User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161221160519

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-28349479-20161216221639
Revision as of 14:21, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Authorial intent is that it's set within DWU but is it a valid source?

Note: Valid source is a story like The Three Doctors or Survival.

And invalid source is a story like The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time.

Both of those stories are excluded because they're parodies; we have subzero reason to believe that Faction Paradox falls in that category. Since authorial intent is the last of the four little rules to be resolved, this would mean it's a valid source. Besides, Faction Paradox is already an invalid source. This thread is about why Faction Paradox should be considered valid, and any other discussion is off-topic.

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/Inclusion_debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161221160519&oldid=3503938"