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

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20170915033630 I just came across the talk page for this audio story. It discusses the validity of the "story", which should really be discussed in this board. I'm posting the conversation here as a starter.

from Talk:The First Doctor: Volume Two trailer (audio story):


 * Ok guys; I know the trailer was unusual, (as in, had a narrative, instead of just snippets from the stories) but I think we should still hold back on using it as a Valid Source. Tardis:Valid sources clearly states that trailers don't count. And I know this is the exception of the rule, but going trough an inclusion debate seems better IMO (although, I'll admit, I will support that this trailer should be a VS, and this trailer only). OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:25, June 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * This whole situation is near identical to those Virgin preludes or the Tardisodes: a short original narrative released before the "main event" which ties into it and expands upon elements of the story. CoT ? 21:42, June 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that is very similar, but the biggest issue, is that this is directly named as a trailer, unlike the Tardisodes and the preludes There is also another somewhat narrative trailer that was deemed an invalid. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:49, June 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, upon rewatching the trailer and relistening to 1st Doctor trailer, I admit they are different, but I still see this being named as a "trailer" as a bit problematic. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:52, June 22, 2017 (UTC)