User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-26975268-20130415043028

Obviously. But Big Finish's being intentionally vague about it, as I've said many times. While it's certainly one interpretation that they say it's not part of the DWU, their wording makes it so that it's not clear. They're keeping it so that it works both ways, so that it sells to both audiences. Clever marketing, but not so good for us.

Since it's not clear whether or not the author says it's part of the DWU, the quotes above should not be used as proof, as they can be interpreted both ways. Therefore, in this one case, and in perhaps others in which the author isn't clear, we need to look at other aspects.

As Josiah said, if the wording was:

then what we say applies. If it ever comes to the author not being clear, as it does now, then we look at the other three rules. Looking at them, it all checks out.

If I may quote the explanation of Rule 4: "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4."

- Tardis:Valid sources

I don't know about you, but I'm not seeing the author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU -- there's nothing "direct" about the responses we've been given. As has been demonstrated in this thread, what has been said by representatives of BF can be enterpreted either way, and therefore no one has "directly" told us that it's non-DWU. Considering everything, if you apply the above quoted rule, this story cannot be "kicked out" based on Rule 4. Unless there's another reason that we shouldn't cover it, then I think that Vienna should be considered part of the DWU, and therefore covered by this wiki.

Anyone wish to rebut? (can't believe I just said that!)