Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-6032121-20190528105456

Interesting idea, but one to which OttselSpy already replied upthread:

If it makes it easier to understand, let's say it like this: these are hardly even sequels or prequels. They can be and should be viewed as stand-alone adventures. They just happen to somehow reference the events of stories which are invalid for reasons entirely outside of their "continuity." Can we really say that Storm in a Tikka has to be invalid because at the start the Doctor mentions an adventure involving the Rani's TARDIS? Or that Rescue can't count as a story on this wiki because it features a character from Dimensions in Time?

Now, I haven't read these particular two short stories, but it also seems that Ottsel has, and they're saying, as a reader, that these are standalone adventures; not quite as unconstrained from the invalid stories as Rose vs. Spearhead, perhaps, but… you know what'd be the best comparison? The Web of Fear vs. The Snowmen. The Snowmen very specifically refers to The Web of Fear and ties into it narratively — if you're looking for that tie-in; but as a matter of empirical fact, millions of non-fans watched the Christmas special and enjoyed it perfectly well despite not having the faintest idea Web of Fear existed.

If we were dealing with ‘second part of a two-parter’ scenarios, I'd see your/Shambala's point, but according to the person who's actually read the stories we're dealing with, at least two self-explanatory, whether because the tie-in is subtle or because the events of the invalid property are summarized.

It feels appropriate to note that Vampire Science not only reuses a character from Time Rift, but features a summary by her of Time Rift’s events, and explicitly paints part of the Doctor and Sam's arc in Vampire Science as a thematic answer to Seven and Ace's in Time Rift.