Tardis:Canon policy: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(moved novelisations into secondary sources and clarified its wording)
Line 46: Line 46:
==What is not considered a Valid Resource, and why?==
==What is not considered a Valid Resource, and why?==
''This section is still in flux, as the policy is still under debate.''
''This section is still in flux, as the policy is still under debate.''
*Material from [[Wikipedia:FASA|FASA]]'s ''[[Doctor Who Roleplaying Game]]'', as these sometimes contain histories and other information which conflicts with the television and prose stories. (Some material from the FASA game was, however, incorporated into [[Virgin Publishing]]'s [[Virgin Missing Adventures|Missing]] and [[Virgin New Adventures|New Adventures]] series.)
*Material from [[FASA]]'s ''[[The Doctor Who Role Playing Game]]'', as these sometimes contain histories and other information which conflicts with the television and prose stories. (Some material from the FASA game was, however, incorporated into [[Virgin Publishing]]'s [[Virgin Missing Adventures|Missing]] and [[Virgin New Adventures|New Adventures]] series.)
*Merchandise - Several items of merchandise are often given names that never appear in dialogue or are never seen on screen and have often been produced for marketing purposes.  
*Merchandise - Several items of merchandise are often given names that never appear in dialogue or are never seen on screen and have often been produced for marketing purposes.  
*Fan-made blueprints and specifications  
*Fan-made blueprints and specifications  

Revision as of 00:46, 7 August 2009

(Important: This is currently only a draft policy. Please feel free to expand upon this article, and also to discuss the issue on Tardis talk:Canon policy.)

The goal of the TARDIS Index File is to be a reliable, concise guide to all readers. Towards this end, it is necessary for us to restrict to some extent the type of information we accept.

Types of article

There are four types of articles:

  • Any subject mentioned in or derived from a television story, prose story, radio or audio drama This type is further divided into two sub-types:
  • Real World
  • Information on stories set in the Doctor Who Universe.
  • Information on the creators and actors who have taken part in the making of the stories.
  • Related topics.

The policy of the TARDIS Index File with regards to acceptable resources for use in articles is as follows:

What is considered a Valid Resource?

This section is still in flux, as the policy is still under debate.

Secondary Resources

These sources are as also valid resources, however should not be the only resource of an article.

  • Novelisations of broadcast television stories by Target Books and other publishers may be used, however any information that contradicts that novelisation's TV story's information is considered apocryphal and should not be included within the main body of the article.

AHistory, I, Who, About Time, and The Doctor Who Reference Guide are primary sources, and as such should not be repeated verbatim in articles. They may be referenced in part, although contributors should be aware that some speculation exists within them which may not be considered valid.

What is not considered a Valid Resource, and why?

This section is still in flux, as the policy is still under debate.

  • Material from FASA's The Doctor Who Role Playing Game, as these sometimes contain histories and other information which conflicts with the television and prose stories. (Some material from the FASA game was, however, incorporated into Virgin Publishing's Missing and New Adventures series.)
  • Merchandise - Several items of merchandise are often given names that never appear in dialogue or are never seen on screen and have often been produced for marketing purposes.
  • Fan-made blueprints and specifications
  • Fan fiction of any kind (this includes fanon).
  • Websites, unless information is clearly stated as sourced from a valid reference.

Items on which policy is unclear

Deleting Invalid Articles

If you believe an article contains nothing but non-canon information, or is sourced solely from non-valid resources, then the article should be noted with a {{proposed deletion}} template/banner, which will alert others to the article's invalidity and allow others to defend it.

If an article is concerning a canon subject but contains information from a non-valid resource, the issue should be debated on the article's individual talk page, and the article should be edited as appropriate. (See also Templates - Cleanup Tags for more information)

Except in cases of vandalism, obscenity, and other nonsense, you should not edit the article and simply delete the text.