User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help!/@comment-43874324-20200612212458/@comment-6032121-20200615014601

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help!/@comment-43874324-20200612212458/@comment-6032121-20200615014601 Indeed — what Borisashton is a sensible policy for Doctor Who?, but doesn't necessarily apply to others of Quinn and Howett's works in the two hardbound books; while often stylistically similar to Doctor Who?, and for all that they may be collected in one book, they don't make up a single œuvre like Doctor Who? does. To the point that some of the stories in the books aren't even parodies!

I've thus broadly approached these stories on an individual basis. Sure, when there was obvious continuity of some sort between the use of a concept in Doctor Who? and in a Fun Book story, there was no point in a separate page (Roberta Tovey in Doctor Who? 85 vs. The Final Script comes to mind).

But when an individual story is about the shooting of Doctor Who, without the context of Doctor Who? to establish that those may be actual Time Lords in front of the cameras, then the natural assumption is that we are dealing with a story set in a parody of the real world. And that's what I've gone with.

Now, I'm not all that familiar with Doctor Woah, but it might be a matter of deciding whether it's more like Doctor Who? (which has its own lackadaiscal unity beyond a shared authorship and artstyle — though it would be pushing it to speak of "continuity"), in which case a similar policy to Boris's Who? recommendation should be thought up — or whether the various strips are so unconnected that they're better handled on a case-by-face basis like Fun Book material.