Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-188432-20130413214017

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Tales from the Tardis‎ | @comment-188432-20130325173913
Revision as of 14:36, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated import of articles)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-188432-20130413214017 That's illogical, SOTO. If it is intentionally vague and can be interpreted either way, then therefore there is at least a suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU.

Like Josiah said, they Spragg is offering us a choice. The question before us is why would we not choose the easier option that doesn't require a rewrite of a core policy? Why would we opt to make narrative continuity the reason for accepting this thing which is completely consistently described by Spragg and Richardson as "not a spin-off of Doctor Who"?

And who's going to write the rationale for including Vienna? Because I sure as heck don't see a clear and straightforward way to do it. If someone comes up to me a year from now and asks me, "Why do we include Vienna but not the Fantastic Four?" I really wouldn't have a clue what to say to them.

Conversely, if we banned it because Big Finish said it wasn't a Doctor Who spin-off, everyone in this thread could wrap their minds around that statement and know that it was a true statement. That rationale would at least be completely transparent and provable by showing legitimate quotes.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.