User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222080541: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)
(Bot: Automated import of articles)
 
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5/-, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4))
Line 1: Line 1:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222080541'''
{{retitle|Inclusion debates/Other Doctor Who Unbound stories - should we deem them invalid or just alternate universes?}}
We've never had a formal discussion about ''Doctor Who Unbound'' releases' validity as a whole. Given that the Warner incarnation has already been deemed valid but from a different universe, it's not part of this discussion.
We've never had a formal discussion about ''Doctor Who Unbound'' releases' validity as a whole. Given that the Warner incarnation has already been deemed valid but from a different universe, it's not part of this discussion.


Line 8: Line 8:
Essentially, this is just one change: The whole of ''Doctor Who Unbound'' would be considered alternate universes, rather than wholly invalid.
Essentially, this is just one change: The whole of ''Doctor Who Unbound'' would be considered alternate universes, rather than wholly invalid.


Any thoughts on this proposal?  {{retitle|///Other Doctor Who Unbound stories - should we deem them invalid or just alternate universes?}}
Any thoughts on this proposal?   
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20161222080541-1272640]]</noinclude>
Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators
228,839

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.