User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-31010985-20170128173417/@comment-24894325-20170128193103

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-31010985-20170128173417/@comment-24894325-20170128193103 I'm not sure anyone really expects this to be rendered invalid. :) What's important for me is that the four rules should handle this situation easily, without the need to use additional arguments.

So legally speaking so far it goes along my expectations. To announce this episode invalid, one needs to first separate it from the rest of the Master Plan, which would require discussion by itself. It is true that pre-Savages story designations were not based on original releases. But they have been established on this Wiki as a matter of policy, which would have to be changed. The main argument for the separation would be, I expect, that the story was sold overseas without the Feast, thus, demonstrating, that even BBC at the time did not consider it part of the Master Plan. Further, given the number of separate audio stories that happen within the Master Plan, it would not be much of a precedent to announce that there was a separate TV story within it too. This would have a number of implications for things like numbering of stories, duration of the longest story, the first non-contiguous TV story (story broadcast with another story in the middle of it), edits for pages of all the crew, lists of appearances of all the characters.

However, I have to agree with CoT on the second point: even within a stand-alone story, breaking walls is nowhere stated as a deal-breaker in the four rules. It would not be sufficient for the BBC to indicate that the Feast is not part of the Plan. They would have to say that the Feast was intended to be set outside of DWU.