Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:How to handle the Deca: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
m (CzechOut moved page Forum:Deca:Canon or not? to Forum:How to handle the Deca without leaving a redirect: this isn't a canon debate) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
My proposal is that the entry for Divided Loyalties be corrected so that the term "flashback" be changed to "dream". In addition, the entry for "Deca" state that it has never appeared in "real life" Doctor Who canon, only within The Doctor's dream. Any biographical articles or timelines using the Deca information as part of a real biography or real timeline should be corrected as well. Just because The Doctor dreamed it doesn't make it any more real than [[The Valeyard]]'s manipulation of The Matrix. [[Special:Contributions/41.133.0.68|41.133.0.68]]<sup>[[User talk:41.133.0.68#top|talk to me]]</sup> 14:03, September 3, 2012 (UTC) | My proposal is that the entry for Divided Loyalties be corrected so that the term "flashback" be changed to "dream". In addition, the entry for "Deca" state that it has never appeared in "real life" Doctor Who canon, only within The Doctor's dream. Any biographical articles or timelines using the Deca information as part of a real biography or real timeline should be corrected as well. Just because The Doctor dreamed it doesn't make it any more real than [[The Valeyard]]'s manipulation of The Matrix. [[Special:Contributions/41.133.0.68|41.133.0.68]]<sup>[[User talk:41.133.0.68#top|talk to me]]</sup> 14:03, September 3, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:This isn't a canon question — indeed we don't deal with issues of canonicity at this wiki. So I've changed the title of the thread. The only sorts of questions we deal with that have anything ''at all related'' to canonicity is in trying to ascertain the copyright holder's mindset in writing the story. If they were demonstrably writing a parody or something extra-continuous, then we declare [[T:VS|the source "invalid"]] for the writing of in-universe articles here. | |||
:But there's no evidence that ''Divided Loyalties'' was meant to be extra-continuous. Sure there's an halucination or dream depicted in the story, but that's miles apart from saying the story "isn't canon". As you suggest, the term "flashback" should just be changed to "dream" or "hallucination". Any statements to the contrary on the wiki should be corrected so as to more accurately reflect the book's narrative intent. But no forum discussion is required for this. It's obviously true that all articles should be edited so as to be accurate. | |||
:Since you're the one who spotted this issue, I nominate you to correct it. Have fun editing here. :) {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 21:01: Tue 04 Sep 2012</span> | |||
