228,839
edits
Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Bot: Automated text replacement (-Doctor Who? +Doctor Who? (comic series))
Shambala108 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: sourceedit |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-Doctor Who? +Doctor Who? (comic series))) Tag: apiedit |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::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|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''. Also, we reject ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', not because it's parodic, not because it's unlicensed, not because the BBC told us it wasn't canonical, not because the producers (initially) told us it wasn't canonical, but because '''RTD told us not to believe in it'''. | ::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|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? (comic series)|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''. Also, we reject ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', not because it's parodic, not because it's unlicensed, not because the BBC told us it wasn't canonical, not because the producers (initially) told us it wasn't canonical, but because '''RTD told us not to believe in it'''. | ||
::[[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. | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
::I think for reasons of easy administration, we've got to cut this thing off at the knees. Otherwise we'll get a completely unmanageable situation, like the thing [[User:Rowan Earthwood|Rowan Earthwood]] is suggesting. Do we really want to count what the book says about Gallifrey, but not what it says about the Doctor? That's tantamount to assigning "semi-canonical" status, which isn't really possible. Yet I suspect that's what people actually want to do, and why there's so much resistance to this proposal. I think people are reluctant to let go of ''The Infinity Doctors'' because it's arguably the most detailed description of the mysterious Gallifrey. But if those revelations are made through the use of a Doctor that isn't a part of normal continuity, they're no better than the descriptions of [[Tersurus]] in ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]''. | ::I think for reasons of easy administration, we've got to cut this thing off at the knees. Otherwise we'll get a completely unmanageable situation, like the thing [[User:Rowan Earthwood|Rowan Earthwood]] is suggesting. Do we really want to count what the book says about Gallifrey, but not what it says about the Doctor? That's tantamount to assigning "semi-canonical" status, which isn't really possible. Yet I suspect that's what people actually want to do, and why there's so much resistance to this proposal. I think people are reluctant to let go of ''The Infinity Doctors'' because it's arguably the most detailed description of the mysterious Gallifrey. But if those revelations are made through the use of a Doctor that isn't a part of normal continuity, they're no better than the descriptions of [[Tersurus]] in ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]''. | ||
::My argument is '''''absolutely not''''' "it's too hard to fit into articles". Obviously, inconsistencies are ''the rule'' in DW canon discussions, not the exception. I am ''only'' after the bath water, not the baby, so I'm in no way suggesting anything that's out of line with a series of other steps that have been pretty easily accepted by the community. ''The Infinity Doctors'' ''exactly'' fits the arguments used to rule other things out of our canon policy. It's simply '''illogical''' to deny the BBC-licensed ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'', ''[[Doctor Who?]]'', ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'', and ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' but keep this. | ::My argument is '''''absolutely not''''' "it's too hard to fit into articles". Obviously, inconsistencies are ''the rule'' in DW canon discussions, not the exception. I am ''only'' after the bath water, not the baby, so I'm in no way suggesting anything that's out of line with a series of other steps that have been pretty easily accepted by the community. ''The Infinity Doctors'' ''exactly'' fits the arguments used to rule other things out of our canon policy. It's simply '''illogical''' to deny the BBC-licensed ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'', ''[[Doctor Who? (comic series)|Doctor Who?]]'', ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'', and ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' but keep this. | ||
::Generally, everything licensed ''is'' an acceptable source for writing articles. I firmly believe that's the best metric for shaping the boundaries of the wiki. But there ''are'' exceptions. And this is one of them. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:03: Tue 24 Apr 2012 </span> | ::Generally, everything licensed ''is'' an acceptable source for writing articles. I firmly believe that's the best metric for shaping the boundaries of the wiki. But there ''are'' exceptions. And this is one of them. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:03: Tue 24 Apr 2012 </span> | ||
| Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
:::::Would it though? I mean [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]] is, as you've alluded, a difficult character to understand. Would it ''really'' be more difficult to understand her if this book was declared ''verboten'' and the information on the page were thus moved to the behind the scenes section? I've never been talking about ''removing'' the information outright; just moving it to the behind the scenes area. | :::::Would it though? I mean [[Patience (Cold Fusion)|Patience]] is, as you've alluded, a difficult character to understand. Would it ''really'' be more difficult to understand her if this book was declared ''verboten'' and the information on the page were thus moved to the behind the scenes section? I've never been talking about ''removing'' the information outright; just moving it to the behind the scenes area. | ||
:::::Moreover, I dunno about you, but I've got a lot of experience with other franchises that have stories declared, for some reason or another, "outside the fence". I'm not, therefore, seeing how the odd mention of a concept from this book in ''another'' book means the '''entire book''' is within the DWU. ''[[Doctor Who?]]'' is replete with continuity references, but that doesn't make it something you can reference in in-universe sections.. ''Scream of the Shalka'' has continuity references in it, but that doesn't make REG the "real" Ninth Doctor. If I read an Elseworlds comic, it may have Lois Lane in it, but I'm completely capable of understanding it's not the Lois Lane of ''any'' part of the DC continuity. But that doesn't mean that an Elseworlds concept might not get pulled into the current continuity. For instance, there are many concepts from ''The Dark Knight'' — an explicitly extra-continuous story — which did eventually get pulled into the mainstream DCU. There's perhaps no single work that's as informative to the character of the Batman as ''The Dark Knight''. '''But it's explicitly outside the boundaries of the main continuity'''. Equally, people we just '''accept''' as part of the DCU — like Jimmy Olsen and Harlequin — were pulled into the main DC continuity from other, "non-canon" stories. I mean, sure, "Donelli's Protection Racket" might feature the first actual appearance of Jimmy Olsen, and all subsequent serials of ''The Adventures of Superman'' might well have informed us ''greatly'' as to the basic character and function of Jimmy, but that doesn't make ''TAOS'' a valid part of ''Superman'' canon. | :::::Moreover, I dunno about you, but I've got a lot of experience with other franchises that have stories declared, for some reason or another, "outside the fence". I'm not, therefore, seeing how the odd mention of a concept from this book in ''another'' book means the '''entire book''' is within the DWU. ''[[Doctor Who? (comic series)|Doctor Who?]]'' is replete with continuity references, but that doesn't make it something you can reference in in-universe sections.. ''Scream of the Shalka'' has continuity references in it, but that doesn't make REG the "real" Ninth Doctor. If I read an Elseworlds comic, it may have Lois Lane in it, but I'm completely capable of understanding it's not the Lois Lane of ''any'' part of the DC continuity. But that doesn't mean that an Elseworlds concept might not get pulled into the current continuity. For instance, there are many concepts from ''The Dark Knight'' — an explicitly extra-continuous story — which did eventually get pulled into the mainstream DCU. There's perhaps no single work that's as informative to the character of the Batman as ''The Dark Knight''. '''But it's explicitly outside the boundaries of the main continuity'''. Equally, people we just '''accept''' as part of the DCU — like Jimmy Olsen and Harlequin — were pulled into the main DC continuity from other, "non-canon" stories. I mean, sure, "Donelli's Protection Racket" might feature the first actual appearance of Jimmy Olsen, and all subsequent serials of ''The Adventures of Superman'' might well have informed us ''greatly'' as to the basic character and function of Jimmy, but that doesn't make ''TAOS'' a valid part of ''Superman'' canon. | ||
:::::I suppose what I'm saying is that just because a story "informs" another story that doesn't '''automatically''' make it a valid source. ''Frankenstein'' '''informs''' ''The Brain of Morbius''. Does that mean ''Frankenstein'' is a valid source for ''this'' wiki? No. Equally, ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' completely informs ''Let's Kill Hitler''. Why do we accept the silly lil timey-wimey "hide the gun from River" scene? Because we've seen it before in ''Curse'' and we collectively say to Moffat, "I see what you did there, sir, I see what you did." | :::::I suppose what I'm saying is that just because a story "informs" another story that doesn't '''automatically''' make it a valid source. ''Frankenstein'' '''informs''' ''The Brain of Morbius''. Does that mean ''Frankenstein'' is a valid source for ''this'' wiki? No. Equally, ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' completely informs ''Let's Kill Hitler''. Why do we accept the silly lil timey-wimey "hide the gun from River" scene? Because we've seen it before in ''Curse'' and we collectively say to Moffat, "I see what you did there, sir, I see what you did." | ||
