User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-31010985-20180428165444/@comment-4028641-20191214120524: 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 think with parodies it would be a case-by-case basis, obviously ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story)|The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' was meant to be a legitimate story at the time. I'll also defend [[Seventh Doctor (The Lenny Henry Show)]] just because it's one of my favorite pages. | I think with parodies it would be a case-by-case basis, obviously ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story)|The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' was meant to be a legitimate story at the time. I'll also defend [[Seventh Doctor (The Lenny Henry Show)]] just because it's one of my favorite pages. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
But what I think is important about the policy as it's being suggested by others is that it doesn't overrule precedent, of people saying "this story is too contradictory to be in the mainstream lineage," but it still gives people the route to cover said adventures. | But what I think is important about the policy as it's being suggested by others is that it doesn't overrule precedent, of people saying "this story is too contradictory to be in the mainstream lineage," but it still gives people the route to cover said adventures. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20180428165444-31010985/20191214120524-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:08, 27 April 2023
I think with parodies it would be a case-by-case basis, obviously The Curse of Fatal Death was meant to be a legitimate story at the time. I'll also defend Seventh Doctor (The Lenny Henry Show) just because it's one of my favorite pages.
I think parody pages like that are innocent enough to include, as long as they're made by the BBC perhaps? Or if they have other licensed things in them. I could also see accepting "they weren't meant to be real continuations" as a valid argument against this.
I think the point of this suggestion is that it finds a strong compromise -- the people who worked to have stories like Scream of the Shalka labeled "outside of the Doctor Who Universe" (back when our understanding of that was a little more simple") would still sort-of have that, but we would also allow our editors to have some path to include these stories. And if the wording being more along the lines of "According to one account, the Eighth Doctor regenerated into Blackadder" instead of "in an alternate universe/reality/valid account, 8 turned into Blackadder" then I think that would also be appropriate.
But what I think is important about the policy as it's being suggested by others is that it doesn't overrule precedent, of people saying "this story is too contradictory to be in the mainstream lineage," but it still gives people the route to cover said adventures.
