Talk:The Doctor's psychic paper

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Revision as of 14:50, 5 February 2020 by 213.123.3.40 (talk)

Season 6B

I just had a thought. If the Celestial Intervention Agency created the psychic paper as it states, and the fact that the Doctor has one themselves, does that not prove definitely that Season 6B is actual canon as Season 6B tells several tales of the Second Doctor was halted mid-regeneration to go work for them for an extensive period of time. And at the termination of that working period was either given, or nicked a psychic paper for themselves. --DCLM 20:06, February 3, 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's a lot of debate about whether S6B is part of canon or not, but wouldn't this prove that it is definite canon? --DCLM 20:20, February 3, 2020 (UTC)
Doctor Who doesn’t have a ‘canon’ 86.12.165.34talk to me 12:32, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
Actually incorrect. --DCLM 12:40, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
If anyone can answer this properly, I'll be happy to accept whatever. --DCLM 12:40, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
OK then... genius... what does this mythical ‘Doctor Who canon’ look like? 🙄 86.12.165.34talk to me 12:41, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
86 is correct as far as this wiki is concerned as per T:CANON. Additionally, this wiki already considers stories such as The Night Walkers completely valid. --Borisashton 12:46, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t realise this wiki was the BBC 82.132.221.25talk to me 12:48, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

And thus there IS a canon. So saying there isn't is not correct. --DCLM 12:48, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
Please don’t remove talk page messages. Also, this wiki is not the BBC, so what we may or may not consider valid is irrelevant, the BBC has no official ‘canon’ for Doctor Who. If you had actually bothered to read T:CANON, which you yourself linked, you would see that it explicitly states that ‘canon’ is not something that applies to Doctor Who. 213.123.3.40talk to me 14:35, February 5, 2020 (UTC)
No message was removed. However, it is entirely possible that it got lost during an edit conflict. --DCLM 14:38, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I’m sure man 213.123.3.40talk to me 14:50, February 5, 2020 (UTC)