Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:P.S.: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::i'm also agreed [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] [[User talk:Imamadmad|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC) | ::i'm also agreed [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] [[User talk:Imamadmad|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC) | ||
The Beeb's stated purpose in producing and posting it was to respond to the fans' clammour for answers concerning whether the Doctor and/or River paid Brian a visit or if he was to never be given closure, and about to when Amy & Rory were sent. So, yes, it's clearly canon and thus not only valid, but of TV series-level validity/canon. {{Unsigned|OverAnalyser}} | The Beeb's stated purpose in producing and posting it was to respond to the fans' clammour for answers concerning whether the Doctor and/or River paid Brian a visit or if he was to never be given closure, and about to when Amy & Rory were sent. So, yes, it's clearly canon and thus not only valid, but of TV series-level validity/canon. {{Unsigned|OverAnalyser}} | ||
:The fact that the BBC have officially released a scene does not automatically make it a [[T:VS|valid source]] under our policies. There are a number of scenes included on (classic) DVD releases which can't be considered valid. Officially showing us "what might have been" is not the same thing as showing us what ''was''. For instance, we were ''officially'' shown the Eighth Doctor's regeneration in [[Endgame (graphic novel)]], but this site does not record that unpublished scene as the ''fact'' of Eight's regeneration. | |||
:Tybort was quite right to sound a note of caution. We need to discuss further whether this is ''actually'' what happened or merely a scene that might have been. After all, it's known to have been written by Chibnall, and Chibnall wasn't the writer of the broadcast episode. It's another author's addendum to Moffat's work. That's problematic, in my view. We really do need to thrash out specifically ''why'' this thing should be counted as a valid source — not just let it go through "on the nod". {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 04:33: Thu 25 Oct 2012</span> | |||
