Doctor Who continuity. It doesn't matter what the intent was beforehand, any more than it matters that an unreleased story was intended to be valid, or a deleted scene was meant to be part of the DWU. This doesn't at all require "counting" the 2005 series before it was release, in any way--it's quite simply that knowledge of the new series affected the production intent by the time of the webcast's actual release.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote:

      Fwhiffahder wrote: That logic requires counting Shalka from the date of release, and the BBC Wales show from the date of announcement — an obvious double standard. It doesn't matter what future developments had been announced.

      Not really, actually. The logic there was perfectly sound. At the time that the story was released, those involved knew full well that their little project couldn't jibe with the new series they now knew would happen. So between commissioning, recording and release, their stance on the story would have changed. So you get comments like this around the time of release:

      Martin Trickey: "The BBC said it was the ninth Doctor, so that's great. Is it part of the canon? I don't know. There's a big argument raging on the message board. I just hope people enjoy it. That's the main thing. Whether people choose to see it as the official Ninth Doctor or not is really up to them."

      So it's clear, even just from that one quote, that by the time that Shalka was officially released, it wasn't really considered to be part of the main Doctor Who continuity. It doesn't matter what the intent was beforehand, any more than it matters that an unreleased story was intended to be valid, or a deleted scene was meant to be part of the DWU. This doesn't at all require "counting" the 2005 series before it was release, in any way--it's quite simply that knowledge of the new series affected the production intent by the time of the webcast's actual release.

      Authorial intent refers to the intent WHILE making the story, not post-release.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Read again. I didn't suggest post-release.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The quote has nothing to do with whether Shalka is part of Doctor Who continuity. All it establishes is that Trickey didn't see it as part of the continuity of the then-upcoming BBC Wales series. The revived series is not Doctor Who. It's part of Doctor Who. Shalka is still part of the universe of the original series, regardless of the revived series divergence, as is painfully obvious to anyone who watches it. You can't say it doesn't pass rule four, because it is set in the universe of the original series. The revived series is also set in the universe of the original series. The only difference is that the revived series failed to set itself in the universe of the entire DWU as it existed at the time, because it didn't take into account Shalka. But that's not a good reason to call the entire revived series NOTVALID (and an even worse reason to call Shalka NOTVALID). Because the same logic could be applied to every story ever. We could track down every author of every story and ask them for a specific list of what they considered "canon" at the time they wrote the story, and then ban articles on each story from referring to stories not on the correct list. Or we could pick the "canon" list of one particular story, and deem everything not on it NOTVALID. But instead, we just ignore the contradictions. Because canon is stupid and an unfeasible headache. There's no reason not to do the exact same thing for Shalka. We don't disallow references between TV stories by Steven Moffat and New Adventures stories, even though Moffat has described the New Adventures as "a separate continuity." So regardless of whether the creators of Shalka became aware that the coming TV series would almost certainly ignore their story, there is no reason to dishonestly treat it as something separate from the rest of the DWU.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Given that Shalka will most certainly could easily be found valid, how do we best integrate it into the wiki?

      If the Shalka Ninth Doctor is part of the main Ninth Doctor page, it would unnecessarily confuse the readers. Borrowing a guideline from Wikipedia to make a point: "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."

      T:VS states that if a story follows the given four rules, it is valid. It does not state that all valid stories take place in the same universe, so we have a completely viable way to shove Shalka into an alternate universe as we did with Sympathy for the Devil.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We've done no shoving for Sympathy for the Devil. A later story confirmed that that universe specifically was an alternate universe within the DWU. A main-universe DWU character travels there. Textbook parallel universe, like those visited in Inferno and Rise of the Cybermen. Other parallel universes are also visited or in some way take part in the plot of a properly DWU story.

      We don't just assign "parallel universe" or "alternate timeline" to anything we might wish to somehow make valid, when no context is given to assume that it is an alternate timeline.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: Given that Shalka will most certainly be found valid, how do we best integrate it into the wiki?

      If the Shalka Ninth Doctor is part of the main Ninth Doctor page, it would unnecessarily confuse the readers. Borrowing a guideline from Wikipedia to make a point: "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."

      T:VS states that if a story follows the given four rules, it is valid. It does not state that all valid stories take place in the same universe, so we have a completely viable way to shove Shalka into an alternate universe as we did with Sympathy for the Devil.

      Erm, I'm not sure where you're getting "most certainly [will] be found valid." SOTO seems strongly opposed.

      Sympathy for the Devil is slightly (though not hugely) different because it's officially a divergent timeline, where "timeline" is a specific well-defined concept. Shalka is practically the same, and I think there's definitely no reason to combine the two Ninth Doctor pages, but I think where Shalka and the revival contradict we should use "According to one account" language, rather than Sympathy's "In one timeline." I don't think we should emphatically state that Shalka is a different timeline without in-universe proof, but I haven't read The Tomorrow Windows.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • "According to one account" would unnecessarily complicate the Ninth Doctor page. We've done it with the Master in his various post-Survival states, but applying the same principle to the Doctor is a step too far.

      The Ninth Doctor seen in Shalka is most certainly not the same incarnation as the Ninth Doctor seen in Rose. If Shalka isn't an alternate universe of some sort, what is it?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: "According to one account" would unnecessarily complicate the Ninth Doctor page. We've done it with the Master in his various post-Survival states, but applying the same principle to the Doctor is a step too far.

      The Ninth Doctor seen in Shalka is most certainly not the same incarnation as the Ninth Doctor seen in Rose. If Shalka isn't an alternate universe of some sort, what is it?

      I don't think anyone's saying that they're the same incarnation, and should be merged into one page. Just that Richard E. Grant's Doctor and John Hurt's Doctor are both the successor to Paul McGann's Doctor. Which is a contradiction, just like (as you said) whether Stop the Pigeon or First Frontier follows Survival for the Master. In the cases where that is relevant, it should be "one account"/"another account." But on their individual pages, they don't need more than a minor note mentioning each other, if even that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • In other words, this is somewhat similar to how Romana II has two direct successors?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: In other words, this is somewhat similar to how Romana II has two direct successors?

      Yep.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What would go on the Eighth Doctor page, then?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: What would go on the Eighth Doctor page, then?

      I...don't know.

      Probably we'd say something about differing accounts.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Being a ninth incarnation, is he an alternate War Doctor?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Being a ninth incarnation, is he an alternate War Doctor?

      I assume he is an alternate Ninth who regenerated directly from the Eighth.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The issue is that rule 4 is not clear enough for the matter, after this discussion it probably should be rephrased.

      It currently states "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU" but the authorial stance with Shalka changed between the comission and the release dates (november 2003) because of the new series announcement of september 2003.

      Although I would try to fit it in my head-canon, to me it is the BBC intention at the time of release that should settle the matter; and very clearly the company was favorising the upcoming TV show. Furthermore Cornell now agrees that it is his "unbound" take on the franchise.

      Put shortly: I would like to keep how the articles currently are and to change rule 4 to more precisely states "intended at the time of release" instead of just "intended".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • RingoRoadagain wrote: The issue is that rule 4 is not clear enough for the matter, after this discussion it probably should be rephrased.

      It currently states "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU" but the authorial stance with Shalka changed between the comission and the release dates (november 2003) because of the new series announcement of september 2003.

      Although I would try to fit it in my head-canon, to me it is the BBC intention at the time of release that should settle the matter; and very clearly the company was favorising the upcoming TV show. Furthermore Cornell now agrees that it is his "unbound" take on the franchise.

      Put shortly: I would like to keep how the articles currently are and to change rule 4 to more precisely states "intended at the time of release" instead of just "intended".

      Authorial intent was not that it was set outside the DWU. Dr. Who and the Daleks is set outside the DWU. For Scream of the Shalka, the best it can be stretched to is "set outside the universe of the revival." Because regardless of how aware the creators became that their version of the ninth Doctor wasn't going to be continued, Scream of the Shalka is still set in the universe of Terror of the Autons and The Deadly Assassin. What is that universe, if not the DWU? Rose and Shalka take two divergent directions. But they share everything before that point. If either one has to be the "true" DWU, it's Shalka. Because Rose deliberately ignored the current Doctor, thus setting itself outside the DWU.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shalka sure is a special case but I suppose that we could basically say the same about the currently invalid story He Jests At Scars: it shares all the main DW Universe stories up to Trial of A Time Lord.

      But I agree that Paul Cornell's intentions at the time are difficult to know for certain. I could not find a quote from him or other authorities from then explicitely saying that it was not as valid as the upcoming show (though he obviously never would have said that if he wanted people to be interested in the webcast).

      Thinking about it again, I think rule 4 should be based on the way it is currently regarded since Sympathy for the Devil changed from a purely unbounded intention to a valid alternate universe thanks to the recent Bernice Summerfield stories. With the current rule 4, it should remain invalid forever and it would be inappropriate.

      Should we take this new way of thinking, then I am positive that Cornell deemed Shalka as "unbound" at some point after the fact.

      I still am of the opinion that the related articles should remain like they are now. But I would change my opinion with an explicit statement about it being equally valid, like Moffat frequently does with the 7th and 8th doctor novels. I think that for Shalka we must take a real world POV and not an in-universe one.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think all Unbound stories should be treated like the Warner duology - Big Finish have previously stated the series shows alternate universes ("alternative realities" was what they called them).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • But back to the main subject - Scream of the Shalka.

      1. It's clearly a story. 2. It's certainly licensed. 3. It's a complete serial. 4. It's certainly clear that it was meant to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. The intention was to make a story about the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. It's the same Doctor as the one from the classic series and the TV movie. A few months later, RTD decides he doesn't like the serial, and decides to ignore it, casting Eccleston as a different Ninth Doctor. Chalk it up to contradictions. Different accounts. But the intent here was to make a story set in the DWU.

      This story passes our four little rules with flying colors. The original "decision" wasn't one, just someone throwing something out there, and taking it as valid, with no one debating that story. It was part of the debate on The Infinity Doctors. One person saying something isn't a decision. We, as a community, did not decide as a group to deem this invalid.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • "Authorial intent" is being used differently here than it's meant to be under T:VS. What we mean by it is the intent of the copyright holder, which is a tricky concept in Doctor Who. Generally, for televised Doctor Who, and Shalka counts as "televised", we mean the BBC. So the question is not "what did Cornell intend", but what did the (then-controlling part of the) BBC.

      This is key to understanding Shalka because yes, during much of production, one part of the BBC -- namely the commissioning BBCi -- definitely believed that this was straight-up, proper Doctor Who, and that they were telling the adventures of the Ninth Doctor.

      However, simultaneously, Lorraine Heggessey was furiously putting a team together to take back Doctor Who for BBC One. She'd been working tirelessly to figure out the strange, complicated, tangled legal picture with Doctor Who, and she finally got it all figured out in September 2003. And from that announcement, Shalka was immediately an also-ran. It hadn't been broadcast yet, and by the time of its November 2003 broadcast, the momentum was with the BBC One team, not BBCi.

      That's why you end up with DWM being pretty hands off with Shalka. It's only significantly in DWM 336 -- and even that has Richard E Grant on the cover with this orange bubble that touches his hair and announces "Doctor Who set for BBC TV comeback!"

      The very next issue of DWM, 337 makes, as far as I can tell, one oblique reference to Shalka, deep in a 40th anniversary piece, but never mentions it by name. It's already old news, consigned to the scrap heap of Doctor Who. The end of 2003 is really all about what the Heggessey-Tranter-RTD team are gonna do.

      So Shalka never made it to broadcast as "real" Doctor Who that had a serious chance of continuation. Heck DWM never even give a traditional "Richard E Grant is the Doctor" headline, so you know he's not really the Doctor.

      That's why it's wrongheaded, in my view, to speak of it being "in the DWU as it existed in 2003". It's clear that the primary copyright holder at the time it was actually released -- the straight-up, as-seen-on-TV BBC -- never had any intention of considering Shalka a part of their world. To Lorraine Heggessey, Shalka was a contractual obligation of another department impeding progress on the television show. She had no problem allowing an announcement in September 2003 about her show that would obviously and completely kneecap Shalka with fans and, more importantly, the general public.

      By DWM 342, DWM are going with a big interior headline that says, "Stop Press: The BBC Unveils the Ninth Doctor at Long Last"; in 343, the number nine is twice on the front cover. Any thought that you might have had that Richard E Grant was actually the Ninth Doctor had disappeared as if DWM 336 had never been printed.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I see what you mean. So are you opposed to the "conflicting accounts" proposal, in which we would treat Shalka/Stone and the 2005 series as equally valid?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well, I gotta admit -- I'm confused what the point of the thread is. In your original post, you say,

      So, here's my proposal:

      1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".

      2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -

      I'm unambiguously opposed to point 1. He is a "Ninth Doctor". DWM 336 is the clearest contemporaneous source for that, and our local naming conventions therefore require Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) to be his name. Point 2 therefore is moot.

      So the original ambition of the thread has failed, I think.

      As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • an interview on Kasterborous:

      Of course, the way things are today, nothing is canonical. But then everything is canonical in a way. If the Time War has changed everything and left continuity up in the air, then Shalka might once have happened…!

      This implies during and after production, he still considered it "canonical" however in a different way.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • @CzechOut: Where in Rule 4 is the copyright holder mentioned, even by implication?

      Quoting from later in T:VS – "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."

      It seems clear from the text of the page (as it currently exists) that statements by an "author" can be used to determine validity. If you want to rewrite Rule 4 to clarify your point, you have the right to do so, but as it stands the rule is vague enough that Shalka passes it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Well, I gotta admit -- I'm confused what the point of the thread is. In your original post, you say,

      So, here's my proposal:

      1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".

      2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -

      I'm unambiguously opposed to point 1. He is a "Ninth Doctor". DWM 336 is the clearest contemporaneous source for that, and our local naming conventions therefore require Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) to be his name. Point 2 therefore is moot.

      So the original ambition of the thread has failed, I think.

      As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.

      I am not the OP, but his suggestion for points 1 & 2 could be supported from the way the page "The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)" is not called "Third Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)". (I don't quite understand why it is named like it currently is, honestly).

      After seeing the interview linked by Dench-and-Palmer, I am now inclined to make the story valid, as incompatible as it is with the current series.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: @CzechOut: Where in Rule 4 is the copyright holder mentioned, even by implication?

      The four little rules "chart", for lack of a better word, was never intended as the be-all, end-all of validity on the wiki. It was meant to be a simplified guide to the whole page of text at T:VS. "Authorial intent" has always been intertwined with copyright, because this is the nature of the frankly weird legal situation in which DWU stories are told.

      From the section "In-universe sources":

      "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."

      I think the reason that "authorial intent" has come to mean actual writers in some contexts is because many of the books are copyrighted to their authors. So the legal author of the work is in fact the person who wrote it. However, in terms of most performed stories, like Shalka, the legal author is not Paul Cornell, but the BBC, who owns the copyright to the main structure of Doctor Who itself.

      So when we say, "What was the authorial intent behind Shalka at the time of publication?", we cannot justifiably say that it was to be truly continuous with the main Doctor Who narrative. Lorraine Heggessey and her production team made that abundantly clear through their public actions in September 2003, as well as stories that appeared in each DWM thereafter.

      One more point. The body of T:VS says:

      Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid.

      It has been mentioned upthread that there needed to have been some validity discussion on this matter in the past. There's even the hint that there's something improper or "fishy" about the fact that there wasn't a specific discussion about it.

      But it was perfectly obvious in 2003, when Shalka was released, that Grant wasn't going to be the Doctor "for real" and that the RTD series was the genuine article. So when the wiki was set up in 2005, the memory of all this was fresh in the minds of everyone who was here. It didn't occur to anyone to suggest that somehow REG was "legitimate". Later, once we had more formalised rules about validity, there was no need to hold a discussion about it. It just was patently obvious that Eccleston was the Ninth Doctor and REG was, as Wikipedia still has it, only the "Shalka Doctor".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Just a question but when was the decision to make Christopher escalation the ninth doctor made official as I seem to remember RTD saying it was because that what he expected every one to call him so they just went with it watts moor plans to continue the shalka doctor weren’t cancelled in till February 2004 and no one ever said it does not take place in the DWU it’s just that later developments made it in compatible.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thanks for the clarifications about the four rules. Now I have to agree with the way those things are handled now.

      It's not like invalid stories are inferior to a valid one anyway.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • RingoRoadagain wrote:

      CzechOut wrote: Well, I gotta admit -- I'm confused what the point of the thread is. In your original post, you say,

      So, here's my proposal:

      1. "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" will be renamed "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)".

      2. Said incarnation will be treated similarly to other "unnumbered Doctors" -

      I'm unambiguously opposed to point 1. He is a "Ninth Doctor". DWM 336 is the clearest contemporaneous source for that, and our local naming conventions therefore require Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) to be his name. Point 2 therefore is moot.

      So the original ambition of the thread has failed, I think.

      As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.

      I am not the OP, but his suggestion for points 1 & 2 could be supported from the way the page "The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)" is not called "Third Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil)". (I don't quite understand why it is named like it currently is, honestly).

      After seeing the interview linked by Dench-and-Palmer, I am now inclined to make the story valid, as incompatible as it is with the current series.

      Her, not his. I'm female.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • duly noted

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote: If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?

      At the time The Legend was written (not released), Shalka was meant to be the official continuation.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • RingoRoadagain wrote: It's not like invalid stories are inferior to a valid one anyway.

      Oh-ho-ho Czech will fight you to the trenches over that one.

      The way I see it, Shalka is one of those "on-the-edge" stories where it's only being considered invalid because there's been no confirmation on what it even is. As far as the BBC is concerned, it isn't "an alternate universe storyline" or an "alternate timeline caused by the time war." It's "a story that we made and then we ignored it to make something better."

      The reason that Infinity Doctors is loosely valid is that we have confirmation that the plan from the beginning was to make a sequel that explained how it was an alternate timeline. But Shalka was, by almost all accounts, meant to be a legitimate continuation -- no one on the first day secretly planned a story that would explain the discrepancies between this version and the 2005 series, it wasn't given much thought.

      If there had been a sequel story to even lightly touch upon the idea that this story was set in an alternate dimension/timeline/reality, then we'd probably slap it into that category and move on. But the most that we currently have to support this is a tongue-in-cheek statement from someone who had worked on it. It's the equivalent of trying to claim that Mace Windu is alive just because Samuel L. Jackson joked about it once or twice in interviews.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't think, however, that questioning a closed discussion from a long time ago is a bad idea. I think some potent and honest things have been brought up here, still worth discussing.

      I do kinda have to agree with the argument that we should treat Shalka like a contradiction and not something that's totally invalid. It's odd that one of the leading reasons we used to discount this story was that, while other flash-in-the-pants Doctor incarnations had no numbering, this one did and thus contradicted "the main stream." It feels like a technicality that really shouldn't matter under our modern rules and mandates.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote: If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?

      At the time The Legend was written (not released), Shalka was meant to be the official continuation.

      But that renders CzechOut's claim Shalka was never an official continuation invalid, as there's proof to the contrary.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Regardless of validity, I feel as if we have to take a real world position on this one. Scream of the Shalka is such a special case that we may have to treat it as lesser than the revived series, because, realistically, the end user is going to be confused by the proposed Shalka Doctor/War Doctor incarnation split on the Eighth Doctor's page. I understand the policy of this wiki but I feel as if the end user has been forgotten within this discussion.

      Instead, I propose that Shalka remains invalid, as changing its status to an "alternate universe" wouldn't affect any in-universe articles in the slightest apart from moving certain BTS information to an "in an alternate universe" section located slightly above it. This is despite my belief that both Shalka and The Curse Of Fatal Death are alternate "what if" timelines within the DWU, as their respective Ninth Doctors are both quite plainly alluded to within The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles.

      It's just quite simple to me really: making Shalka valid would create unnecessary confusion within some major pages on this wiki and is a betrayal of our common sense.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      Bwburke94 wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote: If Shalka wasn't meant to be the official continuation, why was an entire chapter of The Legend devoted to its Ninth Doctor?

      At the time The Legend was written (not released), Shalka was meant to be the official continuation.

      But that renders CzechOut's claim Shalka was never an official continuation invalid, as there's proof to the contrary.

      It sort of doesn't. By the time Shalka was released, it most certainly wasn't an unambiguous official continuation; what we're trying to decide is whether it was an official continuation at all.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • At the time of release shalka was still an official continuation of the TV show. it should be understood the 2005 revile was still in a very early stage of development with things like how many episodes therd be ,whether they would have titles or numbers .whter the new show whoud be a reboot or a connection as well as who would be the doctor still to be dicided.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU, and there are no reasons to believe it is an alternate timeline from any other story, which is rather important when you have to write your articles from an in-universe perspective. The only other nods to this Ninth Doctor that I'm aware of in the DWU are in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles, in which it is an easter egg for fans. Neither Jonny Morris nor Lance Parkin seriously considered REG as a "proper" Doctor at this point in time, not least because both books had been released after the new series' announcement, but also because the Shalka Doctor is quite clearly regarded as a possible future for McGann's Doctor- a possible future that we have seen didn't come to fruition, and if this possible future Doctor never appeared, then Scream of the Shalka did not happen within the DWU, and hence should remain labelled invalid.

      As an aside, I am opening a debate on the Panopticon regarding changing some policy in T:VS that has struck me as unclear as this debate has gone on, if any of you would wish to join me.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU, and there are no reasons to believe it is an alternate timeline from any other story, which is rather important when you have to write your articles from an in-universe perspective. The only other nods to this Ninth Doctor that I'm aware of in the DWU are in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles, in which it is an easter egg for fans. Neither Jonny Morris nor Lance Parkin seriously considered REG as a "proper" Doctor at this point in time, not least because both books had been released after the new series' announcement, but also because the Shalka Doctor is quite clearly regarded as a possible future for McGann's Doctor- a possible future that we have seen didn't come to fruition, and if this possible future Doctor never appeared, then Scream of the Shalka did not happen within the DWU, and hence should remain labelled invalid.

      As an aside, I am opening a debate on the Panopticon regarding changing some policy in T:VS that has struck me as unclear as this debate has gone on, if any of you would wish to join me.

      Where is your proof? We can't just theorise, we need to find established fact - namely the point of this thread.

      I'm seeing more proof for rather than against at the minute.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU, and there are no reasons to believe it is an alternate timeline from any other story, which is rather important when you have to write your articles from an in-universe perspective. The only other nods to this Ninth Doctor that I'm aware of in the DWU are in The Tomorrow Windows and The Gallifrey Chronicles, in which it is an easter egg for fans. Neither Jonny Morris nor Lance Parkin seriously considered REG as a "proper" Doctor at this point in time, not least because both books had been released after the new series' announcement, but also because the Shalka Doctor is quite clearly regarded as a possible future for McGann's Doctor- a possible future that we have seen didn't come to fruition, and if this possible future Doctor never appeared, then Scream of the Shalka did not happen within the DWU, and hence should remain labelled invalid.

      As an aside, I am opening a debate on the Panopticon regarding changing some policy in T:VS that has struck me as unclear as this debate has gone on, if any of you would wish to join me.

      Erm, what? Shalka was always intended to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. Everything up to that point was part of continuity. This was the Ninth Doctor at the time. The Doctor there was the same one who stole a TARDIS and ran away with his granddaughter Susan.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Erm, what? Shalka was always intended to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. Everything up to that point was part of continuity. This was the Ninth Doctor at the time. The Doctor there was the same one who stole a TARDIS and ran away with his granddaughter Susan.

      So is Rowan Atkinson's Ninth Doctor, but nobody with their head screwed on is going to take The Curse of Fatal Death as valid territory.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SeaniesBeanies wrote:

      Erm, what? Shalka was always intended to be set in the DWU as it was in 2003. Everything up to that point was part of continuity. This was the Ninth Doctor at the time. The Doctor there was the same one who stole a TARDIS and ran away with his granddaughter Susan.

      So is Rowan Atkinson's Ninth Doctor, but nobody with their head screwed on is going to take The Curse of Fatal Death as valid territory.

      TCOFD is a parodic story, whereas SOTS was an official, serious continuation.

      Also, please don't say that one would have to have the heads screwed on to accept it - that's a boderline personal attack.

      I personally except it as a divergent timeline, it's no more ridiculous than some stories in the revived series - many of the ridiculous things that were shown in TCOFD such as the Master kissing/loving he Doctor, the Doctor loving a companion, a Time Lord regenerating into a woman or even friendly timey wimey banter have all been integrated into the series proper as serious plot devices.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU

      I'm gonna end my quote right there, since using this as a justification for invalidity goes against T:VS, which says

      Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
      The only topic of this debate should be whether the authors intended it to be part of the Doctor Who universe, and, since it was intended to be an official continuation of the series, it clearly is. Yes, it was known there would be a different televised continuation, but it was unknown at that time whether it would be a new Doctor or continue where Shalka left off, so it can't be said that Shalka was made "unofficial" in any way due to the announcement. So far, it seems like the anti-inclusion arguments in this thread have consisted of complete non-sequiturs, as defined by T:VS, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The BBC describe Shalka as "a curio". The BBC own the licence to it. The writers admit that it isn't and can't fully be a part of continuity. I'm struggling to see how this is a weak argument against inclusion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well, to play devil's advocate, if it was at the time meant to be a valid story, it's difficult to go about trying to claim that other sources trump the meaning during production.

      RTD's words after the start of the 2005 series probably shouldn't mean more than the producer of the episode at the time it was being made.

      Everything that's been said against Shalka could every easily also be said against a story line Party Animals, and it seems that while a lot of people seem to agree that there is a difference between these two stories, not many people seem to be giving consistent answers.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • NateBumber wrote:

      SeaniesBeanies wrote: Scream of the Shalka is set in a separate continuity to the mainline DWU

      I'm gonna end my quote right there, since using this as a justification for invalidity goes against T:VS, which says

      Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
      The only topic of this debate should be whether the authors intended it to be part of the Doctor Who universe, and, since it was intended to be an official continuation of the series, it clearly is. Yes, it was known there would be a different televised continuation, but it was unknown at that time whether it would be a new Doctor or continue where Shalka left off, so it can't be said that Shalka was made "unofficial" in any way due to the announcement. So far, it seems like the anti-inclusion arguments in this thread have consisted of complete non-sequiturs, as defined by T:VS, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.

      Exactly. It passes our four little rules.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • In fact, every now and then the New Series writers add throwaway lines referencing the Shalka Ninth Doctor's backstory. Time of the Doctor has the android boyfriend line, and Hell Bent has this:

      The Doctor: The last I heard, he stole the moon and the President's wife.

      Clara: Was she, erm... Was she nice, the President's wife?

      The Doctor: Ah, well, that was a lie put about by the Shabogans. It was the President's daughter. I didn't steal the moon, I lost it...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      In fact, every now and then the New Series writers add throwaway lines referencing the Shalka Ninth Doctor's backstory. Time of the Doctor has the android boyfriend line, and Hell Bent has this: [snip]

      The validity of Shalka has nothing to do with continuity. Despite this discussion being opened for continuity-related matters, we're past that point.

      What matters is whether it was "intended to take place [within] the DWU". Because of the unique circumstances of its production, this phrase can be interpreted either way.

      It should be noted, of course, that the DWU is not a single progression of events. Shalka can easily take place within that big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff that is the DWU, even if not within the Doctor's "main" timeline.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's very complex to talk about our policies, because we often have to bring into the forefront things terms that we don't use. Because even if we've disowned them, they still existed outside of this domain.

      For instance, our validity policies have nothing to do with if a story is meant to be a set in the DWU or not. But if a story was meant to be a valid, "canon" in-universe story at the time of release is a pressing issue.

      The difference between a story being "not set in the Doctor Who Universe" and a story being set "in another universe" are notably different. If we had evidence that Shalka was envisioned from the start as an alternate universe story, then it'd be valid in the same vein as The Infinity Doctors. But now the topic falls to if the story was meant to be a valid, main-universe story when it was made.

      The disagreement that has befallen us now is a more specific definition of what that even means. Czech argues that because by the time the BBC released it it already "no longer counted," it should be ignored in the same sense of Planet of the Rain Gods.

      Others would argue that we should only view this from the point of view of the people making it, who presumably had no idea that a much better show was about to be announced which would make their series seem totally irrelevant.

      I have no idea.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SeaniesBeanies wrote: The BBC describe Shalka as "a curio". The BBC own the licence to it. The writers admit that it isn't and can't fully be a part of continuity. I'm struggling to see how this is a weak argument against inclusion.

      The problem is that there are easily countless stories out there just like that that we would call valid. The BBC has surely called the Pre-DWM comics "oddities" at some point. I'm sure there's heavy doubt from the people who worked at Virgin about Lungbarrow "counting." It's kind of a weak base for a conclusion in the wider context.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Wasn't it described as the 1st official fully animated story when the DVD was released

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The basic problem with the Shalka argument is that there is no in-universe evidence that it is in a different timeline from the BBC Wales series, yet the Shalka and BBC Wales timelines can't remotely be reconciled with each other.

      We've been eschewing continuity as a reason for inclusion, but Shalka will always be an extreme case no matter what we do.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: The basic problem with the Shalka argument is that there is no in-universe evidence that it is in a different timeline from the BBC Wales series, yet the Shalka and BBC Wales timelines can't remotely be reconciled with each other.

      We've been eschewing continuity as a reason for inclusion, but Shalka will always be an extreme case no matter what we do.

      True but it's not the only time difrent story's seem to follow incomparable timelines just look at ace and the masters post survival bios on this wiki

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Exactly. It's hard to argue for this on an in-universe basis when we've spent a long time discouraging that sort of thing on this site. Most stories that are invalid here have practical reasons for being so from a real-world point of view. Such things as "the story was a joke to the writers" or "it wasn't meant to be taken seriously." Not something like "oh it contradicts [some dumb comic or something]."

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Exactly. It's hard to argue for this on an in-universe basis when we've spent a long time discouraging that sort of thing on this site. Most stories that are invalid here have practical reasons for being so from a real-world point of view. Such things as "the story was a joke to the writers" or "it wasn't meant to be taken seriously." Not something like "oh it contradicts [some dumb comic or something]."

      Exactly. This doesn't go out of its way to contradict other stories. In my opinion, treating Shalka and the New Series as just being equally valid, if differing, accounts is the best way to go.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • As far as I see it, we have two options here. We either,

      1) Agree an out-of-universe explanation for why it's invalid, as per most other stories we call invalid

      or

      B) no, 2) We make it semi-valid -- an odd technicality of an unclear incarnation (since he never says what regeneration he's in) -- who isn't invalid but who is obscure enough to be mainly ignored by editors (see: every weird one-off PROSE or COMIC Doctor incarnation).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: As far as I see it, we have two options here. We either,

      1) Agree an out-of-universe explanation for why it's invalid, as per most other stories we call invalid

      or

      B) no, 2) We make it semi-valid -- an odd technicality of an unclear incarnation (since he never says what regeneration he's in) -- who isn't invalid but who is obscure enough to be mainly ignored by editors (see: every weird one-off PROSE or COMIC Doctor incarnation).

      I prefer 2, myself. From an in-universe perspective, all we know is that he's after Eight, as he recalls "all nine of him" being painted by Warhol (which could mean Nine as in Hartnell through Hurt or Eccleston if we don't count War). From the line about nine lives, it doesn't make any sense no matter how you interpret it, as a regeneration cycle is thirteen lives. If we're gonna keep Man with the Rosette separate from the Master due to no in-universe evidence (despite authorial intent), we should do the same here.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Isn't the line more like

      Woman: "My cat's gonna die."

      Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."

      If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Isn't the line more like

      Woman: "My cat's gonna die."

      Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."

      If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...

      Just skimmed through The Feast of the Stone. No mention is made of what incarnation he's in.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Isn't the line more like

      Woman: "My cat's gonna die."

      Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."

      If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...

      That line mikes it sounds more like he's at the end of a regeneration cycle than in his 9th incarnation

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Here's a demonstration of what the Shalka Doctor's article might look like under option 2: The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Isn't the line more like

      Woman: "My cat's gonna die."

      Doctor: "He's used up all of his Nine lives. Much like me."

      If it is like that, as I recall, then it certainly isn't clear what incarnation he is in... Unless, of course, the obscure sequel PROSE has a line about it...

      Yeah, I just watched that episode. The way he says that suggests he's already passed his ninth incarnation, like he's already lived nine lives by that point.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The only way we can call the Shalka Doctor the "Ninth Doctor" is through out-of-universe logic. But by the same logic, we also can figure out that this Doctor was likely meant to be Doctor #8, but we never see that in the comic so it's never mentioned on his page. It's hinted what incarnation Shalka is in, but never out-right said.

      In that sense, I think it's totally a rational plan to simply treat both Shalka and Party Animals equally the same.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: The only way we can call the Shalka Doctor the "Ninth Doctor" is through out-of-universe logic. But by the same logic, we also can figure out that this Doctor was likely meant to be Doctor #8, but we never see that in the comic so it's never mentioned on his page. It's hinted what incarnation Shalka is in, but never out-right said.

      In that sense, I think it's totally a rational plan to simply treat both Shalka and Party Animals equally the same.

      Erm, it's never implied that the actual Doctor in Party Animals is a particular number incarnation. It's an unspecified future one, with a possible implication it's the incarnation seen (or rather, heard) in the Audio Visuals. But if we're going down that path, that Doctor has to be the ninth, as Stephen Payne comes before. A more apt comparison here would be Man with the Rosette and the Master.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason Scream of the Shalka (both the webcast and novelization) and The Feast of the Stone could be considered invalid, as there's...not much to debate here. It certainly passes rule 4, and discontinuity with the Wales series is not in itself a reason for exclusion. From a purely in-universe standpoint, nothing outright says the incarnation Grant plays is the ninth.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote: At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason Scream of the Shalka (both the webcast and novelization) and The Feast of the Stone could be considered invalid, as there's...not much to debate here. It certainly passes rule 4, and discontinuity with the Wales series is not in itself a reason for exclusion. From a purely in-universe standpoint, nothing outright says the incarnation Grant plays is the ninth.

      The "all nine of him" line that you yourself provided is good enough evidence. You've twisted the words to make sense of how he could potentially be a later incarnation, but saying that he is not ninth (in his personal timeline) is pure speculation.

      The more pressing question is the Eighth Doctor, because he will have regenerated into two entirely different Doctors if the Shalka incarnation is ninth.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote: At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason Scream of the Shalka (both the webcast and novelization) and The Feast of the Stone could be considered invalid, as there's...not much to debate here. It certainly passes rule 4, and discontinuity with the Wales series is not in itself a reason for exclusion. From a purely in-universe standpoint, nothing outright says the incarnation Grant plays is the ninth.

      The "all nine of him" line that you yourself provided is good enough evidence. You've twisted the words to make sense of how he could potentially be a later incarnation, but saying that he is not ninth (in his personal timeline) is pure speculation.

      The more pressing question is the Eighth Doctor, because he will have regenerated into two entirely different Doctors if the Shalka incarnation is ninth.

      Is that any different than Antony anleys incarnation of the master who has 3 different endings including losing his body and regerating into a new incarnation or the Delgado master who in the books simply became disfigured and was the one seen in the deadly assassina or in big finish regerated into the one who became disfigured

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not to mention the fact that there are like three contradicting post-Ainley incarnations.

      I still stand by the fact that as the story in-universe only vaguely touches upon his incarnation he's no different from any other one-off Doctor of secondary-stories past.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2
      Pluto2 removed this reply because:
      Removed
      23:27, January 16, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • R-right...

      I think it's best to stay away from explaining this in-universe. In fact, I absolutely insist we don't try to make Shalka "make sense." That's not what our job is.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD

      I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD wrote: I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."

      So are you in favor of treating Scream of the Shalka as valid, and its Doctor as just an unspecified post-McGann one?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      AeD wrote: I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."

      So are you in favor of treating Scream of the Shalka as valid, and its Doctor as just an unspecified post-McGann one?

      Yes I am

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Would The Master (Scream of the Shalka) be merged with The Master, or would it be kept separate?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 95.147.32.223 wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      AeD wrote: I think after all the dissecting that's gone on re: the Shalka Doctor's "number," the most that we could possibly acknowledge on his article is that he's clearly meant to be a post-McGann one. Anything above that is what Wikipedia would call "original research."

      So are you in favor of treating Scream of the Shalka as valid, and its Doctor as just an unspecified post-McGann one?

      Yes I am

      AeD, can you confirm this was your IP address?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD

      (IP 95.147.32.223 is not me.)

      The evidence for "Ninth Doctor" is so flimsy that, validity aside, I think the article should be moved (back?) to [[The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]], yes, with the minor rewrite of the article this implies.

      As for the Master, I think the closest equivalent on the site is [[The Master (Sympathy for the Devil)]] -- valid, but a distinct enough from the "main" one to warrant a separate article. So yeah, I would keep it at [[The Master (Scream of the Shalka)]].

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD wrote: (IP 95.147.32.223 is not me.)

      The evidence for "Ninth Doctor" is so flimsy that, validity aside, I think the article should be moved (back?) to [[The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]], yes, with the minor rewrite of the article this implies.

      As for the Master, I think the closest equivalent on the site is [[The Master (Sympathy for the Devil)]] -- valid, but a distinct enough from the "main" one to warrant a separate article. So yeah, I would keep it at [[The Master (Scream of the Shalka)]].

      The thing is, the Master in Sympathy for the Devil is from an alternate universe. Meanwhile, The Master (Scream of the Shalka) is the main universe's Master, his consciousness placed in an android body. It's the same Master that debuted in Terror of the Autons. This is similar to the Master stealing a body.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • How about we do something like User:Pluto2/The Master? Does this look good?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think we need to make it clear how questionable the Shalka source remains to be. "According to one source" everywhere.

      Also, I feel like shalka still needs to be somewhere special on the page, like in a "Unclear incarnations' section.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: I think we need to make it clear how questionable the Shalka source remains to be. "According to one source" everywhere.

      Also, I feel like shalka still needs to be somewhere special on the page, like in a "Unclear incarnations' section.

      We treat all valid sources equally on this wiki. Just place it in undated adventures.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, but any source that's questionable gets a big ol' "according to one source" text piece.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, but any source that's questionable gets a big ol' "according to one source" text piece.

      How exactly is Shalka questionable from an in-universe standpoint?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD

      *looks up thread* *looks back down*

      It's questionable because it's a one-off run of webisodes that was supplanted by the revived television series. It's essentially an Unbound story.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD wrote: *looks up thread* *looks back down*

      It's questionable because it's a one-off run of webisodes that was supplanted by the revived television series. It's essentially an Unbound story.

      Trying to fit Shalka into continuity is like trying to eat soup with a fork. We need to consider its impact on pages before we throw it into in-universe articles, even if this means Rule 4 needs to be redefined.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote:

      AeD wrote: *looks up thread* *looks back down*

      It's questionable because it's a one-off run of webisodes that was supplanted by the revived television series. It's essentially an Unbound story.

      Trying to fit Shalka into continuity is like trying to eat soup with a fork. We need to consider its impact on pages before we throw it into in-universe articles, even if this means Rule 4 needs to be redefined.

      One idea for the Master is to put it under undated events. Another is to keep Shalka info on a separate page, and call it "The Master (Android)" or something .

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The problem here isn't the Master, because we're already dealing with multiple potential fates for the post-Ainley incarnation.

      The problem is the Eighth Doctor.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: The problem here isn't the Master, because we're already dealing with multiple potential fates for the post-Ainley incarnation.

      The problem is the Eighth Doctor.

      Except that aside from ouf-of-universe sources, the only indication given about the Shalka Doctor is that he's after McGann. He could be the ninth, or he could be a later incarnation. The best way to handle the Shalka Doctor, in my opinion, is to treat him like a distinct but unspecified number incarnation, moving the page to "The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" . Something like this.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Actually, let's get back to the "is he Ninth" part of the discussion.

      It would take some severe mental gymnastics to state that he was not intended to be ninth at the time of production. Trying to take a strict in-universe perspective on these sort of things leads to madness.

      However, The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) is certainly a reasonable name for the article, regardless of whether he is ninth or not.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: Actually, let's get back to the "is he Ninth" part of the discussion.

      It would take some severe mental gymnastics to state that he was not intended to be ninth at the time of production. Trying to take a strict in-universe perspective on these sort of things leads to madness.

      However, The Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) is certainly a reasonable name for the article, regardless of whether he is ninth or not.

      That's the thing. What counts for in-universe articles is in-universe material. So we can say in BTS that he was intended to be the ninth, but that's it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The "all nine of me" line and comparison to a cat's nine lives are both in-universe material. The former is as direct a confirmation as we'd get on any Time Lord without them directly stating their incarnation; the latter line further indicates that the former was not referring to a previous incarnation.

      And therein lies the problem. If Shalka is valid, this Doctor is unambiguously the Ninth, but the readers of this wiki as a whole would expect "Ninth Doctor" to refer solely to the Doctor played by Christopher Eccleston.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: The "all nine of me" line and comparison to a cat's nine lives are both in-universe material. The former is as direct a confirmation as we'd get on any Time Lord without them directly stating their incarnation; the latter line further indicates that the former was not referring to a previous incarnation.

      And therein lies the problem. If Shalka is valid, this Doctor is unambiguously the Ninth, but the readers of this wiki as a whole would expect "Ninth Doctor" to refer solely to the Doctor played by Christopher Eccleston.

      The thing is that "all of my nine lives" makes no sense at all, because a Time Lord regeneration cycle has thirteen incarnations. Perhaps he's just being poetic. And the Warhol remark seems rather off-the-cuff ("Lovely man, wanted to paint all nine of me").

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It doesn't matter that the line is off-the-cuff. It's evidence that he's ninth.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: It doesn't matter that the line is off-the-cuff. It's evidence that he's ninth.

      It doesn't help much, though. It could be that in his ninth incarnation, Warhol wished to paint all nine at the time. It's rather useless for anything, because it could mean a variety of things. All it establishes is that by Shalka, the Doctor has had nine incarnations. It doesn't establish that he's the ninth of those.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's unclear is what it is. In the story, the Doctor does not say "I am the ninth Doctor, I have used up eight lives."

      He says "Your cats have used up their nine lives -- much like me." So is he the Ninth Doctor? Or is he the Tenth doctor, because of him using up nine lives? Or is he the Thirteenth Doctor, because of him using up 'all of his lives' as the cat had?

      It's unclear, so we shouldn't decide.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: It's unclear is what it is. In the story, the Doctor does not say "I am the ninth Doctor, I have used up eight lives."

      He says "Your cats have used up their nine lives -- much like me." So is he the Ninth Doctor? Or is he the Tenth doctor, because of him using up nine lives? Or is he the Thirteenth Doctor, because of him using up 'all of his lives' as the cat had?

      It's unclear, so we shouldn't decide.

      Ding ding ding!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It looks like this thread has reached a conclusion, with the consensus being that it's valid. Can an admin close this thread, please?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?

      Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, yes, and just for the record, I am not an admin, who User:Fwhiffahder predicted to spoil his fun of adding more and more content, but I agree with the reasoning of CzechOut that this is invalid.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I absolutely agree that the thread is not closed. Around here is where we must wait for others to notice the thread and to hopefully continue the discussion from our own points. It is not uncommon for admins to suddenly close down a thread despite any form on consensus.

      once again, a lack of traffic does not mean that we get to form a sly monopoly over the site's rules.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?

      Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.

      It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?

      Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.

      It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus.

      Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OncomingStorm12th wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?

      Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion.

      It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus.

      Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was.

      How so?

      Authorial intent when making this was to create a new story with the same Doctor that was played by Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Hurndall, Davison, Baker, McCoy, and McGann, but in a new incarnation. The fact is, this was promoted as being a new Doctor, but it absolutely wasn't meant to be a separate universe. It was only when Davies decided to ignore it that it got shoved off to the side. Authorial intent refers to the intention when the story was being made. Even if someone's position changed a few months later when the revival was announced, it doesn't count.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.

      CzechOut wrote: But it was perfectly obvious in 2003, when Shalka was released, that Grant wasn't going to be the Doctor "for real" and that the RTD series was the genuine article. So when the wiki was set up in 2005, the memory of all this was fresh in the minds of everyone who was here. It didn't occur to anyone to suggest that somehow REG was "legitimate". Later, once we had more formalised rules about validity, there was no need to hold a discussion about it. It just was patently obvious that Eccleston was the Ninth Doctor and REG was, as Wikipedia still has it, only the "Shalka Doctor".

      These two arguments seem way stonger to me than anything else stated on the rest of the thread. And, going by CzechOut's coments: the BBC (aka, the ones who holds the copyrights for DW, as much as this thread is concerned), favoured Series 1 as part of the DWU, not Scream of the Shalka. The "abortion" of future webcasts with Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) also back this up.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Actually, the exact quote is "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."

      It does not mention anything about the time the author has to say this. However, I would say that the other three rules and Wiki policies imply that the statement of authorial intent should come at the time or after the official release. Because before the official release, the story does not exist as far as this Wiki is concerned. Not simply is it not valid by Rule 3. No, it is not a story. Even mentioning it on this Wiki is prohibited by T:SPOIL. So how can a statement about something that does not yet exist be used to support some opinion?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Actually, the exact quote is "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."

      The only thing close to that is Cornell saying it could be considered unbound - which would mean a parallel universe.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I suppose it depends how you interpret The Tomorrow Windows. He sees all of his ninth selves. If you interpret that as the Eighth Doctor saw the Shalka Doctor as a possible Ninth Doctor, then... would that be unbound?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thefartydoctor wrote: I suppose it depends how you interpret The Tomorrow Windows. He sees all of his ninth selves. If you interpret that as the Eighth Doctor saw the Shalka Doctor as a possible Ninth Doctor, then... would that be unbound?

      The thing is, he sees various future selves, not all of which are the ninth. The Merlin Doctor (redhaired) is seen, as is the Valeyard. And neither of those are a Ninth Doctor. From a narrative perspective, all we can say on the Shalka Doctor is that he's after his Eighth incarnation. He's had at least nine lives - given Warhol painted nine of him. But nothing narrative says the incarnation is the ninth outright, it's only implied.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 The thing is, he sees various future selves, not all of which are the ninth. The Merlin Doctor (redhaired) is seen, as is the Valeyard. And neither of those are a Ninth Doctor. From a narrative perspective, all we can say on the Shalka Doctor is that he's after his Eighth incarnation. He's had at least nine lives - given Warhol painted nine of him. But nothing narrative says the incarnation is the ninth outright, it's only implied.

      And rather heavily implied too by The Gallifrey Chronicles

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Or not, apparently.

      The novelization has shot that down. When the Doctor arrives, after explaining regeneration, it outright says "This form was his ninth." So...we'll have to treat him as a ninth incarnation.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Here's my new proposal:

      1. Scream of the Shalka, its novelization, and The Feast of the Stone are to be treated as valid sources.

      2. No change is to be made to the title of the article Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), given that the novelization unambiguously states the Doctor is in his ninth incarnation.

      3. We can either treat The Master (Scream of the Shalka) as the same Master, placing his info under "Undated events" in his main article, or keep them separate.

      Either way, there is certainly proof this was set in the DWU. The novelization has the Master reminisce about having stolen several bodies, for example. Thus, it passes rule 4.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thefartydoctor wrote: We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.

      So we'd treat it as an alternate universe, like the Unbounds? That is fine by me, as long as we treat then as valid sources!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote:

      Thefartydoctor wrote: We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.

      So we'd treat it as an alternate universe, like the Unbounds? That is fine by me, as long as we treat then as valid sources!

      But how can we trat it as an alternate universe, if they give us no evidence. We only treat it as an alternate universe if they tells us, give evidence it is. We do not decide it as an alternate universe just because it doesn't fit well with what would be the "main universe"

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • As I've already been part of one heated debate today, I'm just gonna leave my opinion on the matter and let you guys do whatever. Like I say, I see parallels with the David Warner situation. That's how I'd treat this. To be honest, the only thing making me just about comfortable treating these two novels as valid is that they were republished. That's it. To me, these events play no part in the prime timeline of the Doctor's life.

      However, if we are forced to treat them as valid, then I suggest the David Warner route is how we go with this. They're both respectively the Doctor/Master up until a certain point and then they diverge. That's my opinion. I can't be bothered to find the evidence haha. I've had one stressful debate today that's left me very stressed and unnerved, so I'm leaving it to you guys.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OncomingStorm12th wrote:

      Pluto2 wrote:

      Thefartydoctor wrote: We treat this Master as we do the Master played by Gatiss in the David Warner audios, in my opinion. This guy isn't the same Master. His past is the same but his future is different. In fact, it's almost the same scenario except Warner's an alternate Third Doctor, whereas here we're dealing with an alternate Ninth. I like the idea for the Ninth Doctor.

      So we'd treat it as an alternate universe, like the Unbounds? That is fine by me, as long as we treat then as valid sources!

      But how can we trat it as an alternate universe, if they give us no evidence. We only treat it as an alternate universe if they tells us, give evidence it is. We do not decide it as an alternate universe just because it doesn't fit well with what would be the "main universe"

      Cornell is on record as referring to the story, after the fact, as "unbound".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Like I say, I see parallels with the David Warner situation. That's how I'd treat this. To be honest, the only thing making me just about comfortable treating these two novels as valid is that they were republished. That's it. To me, these events play no part in the prime timeline of the Doctor's life.

      Look, to be honest, I don't see why being republished would mean much. Dr. Who and the Daleks, one of the most unquestionable non-DWU stories on this wiki, also has been adapted into a comic story.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.

      @Pluto2, forgive my lack of knowledge but I take it Cornell is linked with this story? If so, I ask you all, is that enough to provide us with "authorial intent"? We've had this on the other debate (that got kinda out of hand)... authorial intent is more to do with the BBC, right? It's not really the actual writer/author.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.

      @Pluto2, forgive my lack of knowledge but I take it Cornell is linked with this story? If so, I ask you all, is that enough to provide us with "authorial intent"? We've had this on the other debate (that got kinda out of hand)... authorial intent is more to do with the BBC, right? It's not really the actual writer/author.

      Yes, Paul Cornell wrote the story.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.

      But that's exactly my point. If even a story that wouldn't be valid "in a billion years" can be reprinted, how could a non-clear like Shalka be deemed valid only because it was reprinted?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I know you said about the whole Vienna thing and it going against the usual protocol for "authorial intent"... I'm just wondering... you'd never get a statement or any form of proof from the BBC or from BBC Books because it's so tiny and insignificant. So, I'm wondering whether admins would look at an official statement made by Paul Cornell in a non-biased context and take it as "authorial intent". It's grasping at straws, admittedly, but I'd be interested in hearing your guys' opinions.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OncomingStorm12th wrote:

      Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.

      But that's exactly my point. If even a story that wouldn't be valid "in a billion years" can be reprinted, how could a non-clear like Shalka be deemed valid only because it was reprinted?

      I was talking more about my personal levels of comfort. For the record, I can't at the moment deem them as valid. I never have done. He's not the Ninth Doctor and the other dude isn't the Master. If someone comes up with a legit connection here to suggest a way of it being possible, then hooray. I wasn't suggesting you take my reprint suggestion overly seriously.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thefartydoctor wrote: I wasn't suggesting you take my reprint suggestion overly seriously.

      Oh gosh, I really overlook this part:

      To me, these events play no part in the prime timeline of the Doctor's life.

      Sorry. Now I see your position on this.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No need to apologise, it was me trying my hardest to find a way to let them into my life haha. But so far, it's not happening. x'D

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Here is my proposal:

      Given that Paul Cornell has referred to this little corner of the franchise as being "unbound", the following changes would be made:

      1. Scream of the Shalka, its novelization, and The Feast of the Stone are to be treated as valid sources, albeit ones in a different universe to the 2005 series. The first eight incarnations of the Doctor are certainly the same ones as the revived series has.

      2. No change is to be made to the title of the article Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), given that the novelization unambiguously states the Doctor is in his ninth incarnation.

      3. We likewise treat the adroid Master like we do the one Mark Gatiss plays.

      Essentially, we would follow the ruling given for Unbound - the three Shalka Doctor stories are in a separate universe to the revived series, but still valid sources.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I just want to know one thing and one thing only, and in my opinion, this all pivots on it. Everyone put their opinions to one side and look at this factually. Does what Paul Cornell say satisfy "authorial intent". If not, explain why not. If yes, explain why yes. Because up until now, I've been told that authorial intent is less to do with writer of the story and more to do with publisher/producer (i.e. the BBC, BBC Books). However, today I was made aware that this decision was overruled in a debate regarding Vienna, in which the writer of the series contradicted Big Finish and stated it "was its own thing" rather than an official spin-off.

      So... authorial intent satisfied or not? Because I'm confused.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Vienna is its own mess. Let's shunt the authorial intent debate onto the existing intent thread and continue with what we have here.

      I like what Pluto2 is proposing. Treat it as valid but in a separate universe, similar to the Unbounds.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thefartydoctor wrote: It's about common sense really. No-one with half a brain-cell would allow Dr. Who and the Daleks to be valid in a billion years. I don't need to list any reasons because everyone in this comment thread knows them haha. Let's look at that Paul Cornell thing.

      Not really that relevant I guess, but I think Dr. Who and the Daleks isn't the most far something on this site can go from being valid. I would say the most definite invalid stories would be something like A Fix with Sontarans or Tonight's the Night -- where it isn't even a full narrative. Realistically any story with a "different universe" is one Spider-Verse crossover away from being valid on this site.

      Anyways, good detective work finding more solid evidence that the Doctor is in his Ninth incarnation. In the past that would have been a definite justification to say that it was invalid, but in the present I think it isn't enough.

      But I must strongly clarify that we will not be saying at any point that this Doctor is from "an alternate universe/timeline." That is reserved for stories where we have clear authorial intent for this to be the case -- and furthermore we've only done this in one instance where it's been clear that an unproduced sequel story would have explained it away (I know this has been recently questioned, but in this instance I'm speaking wholly from a point of view of policy and precedent).

      It's one thing for Paul Cornell to say -- a very long time after he was finished with the product -- "Yea it's probably an alternate universe I guess." To say that it's an alternate universe, we would seriously need either him saying it was meant to be an alternate universe at the time of production or, again, a Spider-verse crossover comic..

      The final question of it is is valid, once again, comes down to the question of authorial intent.

      The point of view of many people in this thread is that as the writers meant for it to be valid, it's valid. However, by the time it was released the BBC had disowned it and was working on an official TV series. I would like to see quotes from the BBC about the product by the time of its release to confirm exactly how the BBC presented it.

      There is precedent, again, to disown a story because it presented a "pilot" that was then abandoned by further productions. I believe that was the justification for abandoning Death Comes to Time. So changing the stance on this story would have larger consequences outside of just this narrative.

      On the other hand, this doesn't exactly shatter the motion that the beliefs of those in the production room might mean more than the BBC executives who changed their minds at the last minute. I'm simply not absolutely sure.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote: Here is my proposal:

      Given that Paul Cornell has referred to this little corner of the franchise as being "unbound", the following changes would be made:

      1. Scream of the Shalka, its novelization, and The Feast of the Stone are to be treated as valid sources, albeit ones in a different universe to the 2005 series. The first eight incarnations of the Doctor are certainly the same ones as the revived series has.

      2. No change is to be made to the title of the article Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), given that the novelization unambiguously states the Doctor is in his ninth incarnation.

      3. We likewise treat the adroid Master like we do the one Mark Gatiss plays.

      Essentially, we would follow the ruling given for Unbound - the three Shalka Doctor stories are in a separate universe to the revived series, but still valid sources.

      In my own personal "cannon", I always fitted Shalka as an alternate universe. But since Cornell refers to the story as "unbound", I can agree with deeming it as an alternate timeline here as well. The Doctor Who Unbound page itself says " term has been adopted as a general descriptor of out-of-continuity stories." and uses Shalka as an example, actually.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • This discussion should not really have been reopened. There's evidently no new evidence. If anyone has DWM issues from the time, they may need a good scouring for possible quotes. It seems this story continually is brought back to debate without new evidence. I only threw Paul Cornell into the mix as a last ditched attempt to salvage any sort of means of validation, but now you've verified what I always thought authorial intent to mean, we're left at stage one, aren't we?

      We're saying it remains as it is currently until someone genuinely comes up with something of interest?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • There is no hard in-universe evidence Shalka is an alternate timeline, but it is so discontinuitous with later-released works that we may have no choice but to place it as such if valid.

      We have a rules problem here - we can't use Cornell's statement to call it an alternate timeline because it is not in-universe evidence, but we cannot use the narrative differences to deem it invalid because our rules prevent this. The solution is simple: use Cornell's statement among others to determine its validity, then if it is valid, use the narrative differences to call it an alternate timeline!

      Rules were meant to be broken. Trying to use our existing rules to place Shalka is so obviously impossible that we might as well bend them to our advantage.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • For FartyDoctor, here's some DWM quotes which have been buried in the sea of posts that make up this thread.

      From the article "No one can hear you SCREAM" in DWM 336:

      "The Ninth Doctor in a story that sets its sights on the future and provides a starting point for ongoing adventures without reformatting the show. Traditional but original, new monsters that behave like Doctor Who monsters should, and a new Doctor with a new way of doing things who's still very much the Doctor we know and love" - Paul Cornell

      Maybe even broadcast on television - just like like how proper Doctor Who used to be. Actually, according to BBCi, this is proper Doctor Who.

      "It's a new medium, a new start for Doctor Who. No one knows what the next step is going to be." - James Goss

      The header of an article in DWM 336:

      After Eight

      He came back to life before your eyes. But now he's regenerated - and no one thought to tell him. Benjamin Cook caught up with Paul Mcgann to mourn the passing of the Eight Doctor and pass judgement on his usurper [Richard E Grant].

      In an interview with Justin Richards in DWM 338 he talks about cancelled plans to do a series of novels with the Shalka Doc:

      "My thought was that it would be nice to do 'Ninth Doctor' books within the Past Doctors line - there really isn't enough in Shalka to kick off a whole new strand, although it might have been possible if we'd been able to do one extra book every quarter in its own sub-range" - Justin Richards

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So is everyone fine with treating this like an alternate universe?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pluto2 wrote: So is everyone fine with treating this like an alternate universe?

      No.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What's important about this is that, despite the "Grant-cover" DWM being released after the announcement, it's pretty clear that most of it was made before. If it hadn't been, Grant likely would not have been on the cover at all.

      So all of these are what people had to say about Shalka before the announcement:

      "The Ninth Doctor in a story that sets its sights on the future and provides a starting point for ongoing adventures without reformatting the show. Traditional but original, new monsters that behave like Doctor Who monsters should, and a new Doctor with a new way of doing things who's still very much the Doctor we know and love" - Paul Cornell

      Maybe even broadcast on television - just like like how proper Doctor Who used to be. Actually, according to BBCi, this is proper Doctor Who.

      "It's a new medium, a new start for Doctor Who. No one knows what the next step is going to be." - James Goss

      And this is what people had to say about it after, and thus technically before it was even released:

      After Eight

      He came back to life before your eyes. But now he's regenerated - and no one thought to tell him. Benjamin Cook caught up with Paul Mcgann to mourn the passing of the Eight Doctor and pass judgement on his usurper [Richard E Grant].

      Usurper means "less important," btw.

      So it's pretty clear that everyone jumped ship on Shalka being anything that "counted" before it was even released. I even recall my father showing it to me as a child and constantly saying "Don't get attached to any of this." If anything, by releasing this statement just before the story came out, it was almost as if the BBC wanted to purposefully sabotage the story just so people wouldn't get confused. If you look at this from the point of view of the BBC being the "authors," then this certainly wasn't something that they expected to be "part of our world," as it were.

      On the topic of if a story is an alternate universe or timeline, I must again say that we simply can not guess something like that without very specific guidelines. I would need Cornell saying "We were going to do a second one where Shalka fell from his universe into RTD's and met Chris Ecclesiastes" before we would have enough info to do to this what we did to Infinity Doctors. You can't just call every full narrative that wasn't meant to be the DWU an "alternate timeline" with absolutely no evidence at all.

      So my next big question would be how the official DVD release of Shalka discusses the story?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well I'm not digging the DVD out right now but all of the interviews in the extras were along the lines of "we put loads of effort into this and it turned out it wasn't proper 2 months before release".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SeaniesBeanies wrote: Well I'm not digging the DVD out right now but all of the interviews in the extras were along the lines of "we put loads of effort into this and it turned out it wasn't proper 2 months before release".

      Sounds like that builds even further to the "The BBC didn't consider this valid" narrative.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • This wiki has this to say about the piriod just before and after it was released As a result, the "official" nature of the Shalka webcast was in doubt from even before it was released. After the web cast, in February 2004, plans for sequels were indefinitely shelved. For a period, it was unclear if the new television Doctor would be the Ninth or Tenth Doctor, but this was settled in April 2004 when in an interview with Doctor Who Magazine, Davies announced that the new television Doctor (played by Christopher Eccleston), would be the Ninth Doctor, relegating the Richard E Grant Doctor to unofficial status. This suggests shalka was still official until April 2004 at lest and plans for a sequel to shalka continued after the new series was announced whoud indicate that the new series and web series where considers compatible at the time also it should be noted how little work had on the new series had been done by the end of 2003 the question remains do letter reference invalidated the story to not also give that RTD cornel and Moffat have all mad stem ants that everything is canon can any thing they say invalidate a story

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 95.147.32.223 wrote: This suggests shalka was still official until April 2004 at lest and plans for a sequel to shalka continued after the new series was announced whoud indicate that the new series and web series where considers compatible at the time also it should be noted how little work had on the new series had been done by the end of 2003 the question remains do letter reference invalidated the story to not also give that RTD cornel and Moffat have all mad stem ants that everything is canon can any thing they say invalidate a story

      I think it's clear we need to figure out exactly what Rule 4 is and isn't. When exactly did it become outside the bounds of the DWU?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Someone mentioned earlier that the people making Shalka were informed that it wasn't going to "count" two months before it was released. Can we get an official quote on that? That sounds like a very important clue to when the BBC disowned it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • On the making documentary they metion finding out about the new series half way through production but nothing about it not counting also it seems shalka made the revival eseare as as the BBC one was not aware they hade the rights as the shalka team where told before they began their where rights issues wich when they reached they found did not exist this information was given to the exec who letter comishend the new series

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • This thread has remained open long enough with no input. Based on User:CzechOut's explanation of the guidelines at Tardis:Valid sources as well as the information he posted about authorital (i.e. production) intent, Scream of the Shalka is found to be an invalid source for in-universe pages.

      I would like to point out and quote something that User:OncomingStorm12th said:

      OncomingStorm12th wrote: Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was.

      This is absolutely on the nose. Some policies do not require consensus or majority.

      And I want to stress something CzechOut mentioned in his first post. Tardis:Valid sources gives us a nice little list summarizing the "four little rules", but anyone participating in an inclusion debate needs to be aware of the entire policy page.

      In addition, it is not the place of users to decide (or even ask) the question of whether any consensus or decision is reached. Doing so can give new users the impression that a decision has been reached, and they may act on that supposed decision. Leave the question of consensus up to the admins. It will make for a smoother process.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+