Talk:The Trial (webcast)

Validity
I feel if we're including 24 Carat as valid, it makes no sense that The Sixth Doctor is on tiral AGAIN!, and other Collection short films (because that's what they are - short films) aren't also considered valid. Especially as they add to the narrative of the N-Space version of Doctor Who. Toy  Story   Fan  01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, much to everyone's displeasure, trailers are absurdly not considered valid sources. It started out understandably enough, where the only trailers that existed were the "Next Time" ones, which presented information that was edited out of the final episode, however, as time moved on, trailers presenting unique narratives emerged, however the Wiki's policies on this have not been fairly altered to reflect this; however, I and many other users wi be trying to rectify this issue as soon as @CzechOut restores the Forums. 📯 📂 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes — the thing in this case is that A Business Proposal for Mel!, the wider webcast presentation, is not in and of itself valid. McTighe, in this specific case, made it clear that the 24 Carat short, included within it, was its own thing with its own title. This is not the case for The Sixth Doctor is on trial AGAIN!, so we can't dissociate the narrative from the wider thing that's dubbed a "trailer", and hence, the whole thing remains invalid so long as we can't call something valid if it's marketed under the name of "trailer". Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That just seems arbitrary. Life is too short to worry about a rule that really shouldn't apply here. This is a narrative that ties into a trailer and was created as a short film. The fact that it's promotional material should be irrelevant. Toy   Story   Fan  01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)