Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS: Difference between revisions

Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)

Revision as of 16:42, 12 January 2023

1,548 bytes added , 12 January 2023

no edit summary

NateBumber

emailconfirmed, Administrators

15,041

edits

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 : The ''Tomorrow Windows'' example actually illustrates my point beautifully. It doesn't matter if [[Jonathan Morris]] intends to make a greater point about ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' being "[[canon]]" to the wider True ''Doctor Who'' Universe, if there is such a thing. What matters is that, for the purposes of ''The Tomorrow Windows,'' the reader is intended to recognise the Window vision as connecting to the diegesis of a certain different piece of fiction the reader may have experienced. And sure, there are indeed "many instances of DWU writers throwing in fun little Easter eggs from all sorts of different franchises", but that's just why I specified in my OP that the proposal specifically applies to those stories which we ''already'' cover in full detail on the Wiki ''anyway''. In the spirit of [[User:Deriksmith]], I keep rounding bck to the common-sense point at the heart of all this. Does it look at all sane to you that [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] and [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]] should exist as pages on the same Wiki? Does it really? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I've been following this discussion closely and Scrooge, I think you've pointed toward a framing which reconciles your and Najawin's positions. I urge that when this proposal is incorporated into [[T:VS]], as the overwhelming show of support suggests that it will, it be couched explicitly in the language of authorial intent: the reason we're making decisions based on narrative references isn't because we care about "the timeline", it's because we regard narrative reference as a particularly definitive statement of authorial intent. (In this phrasing, the principle is hardly new; it simply codifies the logic of the ''[[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox]]'' inclusion debate, which I successfully argued based primarily on FP stories' licensed references to ''Who'', including [[Sabbath]] and [[Rex Halidom]].) Even in cases where an author incorporates a reference with some wiggle room so that readers may choose whether or not they're inclined to believe the connection, that's a case where both perspectives are intended to be equally valid, so our current policy of picking only one as authoritative – "not inclined, not connected" – distorts the text regardless. In any case, this phrasing would mean that non-narrative instances of "overwhelming retroactive authorial intent" will be relevant in validity discussions as well going forward, as Najawin suggested. Let this count as my vote for the proposal against Najawin's concerns. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 [[Category:Temporary forums]]