Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
::I'm not quite understanding the level of negativity to this proposal. This is a perfectly ordinary part of our normal processes, consistent with other specific inclusion debates. We've had enough of them that [[:category:inclusion debates|there's a whole category of them]]. Yes, we have a '''general rule''' that goes something like, "As long as it's licensed, it's included". But I think the last few posters have forgotten that we ''do'' make exceptions. We have to. The BBC has played with its property in ways that are clearly outside its own continuity. ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' was [[Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?|decisively rejected by our community]], with only one anon user voting in its favor. | ::I'm not quite understanding the level of negativity to this proposal. This is a perfectly ordinary part of our normal processes, consistent with other specific inclusion debates. We've had enough of them that [[:category:inclusion debates|there's a whole category of them]]. Yes, we have a '''general rule''' that goes something like, "As long as it's licensed, it's included". But I think the last few posters have forgotten that we ''do'' make exceptions. We have to. The BBC has played with its property in ways that are clearly outside its own continuity. ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' was [[Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?|decisively rejected by our community]], with only one anon user voting in its favor. | ||
::There is no difference between ''Curse'' and this. Both are fully licensed stories. But we reject ''Curse'' '''totally''' on grounds of authorial intent. It was ''intended'' as something out of continuity. The same thing happens in other fandoms, as with ''Star Wars''' "[[starwars:Infinities|Infinities]]" or DC Comics' [[w:c:dc:Elseworlds|c:dc:Elseworlds]] ranges. And lest you consider responding with "we're not ''Star Wars'' or DC Comics," don't forget that we have ''Unbound'' and a few comic stories that are absolutely parodic. I mean, [[Dicky Howett]]'s entire body of ''Doctor Who'' work — which spans '''years and years''' — is outside of what we allow to be used to write in-universe articles. Why? Because it's not licensed? No. Because it's not professionally published? No. It's ''solely'' because ''[[Doctor Who?]]'' is parody, ''meant'' to be read as out-of-continuity. | ::There is no difference between ''Curse'' and this. Both are fully licensed stories. But we reject ''Curse'' '''totally''' on grounds of authorial intent. It was ''intended'' as something out of continuity. The same thing happens in other fandoms, as with ''Star Wars''{{'}} "[[starwars:Infinities|Infinities]]" or DC Comics' [[w:c:dc:Elseworlds|c:dc:Elseworlds]] ranges. And lest you consider responding with "we're not ''Star Wars'' or DC Comics," don't forget that we have ''Unbound'' and a few comic stories that are absolutely parodic. I mean, [[Dicky Howett]]'s entire body of ''Doctor Who'' work — which spans '''years and years''' — is outside of what we allow to be used to write in-universe articles. Why? Because it's not licensed? No. Because it's not professionally published? No. It's ''solely'' because ''[[Doctor Who?]]'' is parody, ''meant'' to be read as out-of-continuity. Similarly, we don't run around talking about the time the Doctor was a woman who worked in a grocery store, because the non-parodic, fully licensed ''[[Exile]]'' is clearly labelled as ''Unbound''. | ||
::[[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] has made the point that we can't believe a writer who says that their work '''''is''''' canonical. That's very true. But, in my opinion, he's incorrect on the reverse. I think we ''do'' have to believe a writer who declares, "Look, this isn't a part of the mainstream continuity." After all, we've believed it before. I don't see any rational argument for doing something '''different''' in this case. Moreover, it's kinda stupid to say that as the author, unless you mean it. Saying something is out of continuity '''will''' have a negative impact on sales. So if someone says it, you ''do'' take it seriously, because they're acting ''against'' their self-interest. | ::[[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] has made the point that we can't believe a writer who says that their work '''''is''''' canonical. That's very true. But, in my opinion, he's incorrect on the reverse. I think we ''do'' have to believe a writer who declares, "Look, this isn't a part of the mainstream continuity." After all, we've believed it before. I don't see any rational argument for doing something '''different''' in this case. Moreover, it's kinda stupid to say that as the author, unless you mean it. Saying something is out of continuity '''will''' have a negative impact on sales. So if someone says it, you ''do'' take it seriously, because they're acting ''against'' their self-interest. | ||
