Talk:Interweb of Fear (home video)/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit
m (Scrooge MacDuck moved page Talk:Interweb of Fear (home video) to Talk:Interweb of Fear (home video)/Archive 1 without leaving a redirect)
(No difference)

Revision as of 13:06, 2 June 2021

Documentary

I would argue that with the archive footage chosen and the narration at the time the footage was playing it has a valid narrative and therefore should merit inclusion. --Borisashton 19:37, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

It just features a few clips in the documentary like Thirty Years in the TARDIS, they are just featured. No minisode was featured. 82.3.146.201talk to me 19:42, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
When the narrator says 'We had a problem' (or something similar) archive footage of a man getting murdered by the War Machines plays. This seem like a narrative (albeit a very loose one). --Borisashton 19:48, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
But it's still part of the documentary, joined together - unlike other minisodes featured in documentaries. 82.3.146.201talk to me 19:51, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
As I said above there is a narrative, which means it's a story. From what I can tell passes the four little rules due to this. --Borisashton 19:57, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
In a documentary, it doesn't warrant a separate page, it's unwatchable individually. 82.3.146.201talk to me 20:06, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
I've just had time to watch the documentary (with just the bits with the archive footage from The War Machines) and it makes sense on it's own as a brief history of the BBC website with the archive footage linking the narration. --Borisashton 16:15, February 4, 2017 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Thread:224568 to discuss this video's validity. All further comments should be made there. And for the record, inclusion debates must be posted at Board:Inclusion debates so that they get a wider audience than just a talk page. Shambala108 23:51, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

I wish we still had the Forum archives to check, but noting for posterity's sake that if I recall correctly, the finding of the thread was that it was narrative enough, but was a parody and therefore failed Rule 4 of T:VS. Scrooge MacDuck 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)