Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Talk:Fred: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Non-canon?
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Moved AV content to DWE wiki. --[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 03:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC) | Moved AV content to DWE wiki. --[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 03:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Wow. What a mess. See, what's happened here is that people have made the mistake of believing that if it's a Doctor-like character played by Nick Briggs, it's all the same as the guy in ''Party Animals''. And that's in no way true. | |||
:::#The ''Party Animals'' Doctor appeared in one thing and one thing only: ''Party Animals''. Is ''Animals'' canonical? I think that's at least up for debate. It certainly reads like a parody to me. I mean, Bart Simpson ''does'' appear in it, for cryin' out loud. It's really rather the comics equivalent of this year's opening NTA sketch. Or ''Dimensions in Time''. | |||
:::#The AV Doctor is quite beyond our remit. He's fully fan fiction and therefore in no way to be examined by this wiki. | |||
:::#The BBV "Doctor" isn't the Doctor at all. He's a character named Fred, who may well bear a striking similarity to the Doctor, but obviously can't be the Doctor. BBV had no permission to make fiction involving the Doctor, so therefore Fred is ''not'' the Doctor. Our [[tardis:canon policy]] needs clarification on this point, but BBV should be considered canonical only as far as they use characters and races for which they received legal clearance from a rights holder. At no point did the BBC ''ever'' clear the usage of the Doctor. Just didn't happen. So trying to equate "Fred" with "the Doctor" is a nonsense. A new article at [[Fred]] (which I've just made a broken redirect) needs to be written. | |||
:::{{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | |||
== Rename == | == Rename == | ||
