User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-6032121-20191210075318: 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 concur with Borisashton. You're of course right that stories can be invalid ''in spite of'' featuring licensed appearances of major DWU characters like the Doctor. However, in the absence of any ''separate'' reasons for invalidity, surely a licensed appearance of a major DWU character makes validity the ''default''. | I concur with Borisashton. You're of course right that stories can be invalid ''in spite of'' featuring licensed appearances of major DWU characters like the Doctor. However, in the absence of any ''separate'' reasons for invalidity, surely a licensed appearance of a major DWU character makes validity the ''default''. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
When a story features the Doctor's daughter as a major character, the onus is on people who argue that it ''nevertheless'' doesn't take place in the DWU to substantiate their claim. In the ''absence'' of evidence that the authors of a story featuring a major DWU character ''didn't'' mean for it to take place in the DWU, it would be sheer madness to require further evidence of intent of being set in the DWU. | When a story features the Doctor's daughter as a major character, the onus is on people who argue that it ''nevertheless'' doesn't take place in the DWU to substantiate their claim. In the ''absence'' of evidence that the authors of a story featuring a major DWU character ''didn't'' mean for it to take place in the DWU, it would be sheer madness to require further evidence of intent of being set in the DWU. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20191101112654-31010985/20191210075318-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:33, 27 April 2023
I concur with Borisashton. You're of course right that stories can be invalid in spite of featuring licensed appearances of major DWU characters like the Doctor. However, in the absence of any separate reasons for invalidity, surely a licensed appearance of a major DWU character makes validity the default.
That is to say, Planet of the Rain Gods was a priori valid for featuring a licensed appearance by the Eleventh Doctor; that is superseded by evidence of a Rule 4 break in the form of the fact that it's a deleted scene; but if that Rule-4-breaking wasn't precedent, it would be enough to declare it valid.
When a story features the Doctor's daughter as a major character, the onus is on people who argue that it nevertheless doesn't take place in the DWU to substantiate their claim. In the absence of evidence that the authors of a story featuring a major DWU character didn't mean for it to take place in the DWU, it would be sheer madness to require further evidence of intent of being set in the DWU.
