765,429
edits
Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon? (edit)
Revision as of 05:34, 19 September 2012
, 19 September 2012enforcing Forum:Prefix simplification
m (enforcing Forum:Prefix simplification) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}} | ||
:''The following discussion was started in [[Talk:A Fix with Sontarans]], but then moved here.'' | :''The following discussion was started in [[Talk:A Fix with Sontarans]], but then moved here.'' | ||
Okay, so at first, this story appears to be non-canonical, and most agree it is. However, as [[ | Okay, so at first, this story appears to be non-canonical, and most agree it is. However, as [[PROSE]]: ''[[Fixing a Hole]]'' is created to be a sequel to this story, then shouldn't it be cannon? | ||
We've used things like this on other pages, like [[Dimensions in Time]]. Now, DIT was created to be canon, but is very confusing, like many Doctor Who episodes. The only reason given for it to be Non-canonical is that [[ | We've used things like this on other pages, like [[Dimensions in Time]]. Now, DIT was created to be canon, but is very confusing, like many Doctor Who episodes. The only reason given for it to be Non-canonical is that [[PROSE]]: ''[[First Frontier]]'' says so. So, even though we (and I) may not like it, this story may be canon... | ||
On the other hand, it does really appear to be meant as a joke... Like a sketch, witch we of coarse don't count. Although both the appearances of [[Tegan Jovanka]] and [[Gareth Jenkins (A Fix with Sontarans)|Gareth Jenkins]] are explained fairly well, the surprise appearance of [[Jimmy Savile]] makes it VERY questionable. | On the other hand, it does really appear to be meant as a joke... Like a sketch, witch we of coarse don't count. Although both the appearances of [[Tegan Jovanka]] and [[Gareth Jenkins (A Fix with Sontarans)|Gareth Jenkins]] are explained fairly well, the surprise appearance of [[Jimmy Savile]] makes it VERY questionable. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
::I'll tell you how: we just consider this thing as it was always intended. It's a damned sketch sketch on ''Jim'll Fix It''. It's '''not an episode of ''Doctor Who'''''. Pretty simple, really. | ::I'll tell you how: we just consider this thing as it was always intended. It's a damned sketch sketch on ''Jim'll Fix It''. It's '''not an episode of ''Doctor Who'''''. Pretty simple, really. | ||
::The real question about ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'' is why we give it that name at all. The sketch was untitled on broadcast, so I'm not sure I've ever quite known why it's called that. I don't doubt that it's the best title available, I just wanna know the source of it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::The real question about ''[[A Fix with Sontarans]]'' is why we give it that name at all. The sketch was untitled on broadcast, so I'm not sure I've ever quite known why it's called that. I don't doubt that it's the best title available, I just wanna know the source of it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}18:51: Wed 11 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
::::Note: retracting the last paragraph. It ''was'' titled on broadcast, but the title cards are in a non-standard order for the Colin Baker era. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::::Note: retracting the last paragraph. It ''was'' titled on broadcast, but the title cards are in a non-standard order for the Colin Baker era. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:22: Wed 11 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
:::Well, if our reason for DIT to not be canon is that it includes [[EastEnders]] chareactors, then shouldn't [[Mistaken Identity]] be non-canonical? I think that's why I REALLY started this, in some cases, we seem a bit strange with our Canon policy... I mean, you mentioned that there are Dalek movie sequels, but what if those pages were marked as canon? Sure, they aren't, but if we have a sequel to a non-canon story, then it's sequel should be non-canon too. If we have a story non-canon for one reason, then stories with the same thing behind the reason should be non-canon. Otherwise the line of Continuity becomes astray and vague. I think this discussion is over. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 19:58, January 11, 2012 (UTC) | :::Well, if our reason for DIT to not be canon is that it includes [[EastEnders]] chareactors, then shouldn't [[Mistaken Identity]] be non-canonical? I think that's why I REALLY started this, in some cases, we seem a bit strange with our Canon policy... I mean, you mentioned that there are Dalek movie sequels, but what if those pages were marked as canon? Sure, they aren't, but if we have a sequel to a non-canon story, then it's sequel should be non-canon too. If we have a story non-canon for one reason, then stories with the same thing behind the reason should be non-canon. Otherwise the line of Continuity becomes astray and vague. I think this discussion is over. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 19:58, January 11, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::It seems to me that you've got things the wrong way round. You're assuming that [[Fixing a Hole]]'s current state is right, and that we should therefore take down {{tl| | ::::It seems to me that you've got things the wrong way round. You're assuming that [[Fixing a Hole]]'s current state is right, and that we should therefore take down {{tl|notdwu}} from [[A Fix with Sontarans]]. You may also be wondering why ''Hole'' is not in non-canonical categories. [Presses a few buttons.] There, now it's all fixed. Easy! ''Hole'', being amongst the most obscure ''Doctor Who'' stories, simply hadn't received the attention it needed. | ||
::::Again, a sequel doesn't suddenly make canonical something which has been cast out by [[T:CAN]]. The more likely interpretation of a sequel that has not been marked as non-canonical is that it's so obscure, we haven't gotten around to it. This is especially true of Short Trips, which most of our editors frankly have never read and to which they have limited or no access. Unfortunately, the range that has produced the most stories (about 401 different stories) actually is the hardest track down. So thanks for this discussion, because it pointed out a problem that needed to be addressed. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span | ::::Again, a sequel doesn't suddenly make canonical something which has been cast out by [[T:CAN]]. The more likely interpretation of a sequel that has not been marked as non-canonical is that it's so obscure, we haven't gotten around to it. This is especially true of Short Trips, which most of our editors frankly have never read and to which they have limited or no access. Unfortunately, the range that has produced the most stories (about 401 different stories) actually is the hardest track down. So thanks for this discussion, because it pointed out a problem that needed to be addressed. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:56: Wed 11 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
:I didn't answer the ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' thing. Our reason for DIT being outside of canon is basically that it's the worst thing ever put out under a ''Doctor Who'' logo. There are good narrative reasons, sure — crucially including the fact that it ''also'' offends [[EastEnders]] continuity, in a way that [[Mistaken Identity (short story)]] doesn't — but the simple reason is that it would undoubtedly fail any attempt to build consensus for its inclusion. Put another way, we simply '''can't bring ourselves''' to consider it canon. It's such an uncontroversial notion that DIT is non-canonical, that it's never ''needed'' a forum discussion to declare or confirm it so. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}22:28: Wed 11 Jan 2012 </span> | |||
::I completely understand... However, I always heard [[Timelash (TV story)|Timelash]] was the worst Doctor Who story of all time? I mean even as Colin Baker points out in the audio commentary, it's EVEN an anagram of "Lame Sh*t"... | |||
::I have always pondered though, what our official reason for DIT not being canon was... So, I think that raps up this Forum! [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 23:55, January 11, 2012 (UTC) | |||
[[category:Inclusion debates]] | [[category:Inclusion debates]] | ||
