68,223
edits
More actions
no edit summary
Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
I think that saying "we don't count this" is too easy. I agree that including it is a challenge, but I don't think it's an insurmountable one. Overall, I think that OS25 has it right when he or she says we have to be "very careful". Rather than excluding TID altogether, we should just decide on a standard phrasing ("according to one account", perhaps?) which allows for TID's ambiguous status, and allows the reader to decide whether and how to fit it in to the larger narrative. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 15:00, April 24, 2012 (UTC) | I think that saying "we don't count this" is too easy. I agree that including it is a challenge, but I don't think it's an insurmountable one. Overall, I think that OS25 has it right when he or she says we have to be "very careful". Rather than excluding TID altogether, we should just decide on a standard phrasing ("according to one account", perhaps?) which allows for TID's ambiguous status, and allows the reader to decide whether and how to fit it in to the larger narrative. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 15:00, April 24, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:I also agree with the above 70.72 anon. | |||
:It's not speculation and we can't take what the author says to be a ruling on whether it's canon, it was published by the BBC, it's a narrative published by the BBC, it's got Doctor Who stuff in it. That is how we've worked through the canon policy and how we've worked through the BBV stuff that CzechOut mentions. This novel was published and licensed and approved by the BBC. | |||
:Authors in the past have declared their Doctor Who fanfic to be canon and we disallowed that. Isn't that just the reverse of this statement? What of the many things Lawrence Miles has said with regard to the Enemy arc and the Faction Paradox related stuff? | |||
:So the argument is it should be got rid of because it's '''TOO HARD'''?! to fit into article??! | |||
:What of ''[[The Dalek Factor (novel)|The Dalek Factor]]'' which is also ambigious about its Doctor and outcome? | |||
:I do agree with OS25, we need to be ''careful'' with how we use the information in this novel, and refrain from using vague information, but explicit information like any other narrative source should be used. And as Josiah Rowe says we can also fall back to our "one account states" phrasology when conflicting information is present. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC) | |||