User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190914173756/@comment-6032121-20191125191146
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190914173756/@comment-6032121-20191125191146 I see no reason this wouldn't be valid; {{WhichDoctor}}'s existence is as good evidence as any that reprints which change things are considered valid on an equal basis with the original, for one thing.
As for how we would cover this, that's a better question. Do we treat this as a prequel short story (The Dalek Tapes (short story)), or as a reprint-with-extended-material-constituting-its-own-story (The Dalek Tapes (comic story), with the reprinted comic strips being taken to be part of it), or just as an addition to Genesis of Evil not deserving of its own page? Perhaps we would need a page for this.
That being said, the fact that this later story says the Doctor found a possibly-corrupted History of the Daleks doesn't supersede the fact that the original Dalek Chronicles were released with an omniscient narrator.
e.g. even if we do try to lean on "the history the Doctor found may have been wrong", all we can say is:
According to one account, the Daleks first came into being without Davros's influence from a race of blue humanoids; (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) the Doctor once found old, decayed records of the Daleks' history on a twilight world, which were consistent with this version of events. (PROSE: The Dalek Tapes).
Not
Or at least that's what I think is Wiki policy — and quite right it is too if so — although here's a forma disclaimer that I am not an Administrator of Tardis and that as such, my understanding of policy isn't to be followed as gospel or anything. I could be wrong.
