User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-188432-20130129081336/@comment-1293767-20130331210737: 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: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
TenCents wrote: | TenCents wrote: | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
Yeah, this is what I don't get. Like I said earlier, "P.S." was relegated to non-canon (which I agree with) because of Chibnall's statement and I think there's even another thread about Vienna Audios or something going on right now where they were labeled non-canon because of an official statement as well. So I don't understand why the BBC's statement in this case can't be used for clarification. :-/ | Yeah, this is what I don't get. Like I said earlier, "P.S." was relegated to non-canon (which I agree with) because of Chibnall's statement and I think there's even another thread about Vienna Audios or something going on right now where they were labeled non-canon because of an official statement as well. So I don't understand why the BBC's statement in this case can't be used for clarification. :-/ | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20130129081336-188432/20130331210737-1293767]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:42, 27 April 2023
TenCents wrote: I'm curious as to why BBC isn't counted as a valid source: they are, after all, the ones who own Doctor Who. There would be no Doctor Who without the BBC.
Yeah, this is what I don't get. Like I said earlier, "P.S." was relegated to non-canon (which I agree with) because of Chibnall's statement and I think there's even another thread about Vienna Audios or something going on right now where they were labeled non-canon because of an official statement as well. So I don't understand why the BBC's statement in this case can't be used for clarification. :-/
