Trusted
34,029
edits
More actions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::The real question about ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'' is why we give it that name at all. The sketch was untitled on broadcast, so I'm not sure I've ever quite known why it's called that. I don't doubt that it's the best title available, I just wanna know the source of it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:51: Wed 11 Jan 2012 </span> | ::The real question about ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'' is why we give it that name at all. The sketch was untitled on broadcast, so I'm not sure I've ever quite known why it's called that. I don't doubt that it's the best title available, I just wanna know the source of it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:51: Wed 11 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
:::Well, if our reason for DIT to not be canon is that it includes [[East Enders]] chareactors, then shouldn't [[Mistaken Identity]] be non-canonical? I think that's why I REALLY started this, in some cases, we seem a bit strange with our Canon policy... I mean, you mentioned that there are Dalek movie sequels, but what if those pages were marked as canon? Sure, they aren't, but if we have a sequel to a non-canon story, then it's sequel should be non-canon too. If we have a story non-canon for one reason, then stories with the same thing behind the reason should be non-canon. Otherwise the line of Continuity becomes astray and vague. I think this discussion is over. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 19:58, January 11, 2012 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Inclusion debates]] | [[Category:Inclusion debates]] | ||