Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:More canon questions: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:But I think we really need to settle if we should use the info or not (for example the first name of a lot of secondary/minor characters is revealed in the novelisations, but we don't use that name individuals articles (often instead disambigging them, but a note is often added that their first/last name is listed in the novelisations). | :But I think we really need to settle if we should use the info or not (for example the first name of a lot of secondary/minor characters is revealed in the novelisations, but we don't use that name individuals articles (often instead disambigging them, but a note is often added that their first/last name is listed in the novelisations). | ||
:The policy regarding novelisations as it stands is a little...messy. 'Until it contradicts the TV story' (I know I wrote it!), but it was a concession to what was discussed on the [[Tardis Talk:Canon policy#Novelisations]]. The last comments made by 23skidoo concerning the novelisations' effects on continuity are valid (which is mostly why it has the statement 'until it contradicts the TV story'). I'd like to have a policy that can be applied right across the wiki which isn't so vague with regards to how this information is used. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:07, June 15, 2010 (UTC) | :The policy regarding novelisations as it stands is a little...messy. 'Until it contradicts the TV story' (I know I wrote it!), but it was a concession to what was discussed on the [[Tardis Talk:Canon policy#Novelisations]]. The last comments made by 23skidoo concerning the novelisations' effects on continuity are valid (which is mostly why it has the statement 'until it contradicts the TV story'). I'd like to have a policy that can be applied right across the wiki which isn't so vague with regards to how this information is used. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:07, June 15, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::What? Since when are the 1960s movies "canon, but within their own universe"? I've ''never'' heard them described like that before. How ''can'' they ''possibly'' be canon? They're non-canon, full-stop. | |||
::As for novelisations, surely they are canon so long as they don't contradict the televised episode. I mean, if a novel gives you the full name of the character, that's not "apocryphal" in any way. If a novel gives you a character that didn't appear on TV, that's also not apocryphal. It's easy enough to assume that the TV record was simply not complete. I would disagree with any move to shunt them, in their entirety, to a "secondary" or "invalid" status. They are primary sources, as far as I'm concerned, up to the point where they absolutely, undeniably contradict other sources. The ''Mindwarp'' example given on the Talk page cited above is an interesting one, as it's not necessarily "incorrect". There are in fact many accounts of what happened to Peri after ''Mindwarp'', and none of them are particularly "better" than others. It's simply that there are "varying" accounts, and all of them deserve an airing on her page. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 18:49, June 17, 2010 (UTC) | |||
