User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-27280472-20161222145551/@comment-28349479-20170125170813

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-27280472-20161222145551/@comment-28349479-20170125170813 Thefartydoctor wrote: That's not what authorial intent means on this Wiki. It has to be the production company. If you wanted a quote about the Unbound series, for example, you'd need to contact Big Finish. If you wanted to know something about a specific EDA, you'd contact BBC Books, not the author. It was heavily explained during the original FP thread. That's why users were getting so annoyed when various authors were leaving their opinions yet the opinions were seemingly not good enough. Was it heavily explained during the original FP thread? The reason those authors' opinions weren't considered was because (as CzechOut explained here) their IP addresses were unverifiable, not because they weren't the publisher. Just look at Vienna, where the author's statements overrode the publisher's clear marketing of the series as a Doctor Who spinoff.

Amorkuz wrote: Of course, not. The author directly benefits from greater visibility of his work. His words cannot be trusted. Yknow what, you're right. And by the same token, we can't trust the BBC calling Class a "spinoff"; it's blatant promotion, since no one would have watched it without the Doctor Who connection. They were probably licensing the building, Weeping Angels, and the Doctor to P Ness for use in a separate universe, just like the appearances of Panda, Cleavis, and the Smudgelings in Brenda & Effie. I think we should really consider our inclusion of Class in light of this evidence.