Trusted
6,377
edits
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 2017 source edit |
||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
:::Well, Scrooge ''did'' also say "It's conceivable that such a character would warrant coverage, but I am hereby declaring that this would at least need a thread, and it would require a solid argument that the second-order-crossover-spin-off-thing is still very much intended to be read with the old 1980s ''Who'' crossovers in mind." [[User:Cgl1999|Cgl1999]] [[User talk:Cgl1999|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | :::Well, Scrooge ''did'' also say "It's conceivable that such a character would warrant coverage, but I am hereby declaring that this would at least need a thread, and it would require a solid argument that the second-order-crossover-spin-off-thing is still very much intended to be read with the old 1980s ''Who'' crossovers in mind." [[User:Cgl1999|Cgl1999]] [[User talk:Cgl1999|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::: Right, look at it this way. If it were the first episode that the Doctor popped up in then we would call it a Doctor Who spin off, and cover it in its entirety. So why should we do any different for when it's the second episode? Also, let us note that rule 4 does not state "it must be intended to be set in the DWU", but it does state "if it's not intended to be in the DWU then it's not allowed". And here there's certainly no reason to suspect that it ''wasn't'' intended to be set in the DWU. (I was going to say more, but I remembered [[T:BOUND]] just in time.) [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">📢</span>]] 06:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC) |