Trusted
8,512
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
:::::Our simple little rule [sic] works to help you understand what works of fiction "count" on this wiki well over 90% of the time. The rest of this document is concerned with the ''other'' 10% — the marginal cases that are a little less clear. | :::::Our simple little rule [sic] works to help you understand what works of fiction "count" on this wiki well over 90% of the time. The rest of this document is concerned with the ''other'' 10% — the marginal cases that are a little less clear. | ||
::::Let me be clear that I '''''actually quite like this policy change qua policy'''''. The old way caused a lot of headaches when the old forums were up, and I found it very annoying. But, you know, procedural quibbles, as always. More importantly for the context of this thread is that it causes confusion as to why certain things have been ruled invalid or not covered, since those decisions were made in a time period in which this standard wasn't being applied. (I went on to write another two or three paragraphs about how we should do historical analysis of things on this wiki, but deleted it because it was getting super far off topic and we should focus on the issue at hand.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | ::::Let me be clear that I '''''actually quite like this policy change qua policy'''''. The old way caused a lot of headaches when the old forums were up, and I found it very annoying. But, you know, procedural quibbles, as always. More importantly for the context of this thread is that it causes confusion as to why certain things have been ruled invalid or not covered, since those decisions were made in a time period in which this standard wasn't being applied. (I went on to write another two or three paragraphs about how we should do historical analysis of things on this wiki, but deleted it because it was getting super far off topic and we should focus on the issue at hand.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::: I my self come down hard on validating two of these soft on one and not at all on the last. this is because is do not think three of them truly are deleted anymore. | |||
I believe that the Pilot should be validated as it has been officially released several time and never on those releases has it been called a deleted scene or a deleted story (as far as I am aware) in is reference both in Unnatural History and the Infinity Doctors, they imply that it is not the original but that the Doctor Who memos are (and the memo can not be validated as it is out of universe) we thus can avoid having to say that it is the original universe. They events of the Pilot to me seem like just another “according to one account” I much the same way as we cover novelisations (not viewing it as the original retroactive first episode, but as a latter 1991 home vid) | :::: I my self come down hard on validating two of these soft on one and not at all on the last. this is because is do not think three of them truly are deleted anymore.<br> | ||
I would also like to argue hard in favour of P.S. is it called a deleted scene? It may not be an adaption but to mean it falls into a similar category a farewell Sarah Jane Smith in that is is mostly an audio story with some movement, in the case of Farewell it is a mix of live action and narration whilst in P.S. it is animated with narration. It could also be compared to the animated stories that also got audio versions both tell the same story using mostly the same words yet we cover both P.s. is an equivalent in which one of them was never made and so only one of the two parts was released. | :::: I believe that the Pilot should be validated as it has been officially released several time and never on those releases has it been called a deleted scene or a deleted story (as far as I am aware) in is reference both in Unnatural History and the Infinity Doctors, they imply that it is not the original but that the Doctor Who memos are (and the memo can not be validated as it is out of universe) we thus can avoid having to say that it is the original universe. They events of the Pilot to me seem like just another “according to one account” I much the same way as we cover novelisations (not viewing it as the original retroactive first episode, but as a latter 1991 home vid)<br> | ||
the next one whilst I would like to be valid stands on flimsy grounds I think is should be covered as a 30 years in the TARDIS Minisode not as a deleted scene as unless someone’s can say that in 30 years it was referred to as a deleted scene I think it should be covered as a Minisode in much the same way as the other 30 years minisodes are covered. | :::: I would also like to argue hard in favour of P.S. is it called a deleted scene? It may not be an adaption but to mean it falls into a similar category a farewell Sarah Jane Smith in that is is mostly an audio story with some movement, in the case of Farewell it is a mix of live action and narration whilst in P.S. it is animated with narration. It could also be compared to the animated stories that also got audio versions both tell the same story using mostly the same words yet we cover both P.s. is an equivalent in which one of them was never made and so only one of the two parts was released.<br> | ||
for the Journeys end scene I am apathetic towards however I would like to argue against it’s validity. It is a deleted scene it has never been released as a deleted scene it is alway in the deleted scene sections of the DVD yes authorial intent wants it to have happened yes other stories do imply it happened however until it is released separately not as a deleted scene but as a webcast (which dose not include the words deleted scene, unless it says formally deleted scene) I am against it.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | :::: the next one whilst I would like to be valid stands on flimsy grounds I think is should be covered as a 30 years in the TARDIS Minisode not as a deleted scene as unless someone’s can say that in 30 years it was referred to as a deleted scene I think it should be covered as a Minisode in much the same way as the other 30 years minisodes are covered.<br> | ||
:::: for the Journeys end scene I am apathetic towards however I would like to argue against it’s validity. It is a deleted scene it has never been released as a deleted scene it is alway in the deleted scene sections of the DVD yes authorial intent wants it to have happened yes other stories do imply it happened however until it is released separately not as a deleted scene but as a webcast (which dose not include the words deleted scene, unless it says formally deleted scene) I am against it.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
P.S. was [https://web.archive.org/web/20140306065438/https://twitter.com/ChrisChibnall/status/257087302935920640 explicitly stated] to be a DVD extra that wasn't filmed, yes. What we see comes from the storyboards and the narration from Darvill that would have been used for the final project anyhow. There is a ''minor'' amount of animation and typography added. It is not similar to [[Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast)|Farewell, Sarah Jane]], as that was always intended to be in that form and commissioned new production elements to create it. Both the narration in [[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]] and the storyboards were production elements that would have been used had the scene actually been made. Nor is it similar to the audio dramas you mention as it ''only'' has narration from Darvill, not from other people, who do have speaking roles in the script. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |