Forum:Is material on the Advent Calender canonical: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:31, 6 May 2012

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Is material on the Advent Calender canonical

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Well, I was browsing the internet lately (as I am wont to do) when I discovered the Advent Calender, specifically the short story The Frozen. So, I have two questions about this.

Do we consider this canon? Or at least canon enough to be brought up?
If we do consider it canon, what would be the abbreviation be? Do we have anything for general short-stories? Would it need a new abbreviation, like AC or something?

Personally, I would go with yes for the first one, but I have no idea for the second. I want to see if anyone else has any ideas for this. -<Azes13 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)>-

The WC prefix would do us, wouldn't it? Or if not, maybe we should replace it with one that would comfortably cover all web-offered content.--Richard Jones 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, webcast would just seem to apply to the internet animations (though we may get those later in the month). -<Azes13 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)>-

True, but I think we need to be carefull not to let ourselves get swamped with prefixes here. We give this story the acronym 'AC' for 'Advent Calender' and a few months down the line, when the BBC put some more stories or something online to promote the start of the new series then we're looking for another.

The big thing about internet material is that it tends to be mixed-media. I think we should be considering changing 'WC' to mean Web Content and using it for all the relevant Doctor Who material that the BBC generates for the web. --Richard Jones 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine with me. So, are we going to stick with WC for all web material, or would there be a better term? -<Azes13 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)>-

Yeah just use WC, I've augmented the WC page slightly to be a bit more open. WC can mean anything, but it's a mix of 'web and broadcast' and broadcast is a pretty wide term anyways, so if we want to augment the page further then we can or leave it either way. --Tangerineduel 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the canon status, I'd say that it's noteworthy enough to mention, even if it's not canonical. However, even if it's not, should we make articles on the species and people in it? And if it is, how come nobody has already? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some of the pages, I was just waiting for everyone to come to a conclusion for the abbreviation before I put them up. -<Azes13 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)>-

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|Panopticon}}
+{{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:inclusion debates]]
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 :::I dunno, webcast would just seem to apply to the internet animations (though we may get those later in the month). -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)>-
+:::: True, but I think we need to be carefull not to let ourselves get swamped with prefixes here. We give this story the acronym 'AC' for 'Advent Calender' and a few months down the line, when the BBC put some more stories or something online to promote the start of the new series then we're looking for another.
+:::: The big thing about internet material is that it tends to be mixed-media. I think we should be considering changing 'WC' to mean ''Web Content'' and using it for all the relevant Doctor Who material that the BBC generates for the web. --[[User:Richard Jones|Richard Jones]] 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
+:::::Seems fine with me. So, are we going to stick with WC for all web material, or would there be a better term? -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)>-
+::::::Yeah just use [[WC]], I've augmented the WC page slightly to be a bit more open. WC can mean anything, but it's a mix of 'web and broadcast' and broadcast is a pretty wide term anyways, so if we want to augment the page further then we can or leave it either way. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
+:As for the canon status, I'd say that it's noteworthy enough to mention, even if it's not canonical. However, even if it's not, should we make articles on the species and people in it? And if it is, how come nobody has already? {{:User:Ghelæ/sig}} 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
+::I made some of the pages, I was just waiting for everyone to come to a conclusion for the abbreviation before I put them up. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)>-