Forum:P.S.: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::i'm also agreed [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] [[User talk:Imamadmad|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC) | ::i'm also agreed [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] [[User talk:Imamadmad|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC) | ||
The Beeb's stated purpose in producing and posting it was to respond to the fans' clammour for answers concerning whether the Doctor and/or River paid Brian a visit or if he was to never be given closure, and about to when Amy & Rory were sent. So, yes, it's clearly canon and thus not only valid, but of TV series-level validity/canon. {{Unsigned|OverAnalyser}} | The Beeb's stated purpose in producing and posting it was to respond to the fans' clammour for answers concerning whether the Doctor and/or River paid Brian a visit or if he was to never be given closure, and about to when Amy & Rory were sent. So, yes, it's clearly canon and thus not only valid, but of TV series-level validity/canon. {{Unsigned|OverAnalyser}} | ||
:The fact that the BBC have officially released a scene does not automatically make it a [[T:VS|valid source]] under our policies. There are a number of scenes included on (classic) DVD releases which can't be considered valid. Officially showing us "what might have been" is not the same thing as showing us what ''was''. For instance, we were ''officially'' shown the Eighth Doctor's regeneration in [[Endgame (graphic novel)]], but this site does not record that unpublished scene as the ''fact'' of Eight's regeneration. | |||
:Tybort was quite right to sound a note of caution. We need to discuss further whether this is ''actually'' what happened or merely a scene that might have been. After all, it's known to have been written by Chibnall, and Chibnall wasn't the writer of the broadcast episode. It's another author's addendum to Moffat's work. That's problematic, in my view. We really do need to thrash out specifically ''why'' this thing should be counted as a valid source — not just let it go through "on the nod". {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 04:33: Thu 25 Oct 2012</span> | |||
Revision as of 04:33, 25 October 2012
Index → Panopticon → P.S.
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
User:Tybort has removed references to P.S. (webcast) from articles because it was an unshot scene, so it's not a valid source. However, given that the scene was later released as an animated webcast, I do think that it is a valid source as much as any live-action ones, since the animated webcast version is a narrative source. 78.8.5.21talk to me 12:52, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:06, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
The Beeb's stated purpose in producing and posting it was to respond to the fans' clammour for answers concerning whether the Doctor and/or River paid Brian a visit or if he was to never be given closure, and about to when Amy & Rory were sent. So, yes, it's clearly canon and thus not only valid, but of TV series-level validity/canon. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by OverAnalyser (talk • contribs) .
- The fact that the BBC have officially released a scene does not automatically make it a valid source under our policies. There are a number of scenes included on (classic) DVD releases which can't be considered valid. Officially showing us "what might have been" is not the same thing as showing us what was. For instance, we were officially shown the Eighth Doctor's regeneration in Endgame (graphic novel), but this site does not record that unpublished scene as the fact of Eight's regeneration.
- Tybort was quite right to sound a note of caution. We need to discuss further whether this is actually what happened or merely a scene that might have been. After all, it's known to have been written by Chibnall, and Chibnall wasn't the writer of the broadcast episode. It's another author's addendum to Moffat's work. That's problematic, in my view. We really do need to thrash out specifically why this thing should be counted as a valid source — not just let it go through "on the nod".
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 04:33: Thu 25 Oct 2012
