Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,355
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)
Revision as of 14:28, 12 January 2023
, 12 January 2023no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:::I don't think asking five different people is needed, just one, but for the idea that the book is clear because it gives an explanation for the Cushingverse films, this is ''precisely'' what I think we should be wary of. It's canon in another form. It's a very broad version of canon, but validity is not canon. (I again, want to stress, that I would love for the Cushingverse films to be valid, they're a nightmare. But this reasoning isn't something I'm comfortable with.) | :::I don't think asking five different people is needed, just one, but for the idea that the book is clear because it gives an explanation for the Cushingverse films, this is ''precisely'' what I think we should be wary of. It's canon in another form. It's a very broad version of canon, but validity is not canon. (I again, want to stress, that I would love for the Cushingverse films to be valid, they're a nightmare. But this reasoning isn't something I'm comfortable with.) | ||
:::Let me clarify Tomorrow Windows, I definitely wasn't clear there. It's clearly, to me, showing possible ''out of universe'' futures that ''did not come to pass'' (or, at least, have not done so yet). Hence Alan Davies, Eddie Izzard, rebooting the series entirely, ever actually regenerating into the Valeyard, Merlin. I don't think we can say that this is clear authorial intent of incorporating Shalka and Curse. It seems more like acknowledgements of "also rans". [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC) | :::Let me clarify Tomorrow Windows, I definitely wasn't clear there. It's clearly, to me, showing possible ''out of universe'' futures that ''did not come to pass'' (or, at least, have not done so yet). Hence Alan Davies, Eddie Izzard, rebooting the series entirely, ever actually regenerating into the Valeyard, Merlin. I don't think we can say that this is clear authorial intent of incorporating Shalka and Curse. It seems more like acknowledgements of "also rans". [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
::Ah, now I see what you mean re: ''Tomorrow Windows''. And yes, this strikes me as idiosyncratic to say the least. I would point out that we have, thus far, had no trouble documenting the Windows visions on the relevant valid pages — [[The Doctor (Battlefield)]], [[The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)]], [[The Valeyard]] (and, contingent on ''Curse'' remaining valid, [[Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death)]]). If all those visions are recognised as pertaining to the "real" versions, why should we do things differently with the Shalka Doctor, and suddenly turn around and say "well, it's a ''reference'' to the Shalka Doctor IRL, but in-universe we just don't know for sure"? Should we not, then, also, purge ''Tomorrow Windows'' information from the Valeyard or Muldwych pages, and say in BTS "one of the future Doctors in the ''Windows'' resembled this character as a reference to such-and-such ways the real-world franchise might have gone, but these are not necessarily references to them as [[possible future]]s in-universe"? Who would this serve? | |||
::But more importantly, now your opposition seems to be turning into a sort of Catch-22 — we're (allegedly) not sure that ''Tomorrow Windows'' is talking about diegetic parallel universes, so no; ''Survival Guide'' is indeed talking about diegetic parallel universes, so… ''also'' no? What does a successful application ''look'' like for you? I understand your concerns about canon-creep, but I deny the charges. What we want to avoid is "''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]'' explains how the Cushing movies can be real to the Hartnell version without contradiction, therefore the Cushing movies are now valid". But what I say is going on is more like "''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]'', which itself passes Rule 4 (something for which its referencing the Hartnell version is circumstantial evidence), references the Cushing movies as real ''to itself'', and therefore the Cushing movies should be made valid as a extension of ''Survival Guide''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> own validity". | |||
::To put it another way, I'm not making points about a broader, shared "prime continuity" that things are in or out of, which would be tantamount to canon; my approach is, so to speak, one of [[TARDIS|''relative'' dimensions]] in fiction-space. Validity is not Canon, but it ''is'' a sort of endless family tree of Continuity, burgeoning forth from ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]''. Any given story is valid because it places itself in the same universe as at least one specific prior one that's already considered valid, going all the way back to [[1963 (releases)|1963]]. That's how we roll. ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]'' begets ''[[The Daleks (TV story)|The Daleks]]'' begets ''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]''. My suggestion is simply to put a non-linear spin on that logic, and say that we can in exceptional circumstances consider a "pair" the other way round; that we can look at ''[[Dr. Who and the Daleks (theatrical film)|Dr. Who and the Daleks]]'' as though it postdated ''Survival Guide'' rather than predated it; to look at it as ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]''-begets-''[[The Daleks (TV story)|The Daleks]]''-begets-''[[Dalek Survival Guide (novel)|Dalek Survival Guide]]''-begets-''[[Dr. Who and the Daleks (theatrical film)|Dr. Who and the Daleks]]''. | |||
::I don't think that's too far afield at all from how we've thought of validity. Mind you, even if it were, that's what a new Forum Thread is for. The current form of T:VS isn't a divine tablet we're bound by. Not that I'm proposing to do such a thing, but a Forum thread with a sufficiently large consensus of the active editors would be perfectly empowered to scrap it altogether and start over from scratch. If everyone thinks my proposal would make for a better Wiki (and you seem to agree ''there'', on a personal level!), '''we can choose to go forward with that proposal and change T:VS to accommodate it rather than the other way around'''. We have that power and that right. The policies exist to serve and assist the Wiki and its community; not the other way around. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Temporary forums]] | [[Category:Temporary forums]] | ||
