Forum:Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?: Difference between revisions

Forum:Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source? (edit)

Revision as of 14:51, 30 December 2011

1,078 bytes added , 30 December 2011

no edit summary

Tangerineduel

Tech, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Suppressors, Administrators

68,596

edits

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 So guys, I've noted that pages created solely from TheBrilliantBooks are being deleted. Now, although I agree that niether of the books are canon, I think it's a good idea to try and extend the wiki to its limits. You'll find we often make pages on non-canon things, like [[The Master (Scream of the Shalka)]] or [[Splinx]]. So I think we should keep all of the pages created from these 2 books, and place them under _:Non-canonical categories. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me.]]) 14:16, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
+Someone has been prefixing all these tidbits with the notice that the ''Brilliant Book''s are non-canonical. Vuz dot you, Sharlie?  I think that's the right way to go. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 14:21, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
+:The two Brilliant Books contain information that is talking about the ''Doctor Who universe''. They don't need to be tagged with the NC tag because they are still about Matt Smith and his Doctor Who. NC is stuff like Shalka or Fatal Death, which is clearly not the DW universe.
-Someone has been prefixing all these tidbits with the notice that the ''Brilliant Book''s are non-canonical. Vuz dot you, Sharlie?  I think that's the right way to go. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 14:21, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
+:Please don't add the NC tag to anything other than the sources covered in the [[Tardis:Canon policy#Other universe sources]] section.
+:I disagree about creating articles solely based on stuff from the Brilliant Book or the Dalek Pocket Guide, it goes against everything in the canon policy.
+:All we are saying with the canon policy is that if you're using it as a source it's got to be narrative, it has to be part of the fictional "universe". It has to be a '''story'''. An encyclopaedia entry isn't doing that, it's filling up the pages.
+:OS25, the Wiki has to have limits, that's what the Canon policy is stating. That's why for instance we don't cover many of the BBV things. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)