Validity[]
I feel if we're including 24 Carat as valid, it makes no sense that The Sixth Doctor is on tiral AGAIN!, and other Collection short films (because that's what they are - short films) aren't also considered valid. Especially as they add to the narrative of the N-Space version of Doctor Who. Toy Story Fan 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, much to everyone's displeasure, trailers are absurdly not considered valid sources. It started out understandably enough, where the only trailers that existed were the "Next Time" ones, which presented information that was edited out of the final episode, however, as time moved on, trailers presenting unique narratives emerged, however the Wiki's policies on this have not been fairly altered to reflect this; however, I and many other users wi be trying to rectify this issue as soon as @CzechOut restores the Forums. 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes — the thing in this case is that A Business Proposal for Mel!, the wider webcast presentation, is not in and of itself valid. McTighe, in this specific case, made it clear that the 24 Carat short, included within it, was its own thing with its own title. This is not the case for The Sixth Doctor is on trial AGAIN!, so we can't dissociate the narrative from the wider thing that's dubbed a "trailer", and hence, the whole thing remains invalid so long as we can't call something valid if it's marketed under the name of "trailer". Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- That just seems arbitrary. Life is too short to worry about a rule that really shouldn't apply here. This is a narrative that ties into a trailer and was created as a short film. The fact that it's promotional material should be irrelevant. Toy Story Fan 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not quite. The "so-called trailer" inside this webcast is framed as evidence that Colin Baker acquired from the Matrix. The two segments of footage as positioned in rather a clever way, that they don't actually break the narrative or anything. It isn't really a "narrative that ties into a trailer", quite the opposite. 01:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- That just seems arbitrary. Life is too short to worry about a rule that really shouldn't apply here. This is a narrative that ties into a trailer and was created as a short film. The fact that it's promotional material should be irrelevant. Toy Story Fan 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ToyStoryFan123: on the broad issue of "life being too short" and whatnot… look, I agree that these technicalities are annoying. But policy is policy. T:BOUND applies. Administrator though I may be, I don't make the rules, I simply help see to it that they are respected, and oversee reasoned, official attempts to alter them.
- Yes — the thing in this case is that A Business Proposal for Mel!, the wider webcast presentation, is not in and of itself valid. McTighe, in this specific case, made it clear that the 24 Carat short, included within it, was its own thing with its own title. This is not the case for The Sixth Doctor is on trial AGAIN!, so we can't dissociate the narrative from the wider thing that's dubbed a "trailer", and hence, the whole thing remains invalid so long as we can't call something valid if it's marketed under the name of "trailer". Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- But also, as Epsilon says, the fact is that Sixth Doctor… is not wired quite like 24 Carat. The 'trailer' part is welded into the narrative, rather than simply being packaged between two halves of a narrative like an ad break on television. By that same token, if and when we remove the limitation on trailer validity, the whole thing will be valid, not just the "trial bits" (as per the clear precedent of The Incomplete Death's Head). But that will take a thread, and the Forums are still frozen. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Video[]
This page currently goes without a 'Full video'. May I suggest <removed per Tardis:Video policy>, the video itself? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi please note that video recommendations are to be made at Tardis talk:Video recommendations. Otherwise on the rest of the wiki we don't allow links to off-site videos thanks Shambala108 ☎ 22:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- And why don't you upload the video? It'll take you less time than it took for you to write the message you left. 22:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is not your concern. Shambala108 ☎ 01:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the most politest way possible, I really do not believe you the right to tell people if something is of their concern or not in a general talk page such as this. 02:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- And I really do not believe you have the right to tell me how I should deal with infractions of rules. Now let's get back on the subject. Shambala108 ☎ 02:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the most politest way possible, I really do not believe you the right to tell people if something is of their concern or not in a general talk page such as this. 02:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Though we can't always make claims on other people's time, everyone has a right to participate in talk page discussions, so long as they're following our discussion policy.
- In any case, the video has been uploaded. The issue was brought up without a complete understanding of due process around T:VID, but let's strive to be helpful nonetheless as we all find our way through.