Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-6032121-20200711194247

@User:Najawin, I agree with your analogy but not your conclusions; I think in such a scenario, the hypothetical minisodes absolutely should have pages on this Wiki. The BBC putting them up on their own screen as a promotional gimmick should absolutely count as a BBC-approved, commercial release of this material. The examples of Devious, and of various short stories originally printed in charity anthologies, give us precedents for stories originally created without licenses, but later commercially released by the BBC with the agreement of their original creators, to be covered.

Of course, I may be wrong. But if I'm bing honest, I believe that if a close reading of the letter of T:VS were to yield the conclusion that a Tenth Doctor story, by Paul Cornell, originally released on the BBC website isn't something we should cover, then — well — that would be an argument for tweaking the letter of T:VS. An argument for closing this ridiculous loophole that would impair our coverage of Doctor Who for no clear practical reason.

(Of course, in such a case, this thread should still be closed against the BBC Writers' Comics because T:BOUND, albeit with a separate Panopticon thread immediately being opened about the alleged loophole.)