Fair enough, as per your second edit. But my stance on that is simply based on the reuse of old material in a different format with a different Doctor that has been done before.

As far as I'm aware there have been only two definite mentions on the canonicity of stuff around the tv series (which the BBC seems to consider the main continuity), and that was to claim the Scream of the Shalka (animated with Richard E Grant as the voice of the 9th Doctor) is not part of the main continuity. And the other was to state that the Adventure Games are part of the main continuity - extensions of the tv show. So my 'opinion' is only going on what the BBC have claimed.

Just a quick note on the subject of "canon"

Within the episode, "Listen", it was not absolutely certain that the child called "Rupert" is the same person now called "Danny". At best, Danny said he hadn't been called "Rupert" for a long time but "Rupert" may have been a childhood nickname or he may have been mistaken for his twin or he may simply have been a totally different "Rupert Pink".

Likewise, it was not 100% undeniably certain that the child in the barn was a young version of the Doctor.

Trouble is, both of those elements were "explained" in the awful "Doctor Who Extra" - in which the juvenile weirdo on acid and helium shouted at us to say that it WAS Danny and it WAS "the youngest ever Doctor" - and his claim was confirmed by production staff.

In short - "canon" is now determined by a barely watchable pile of garbage on iplayer - not by the TV show.

I don't know what thats got to do with what I said .

and - I'm pretty sure the doc was still alive when the GI went into his timestream .

Because we're talking about timeline changes. There is quite a difference as I hope to explain more clearly.

You maintain that the timeline changed when first the GI and then Clara prime entered the Doctor's timeline. Following your logic, the timeline changed twice after and because of those events. If the timeline changed twice, as you suggest, how could the Doctor have already met the Oswin and Victorian Clara splinters? The splinters hadn't yet been created by the GI and Clara primes entering the Doctor's timeline. Neither the GI nor Clara prime had jumped into the Doctor's timeline when he met those versions of Clara so they shouldn't exist, by your theory.

The logic of your theory means the splinters of Clara should not exist until Clara prime enters the Doctor's timeline, just as the effects of the GI's interference and the effects of Clara correcting them did not exist.

If the splinters existed "before" the Doctor (and we as the audience) experienced Clara entering his timeline then we're back to the splinters always existing, and if they always existed, what exactly was changed by Clara prime entering the Doctor's timeline?

There's a logical fallacy in both arguments. Mine fails (no change allowed or occurred) because we actually were shown a little of the downstream consequences of the GI's interference and yours fails because it leads to a logical inconsistency.

The timeline must have changed and changed back perfectly to its original form.

So we're back to opinion and preference.

I didn't watch the extra and have read no production notes but understood from within the episode that Rupert Pink changed his name to Danny (as the Doctor left Dan the Soldier Man in his head and adult Danny specifically said that he had not been called Rupert for years and the age worked for him being a child early to mid 90s) and that the Gallifreyan child was the Doctor due to them showing John Hurt on screen as Clara said he would come back to the barn someday and be scared and us seeing where the Doctor's dream of the hand grabbing his ankle came from.

You are confusing "timeline" with "timelord timestream"

You and I have a "timeline" - starting from when you were born and running up to this exact moment in time.

What the GI entered was a TIMESTREAM - which was fully explained in the episode as being the total of a timelord's life UNTIL HIS DEATH - and we know that the Doctor (as he existed at that point) lived for HUNDREDS of years after he appreared in that episode

I'm really not being funny here but does anyone on DS actually WATCH Doctor Who? Does anyone here understand anything about time travel - in the context of this show?

All of this was specifically explained in that episode - the timestream ran until AFTER the time of the Doctor who was there in that episode - and as we saw, that was HUNDREDS of years.

THe reason the Doctor was there was that he had TRAVELLED IN TIME - to his own FUTURE.

I'm sure that post (the BIB in particular) sounded better in your head than it looks written down.

yes I know all that , nevertheless - the doc was still alive when the GI entered his timestream .

its not my fault the show is time travel paradox .


.

Not paradoxical - just a different model of time-travel from the one you are applying.

There's two main models for time used in time-travel-based sci-fi - the "Back to the Future" version has multiple realities being created every second and the "film strip" version has the totality of time simultaneously in existence and impossible to change.

In the later, a time traveller going back to 1912 would already have been in 1912 - even if he doesn't leave until next week. In effect, he could find a photo of himself in 1912 and realise that he is destined to invent a time machine - and since that is "pre-determined", he wouldn't even need to start building it cos it MUST exist and therefore, will exist (also used in Bill & Ted where just thinking of doing something caused it to have happened - in the future - even though he then didn't bother doing it cos it had clearly already been done)

In the former, the same time traveller visits 1912 and creates a new reality - without actually erasing the original. In that version, there isn't THE timestream, there's a whole series of A timestreams and the reality you occupy determines which applies.

When you think about it properly, the "new reality" version of timetravel MUST be the one that applied in that DW plot because it's the only one that can allow Strax to come back to life. Death is the universal absolute - which is why Captain Jack is so unique. You can't "undie" by changing history if that history is fixed by predetermination. In that model, if you died, you died cos ALL events are "fixed"

I haven't applied any 'model of time-travel ' .

interesting theories , but the fact remains that the doc was alive when GI entered his timestream ,


.


.

Hm. I think some of this stuff belongs in a different thread to be honest. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether there were ever such things as "Looms" or not in the TV continuity.

He died - on Trenzalore - and a version of his from his own past was tricked into going there. That's just time travel - like Rose first realising that her mum and everyone she'd ever known was dead - then going home to those same people.