User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-6026139-20200422055007: 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: | ||
I've read through this thread and there seems to be a recurring issue of the 'Timeless Children' incarnations being just as valid as they are invalid, due to this wiki holding other mediums to the same standard of 'canon' as the TV Show. This may be a controversial suggestion, but I feel like there should be (i presume yet another) conversation on the validity on extra-canon work. Perhaps implementing a George Lucas style canon (the canon for star wars pre-Disney). In a perfect world I would like to make sure that games and comics and novels are on the same level of canon - but Doctor Who's canon is messy enough on the show - let alone when you take expanded universe material into account. | I've read through this thread and there seems to be a recurring issue of the 'Timeless Children' incarnations being just as valid as they are invalid, due to this wiki holding other mediums to the same standard of 'canon' as the TV Show. This may be a controversial suggestion, but I feel like there should be (i presume yet another) conversation on the validity on extra-canon work. Perhaps implementing a George Lucas style canon (the canon for star wars pre-Disney). In a perfect world I would like to make sure that games and comics and novels are on the same level of canon - but Doctor Who's canon is messy enough on the show - let alone when you take expanded universe material into account. | ||
In regards to the template discussion, I prefer having 1-11 and 12-13 on separate lines, rather than the Classic/New Who divide. I agree with having a 'unplaced incarnations' sections as well as a 'more ambiguous' one. Should we have one for 'future incarnations' such as the curator and even possibly the valeyard. I know that time isn't linear in doctor who, but there has always been a narrative interest in 'future' doctors. | In regards to the template discussion, I prefer having 1-11 and 12-13 on separate lines, rather than the Classic/New Who divide. I agree with having a 'unplaced incarnations' sections as well as a 'more ambiguous' one. Should we have one for 'future incarnations' such as the curator and even possibly the valeyard. I know that time isn't linear in doctor who, but there has always been a narrative interest in 'future' doctors. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200302103744-1783865/20200422055007-6026139]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:19, 27 April 2023
I've read through this thread and there seems to be a recurring issue of the 'Timeless Children' incarnations being just as valid as they are invalid, due to this wiki holding other mediums to the same standard of 'canon' as the TV Show. This may be a controversial suggestion, but I feel like there should be (i presume yet another) conversation on the validity on extra-canon work. Perhaps implementing a George Lucas style canon (the canon for star wars pre-Disney). In a perfect world I would like to make sure that games and comics and novels are on the same level of canon - but Doctor Who's canon is messy enough on the show - let alone when you take expanded universe material into account.
In regards to the template discussion, I prefer having 1-11 and 12-13 on separate lines, rather than the Classic/New Who divide. I agree with having a 'unplaced incarnations' sections as well as a 'more ambiguous' one. Should we have one for 'future incarnations' such as the curator and even possibly the valeyard. I know that time isn't linear in doctor who, but there has always been a narrative interest in 'future' doctors.
