230,341
edits
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160909213807/@comment-26845762-20160911035846 (edit)
Revision as of 22:30, 27 April 2023
, 27 April 2023Bot: 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)
(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/-/-)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Now Amorkuz, I agree with you that all four of the above stories should not be considered ''Multi-Doctor stories''. At the same time, I think that they should all be classified as appearances. | Now Amorkuz, I agree with you that all four of the above stories should not be considered ''Multi-Doctor stories''. At the same time, I think that they should all be classified as appearances. | ||
For TV, archive footage has to be "re-contextualised to be more than a simple memory of the past" to be considered an appearance. You're proposing we treat new artwork the same as archive footage. Visually, these are more than simple memories of the past. These are new takes on the past. | For TV, archive footage has to be "re-contextualised to be more than a simple memory of the past" to be considered an appearance. You're proposing we treat new artwork the same as archive footage. Visually, these are more than simple memories of the past. These are new takes on the past. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20160909213807-24894325/20160911035846-26845762]]</noinclude> | ||