Forum:Canonicity of Dalek Annuals

Index → Panopticon → Canonicity of Dalek Annuals

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

I have access to the Dalek Annuals and similar publications and while I have come across some contradictory information (in terms as it has been changed), the rest of it I am hesitant to source as I am not sure if the old annuals are considered canonical. Are they? Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look through our Tardis:Canon policy, it doesn't mention the annuals, at all (so no help there).

However, the annuals (I think) pioneered some things that went on to be featured in the Dalek Empire audios (transolar discs came from them didn't they?) (I'm guessing here as the Dalek Annuals are something that currently does not sit on my shelf).

Anyways, what is in the canon policy that is counted are the various TV Action and the like which are kind of on the same footing (again they're only something I've seen in passing, not on my shelf).

As for integrating potentially contradictory material, handle it like anything else that is contradictory 'one account states that...' or something like that.--Tangerineduel 12:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

the Doctor Who Universe has no official canon. (as touched upon in the canon policy. Nicholas Briggs has said that he got specific inspiration from the Dalek Annuals and intended the first season as a loose adaptation, with some changes, i.e. instead of a brother trying to help his sster, a man trying to help his lover. and a wider scope. anyway, the '60's spin-off stuff in general contains a lot of stuff just about impossible to reconcile, like I said the Whoniverse has no hard and fast canon policy. --Stardizzy2 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)