User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-38288735-20191211151111: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I apologize if I caused any offense; it was not intended. I'm just worried about the precedent of a Rule 4 ruling in this case. | I apologize if I caused any offense; it was not intended. I'm just worried about the precedent of a Rule 4 ruling in this case. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
If licensed crossovers featuring companions are not valid, that contradicts a recent ruling on ''The Worlds of Big Finish'', which features Bernice Summerfield as its "strongest" tie to the DWU. Even ignoring that, I'd like to raise a hypothetical: what if Captain Jack Harkness were to make a fully-licensed, non-parodical appearance in a non-DWU TV show? Would we not include that? If so, how is this different for Rule 4 purposes? | If licensed crossovers featuring companions are not valid, that contradicts a recent ruling on ''The Worlds of Big Finish'', which features Bernice Summerfield as its "strongest" tie to the DWU. Even ignoring that, I'd like to raise a hypothetical: what if Captain Jack Harkness were to make a fully-licensed, non-parodical appearance in a non-DWU TV show? Would we not include that? If so, how is this different for Rule 4 purposes? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20191101112654-31010985/20191211151111-38288735]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:33, 27 April 2023
I apologize if I caused any offense; it was not intended. I'm just worried about the precedent of a Rule 4 ruling in this case.
However, going back to the old thread, I honestly wasn't 100% convinced by the Rule 2 arguments. I'm not sure how easy it would be going forward to solidly determine licensing if we allow things from authors' personal blogs, even if they have been stated to be an official part of a publishing company's releases. It definitely seems like a grey area to me, and I would have no problem with the decision going either way if it's decided by that issue. I just think we need to treat crossovers consistently.
It was stated in the old thread that some of these may be released commercially next year, so this thread would still have relevance for if that happens. Rule 2 would not apply then, but Rule 4 still would, so I feel that's something worth looking at.
EDIT: After having a bit of time today to think this over, I wanted to lay out my Rule 4 problems in more detail.
In the original ruling, it stated, ". . . sometimes we have to draw the line for [stories] that are two or more times removed from the DWU." As the discussion had revolved around Rule 2, the discussion hadn't touched on how White Canvas features one of the Doctor's companions, which is as closely tied to the DWU as a non-doctor story can be, so it doesn't fit that description at all, but that was an easy thing to miss when the people talking hadn't been focusing on it.
If licensed crossovers featuring companions are not valid, that contradicts a recent ruling on The Worlds of Big Finish, which features Bernice Summerfield as its "strongest" tie to the DWU. Even ignoring that, I'd like to raise a hypothetical: what if Captain Jack Harkness were to make a fully-licensed, non-parodical appearance in a non-DWU TV show? Would we not include that? If so, how is this different for Rule 4 purposes?
