User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200610235524/@comment-6032121-20200611155419

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200610235524/@comment-6032121-20200611155419 I'm the person who'd originally posted the Cleanup tag and can confirm that it's got nothing to do with what is now being discussed. I've now removed my original note, as I do indeed find that my concerns had been addressed.

As for this discussion — I definitely think we should be able to cite comments as footnotes in articles; e.g. what Robert Shearman revealed about the actual early Dalek-less draft of Dalek over the course of several lengthy messages in the comments section of the essay about that story. I don't believe he ever wrote in such detail on the subject anywhere else, but if we can find a way to cite that info, it's to the point that it might well support the creation of an ✅  page about Absence of the Daleks, not to mention extensive rewrites to the BTS section of such pages as Toclafane.

I think it'd be possible to link to such comments as our sources, whether or not we deem them to be part of TARDIS Eruditorum, and, indeed, even if we did not have a page about TARDIS Eruditorum at all. But it's certainly much tidier if we can link to our own page on the Eruditorum instead.

At any rate, T:UNOFF REF is in such obvious conflict with Tardis:Resources on the issue of non-BBC-licensed RW-focused scholarly works that I suspect it's just a case of an overlooked update, which could and should be corrected by an admin without further discussion.