Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Story Numbering: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
::::If we're saying that all story numbers and any other information on the DVD covers is official then therefore this is also, despite no corroborating evidence. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:03, July 25, 2012 (UTC) | ::::If we're saying that all story numbers and any other information on the DVD covers is official then therefore this is also, despite no corroborating evidence. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:03, July 25, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Why does the license holder need corroborating evidence? It's ''their'' playground. If they want to call it story 109, why should we, or DWM, quibble? The fact that Region 2/4 stuff is ''silent'' means that the Region 1 stuff is ''undisputed'', not unusable. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">21:11: Wed 25 Jul 2012 </span> | :Why does the license holder need corroborating evidence? It's ''their'' playground. If they want to call it story 109, why should we, or DWM, quibble? The fact that Region 2/4 stuff is ''silent'' means that the Region 1 stuff is ''undisputed'', not unusable. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">21:11: Wed 25 Jul 2012 </span> | ||
::If you want "corroboration" though, the official BBC episode guide at http://bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic — itself based on ''[[The Discontinuity Guide]]'' — does list ''Shada'' as the concluding story of season 17. Thus, if one were counting the stories based on that list, ''Shada'' would be 109. So there's two official BBC sources agreed that ''Shada'' is a part of their implied numbering system. | |||
::I'd also attack this from a different angle and say, what's your argument for ''denying'' the BBC pride of place amongst sources? It can't seriously be the fact that they allowed an advertisement for a fan club on the back of a DVD. How will we logically explain to people the we're '''''not''''' using the system on the official DVD releases ''and'' the official website? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">21:54: Wed 25 Jul 2012 </span> | |||
