User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-10983683-20140811212412/@comment-26845762-20160804134121: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)
(Bot: Automated import of articles)
 
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7/-/-))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-10983683-20140811212412/@comment-26845762-20160804134121'''
The only problem with listing all the stories as NON-DWU is that some of them are. David Tennant is just playing the regular Tenth Doctor in ''Attack of the Grask''. The choose-your-own-adventure books are the about the "real" Doctors. The only reason these are invalid is that their stories are fluid.  
The only problem with listing all the stories as NON-DWU is that some of them are. David Tennant is just playing the regular Tenth Doctor in ''Attack of the Grask''. The choose-your-own-adventure books are the about the "real" Doctors. The only reason these are invalid is that their stories are fluid.  


Line 12: Line 11:


My one wonder is this: if we list NONVALID appearances in lists, would they also be put into the infoboxes of characters/species without lists of appearances?
My one wonder is this: if we list NONVALID appearances in lists, would they also be put into the infoboxes of characters/species without lists of appearances?
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20140811212412-10983683/20160804134121-26845762]]</noinclude>
Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators
231,276

edits

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