|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{ArchCat}} | | {{ArchCat}} |
|
| |
|
| |
| == ''Star Trek'' ==
| |
|
| |
| I don't think this is solely owned by CBS - what about the Paramount movies? --[[User:Silent Hunter UK|Silent Hunter UK]] [[User talk:Silent Hunter UK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:47, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I think CBS created it, and then after the original series was over Paramount bought it and created the movies and later series. Also, why are non-narrative things not sources? Am I asking in the right place? [[User:CloneMarshalCommanderCody|CloneMarshalCommanderCody]] [[User talk:CloneMarshalCommanderCody|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:11, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :You are asking in the wrong place, but it's not your fault. A while back, when someone wanted to describe what the wiki means by "non-narrative", they would link to [[Tardis:Canon policy]]. I've tried to correct that when I can, but there are still a few links to that page. Nowadays, we link to [[Tardis:Valid sources]], which offers a nice description of why we allow what we allow and why we don't allow what we don't allow. Hope this helps. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:30, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Because I'm feeling my A-type personality tonight, just to correct the above, Star Trek was created for Desilu Productions, which was bought by Paramount. It has always been a Paramount-owned property, but at some point CBS ended up being connected to Paramount, so as a result CBS now has a piece of the action which is why the new ''Discovery'' series will air on a CBS network. But Paramount has always owned the various TV series and the movies. There, I feel better now! [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] [[User talk:23skidoo|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:27, June 23, 2017 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Boundaries of "non-narrative"==
| |
| Hello! I'm rather new on this Wiki, but I have been perusing the various canon policies and related debate, and found in no uncertain terms that, say, a "press article" about the Doctor's exploits, written in an in-universe style, would not constitute a valid source even if published by the BBC. After lengthy research into the rather large archives of the forums, I was unable to locate any discussion to explain ''why'' this is so.
| |
|
| |
| And it seems rather odd to me! For writing a facsimile of an in-universe document (be it a press article, an encyclopedia, or a fragment of a diary entry) is an established literary technique. Most ''Doctor Who'' literature is written in good old third-person omniscient, but if a ''Doctor Who'' novel about an adventure of the First Doctor were written in first-person and purported to be a lengthy extract of Ian Chesterton's personal diary, say, it would be as much a ''Doctor Who'' novel as any other.
| |
|
| |
| Meanwhile, a short story is as valid as a novel, assuming all else (licensing, etc.) is equal. Thus, how is a "fictional press article" about the Doctor out-of-bounds, when it is, for most literary intents and purposes, nothing more than a ''short story'', written in the "facsimile of an in-universe document" style? It's quite baffling to me.
| |
|
| |
| I understand why information on the back of a trading card (another example given of "non-narrative" info that wouldn't be valid) might be disregarded, but what I'm arguing, at the end of the day, is that an in-universe newspaper clipping or encyclopedia ''is'', in fact, a piece of narrative fiction, despite what the wording of the policy seems to imply.--[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:59, July 10, 2018 (UTC)
| |
