User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190917111635: 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+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190917111635'''
{{retitle|The Panopticon/Narrative Trailers}}
[[User:Shambala108]] recently closed [[Thread:224324]], about the ''First Doctor: Volume Two'' trailer, with a straight application of [[T:VS]]. As such, fair enough.  
[[User:Shambala108]] recently closed [[Thread:224324]], about the ''First Doctor: Volume Two'' trailer, with a straight application of [[T:VS]]. As such, fair enough.  


Line 18: Line 18:
I feel like [[COMIC]]: ''[[Dr Who and the Turgids]]'' should also be given some consideration if we're going to be reevaluating stories which have full narrative and were intended to be set in the DWU, but were released as part of an advertisement process. However, it wasn't a part of the previous discussions and is ''slightly'' different from them in that where all four stories above are trailers for other stories or for the rerelase of stories, it was an advertisement for the release of a merchandise item.
I feel like [[COMIC]]: ''[[Dr Who and the Turgids]]'' should also be given some consideration if we're going to be reevaluating stories which have full narrative and were intended to be set in the DWU, but were released as part of an advertisement process. However, it wasn't a part of the previous discussions and is ''slightly'' different from them in that where all four stories above are trailers for other stories or for the rerelase of stories, it was an advertisement for the release of a merchandise item.


P.S.: I think this belongs in [[Board:The Panopticon]] rather than in [[Board:Inclusion Debates]] because ''Inclusion Debates'' is more about running stories by the Four Little Rules as they exist, whereas this is an effort to ''change'' policy rather than decide how best to apply it. I could be wrong. {{retitle|///Narrative Trailers}}
P.S.: I think this belongs in [[Board:The Panopticon]] rather than in [[Board:Inclusion Debates]] because ''Inclusion Debates'' is more about running stories by the Four Little Rules as they exist, whereas this is an effort to ''change'' policy rather than decide how best to apply it. I could be wrong.  
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20190917111635-6032121]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 23:57, 27 April 2023

User:Shambala108 recently closed Thread:224324, about the First Doctor: Volume Two trailer, with a straight application of T:VS. As such, fair enough.

But as had quickly become apparent in that thread, the overwhelming sentiment was that the recent wave of fully narrative, non-fourth-wall-breaking trailers by Big Finish and the BBC made the relevant paragraph of T:VS no longer useful policy. It was originally meant to stop people from adding info from "Next Time" trailers to the Wiki before the episodes being trailed were properly released, but clearly wasn't written with full independent stories in mind; the various TV Prequels are functionally identical to the "trailers" under discussion (heck, some of them are even less advertisey, as some, like Ace Returns!, aren't even leading up to a specific story, they just happen to be the trailer for a physical rerelease of preexisting material), and have always been valid; if people are starting to use "trailer" for things identical to the "prequels" and which it would clearly be a net benefit for us to cover as valid, T:VS should be rewritten to reflect this.

That discussion was happening at Thread:224324, but more out of convenience than anything else; it wasn't the original stated topic of the thread per se, hence its closing as far as said original topic as such was concerned. But it's an important discussion, so here is a thread on which to discuss is all explicitly and above-board.

Although I've restated the gist of the argument above, I invite everyone interested in participating and who wasn't already posting on the First Doctor thread to read through said thread.

The stories under direct discussion per this policy are:

TV: Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars was also originally ruled invalid on the basis of "it's an ad, sort of, so it doesn't count". However, there also potential Rule 4 concerns, so even if (as I hope) this thread is closed in favor of changing Trailer policy, it will require a new debate of its own. Similarly, TV: Meet the Thirteenth Doctor was invalid on arrival because it's essentially a trailer for Series 11, and may warrant reevaluation if narrative trailers are valid. (EDIT: See later messages for a couple more trailers already covered on this Wiki but which could potentially be revalidated.)

I feel like COMIC: Dr Who and the Turgids should also be given some consideration if we're going to be reevaluating stories which have full narrative and were intended to be set in the DWU, but were released as part of an advertisement process. However, it wasn't a part of the previous discussions and is slightly different from them in that where all four stories above are trailers for other stories or for the rerelase of stories, it was an advertisement for the release of a merchandise item.

P.S.: I think this belongs in Board:The Panopticon rather than in Board:Inclusion Debates because Inclusion Debates is more about running stories by the Four Little Rules as they exist, whereas this is an effort to change policy rather than decide how best to apply it. I could be wrong.