User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20150906221018/@comment-1272640-20161122030126

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-4028641-20150906221018
Revision as of 14:36, 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)

SOTO wrote: We treat the Warner Doctor as an alternate universe Doctor quite specifically because he later appears in the Bernice Summerfield series The Unbound Universe, set in an alternate universe. Like, regular-universe Benny travels to a different universe and meets this Doctor.

I should also note that our only stance on canon is that it does not exist. Instead, we have T:VALID to determine what is considered valid here. And something is valid if it passes our four little rules.

I apologize.

What I'm saying is that a work in continuity with the Dalek films states the works are in an alternate universe. Likewise, The Unbound Universe treats the Sympathy for the Devil Doctor as one from an alternate universe, and thus stories featuring him are considered valid.

In both cases, it's stated that there is a universe where X happened. Sympathy for the Devil et al. are valid for THEIR universe. Thus, I would think we would treat the works featuring the Cushing "Dr. Who" character as valid for their universe. Does this make sense?

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/Inclusion_debates/@comment-4028641-20150906221018/@comment-1272640-20161122030126&oldid=3504851"