Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20170915033630/@comment-6032121-20181207131504

True — as I said, Amorkuz brought up the matter of the advertisement rule in order to understand where the various rules involved here were coming from, but it's really its own debate. But I wouldn't say that within the context of that debate the Transformers allusion was all that irrelevant; it was a famous non-DW example of a phenomenon common across almost all franchises of narrative elements prompted by behind-the-scenes salesmanship, a phenomenon of which I identified a proper Who example (the Curator) earlier.

But let's move on, yes. Does anyone disagree with my above assessment that this is a case where we see that what the BBC and/or Big Finish call a "trailer" does not always correlate with "trailer" as understood by our rules, that it is for all intents and purposes a "prequel" as we understand it, and that we should judge its nature on its own merit rather than based on what the website calls it? Not unlike, as I said, the way the description of Vienna Salvatori as a "spin-off" was overturned by closer inspection of what it actually was.