User:OttselSpy25/Commercial fiction sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: 2017 source edit
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 17: Line 17:
* [[Doctor, Doctor, Doctor (webcast)|Doctor, Doctor, Doctor]] - Our judgement on invaliding ''Lego Dimensions'' fell entirely on the game having multiple-path easter eggs. It was generally thought that the ''Doctor Who'' portions passed Rule 4 with flying colours. So there's no reason to invalidate the shorts made to tie-into the game.
* [[Doctor, Doctor, Doctor (webcast)|Doctor, Doctor, Doctor]] - Our judgement on invaliding ''Lego Dimensions'' fell entirely on the game having multiple-path easter eggs. It was generally thought that the ''Doctor Who'' portions passed Rule 4 with flying colours. So there's no reason to invalidate the shorts made to tie-into the game.
* [[Time Lord Victorious: Trailer (webcast)]]
* [[Time Lord Victorious: Trailer (webcast)]]
* [[Strax Field Report]]s
* [[Strax Field Report]]s - My understanding is that this was invalidated because the webcasts featured spoilers for future TV stories. Now that that isn't a concern, there's no reason to keep this invalid.
* [[More Than Human... (webcast)]]
* [[More Than Human... (webcast)]]
* [[He Who Fights With Monsters (webcast)]]
* [[He Who Fights With Monsters (webcast)]]

Revision as of 16:44, 18 March 2023

This is going to be a curated list of potential commercials/advertisements/idents that should be validated in the future, given specific circumstances.

Essentially, advertisements being disqualified for "not being narratives" and thus not fitting Rule 1 should be retired. Thusly, all "advertisements" which are more than just compilations of clips and images should be reconsidered under rule 4: if they are intended to take place in the Doctor Who Universe.

Stories where validation is certain

TV stories

  • 2009 BBC Christmas idents - Famous "TARDIS with Reindeer" idents. Calling these commercials is a little iffy in the first place, as I don't think idents are advertisements. Nevertheless, these are TV stories with a narrative going on.
  • Step Into the 80's! / On Through the 80's!
  • Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars - This one could be debated, but the story being narrated by Peter Capaldi and ending on the reveal of the Twelfth Doctor makes it more a Doctor Who story than anything else
  • CBBC idents - This can hopefully be fleshed out with more info? But it sounds like it might qualify
  • Any of the Collection trailers... Which are mostly already counted as valid due to some loophole.

Webcasts

Short stories

  • Can I Help You? (short story) - Short story printed on a t-shirt. It could be argued that the story "is a commercial item" since it's printed on a t-shirt. I think stories printed on paper and sold in books are also commercial items.
  • The Cult of Skaro (short story)
  • Dalek Wars - this one just doesn't make any god damn sense in my opinion. When a 1960s story is used to sell candy cigarettes, we give it a featuring page! But when a 2000s story is used to sell baseball cards? No. >:( Even if the proposition doesn't pass, this being invalid makes no sense with our rules.

Comic stories

Audio stories

Stories I'm less certain about

  • The Trip of a Lifetime and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the Bootstrap paradox. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
  • Famine Appeal - I'm leaning towards non-valid for things like this, but I would have to hear from my peers.
  • Friend from the Future - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, but I think it would need a stand-alone debate.
  • Meet the Thirteenth Doctor - This one is odd, because I don't think it qualifies for Rule 4. Now, if a future story were to give context to what's going on here, I think this would qualify for Rule 4 By Proxy.
  • Doctor Who: 50 Years (trailer) - Another great example here where there's no real proof that this was intended to be set inside the DWU. But you could also argue that this trailer simply depicts a Multi-Doctor Event that Day doesn't show. It's certainly more of a promotional short than a trailer, and certainly something that would qualify for Rule 4 by Proxy if some other valid fiction referenced it. But as it stands, I think it deserves to be in the middle here.
  • WeLoveTITANS - I think as these were disqualified for being commercials, they might justify another debate, but I just don't know how many people WANT to go down that rabbit hole again

Advertisements which do not qualify