User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5545417-20150725190725/@comment-4028641-20150824172632: 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: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
Notsimonpegg wrote: | Notsimonpegg wrote: | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
There's another example tho, we allow the use of DWM previews (advertisements) for Big Finish audios and books on pages because they often show a visual representation of non-visual stories. So there we're counting an ad as valid. Also, I've looked over ''[[Dr Who and the Turgids]]'', and while it is goofy, it's certainly not far worse off from any [[TV Action]] comic, and it clearly is telling a competent story. So I don't even know if your example ''is'' showing a precedent for us counting ads as invalid. [[Tardis:Valid sources]] certainly doesn't point to any idea of the sort. If an ad is trying to tell a real story, isn't trying to spoof the show, and is licensed, then I don't see an issue with including it as Valid. | There's another example tho, we allow the use of DWM previews (advertisements) for Big Finish audios and books on pages because they often show a visual representation of non-visual stories. So there we're counting an ad as valid. Also, I've looked over ''[[Dr Who and the Turgids]]'', and while it is goofy, it's certainly not far worse off from any [[TV Action]] comic, and it clearly is telling a competent story. So I don't even know if your example ''is'' showing a precedent for us counting ads as invalid. [[Tardis:Valid sources]] certainly doesn't point to any idea of the sort. If an ad is trying to tell a real story, isn't trying to spoof the show, and is licensed, then I don't see an issue with including it as Valid. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20150725190725-5545417/20150824172632-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:27, 27 April 2023
Notsimonpegg wrote: Is DW&TD an advertisement, though, or more a promotional item in the same vain as the Big Finish promo CDs? It is not explicitly promoting a product through the story; although please correct me if the premise of the story is "the Doctor eats some sweet cigarettes."
There's another example tho, we allow the use of DWM previews (advertisements) for Big Finish audios and books on pages because they often show a visual representation of non-visual stories. So there we're counting an ad as valid. Also, I've looked over Dr Who and the Turgids, and while it is goofy, it's certainly not far worse off from any TV Action comic, and it clearly is telling a competent story. So I don't even know if your example is showing a precedent for us counting ads as invalid. Tardis:Valid sources certainly doesn't point to any idea of the sort. If an ad is trying to tell a real story, isn't trying to spoof the show, and is licensed, then I don't see an issue with including it as Valid.
