User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20170915033630/@comment-24894325-20171127222133

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20170915033630/@comment-24894325-20171127222133 We often insist on not taking the marketing tricks at face value. For instance, main range stories with Bernice Summerfield are now added to the single releases range of the Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series on the Big Finish website. But we reserve the right not to accept that. In most cases, it means that we may not give things the status the publisher suggests. Thus, it seems only fair that, in principle, we may also give things the status the publisher does not suggest. They did call it a trailer, though Briggs in one of the podcasts (I can't remember which) said that they wanted to try something different with this trailer (he shied away from defining what it was in the end).

My proposal is to evaluate it on its merits rather than on its name. Is it really a trailer or is it a "prelude", to use the term of OttselSpy25. In other words, let us look at why T:VS excludes trailers and see if the original reasoning is applicable here. Seemingly the main problems are:
 * Rule 3: is it officially released?
 * Rule 1: does it form a story?
 * Does it contain de-facto cut scenes: alternative cuts of scenes from the actual stories that contradict them?