Forum:How to handle the Deca
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
This discussion is whether the concept and information regarding the Deca from the PDA Divided Loyalties is real(/canon) or not. While it is obvious that there is a sequence in the novel, what is often forgotten/overlooked is that this all takes place in a dream. Ie. it is not a flashback in the senese that the term is usually used. The fact that The Doctor had a dream is canon. What occurs in the dream itself is the subject of discussion. Both in Doctor Who and in real life, dreams often involve real people and real events which have been mixed up in some way. We have seen other characters(eg. Tegan in Snakedance having a dream which features some images from reality, but jumbled up and made pretty surreal. It is interesting that both the idea of the "Deca" as well as the usage of the term Deca occur only in Divided Loyalties, and then only within the dream in Divided Loyalties. Therefore this entire sequence can not be considered real/canon in the way that the rest of the book is. If we accept this as canon, then every dream/hallucination/mirage/false entry in The Matrix must be treated similarly, which of course would be ridiculous.
My proposal is that the entry for Divided Loyalties be corrected so that the term "flashback" be changed to "dream". In addition, the entry for "Deca" state that it has never appeared in "real life" Doctor Who canon, only within The Doctor's dream. Any biographical articles or timelines using the Deca information as part of a real biography or real timeline should be corrected as well. Just because The Doctor dreamed it doesn't make it any more real than The Valeyard's manipulation of The Matrix. 41.133.0.68talk to me 14:03, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a canon question — indeed we don't deal with issues of canonicity at this wiki. So I've changed the title of the thread. The only sorts of questions we deal with that have anything at all related to canonicity is in trying to ascertain the copyright holder's mindset in writing the story. If they were demonstrably writing a parody or something extra-continuous, then we declare the source "invalid" for the writing of in-universe articles here.
- But there's no evidence that Divided Loyalties was meant to be extra-continuous. Sure there's an halucination or dream depicted in the story, but that's miles apart from saying the story "isn't canon". As you suggest, the term "flashback" should just be changed to "dream" or "hallucination". Any statements to the contrary on the wiki should be corrected so as to more accurately reflect the book's narrative intent. But no forum discussion is required for this. It's obviously true that all articles should be edited so as to be accurate.
