User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-25421326-20200308132630/@comment-6032121-20200506103733: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
@EpsionGamma: We don't strictly speaking deal in [[Tardis:Canon policy|"canon"]] — rather, we use the concept of [[Tardis:Valid sources|valid sources]]. | @EpsionGamma: We don't strictly speaking deal in [[Tardis:Canon policy|"canon"]] — rather, we use the concept of [[Tardis:Valid sources|valid sources]]. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
And although it is often used in headcanons to explain the contradictions away, there's no need to resort to in-universe time travel to explain the contradiction. It is not our job to make up explanations for the contradictions. Merely to report that one account says X, and one account says Y. | And although it is often used in headcanons to explain the contradictions away, there's no need to resort to in-universe time travel to explain the contradiction. It is not our job to make up explanations for the contradictions. Merely to report that one account says X, and one account says Y. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200308132630-25421326/20200506103733-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:07, 27 April 2023
@EpsionGamma: We don't strictly speaking deal in "canon" — rather, we use the concept of valid sources.
But you are correct that it's a big part of the whole point of this debate that we don't use (dis)continuity to determine (in)validity. That Death Comes to Time has an unusual concept of what the Time Lords can do does not mean it is invalid, though toa fan it might mean that it is non-canonical. A story could present the Doctor as a retired Venusian physician and be valid, if we had good reason to think the author meant for their odd story to "count".
And although it is often used in headcanons to explain the contradictions away, there's no need to resort to in-universe time travel to explain the contradiction. It is not our job to make up explanations for the contradictions. Merely to report that one account says X, and one account says Y.
