Forum:Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Specifically, for "also known as" names for River Song? People keep trying to add "Mels Zucker", and I keep chopping away. One person has cited the Brilliant Book, without specifing any addiitonal context. Would anyone who has actually read the d***ed thing and is aware of the usage please comment?Boblipton ^{talk to me} 11:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

It's valid if it's a narrative source and in this case it should note the exact story that it's mentioned in.

If it's not then it should go in the behind the scenes section. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:44, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty much as I figured. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 03:49, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

I've acquired it for Christmas, and I plan to look into all of these things mentioned. --OS25 (talk to me.) 23:20, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to directly reference the Brilliant Book inour manual of style. Last night, myself and User:OttselSpy25 where nearly locked in an edit war with another user, who shall not be named, over a dispute on wether it should be added to the main body of the article.

This User, without reason and research reverted OttselSpy's hardwork and used the weak term 'this is canon'. Upon telling him to look at the manual of style and forum he said he could not find it and continued to add information from what is not a narrative source - which he was told and which he ingorned.

The User was blocked - something which I did not want to do but I had to for the sake of keeping to the editing war poilcy - and will be unblocked next week, which will give him time to find the correct poilcy.

As User:Tangerineduel stated, it is only valid if it's an narrative source and if it's not it goes into the behind the scenes section - which OttselSpy was doing. This needs to be added to the manual of style and directly reference the Brilliant Book. MM/Want to talk? 16:08, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

It is already stated fairly clearly in the Tardis:Canon policy, but I've added a link specifically stating the Brilliant Book 2012 to the behind the scenes section, just so it's blatantly clear. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:18, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the policy and couldn't see either Brilliant Book listed with a cursory search. As I do not have either, I cannot make the determination, but would one of the contributors who has access kindly mark which pieces --- I believe there is a comic strip in the 2012 edition which is canon -- qualify as sources and specifically mention that other items are specifically not canon -- but may be cited for speculative purposes? Boblipton ^{talk to me} 22:05, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you missed it. Here's a link to the specific section: Tardis:Canon policy#Behind the scenes information, as I said in the above post it's noted under the "Behind the scenes information" section. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:35, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Shall we agree to disagree as to what is hard to miss? In any case, I've added the relevant sections to the articles about the books mentioned. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 13:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

So guys, I've noted that pages created solely from TheBrilliantBooks are being deleted. Now, although I agree that niether of the books are canon, I think it's a good idea to try and extend the wiki to its limits. You'll find we often make pages on non-canon things, like The Master (Scream of the Shalka) or Splinx. So I think we should keep all of the pages created from these 2 books, and place them under _:Non-canonical categories. OS25 (talk to me.) 14:16, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Someone has been prefixing all these tidbits with the notice that the Brilliant Books are non-canonical. Vuz dot you, Sharlie? I think that's the right way to go. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 14:21, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

The two Brilliant Books contain information that is talking about the Doctor Who universe. They don't need to be tagged with the NC tag because they are still about Matt Smith and his Doctor Who. NC is stuff like Shalka or Fatal Death, which is clearly not the DW universe.

Please don't add the NC tag to anything other than the sources covered in the Tardis:Canon policy#Other universe sources section.

I disagree about creating articles solely based on stuff from the Brilliant Book or the Dalek Pocket Guide, it goes against everything in the canon policy.

All we are saying with the canon policy is that if you're using it as a source it's got to be narrative, it has to be part of the fictional "universe". It has to be a story. An encyclopaedia entry isn't doing that, it's filling up the pages.

OS25, the Wiki has to have limits, that's what the Canon policy is stating. That's why for instance we don't cover many of the BBV things. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)