Trusted
8,511
edits
Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy (view source)
Revision as of 03:06, 1 May 2023
, 1 May 2023→Discussion
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 265: | Line 265: | ||
:::: Whereas [[Anthony Williams]] being name dropped in ''[[Summer Falls (novel)|Summer Falls]]'', ''[[Rory's Stag (short story)|Rory's Stag]]'' and even ''[[The Lonely Assassins (video game)|The Lonely Assassins]]'' is clearly a series of reference to the viral webcast. I think this was the writers saying "The events of this story really happened." And the ''PS'' short does exist in some presentable form, it's not just a script PDF online. The two cases just don't feel comparable. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 02:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC) | :::: Whereas [[Anthony Williams]] being name dropped in ''[[Summer Falls (novel)|Summer Falls]]'', ''[[Rory's Stag (short story)|Rory's Stag]]'' and even ''[[The Lonely Assassins (video game)|The Lonely Assassins]]'' is clearly a series of reference to the viral webcast. I think this was the writers saying "The events of this story really happened." And the ''PS'' short does exist in some presentable form, it's not just a script PDF online. The two cases just don't feel comparable. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 02:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
As stated, you are more than welcome to shout "Easter egg" over and over and hope it gets you further than it's gotten me. I wish you luck, I truly, genuinely do. But it just fundamentally doesn't solve the problem that the change to our rules that you're proposing would seem to force us to do this if, in the future, someone truly did intend to reference a script to "bring it into continuity". A script is a presentable form insofar as [[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]] is. Would this extend further to script ''extracts''? Because Davies mentions one in ''The Writer's Tale'' that almost has Donna reference a particularly racist book title. Meets R1, R2, (maybe) R3, and it could meet R4 if someone wants to R4bp it. | |||
I think there's a difference between something that is written and released in a literary universe that resembles the DWU we normally talk about but isn't intended by its creators to be, and something that might have once been intended for the actual factual DWU but was then '''''purposefully erased from the DWU'''''. Allowing people to later get a look behind the curtain, so to speak, see how the sausage is made, shouldn't change that this decision was made, even if later people want to reference it. (Now, I note that this ''particular'' reasoning doesn't apply to P.S., but it ''does'' apply to every other case you've discussed here.) And we could go back and amend R4bp again, which I think was a mistake and we're going to have to fix eventually. But the other option is just to say that these aren't "real" releases for the content, the content will never "really" be released, because it was purposefully deleted. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
