Trusted
8,503
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 16:38, 13 January 2023
, 13 January 2023→Comments and concerns
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
: That's fair. But in terms of current precedent, I would remind everyone that [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 4|the current Rule 4]] is very much written with a ''presumption'' of validity. Strictly speaking, we ask for direct authorial quotes to prove that something ''isn't'' intended to be set in the DWU; the presumption, in the absence of a statement, is that it ''is''. I don't find it unfair to suggest that, in turn, when a valid story references a previously-invalid one, the ''presumption'' is that intent of proxy-DWUness is there, and it's to prove the ''opposite'' that an authorial quote would be required! (Arguably we would have example of this above, with [[Jonathan Morris]]'s "''Shalka'' isn't canon" comment "counteracting" the presumption-of-validity that the Shalka Doctor cameo in itself would bring.) I think on a practical level this would also be a wiser rule to implement, because we're more likely to find authorial quotes to the effect of "I know my easter-egg ''looks'' like it means X, but ''actually''…", than authorial quotes to the effect of "by the way and for the record, my easter-egg means what it looks like it means". [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | : That's fair. But in terms of current precedent, I would remind everyone that [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 4|the current Rule 4]] is very much written with a ''presumption'' of validity. Strictly speaking, we ask for direct authorial quotes to prove that something ''isn't'' intended to be set in the DWU; the presumption, in the absence of a statement, is that it ''is''. I don't find it unfair to suggest that, in turn, when a valid story references a previously-invalid one, the ''presumption'' is that intent of proxy-DWUness is there, and it's to prove the ''opposite'' that an authorial quote would be required! (Arguably we would have example of this above, with [[Jonathan Morris]]'s "''Shalka'' isn't canon" comment "counteracting" the presumption-of-validity that the Shalka Doctor cameo in itself would bring.) I think on a practical level this would also be a wiser rule to implement, because we're more likely to find authorial quotes to the effect of "I know my easter-egg ''looks'' like it means X, but ''actually''…", than authorial quotes to the effect of "by the way and for the record, my easter-egg means what it looks like it means". [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
[[Category:Temporary forums]] | [[Category:Temporary forums]] | ||
::But we're not considering stories that have randomly wandered into this wiki for the first time with this proposal. At least not at this time, and most likely not ever. We're considering stories that have ''already'' failed rule 4, so have the ''presumption'' of invalidity. I'll be honest. I'm not entirely against the practicality concern. I'm not sure it's ''correct'', we've often seen authors talk about how they really do intend to unite various parts of the DWU (eg [[Dave Rudden]]) or talk about their intent for things to be "valid/canon" ([[James Goss]], [[Chris Farnell]]). But if it's true it's something that might move the needle. (And, for the record, I too am neutral at the present moment, in the sense that I want something ''like'' this proposal to pass, but I think the current proposal just doesn't work.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] | |||
