User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-6032121-20200711195846: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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 dunno about "famously", but yes, ''Devious'' is invalid. However, the inclusion debate for the thing ([[Thread:184791]]) ruled that we can cover "the ''preview'' — as opposed to the film itself, (…) but it's not a story". Hence its continued invalidity. If ''Devious'' as released on the BBC DVD had been recut and presented as a completed viewing experience, it very well ''might'' have been valid, although there might also have been Rule 4 concerns. | I dunno about "famously", but yes, ''Devious'' is invalid. However, the inclusion debate for the thing ([[Thread:184791]]) ruled that we can cover "the ''preview'' — as opposed to the film itself, (…) but it's not a story". Hence its continued invalidity. If ''Devious'' as released on the BBC DVD had been recut and presented as a completed viewing experience, it very well ''might'' have been valid, although there might also have been Rule 4 concerns. | ||
That being said, while ''I'' agree that what we should discuss is validity, I don't think it counts as overinterpretation to say that there are people in this thread who were arguing that it was no different from individual fans' Comic Creator creations, and, as such, should not be covered on this Wiki either. | That being said, while ''I'' agree that what we should discuss is validity, I don't think it counts as overinterpretation to say that there are people in this thread who were arguing that it was no different from individual fans' Comic Creator creations, and, as such, should not be covered on this Wiki either. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200505204802-1432718/20200711195846-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 27 April 2023
I dunno about "famously", but yes, Devious is invalid. However, the inclusion debate for the thing (Thread:184791) ruled that we can cover "the preview — as opposed to the film itself, (…) but it's not a story". Hence its continued invalidity. If Devious as released on the BBC DVD had been recut and presented as a completed viewing experience, it very well might have been valid, although there might also have been Rule 4 concerns.
That being said, while I agree that what we should discuss is validity, I don't think it counts as overinterpretation to say that there are people in this thread who were arguing that it was no different from individual fans' Comic Creator creations, and, as such, should not be covered on this Wiki either.
