More actions
Index → Panopticon → Alternate Versions
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Because of reconstructions, audio versions, novelizations, updates and in some cases outright remakes, perhaps we should add a section to some articles called Alternate Versions.
This could result in the merging and consolidation of articles, particularly where Target novels are concerned, as well as avoiding some continuity issues or leaving out information.
Just a thought that came to me in response to a few of my own discussions and the recent discussion on the Target novelizations canon status. (I forget who brought it up.)--TheOmnius 18:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- very good idea though I would call it Alternative Version, not Alternate.
- (the second definition specifically says that "alternate" sometimes mistakenly gets used in the place of alternative.)
- also, though I think others will disagree, I would count the book version of Human Nature, say, as the alternative, and not the television version, because as a television story it "counts" more (IMO). otherwise, the adaptation counts as the alternative version.
- lastly, I think a picture of Peter Cushing as Dr. Who (Dalek movies) would make a good photo for this. Stardizzy2 20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if we need a whole section on the page for the alternative versions. I mean, for a page like the creation of the Daleks, it is only about the different versions. But for a page like Osirians, there are two accounts on Osiris' death, but the rest of the page is pretty consistent. There's no real need to have a new section just to point out that some of the history is contradictory.
- A template above the contradictory sections might work, though. -<Azes13 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)