User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-60605-20141206212039: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO | Forum Archive
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|The Panopticon/When a novelization expands, but does not contradict}} | |||
As I brought up on [[Bruce (Doctor Who)|Bruce]]'s [[Talk:Bruce_(Doctor_Who)|talk page]], I don't see why the surname/given name of a character, when given in the novelized adaptation, shouldn't be included in the article's body and chosen as title. Of course, I'm well aware that novelizations often have elements that contradict what is seen on screen, and we're encouraged to dismiss them as apocryphal. However, the key word here is "contradict." When a piece of information is exclusive to a book ''but'' doesn't contradict what's on screen, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. After all, it is a novelization's work to expand on the filmed material. | As I brought up on [[Bruce (Doctor Who)|Bruce]]'s [[Talk:Bruce_(Doctor_Who)|talk page]], I don't see why the surname/given name of a character, when given in the novelized adaptation, shouldn't be included in the article's body and chosen as title. Of course, I'm well aware that novelizations often have elements that contradict what is seen on screen, and we're encouraged to dismiss them as apocryphal. However, the key word here is "contradict." When a piece of information is exclusive to a book ''but'' doesn't contradict what's on screen, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. After all, it is a novelization's work to expand on the filmed material. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20141206212039-60605]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:06, 28 April 2023
As I brought up on Bruce's talk page, I don't see why the surname/given name of a character, when given in the novelized adaptation, shouldn't be included in the article's body and chosen as title. Of course, I'm well aware that novelizations often have elements that contradict what is seen on screen, and we're encouraged to dismiss them as apocryphal. However, the key word here is "contradict." When a piece of information is exclusive to a book but doesn't contradict what's on screen, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. After all, it is a novelization's work to expand on the filmed material.
