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 58: | Line 58: | ||
:: I suggest a rule change, for both ''Shada'' and ''P.S.''. I think we should add on to the "No deleted scenes" policy with a sentance such as: "...if the deleted scene, however, is presented as it's own seperate narritive source instead of in a compilation of other deleted scenes, it shall be considered canon." | :: I suggest a rule change, for both ''Shada'' and ''P.S.''. I think we should add on to the "No deleted scenes" policy with a sentance such as: "...if the deleted scene, however, is presented as it's own seperate narritive source instead of in a compilation of other deleted scenes, it shall be considered canon." | ||
::There. That fixes your proplem. Shada and P.s. are then canon. I think this is the perfect solution to our ancient solution. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 09:04, November 4, 2012 (UTC) | ::There. That fixes your proplem. Shada and P.s. are then canon. I think this is the perfect solution to our ancient solution. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 09:04, November 4, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::Not really. The underlying reason for excluding deleted scenes hasn't changed just because they're "presented on their own as a separate narrative". They're still scenes that didn't get finished according to the original plan. Whether they're seen on their own or as part of a compilation is really quite beside the point. | |||
:::And your proposed change wouldn't cover several instances where there's only ''one'' deleted scene on a DVD, or the Eight --> Nine regen in [[The Flood (graphic novel)]] (sorry, I think I've been wrongly saying [[Endgame (graphic novel)]] above). It's presented as a "separate" point in the extra features there, as well. | |||
:::I ''do'' happen to think that ''Shada'' counts when it comes to numbering the stories, and have argued that elsewhere. But that's a behind-the-scenes thing. Policy doesn't deny the TV version's role in the history of the production of DW, because the rule is '''not''', "Something is a valid source if it has a production code". | |||
:::The point about ''Shada'' is again that it's so unfinished, major parts of the plot simply aren't present in the Baker version. If you try to fill in that part, either you go with the bit of fairly superficial linking narration by Baker, or you turn to other sources. So you end up mixing media to come up with a complete story. We don't allow that for any other story, so we're not going to start with ''Shada''. There are multiple versions of the story that ''were'' completed. That's more than enough to be getting on with. | |||
:::Oh, and technically it's not a TV story. Its proper prefix would of course be [[HOMEVID]]. | |||
:::Anyway, if you want to change the rules, please make your attempt in another thread. Again, as things stand, ''P.S.'' is ''clearly'' not a valid source under our current rules. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 17:10: Sun 04 Nov 2012</span> | |||
