Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (unproduced novelisation)

Edit War?
Actually, technically speaking, you're the one engaged in an edit war. The fourth edit is the edit war. I made a substantive revision, you undid it, I undid that, and you undid it again. Please revert that back until resolution of current thread. Until then, T:BOUND. Najawin ☎  05:21, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * you will reach the fourth reversal before me. how can you repeatedly question Harness’ comments for the novelisation but let the television story go without such speculative doubt shrouding the article. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  05:22, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously because the novelization makes no sense when you consider the context of novelizations at the time. That's not true for TV episodes at the time. Najawin ☎  05:28, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * makes complete sense, unless you try to speculate on information you arent privy to. Target novelisations were rebooted in 2015 (the same year this story was pitched to television) after 21 years. Harness would not be "incompetent" to pitch this story - who is to say what Target were going to do once they were back, they could have stuck to their formula of recreating television stories or they could have decided to also recreat unproduced ones too - worth a short for Harness to get his story out there. we just dont know! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  05:33, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * There's this little thing called "induction". Regardless, the correct course of action would have been to pitch his Zygon 2parter, then, once he built up social capital, tried for the more radical approach. What you're suggesting is just unrealistic. Najawin ☎  05:44, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Is this real?
From what I can tell, there is a debate over whether this is real or a joke. OK, I personally lean towards it being a joke, but don’t think it’s quite so blatantly a joke as the so-called "Alternative Script Extracts from Dalek". But I also fail to see why either way should effect its validity status, simply where it fails rule 2 or rule 4. But, most importantly, could we not simply ask somebody involved and solve this whole issue? --NightmareofEden ☎  11:28, November 20, 2020 (UTC)


 * No, this is not real. It's continued existence is due to a forum debate that stretched for so long that it literally broke the forums. The fact of the matter is, this page should not exist.
 * First of all, it being presented as "an extract from a novelization" is no different from Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) being presented as an extract from a novelization and should not be used to dictate coverage.
 * Second, even if the novelization was in any stage of having been created, it would not warrant coverage. The story How the Monk Got His Habit was not commissioned by the BBC, by Harness's own admission --and there was no suggestion that the novelization was commissioned nor even solicited. If the novelization was in any stage of development, it would be fanfiction (and not even completed or released fanfiction) and thus would not warrant a page.
 * Third, and perhaps most importantly, this page serves absolutely no point. Right now, we have three different pages covering an invalid story that was, by the authors own admission, not picked up: (1) How The Monk Got His Habit (short story); (2) How The Monk Got His Habit (unproduced novelisation); and (3) How The Monk Got His Habit (unproduced TV story). All three of these pages cover the exact same material. There is no material on one that is not (or should not) be covered on the other two.
 * I'm begging us to have some common sense and just get rid of this page and consolidate the material onto either the short story page (which I think is disingenuous coverage) or the unproduced TV story page (which I believe is more accurate, given that it's a presentation of an otherwise unproduced story and was specifically not commissioned or produced). Be sensible, please. We shouldn't need to have a massive forum debate over this, this can easily be resolved here and now. NoNotTheMemes ☎  18:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to be annoying and say with my admin hat on that an attempt to overturn a Forum thread (nay, the literally biggest Forum thread in our history) really does need to be done in the form of a Forum thread. This doesn't need to be a "massive" Forum debate, I foresee it being a fairly short one — indeed I pledge to close it within the week unless significant discussion picks up — but I do think formalities must be observed. Please proceed to Forum:The Panopticon with this. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Point of information: The Lockdown thread was the largest, the Monk thread was a spinoff of it. Najawin ☎  19:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)