Talk:Tom Baker stars in John Lloyd's lost Doctor Who adventure, The Doomsday Contract (webcast)

Validity?
Big Finish's analysis of this webcast refers to it as a trailer 3 times. As the policy currently stands, T:VS states that trailers aren't valid sources. Furthermore, it's referred to as a promo in that article, and T:VS also states that commercials/advertisements can't be valid. Regardless of whether it had been referred to as a promo, it clearly is an advertisement. As a result, I struggle to understand why this is a valid source under current policy. Danochy ☎  07:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I created the article as valid as the YouTube upload itself did not refer to it as a trailer. 📯 📂 08:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the information provided by User:Danochy this is marked as invalid until/unless it can be proven otherwise. Shambala108 ☎  00:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Two things I, as an admin, have to state here: Shambala108 ☎  00:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It's far easier to change from invalid to valid, than the reverse. Therefore, if something is in doubt, it gets the invalid tag.
 * 2) If an admin changes something, ASK FIRST instead of reverting. Admins aren't always right but do have far more experience with the rules than the majority of users here.


 * As much as I like this little webcast and homage to Hitchhiker's, I'm unfortunately going to have to say I agree that Big Finish made it pretty clear this isn't set in the DWU in the above article. It even says this isn't really supposed to be something from the Doctor's Five Hundred Year Diary as in-universe, it's just "pure whimsy". Now the thing is this webcast was already considered valid, so a decent amount of pages relating to it and Doctor Who (N-Space) will have to be changed, at the very least relocating information to a BTS/Invalid section. Chubby Potato ☎  01:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm unconvinced that this fails Rule 4 in other respects (I would not hesitate to describe many other DWU stories, and indeed, perhaps Doctor Who as a wohole, as "pure whimsy"; I don't think there's a contradiction here). However, yes, if this is an advertisement by authorial intent, it does by policy fail Rule 4 of T:VS on that basis, and should be marked as invalid as per T:BOUND.


 * The clean-up work of an invalidation is never fun, but yeah, I'd argue that it's pretty urgent here. In fact, @User:Shambala108, in your place I might have asked that the cleanup be done first, and removed the tag then; it's untidy that for a few days readers can find information on valid pages, click the link, and end up at an invalid page, IMO. But you have already added the tag and it'd be weird to temporarily remove it now even though the root-level issue is not in question.


 * Thus, @User:Epsilon the Eternal, @User:Chubby Potato, I strongly invite you to do this relocation work, and do it quickly. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)