|
|
| (57 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{ArchCat}} | | {{ArchCat}} |
|
| |
| == Radical rewrite ==
| |
|
| |
| This page underwent a major repurposing today. It is no longer the home of the actual list of allowed stories. Rather, it now serves as the basic explanation for how the BBC's lack of definition of canon affects the wiki. Importantly, it divorces discussion of canon from the actual list of allowed stories, which now can be found at [[tardis:valid sources]].
| |
|
| |
| The lengthy talk page that used to be here can now be found by clicking on the archive at right, and it has also been moved to [[forum:The original inclusion debates]], so that it can easily be found in the forum archives. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">00:27: Wed 06 Jun 2012 </span>
| |
|
| |
| :I fully approve of this rewrite effort, and some of my reasons can be found at [[Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time]]. In fact, I think it might be good to include some of the background there (talking about Sherlock Holmes fans' "Great Game", and so forth) in this article. CzechOut, would you mind if I brought some of that here? I'd just do it anyway on the old "'''be bold'''" principle, but I don't want to step on your toes while you're doing such a major revision. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 03:31, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::I've added this, somewhat belatedly. Feel free to edit mercilessly. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 02:34, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Canon. Says who? ==
| |
|
| |
| I posted along ramble earlier which has now been archived. The gist of it was "If the BBC has never stated its position on what is/isn't canon, then how can people editing a fan website make such a declaration"? Someone here makes a point to the effect of "since the BBC hasn't, we must!" Which really smacks of arrogance and/or fanwankery. There are some key points here:
| |
|
| |
| 1)Contrary to what some people like tot think the current production team '''does''' have a policy. Without going into anal detail, they have clearly decided that the VNA don't fit into their continuity(looms, Human Nature etc etc etc). And, likewise that the PDA don't fit into their continuity(whither PDA #64). Sarah's comment about "Ace" also seems to disregard the DWM comics pre-2005. And then there's the Two Time Wars. Thus it can clearly(yes it can) be established that the current team's idea is that the tv show 1963-89, J9 and company and the 1996 movie ARE canon. As is everything from Rose onwards in all media. Anything else is safe to be contradicted.
| |
|
| |
| 2)But if we accept the PDA and EDA as canon, we are contradicting the canon of the present show. And again, '''very important''' one of the PDA is "Scream of the Shalka". Either '''all''' the PDA including this are canon, or '''none''' of the PDA or canon. However, in the EDA "Gallifrey Chronicles" it is mentioned that the Doctor has three possible Ninth incarnations. This does allow the Shalka, and thus the pDA and EDA to be canon, ''but in a parallel universe to the New Series and its spin-offs''.
| |
|
| |
| 3)We thus are faced with clear choices. a)only the tv show is canon. b)The canon policy that is used by the current production team(mentioned above) is used. c)Using the BBC novels, BOTH Richard E. grant and Christopher Eccleston are the Ninth Doctor, just in alternate realities. d)Everything is canon, including Cushing, Grant, the annuals, the merchandise "histories" etc. Since the BBC hasn'y stated their canon policy, who are some internet fans to decide on it for them, and then use that as a rigid rule?
| |
|
| |
| Personally, I'd suggest the articles be structured that only the tv information is in the main body. And then underneath ALL relevant information be listed, whatever medium, but with notes indicating where they are contradictory. And, importantly, NO official proclamation that one medium is somehow superior to another(like the idiots who claim that No Future somehow decanonises the FASA game. How is one "superior" to the other??). {{unsigned-anon|41.132.116.62}}
| |
|
| |
| :Well, as you can see the [[Canon policy]] page has recently been rewritten. The wiki now makes no claims, by policy, about what is or isn't canonical ''Doctor Who'', or that one medium is superior to another. There may be some stray remarks here and there which need to be edited or removed to fit this policy; if you come upon them, as they say on Wikipedia, {{w|WP:SOFIXIT|so fix it}}.
| |
|
| |
| :You are of course, right that the current production team treats licensed material such as the novels and comics differently than it treats television stories, but I'm not sure that the difference amounts to an actual "canon policy" on the part of the production team. First of all, they'd never use that word. Second, they're just as willing to contradict a past TV story as a past book — otherwise we'd never have gotten from "[[The Aztecs (TV story)|You can't rewrite history! Not one line!]]" to "[[Forest of the Dead (TV story)|Time can be rewritten!]]" The difference is that when they're contradicting past TV stories, they ''usually'' use a throwaway line to patch up the discontinuity, something they don't bother to do when contradicting the books.
| |
|
| |
| :Now, you can say that by abandoning the word "canon" and shifting to a [[Tardis:Valid sources|valid sources policy]], we're trying to have it both ways: we don't make canonical claims, but we still get to draw lines about what does and doesn't "count". But that's just an inevitable part of the game we're playing here, trying to make a single coherent fictional universe out of nearly 50 years of stories by hundreds of different writers. When we list valid sources here, we're not making any claim about ''Doctor Who'' as a whole. You can still say that the Master and the Monk were the same person if you like. We're just saying which sources we're going to use ''here''.
| |
|
| |
| :If you'd prefer to play the game by different rules, you can either try to convince the rest of the editors [[Forum:Panopticon|here]] in the Panopticon (though I doubt you'll get very far), or you can start up your own ''Doctor Who'' wiki using different rules (TV only or whatever you please). But here, the most active editors have mostly agreed on what we're going to count in ''our'' version of the "game". We have no objection to other people playing with different rules, but these are the rules we've decided on here, and it'll take a lot of effort to convince enough editors to make the change you're suggesting.
| |
|
| |
| :We've been discussing that "game" [[Forum: Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time|here]], if you'd care to join us. But if you do, please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like so: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. That'll produce a signature and timestamp. Thanks! —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 19:01, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Sorry, but that is quite frankly nonsense. You admit that the BBC hasn't ruled on which(if any spin-offs) count. You admit that the makers of the tv show from 2005 onwards have disregarded certain spin-offs. You admit that there is no hierarchy of the spin-offs. Then....you say "but we here have our version of canon so that's that we're using!" Well, whatever. There was nothing remotely radical about what I proposed. This site needs to decide whether it's a Doctor Who wiki, or just a wiki devoted to a small group of Doctor Who fanboys with a unique take on "canon". If it's the latter then things are fine the way they are. If it's the former the "canon policy" needs a '''major''' overhaul ASAP. [[Special:Contributions/41.132.116.62|41.132.116.62]]<sup>[[User talk:41.132.116.62#top|talk to me]]</sup> 06:47, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :41.132 from your earlier post.
| |
|
| |
| :Prove that the current production team ''does'' have a policy. This proof must be from a [[T:OOU SRC|valid source]]. You state that they "clearly decided that VNA don't fit their continuity".
| |
|
| |
| :From what I can tell, your argument seems to stem from this '''observation''', that because there is this contradiction then therefore all of the stuff that's contradicted shouldn't be included. Or that anything said in a later story be that 1964 or 2004 which contradicts another piece of information from earlier means it should be disregarded. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| That is taking the main point off on a tangent. The main point is that, as this site insists, there is no official canon policy, then who is anyone here to declare something "non-canonical" or a "non-DWU adventure"? Yes, the clear contradiction between the New Series and the Virgin books(as an '''example''') was from the power of observation. But then all the differences this site uses to de-canonise various adventures also comes from '''observation'''. And, if '''stories''' take superiority over guidebooks etc. the entire thrust of "canon" here is totally meaningless AND contradictory. Quite a feat. And just because something doesn't "git in with the DWU continuity", it must be "non-canon" is absurd on multiple levels. Since the current continuity uses the early 70's dating for UNIT The Web Of Fear and The Invasion must therefore be non-canon. Since we witnessed the destruction of the Earth in the New Series, then The Ark must be non-canon. Since Davros is now an integral part of Dalek history, then The Daleks(the first story) must be non-canon. And on and on it goes. And yet, recognising that two stories contain contradictory contnuity is achieved through....'''observation'''! The same thing you make a big deal out of. If one book states one thing, and another book states something else, we have to '''observe''' the difference. Then, of course, who is to say one book is "right" and one is "Wrong"? So deeming ANYTHING "non-canon" or "non-DWU adventure" is entirely a POV and quite frankly retarded.[[Special:Contributions/41.132.116.62|41.132.116.62]]<sup>[[User talk:41.132.116.62#top|talk to me]]</sup> 16:04, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
| |
