Talk:Assimilation² (comic story)

Star Trek subjects

For the purposes of this article, I'm making a point not to discuss or outline Star Trek specific technology, characters or continuity until we can come to a consensus about how such information should be presented.

For instance, I have listed the Star Trek Universe characters under their own subheading, but have not created article links for the characters regardless of whether or not they are specific to this story.

Ben Paddon ^{talk to me} 21:11, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Should we really have information that wasn't in the comic in this article. For example, the article discusses the backstory of the Borg and Deltans for Voyager and TMP that wasn't in the comic. There were also some more minor appearances of other races, such as Vulcans and Andorians. Should we mention them, and if so then should we give details like that Vulcans suppress their emotions, or that Andorians come from an ice planet?Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 21:33, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

If it were up to me - and I acknowledge it isn't - we'd only mention stuff in the comic itself, and we wouldn't create articles for, say, Delta IV or the Borg. But I'm not in charge here (as much as I'd like to be!). Ben Paddon ^{talk to me} 00:41, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Delta IV and the Borg are in the comic itself, so naturally they have articles here. Not sure I really understand how you can say you'd "only mention stuff in the comic itself" but then not have pages for things that are explicitly named and pictured by the comic.

In any case, these issues have been a topic of discussion for months now at forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover. Please redirect your inquiries there, since the questions that have been asked so far on this page have implications well beyond just this article.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 14:01: Sat 02 Jun 2012 

Because there's a difference between mentioning something in the Assimilation₂ article and creating whole new articles for characters that aren't strictly speaking part of the Doctor Who Universe. I was suggesting this as a stopcap solution until the story has finished and we have a better idea of how the two universes are intertwined. But whatevs, guy. 98.151.218.190^{talk to me} 18:58, June 2, 2012 (UTC) Actually it's Ben Paddon - I'd forgotten to sign in.

Could you please develop your point a bit (though again, preferably at the forum thread)? How are characters and concepts "not strictly speaking a part of the DWU" if they appear in a DWU story?

And just to make sure I'm understanding you, are you asking for an embargo on all characters and concepts that originated in the STU until 2013, when the story is set to conclude?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:46: Sat 02 Jun 2012 

Here's the problem - we may not, strictly speaking, be in the Doctor Who universe at the moment. Really it depends on how the narrative unfolds, but at the moment the suggestion seems to be that the TARDIS has shifted out of the Doctor Who universe and into the Star Trek universe, circa TNG season 4.

My argument is that anything not strictly relating to the Doctor Who universe - e.g. characters, starships, etc. - should probably not get their own standalone articles until such a time as we better understand the relationship between the two universes and the events unfolding, which we won't know until the DW/TNG crossover story has completed.

That's my take on it, at least. Ben Paddon ^{talk to me} 21:01, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Even if the narrative establishes that the Doctor, Amy and Rory have left their "usual" universe, that doesn't necessarily mean that the people and things they encounter are outside of "the Doctor Who universe" in the sense we use it here: that is, outside the narrative scope of this wiki. We already have articles on several alternate universes and other realities, from Pete's World to Silurian Earth, as well as on their inhabitants. None of them are the "usual" Doctor Who universe, but we cover them because the Doctor or somebody else from his universe visited them in an officially authorized story. From a narrative standpoint, having an article on William T. Riker is no different from having an article on Ironicus or Boaz or Jack Ianto Geraint Williams, none of whom exist in the "normal" Doctor Who universe. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 02:56, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Non-canon

I've noticed that the non-canon template has been added to the page, but not by an admin. Should it really be classed as non-canon so soon just because its a crossover? --MrThermomanPreacher ^{talk to me} 13:12, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Certainly not without discussion in the Panopticon. Our default position here is that every authorized work is canonical unless there's compelling evidence that it's not. If people want to make an argument that we should treat this crossover differently, they can do so at Forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover or in a new Forum thread (since the discussion in the existing thread is more about how to include Star Trek material, not whether to treat it as canonical or not). But the non-canon template should certainly not be added to this page, or to other pages related to this story, until there has been a community discussion resulting in a consensus.

(By the way, I'll point out that admins don't make the policies; we just enforce them. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join in the discussions in the Panopticon, whether you're an admin, a registered user, or an unregistered user. Just sign your posts and make clear arguments. The only reason that the discussions tend to be dominated by admins is that it's the most active users who are most likely to be given the admin bit.) —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 05:12, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Series 7 setting

I've not read the comic for myself, but is it even worth mentioning this is before or after Dinosaurs on a Spaceship? If there isn't an "Amy and Rory picked up from home" scene, then I'm assuming it's safe to say it's pre-God Complex, unless there's a future episode where they're properly travelling in the TARDIS again. -- Tybort (talk page) 23:50, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

...which well, there is, so I'm retracting my complaint. -- Tybort (talk page) 09:48, October 18, 2012 (UTC)