User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-44988386-20200707184426: 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:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-44988386-20200707184426'''
They do have a narrative connection, though. They're all incarnations of the Doctor. Yes, it's flimsy, but there's lots of stuff that's flimsy that we do. For instance, does Captain John Hart have a narrative connection to James I, by your definition? No. But they do under my definition: Both were monarchs of England at one point. And look: They both have the Monarch template.
They do have a narrative connection, though. They're all incarnations of the Doctor. Yes, it's flimsy, but there's lots of stuff that's flimsy that we do. For instance, does Captain John Hart have a narrative connection to James I, by your definition? No. But they do under my definition: Both were monarchs of England at one point. And look: They both have the Monarch template.
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200302103744-1783865/20200707184426-44988386]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 21:18, 27 April 2023

They do have a narrative connection, though. They're all incarnations of the Doctor. Yes, it's flimsy, but there's lots of stuff that's flimsy that we do. For instance, does Captain John Hart have a narrative connection to James I, by your definition? No. But they do under my definition: Both were monarchs of England at one point. And look: They both have the Monarch template.