User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20151101035254/@comment-24894325-20160706155923

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20151101035254/@comment-24894325-20160706155923 Yes, this is true.

However, this is a kind of a unique situation. There was a valid in-universe source (in the ZIs) for "Petronella", which we chose not to believe. It feels like since then the production team of DW has been trying to persuade us that they really meant it. First they put the name in the promotional materials, first I think on Big Finish. We dismissed it as a clueless technician's mistake. Then BBC did the same. We dismissed it as a copycat. Now Nick Briggs himself seems to be saying: "End this charade already, she's Petronella, deal with it."

I mean we can prolong it till November, when almost certainly a second and independent in-universe confirmation will materialise. Or we can change it now based on the in-universe evidence from the TV series.

Think of it. What's the worst that can happen? Let's say, Nick Briggs is toying with us and there is an extremely clever twist that he's setting up. Just imagine. Should we not indulge him? Should we not allow him this one small victory? After all he's done for us. It seems like a win-win: 95% chance that we will be right in renaming the page and 5% chance that we make a good man happy.