Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-6032121-20200606140102

The thing is that we are discussing three different (potential) stories called How The Monk Got His Habit in this debate, and it's confusing the discourse quite a lot.


 * A would be How The Monk Got His Habit (TV story), which I don't believe anybody is arguing not to cover as an invalid, . This story was mentioned by Peter Harness.


 * B would be How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation), a Target novelisation started at some point between 2015 and 2020 by Harness, then cancelled. This story was mentioned by Peter Harness.


 * C is How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), the page of prose about arguing with his TARDIS about woofers. This page of prose was released by Peter Harness, and never mentioned.

———

Now that this is cleared up, the disagreement is that I think that B never existed and is actually a fiction, a framing device for C, whereas User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 thinks that C is actually an extract from B.

This doesn't necessarily preclude a page about C as a deleted scene; we cover Friend from the Future, for example, as invalid, following it being ruled a deleted scene by a lengthy forum thread. But it does preclude C being a valid source.

It is possible that Emily Cook, when she said that the "unproduced Monk thing mentioned by Harness" wasn't part of Lockdown!, was talking about either A or B. It is not possible that she was talking about C, which was released by Harness but never "mentioned" by him.

Harness, for his part, teased the potential release of C in terms of "I may want to return to this narrative" during his comments about a during the tweetalong, and tagged the release of C with the hashtag he used for his part of the tweetalong. As has been pointed out many times before, this seems like pretty strong evidence that one of the two key people involved (Harness) thinks C, whether it be a release of a deleted scene, or a release of a short story, was part of Lockdown!.