Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-28743561-20191009174707/@comment-6032121-20191009175504

I obviously support the proposal to consider this valid.

If anyone's worried about it possibly just being "a fanfilm that the BBC's decided to throw a bone to" (which would be noteworthy in BTS sections but perhaps not valid), let me also nip these worries in the bud: on the official making-of that was posted to the Doctor Who YouTube Channel immediately after the episode's live premiere ended, we see Nicholas Briggs explaining the origins of the project:

"Andrew [Ireland] spoke to me about it years and years ago, but he asked if there was anyone at the BBC he should speak to or could speak to, and I put him in touch with someone…"

- Nicholas Briggs

From the very inception of the project, Ireland saw it as an endeavor that would be carried out in collaboration with the BBC, not a fanfilm of any kind.

And User:Danniesen, I also agree with LegoK9 that separate coverage (akin to Shada (webcast) vs. Shada (TV story), or, for that matter, to novelisations) is the right way to go.

Yes, the whole point is that the stories are exactly identical, even moreso than with the two Shadas, but consider what a logistical nightmare it would be trying to cover two sets of casts and crew on a single page.

You cite animated recons, and as a matter of fact I've long thought there might be something to covering animated recons on their own page too (it doesn't sit right with me that currently, the 1960's episode The Power of the Daleks is the first episode of Doctor Who to mention of Magpie Electricals, y'know?); but that would be a whole other debate. Consider, however, that for them, you can still argue they belong on the same page because it's restored from the same audio. Here, it isn't. Everything's new but the shooting script.

And here's another quote to support the position that this is best treated as a separate release:

"The 2019 version of Mission to the Unknown was always intended to be viewed in black-and-white (…)"

- Josh Snares in the 'Making-Of'

"The 2019 version" being the important bit. This is a "new version", not just a restoration job on a preexisting work.

Just for the record, though, you do agree that this should be a valid source, whether we give it a separate page or not, yes?