68,223
edits
Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 439: | Line 439: | ||
::But perhaps I've been too ready to give up. It's true that everybody has expressed willingness to go along with some sort of boilerplate, but we're not just debating the wording and formatting of such a boilerplate — we're debating its applicability. Is this something which should apply '''only''' to material from ''The Infinity Doctors'', as CzechOut prefers, or can it also apply to other cases of unclear canonicity? (As an aside, has there ever been a discussion about ''Death Comes to Time''? Some pages with material from that — e.g. [[Fraction]] — have notes saying "The canonicity of ''Death Comes to Time'' is unclear." I can't really disagree with that statement, but is it supported by any discussion or policy?) Do we want a template to set aside material from ''TID'' (or another questionable source, if we go that way), or do we want a template to incorporate apparently contradictory sources which are both canonical (for cases like the fate of Ace)? These are slightly different goals, and we need to know which one we're trying to accomplish. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 06:16, May 19, 2012 (UTC) | ::But perhaps I've been too ready to give up. It's true that everybody has expressed willingness to go along with some sort of boilerplate, but we're not just debating the wording and formatting of such a boilerplate — we're debating its applicability. Is this something which should apply '''only''' to material from ''The Infinity Doctors'', as CzechOut prefers, or can it also apply to other cases of unclear canonicity? (As an aside, has there ever been a discussion about ''Death Comes to Time''? Some pages with material from that — e.g. [[Fraction]] — have notes saying "The canonicity of ''Death Comes to Time'' is unclear." I can't really disagree with that statement, but is it supported by any discussion or policy?) Do we want a template to set aside material from ''TID'' (or another questionable source, if we go that way), or do we want a template to incorporate apparently contradictory sources which are both canonical (for cases like the fate of Ace)? These are slightly different goals, and we need to know which one we're trying to accomplish. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 06:16, May 19, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::This is one of the things I continue to struggle with. Why bring this issue up as a question unless you want it struck from the record? If we looked hard enough we'd probably be able to find other authors/copyright holders/'''reviewers''' that claim that various works are not part of the DWU universe. I still don't totally understand why CzechOut singled out TID with a single quote from Parkin. The other points raised are based on readings of the novel by individual readers. | |||
:::Other authors Paul Magrs for example delights in creating meta-fictional settings and characters that also sit outside the bounds of regular continuity, but we've yet to have a discussion about the viability of Iris Wildthyme, based purely on the fact her adventures are hard to quantify. | |||
:::I think I've justified the exclusion of Shalka fairly well, it's in a published by the BBC text, it's stated very clearly it's not '''the''' Ninth Doctor. CzechOut's justification lays on one interview with the author. An interview that ''doesn't'' cite a date so we can't put it into context. WTF does "mainstream continuity" mean anyway? Especially put within the framework of what we deal with on this wiki. In the interview cited, it can be read that the interviewer leads Parkin into the statement he makes. | |||
:::Is there any further proof, any other statements made by the author where he states straight that ''TID'' in his consideration isn't part of DWU canon? | |||
:::Curse and Shalka have supporting evidence in BBC published texts that they're not part of regular Doctor Who. | |||
:::''The Infinity Doctors'' as far as I can find has no statements like this in BBC published texts, only in Parkin's ''AHistory'', which I've mentioned above, and even then is not a clear yes or no, unlike ''Shalka'' and ''Curse''. | |||
:::Why do we let ''TID''? Treating it like any other book in the range, because like every other book (except Shalka which as I've mentioned above has evidence) there is nothing tangible to suggest it's not any other book. We don't need to explain how it's different from ''Shalka'' and ''Curse'' we just have to show how ''Curse'' and ''Shalka'' are different from everything else. | |||
:::Resigned to this is the best term, agreed, certainly not. I am still not convinced by the initial argument made for even ''beginning'' this discussion, let alone excising the work, even with a boilerplate. | |||
:::I do agree with Josiah Rowe, that ''TID'' should not be viewed as a single case, cannot in fact, because it is very much incorporated within a release structure of other novels and has not in any BBC-signed off text been stated to be not ''Doctor Who''. ''Death Comes to Time'' has as or an even more chequered history and story than ''TID''. ''Death Comes to Time'' began as a radio pilot, turned into a webcast and does a lot to mess around with continuity, far more in some respects than ''TID'' does. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 12:03, May 19, 2012 (UTC) | |||
