User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130319195443/@comment-188432-20130401023042

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130319195443/@comment-188432-20130401023042 Guys, look, I can't keep coming back to this thread and discussing things every time someone has a new idea. I feel like all I do around here lately is talk about 14 damn minutes in 1993.

This conversation is coming to a close. It is not a slap in your face to do that, OS. I've been very, very, very patient—far more patient than other admin, who have long ago abandoned this discussion, back when it was at Talk:Dimensions in Time and Tardis talk:Canon policy.

There is absolutely no question but that it can be established that most fans do not think Dimensions in Time is a "serious" bit of Doctor Who. We would be a laughing stock if we allowed Dimensions of Time into our articles. So we are not going to do that.

Before this discussion is closed, I will, however, take the time to respond to Rowan, since he has not been to this thread.

I'm not conceding your fairly shaky analogy to the NAs. And, as the principal author of T:VS, I'm certainly not conceding that I myself didn't intend both meanings of the word parodic—languages certainly do allow for double-entendre.

But, for the sake of keeping this brief cause I'm am sick to the back teeth of talking about DiT, let's give you that.

There's still the matter of the author of the piece flatly saying that it's not part of the DW mythos, not part of the "documentation" of DW.

See, you have taken something I've said and mangled it. You've claimed that I've said that the BBC are the only ones who have copyright claims on the story. I never said that. I said:


 * Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?'

The phrase "or the copyright holder" means the writer. Of course, DiT has a complicated copyright, but as applies to most situations in Doctor Who, there's BBC Worldwide, who operationalises the copyright interests of the BBC, and then there's the writer of the piece, who gets some form of copyright. As you know, this is why Terry Nation partly owns the Daleks and Johnny Byrne gets paid for the use of Nyssa. So who's the writer of DiT? JNT. What has JNT said about DiT? "It was never intended to be a part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is."

Despite the fact that we've talked and talked and talked about this story, this is a very cut and dried case under rule 4. When the writer of a show tells us that it's not part of the DWU, it's not part of the DWU. There's not really an argument that can surmount that.

As for pictures, the answer is simply no. I've explained why above. There are good administrative reasons for it, and I appreciate that you don't like those reasons. But that's how it is.

I think we're at a point where you have to ask yourself whether Dimensions in Time is really something you want to keep fighting for, or if there might not be other things you want to do on the wiki.