Tardis talk:Canon policy


 * Telos Novellas
 * The Missing Adventures (i.e. The Missing Series)
 * The Licensed Comic Strips
 * Doctor Who Annuals
 * Other Audio products, e.g. Pescatons, Slipback
 * Prose fiction published in DOCTOR WHO MAGAZINE ("Brief Encounters", serials, Preludes, others)
 * FASA game books
 * The Ultimate Adventure and Seven Keys to Doomsday stage plays

Non-Doctor Who Stories
(Possibly also in Italics but does anyone have any other suggestions?)


 * Bernice Summerfield Range
 * Sarah Jane Smith
 * Other Companions
 * Faction Paradox
 * Dalek Empire
 * Kaldor City
 * Miranda
 * Gallifrey Audios
 * Time Hunters
 * UNIT
 * Spin-off prose stories in DOCTOR WHO MAGAZINE
 * Spin-off comics in same
 * 1960's DALEKS comic
 * K-9 Annual
 * Dalek Annuals
 * Dalek guidebooks

Not in the main body

 * Campaign
 * Dimensions In Time
 * The Peter Cushing Movies
 * "Scream of the Shalka"
 * The Infinity Doctors
 * Perfect Timing
 * Missing Pieces
 * The Various Other Charity Anthologies licensed to be produced
 * "Brief Encounters"
 * The Unbound Series from Big Finish
 * BBV Productions

Excluded

 * Fan Fiction not licenced, e.g. online fiction or anything produced in Fanzines no matter how well written

This will hopefully allow for the inclusion of more info on the site, keeping it as wide a policy as possible but keeping those stories not commonly accepted as canon separate

--195.93.21.34 04:19, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

Hmm... the general idea is a good one (only TV-based info in roman type in the main body of the article, "expanded universe" info in italics in the main body, more marginally linked stories as notes in a separate section). I question the current placement of the comic strips: while the early comics are pretty dire and Doctor Who in name only, the Doctor Who Magazine strips are often as good as Doctor Who in any other medium. (For example, there's a good argument to be made that the DWM version of the Eighth Doctor is as legitimate as the one in the BBC Books.)

Is there any harm in putting the licensed comics in the same category as the novels and audios? Aside from the entry on the Zarbi, I doubt that John and Gillian would show up on too many pages. :) --Josiah Rowe 23:07, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

P.S. Just a persnickety pet peeve: the accepted range of stories comprising the Doctor Who universe is its canon. The only time that I can recall a cannon appearing on Doctor Who is in "The Smugglers", and maybe "Enlightenment". :^) --Josiah Rowe 23:07, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

I think we should be careful about making decisions about what is and isn't canon based on our perceived quality of the story in question. In fact I personally don't think we should be making any decisions about canon at all. Unlike, for example, Star Wars where there is more-or-less a consensus on what is and isn't canon, Doctor Who canon is very much open to personal interpretation. As archivists here I feel our 'duty' (for want of a better word) is to record and make available information about the fictional world of Doctor Who in all its forms. As long as we clearly indicate the source of each bit of information then we can leave it up to the user to decide what they include in their own personal canon. So, I very much hope that, ultimately, we will find lots of information here about John and Gillian and their meetings with Santa Clause and the Trods etc. --Mantrid 01:43, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

Just another thought... Shouldn't the Doctor Who Annual stories also be included somewhere? --Mantrid 01:45, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * Both excellent points, Mantrid. There should be room here for every form of Doctor Who, somewhere.  The only question is how we demarcate those forms.


 * And I think the Annuals should be in with the rest of the licensed fiction.--Josiah Rowe 02:33, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

I agree that every aspect of Doctor Who should be covered here somewhere on this site, the purpose of the list was just to set aside sources which were likely to openly contradict a lot of the other material (although i suppose having BBC Books and Big Finish Audio in the same section is likely to cause nearly as many problems).

I suppose the inclusion of the comics in the other section was based mainly on the fact that I dont really read the comics, but if everyone wants to move them into the main body I dont have any objections.

The reason for the Annuals not being included was not a reflection on quality or anything else I'd just completely forgoten about them.

--Amxitsa 04:47, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

On thinking about this further, I'm wondering if the Star Wars model of 'absolute canon' and 'expanded universe' might be the best way to handle the canon issues. What I'm slightly concerned about is that we shouldn't make it too complicated to work out what should be in italics and what shouldn't etc and having too many different levels of 'canon'. We're expecting (hoping!) that a great many people will contribute to this wiki and the best way to avoid errors in the presentation is to keep the style guide as simple as possible. So, maybe we should just have each entry (where applicable) split in to two sections - 'TV Canon' and 'Expanded Universe'? That way there would be a clear and simple separation and no need to have to remember the signifincance of italicised (or not) titles.

I'm sure that just about everyone would agree that the definition of 'absolute canon' would be all the broadcast TV stories, including the TV movie and K9 and Company, but excluding The Curse of Fatal Death and Dimensions in Time (though I suppose Dimensions in Time is debatably canon - anyone care to argue for it?). --Mantrid 08:04, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

One good reason for including the comics would be the influence they've had on the novels, Frobisher being the best example. The TV Comics are also worth a mention, particularly as the Season 6B theory had its germ not only in continuity issues raised in "The Three Doctors," "The Five Doctors," and "The Two Doctors," but also in a couple of strips published shortly after "The War Games" which had the Second Doctor briefly escaping his trial before being recaptured by the Time Lords.

Including the BBV and Doctor Who Unbound stories could still fit in with the Whoniverse POV of the site, since we know the TARDIS is capable of travel to other dimensions, universes, and realities -"backwards in time, forwards in time, and sideways in time," - so any articles on the Stranger, the various alternate Doctors, or Dr. Who (Cushing) could, like the Valeyard and the Inferno Earth Doctor, be treated as versions of the Doctor observed during excursions by Time Lords or other observers into other universes. --Freethinker1of1 09:45, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

I am a bit confused, what do you mean by Main Body & Not in the Main Body? Is there any difference to the articles? I think we should cover everything in as much detail as possible and let others make their own mind up about what they regard as canon and non-canon. I also think that Dimensions in Time can be considered as canon because,as said before, the TARDIS can move into different realities and universes, so EastEnders could just be another dimension / reality. Therefore counting as canon.--MJP 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about other Doctor Who like In A Fix With Sontarans. I know most people would exclude it straight away but there is a 'sequel' to this story, Fixing a Hole from Short Trips: Past Tense? There is also The Ultimate Adventure stage play featuring Jon Pertwee, David Banks and Colin Baker as the Doctor? I know that before all Fan Fiction is excluded, but what about Time Rift (see Time Rift), as the character General Kramer who appears in it also appears in Vampire Science (EDA) so it is linked to the continuity? Also the webcasts Death Comes to Time, Real Time and Shada and is the game Destiny of the Doctors excluded or just not in the main body?--MJP 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm for treating anything outside the television stories, audio adventures, and novels in the same way Memory Alpha handles the Mirror Universe characters - included, but with emphasis that the characters and events do not occur in the Whoniverse proper. Something extra in parentheses for the article title, such as Susan (Dalek movies) for the Susan portrayed by Roverta Tovey, for example.

--Freethinker1of1 22:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put the comics and annuals in the "italics" section, as per discussion above. --Josiah Rowe 23:05, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

I've previously raised the issue of the problems that will be caused by using italics for non-canon material (see 'Getting Off Track' above). Since then, Freethinker has suggested that we might split entries in to canon 'categories'. On thinking about this quite a bit, I think this is probably the best, clearest and most simple way forward. I would suggest that we have five categories:


 * TV Stories
 * Prose Stories
 * Audio Stories
 * Comic Strip Stories
 * Miscellaneous (for any other oddities that don’t fall in to the previous four).

See below for one way that this might be implemented. --Mantrid 18:31, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

How About This?
After studying Memory Alpha's canon policy, and doing a little thinking, I came up with this:

Types of articles
I. The Doctor Who Universe

These articles contain info derived from the stories, written from an "in-universe" perspective. Sub-types would be "The Television Series" and "The Expanded Universe." Expanded Universe would cover other media formats, but would be limited to those stories which have been professionally produced, commercially released, and sanctioned by the BBC. Articles about characters, planets and races which first appeared in the television series but also appeared in the expanded universe stories could have a special expanded universe section which would contain info derived from those stories, as the earlier proposed use of italics to identify such info is getting problematic. An example of how this would look has been posted at the Sandbox.

'''II. The Doctor Who Franchise'''

These are essentially "behind-the-scenes" articles about the stories, actors, directors, producers, other crew members.


 * This seems like a good idea to me.--MJP 18:53, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree... I think the thinking behind this is a good idea. In fact, I've already created a category called 'Doctor Who Universe' to cover all fictional entries as if they are real. However, I'm not sure I liked the term 'Doctor Who Franchise'. Perhaps 'Doctor - Behind the Scenes' or 'Doctor Who Production' (or something like that) might be better? --Mantrid 17:16, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * How would this affect the episode pages?--MJP 12:52, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

--Freethinker1of1 10:02, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have two main types of articles. "Who Universe" - articles derived from the stories, written from an "in-universe" perspective, and "Who Franchise," behind-the-scenes articles on the stories, novels, etc. The Who Universe articles can be further divided into either two categories of the television stories and an "expanded universe" of story formats whose canon status is debatable, or divided into separate categories according to media format, though this latter may cause problems owing to so many characters and ideas crossing over from one format to another. In either case, stories outside the television series should still be limited to those stories professionally produced and sanctioned by the BBC. I'm putting a proposal on this on the talk page for canon policy.

I haven't been very active on this Wiki due to pressure of work. However, I have more time to devote to the project now and am keen to contributre. I completely agree with what Freethinker is saying above. Looking at the TV story pages so far and working on The Sirens of Time from the audio series, it does seem that there is far too much focus on the production aspects. Do we really need to list things like 'Duration', 'Location Filming', 'Cultural References' and 'Ratings'? I'd also question if it's necessary to list the production credits in so much detail. Perhaps these should be just limited to Director, Writer and Producer and left in the Info box? A few other points to consider: I hope you don't mind me giving my opinion, particularly as I've not been a very active contributor to date. I can see that a lot of work has already gone in to this Wiki and I certainly don't mean to denigrate anyone's efforts. But, sometimes a fresh pair of eyes... Finally, just to draw your attention to it, I've done some work on a proposed template for the audio series. Take a look at The Sirens of Time. Thanks for listening. --Mantrid 08:35, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * In my reworking of The Sirens of Time I've changed 'Bad Guys' to 'The Enemy' as this seemed a little less coloquial and more appropriate for a work of reference. However, I do wonder why there needs to be a separate sub-heading for this at all. Perhaps we could just include it in the info box along with 'Doctor' and 'Companion'?
 * Although the Previous and Next story links at the bottom of each story page are a nice idea, I do think they could become problematic in the future. The 'All Media' is a particularly difficult one to keep accurate. Even though good attemps have been made at it, the chronology of 'Doctor Who' is highly debatable and very much open to interpretation. What source is being used to decide what story follows another? Also, as new stories are being added all the time, the next and previous links could quickly become out of date and it would be a nightmare to keep updating them. I'd also question the value of Previous and Next links for the particular genre. The TV series may have run in chronological order but Big Finish and the Books don't. For example, the Next link for the audio story Phantasmagoria would take you to Whispers of Terror, the next published story in the Big Finish series but a completely different Doctor and era in the fictional universe. So, I suppose I'm saying, should these Previous and Next links be included at all (or perhaps just include them for the TV series)?
 * Finally, I have to raise the old subject of placing non-TV series (or non-canonical) information in italics. Using the Continuity section of An Unearthly Child as an example, there is no indication of why some parts of the text are in italics. Unless the reader knows that non-canonical information is in italics, it will have no meaning to them. Also, if we take the italics rule to its logical end, we will ultimately have entire entries in the Wiki written in italics. For example, I'd expect the entry on Bernice Summerfield to be quite a lengthy and detailed one, but as it's non-canonical it would ALL have to be in italics. I think some further thought on how canon and non-canon information is handled on this Wiki is required. I would suggest using the 'Expanded Universe' model. For example, the entry for Omega would detail all the information on the character given in The Three Doctors and Arc of Infinity and then below, under an 'Expanded Universe' sub-heading, information from all other sources (eg the audio drama Omega) could be given. The [http:/www.starwars.com starwars.com] databank works on a similar principle (see Boba Fett for an example).


 * If you go to www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm they have a good chronolgy of all media and it is given reasons why it is placed there on the individual pages. We could use that chronology.


 * Yes, there are several good chronologies on the net and elsewhere. However, they all rely on someone's personal opinion and interpretation. As a reference source I think this wiki has to stick to the facts as related in the TV show and other licenced material. It's not for us to speculate - or promote the speculations of others - here. In fact, by providing the facts we are actually providing information that will form the basis of such speculations.
 * --Mantrid 18:31, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Outside Sources - Canon or Not Canon?
I've just completed a re-edit of The Power of the Daleks TV story page. I've introduced a 'Year' field in to the info box to indicate when the story is set. For The Tenth Planet I put 1986. For The Power of the Daleks I was tempted to put 2020 as this is the date suggested in Lance Parkin's A History of the Universe. However, as this date is never actually given on screen as part of the story, should we be presenting it as fact? It's tempting to adopt A History of the Universe as the authorative source for all dates that we use on this wiki, but, however well researched, a lot of the information is based on deduction and speculation. What do others think?

Similarly, I notice that Polly's last name has been given as 'Wright' in several instances throughout the wiki. However, as far as I am aware, this is based totally on sources outside of the TV series itself and is never given on screen. Should this really be accepted? (At the very least, I think we should note its source).

--Mantrid 09:06, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Where exactly has 2020 come from? What research is the date based on? Also Polly's surname was never given on TV but has been adopted as canon in other media. You could use just Polly in the TV section of her page and say in the Expanded Universe section that her surname was given as Polly Wright, like the Master's name was Koschei or something in other media.--MJP 22:41, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * 2020 for "Power of the Daleks" is one of those dates that seems to be traditional though not explicily stated in the story. Others include 1909 for "Horror of Fang Rock" and 1492 for "Masque of Mandragora." A note of these traditional dates might be made in the appropriate articles for those stories. Parkins does make some good arguments for 2020 being the date for "Power of the Daleks," including the fact that it was included in press material when the story was first broadcast. Since I'm working on the Timeline pages, I may simply avoid controversy by listing the story on the page for the 21st century. The story at least seems to be set before the Daleks invaded Earth. --Freethinker1of1 08:04, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * if the story itself does not address it, just leave it. for all we know, it happens in the far far future after humans have forgotten Daleks. we just don't know.


 * though it can serve as a useful reference book as far as mentioning dates mentioned in canon Lance Parkin's AHistory (or the earlier versions like A History of the Universe does not, in itself, count as canon. --Stardizzy2 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...a question...(this will be long :P)

I've got a metric ton of DW books - now out of the following list, which ones do we count as good for canonical use?


 * Timeframe (The illustrated history) by David J Howe. - this book treats anything up to and including Blood Heat as part of the ongoing whoniverse. (Good book if you can find it!) Just a straight story description flowing from one to the next with images. It's produced by Doctor Who Books in close conjuction with the BBC and writers and was a 30th anniversary special.


 * Companions by David J Howe and Mark Stammers - contains information on the companions of the doctor, most of it strictly Televised, but does contain Benny as well. It actually has the official BBC character casting outlines (character personalities, etc) included.


 * Doctor Who - The Sixties - contains information on creating each doctor's personality. (most of it is non-fiction stuff, so ignore that...)


 * David Banks' Cybermen. Obviously the genesis story can be taken or left, or included as an oddity, but if you want the history of the Cyber race - this is pretty much it. A lot of people take his history, including the various migrations as canon - do we?


 * Files Magazine spotlight on Doctor Who. This is actually a series of books by John Peel - they contain some "making of" stuff - but also a HUGE amount of synopses, motivations for characters, etc.

--Taleya 20:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Merchandise
What about licensed merchandise like the Character Options 5" figure line? Everything in this line is subject to final approval by the BBC giving it some kind of quasi offical status.


 * There is no context for the merchandise to have canon, they are an object rather than a 'work'. Everything that is considered canon has content that can give the text context within the wider DW Universe. You can read a novel, watch a TV show, listen to an audio drama. A piece of merchandise, or specifically a figure is an object from a text, its meaning is given definition from its source text. --Tangerineduel 13:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensed Characters and Creatures
What about works that license characters and creatures from Doctor Who authors that have previously appearing in the TV series? For instance Shakedown: The Return of the Sontarans and the new K-9 series? Azereal 13:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's noted in the third bullet point down under 'What is considered a Valid Resource?', (*All other Doctor Who spin-offs such as those produced by BBV Productions and Reeltime Pictures (i.e P.R.O.B.E., Auton Trilogy and Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans, Downtime)).
 * If you're asking in connection with the merchandising figures...well it's completely different. The characters, enemies etc in the spin-off media are presented in a text rather than outside of one, they are still presented within a context, rather than outside of one as the merchandise is. --Tangerineduel 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Stranger
Does TARDIS Index File consider The Stranger to be canon in the Doctor Who universe?--The Traveller 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. The Stranger was if anything 'Doctor Who by another name', telling stories thematically similar, but not the same or in the same universe as Doctor Who. If any of the stories need referring to in Doctor Who universe articles they need to be in the behind the scenes section. --Tangerineduel 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Novelisations
I think it would be best if we adopted a policy that information in novelisations is canon so long as it doesn't contradict the TV story. So for example, the additional information in the Remembrance of the Daleks novelisation, such as the name of Davros' mothership, would be canon. I don't know of any information in a novelisation which contradicts the TV story, but that sort of thing would be non-canon.--The Traveller 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is Mindwarp (novelisation) that ends with Yrcanos as a pro-wrestler and Peri and his manager. But that's the exception. I've been reading some of the novelisations lately, and some have some notable changes (Doctor Who and the Sontaran Experiment, Logopolis (novelisation)) but nothing that causes a conflict with the larger continuity. Anyway, I think your policy is sound and second it. Monkey with a Gun 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The big one that gets remembered is probably the origin of the Cybermen - in the novelisations they come from Telos (at least when Gerry Davies was paying attention), which confused early generations of fandom no end. Timrollpickering 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few other examples, too. The description of how regeneration works in Eric Saward's The Twin Dilemma, the fate of Ace in (IIRC) in Curse of Fenric, the continual references to the Doctor as "Doctor Who" in Doctor Who and the Zarbi, David Whittaker's Dr. Who and the Daleks which ignores An Unearthly Child and features "Susan English", and there was also a Third Doctor novel that featured a completely different introduction for Jo Grant. Those are only a few that come to mind. If a novelisation adds information that doesn't contradict the TV series (before or after the episode in question) I don't have a huge objection to it being referenced, but I would suggest it be referred to as "a possibly apocryphal account". That's the term I've used in a few articles. However the information should be weighed as to whether it adds anything to the in-universe article; if it doesn't, then it should instead be mentioned in the article on the book instead. 23skidoo 13:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently novelisations are listed in the Not a Valid Resource section because: "Novelisations of broadcast television stories by Target Books and other sources as these often contain characters, dates, events, and settings not shown in the original television versions."
 * So perhaps novelisations can be moved to the 'Secondary Resource' section, meaning that it can support an article but not be the only source of information, with the clarifying note added that states information can only be added if it doesn't contradict the televised events (or something to that affect)? --Tangerineduel 12:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. I always think of the novelizations as being correct, until they contradict, in which case they're wrong. Go for it. -<Azes13 18:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also concur. Just in case you were wondering. Monkey with a Gun 03:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party in replying, but I have no objection to them being considered "secondary sources". I think think, though, that just for the sake of interest discrepencies should be allowed to be referenced in articles provided wording such as "a possibly apocryphal account" or something less Biblical should be used. For example, it blows continuity out the door, but for the many who have never read the Mindwarp novelisation (and likely never will unless the Targets get reissued) reading that there's an account suggesting Peri became a pro wrestling manager could be quite interesting. 23skidoo 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Character names derived from spin-off media
I just noticed that if you look for the article on First Doctor companion Vicki -- whose name is never mentioned on TV -- you see it listed as Vicki Pallister, since a PDA novel uses the name. If there's only a single, spin-off media source, and a relatively obscure one at that, that provides such an important piece of information, should that justify naming the article after that source? No TV story and to my knowledge only that one novel, ever used the Pallister name. So in effect it's as valid as "Susan English" is for Susan Foreman. Some Big Finish audio might contradict it for all we know (now they're bringing back early companions). It's not quite the same as Ace's "Dorothy McShane" which I believe is mentioned in multiple novels, or Melanie Bush who I believe is named thus by John Nathan Turner in one of his books, adding weight. Ditto Polly Lopez. But unless there are more sources for Vicki "Pallister", I don't know about that one. Thoughts? 23skidoo 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but there's also nothing that contradicts it... yet, at least. If a Big Finish or some other source does come up with another name, we can revisit it, but for now I think it would be okay. Monkey with a Gun 04:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting invalid articles
The last section of this policy article is rather unclear. Leaving actual page deletions for the admins after debate is fine. But when it's merely some of the information in a page that's a problem, the policy doesn't quite make sense. It says to take it to the discussion and then edit as appropriate, but it also says not to delete information with invalid sources unless it's obvious vandalism. So what if the original editor isn't keeping up with the discussion page or otherwise around to edit their own material? How long should you give them to reply -- a week? a month? three years? The way the policy is currently written, the only real way we can deal with invalid sources is simply to mention them as such on the discussion page while allowing the problem material itself to remain indefinitely, until errors get accepted as standard simply because they're never corrected. Bedawyn 21:06, December 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * This section has been on the article for...some time, probably since the page was created and not really altered since.
 * I'd be partly in favour of just removing the whole section.
 * It probably should say something about adding Template:Fact or Template:Facts tags.
 * Generally speaking discussions are mostly resolved by citing sources one way or the other. The theoretical discussion would discuss the information presented, rather than the user who added the information. --Tangerineduel 13:33, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Argument for a restricted canon
I posted a long thread in the Referenc Desk at Forum:Canonicity_of_NA_novels arguing that the canon should be in line with what RTD (and now SM) treat as canon.

Doing anything different is a fool's errand, as they will continue to contradict things that they consider non-canonical, and each time, it will be necessary to go back and retroactively declare things "aprocryphal" or come up with some kind of complicated fanwank to explain it away. And the wiki will not reflect the whoniverse as envisioned by its current sources, which makes it less useful.

It's hard to be sure what they consider canonical without a statement from them, but I think it's pretty easy to argue (as I'll summarize below, but you can read the whole thread for more detail) that they do not include the NA/MA or EDA/PDA novels, much less things like the BF audios. In general, everything that happened during the NA and EDA eras, in any media (including DWM) seems to be out the window, along with all spinoff media from the old series era except maybe some bits of DWM. However, things that happen in the NSA/TW novels and official BBC audio productions and webcasts related to the new series seem to be in.

A possible list would go something like this (although I've probably forgotten a few things):
 * Old series.
 * Anything from the Target novelizations that expands on but doesn't contradict the episodes.
 * Some of DWM from the old series era.
 * TV movie.
 * Possibly K9 and Company (but not the new K9 show).
 * New series, Torchwood, and SJA.
 * NSA and TW novels.
 * BBC audios connected with the three current series.
 * Webcasts connected with the current series.
 * Most of DWM from the new series era.

Some evidence that the novels are not canon to the writers, and that they deliberately break the novels' continuity rather than just ignoring it:
 * Paul Cornell could not have forgotten about the novel by Paul Cornell when writing the episode Human Nature. Unless you believe that The Doctor went through the same experience twice, and everyone involved has completely forgotten about the first time, the novel can't have happened.
 * The writers have explicitly said that the looms don't exist. So, even if you can come up with some explanation that makes sense of Lungbarrow in the context of Sound of Drums and End of Time, it's not going to represent the whoniverse they're writing in.
 * In the novels, Rassilon uploaded himself into the Matrix, and the Matrix was later destroyed by the Doctor and exists only as a static backup in his mind. If you include the BFAs, the Matrix was also destroyed by Romana III and doesn't exist at all. In the new series, Rassilon was brought back to lead the Time Lords in the LGTW. This only makes sense if the Matrix still exists, or if Rassilon is just locked in the Dark Tower.

If you throw out the novels (and BFAs, etc.), all of these problems and more go away. Of course there are still continuity problems caused by typical writers' mistakes. (When did the UNIT stories happen? Is Journey's End 2009 or 2010? What's the deal with the whole "half-human" thing? Why doesn't Sarah Jane remember The Five Doctors?) But that's a lot different from continuity problems intentionally and actively caused by writers choosing to use a different list of canon than the one you're trying to use.

In both Star Wars and Star Trek, there is a notion of an "expanded universe" that the writers generally try to fit in when possible and break only when necessary; in Star Wars, they even came up with official retcons for everything broken in the novels and RPGs by the prequel movies. But in Doctor Who, there is no such thing. The "expanded universe" of the novels and audio series is not canon at all.

So, I suggest using a very restricted canon (as proposed above) for the "actual" whoniverse, and describing all of the other media as alternate histories or something else (not using the term "expanded universe"). There is a whoniverse containing the NAs, EDAs, Benny novels, etc., but it's not the mainline whoniverse (nor is it the one that contains the later DWM stories and comics), and the canon policy should treat these as separate rather than try to fit them all together. --99.157.75.211 03:29, January 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * First, doing this seems like a lot of work for no good reason. Much of this wiki is articles based on expanded universe material, and making it all non-canonical seems pointless.
 * Secondly, I don't seem why you draw a distinction between different continuity errors. If one script writer contradicts another, it's likely because they didn't do their research. If one script writer contradicts another type of writer, it's likely because they didn't do their research, which is all the more likely considering all the expanded universe material to read. I doubt a writer is specifically thinking "Screw the Looms! They aren't canon anymore!" any more than they're thinking "Screw the Doctor being 953 in The Time and the Rani! That age isn't canon anymore!". They're just trying to make their story.
 * Thirdly, this wiki shouldn't impose its own basis of continuity on the readers (or more accurately, your basis of continuity on the readers). Readers of this wiki should be able to decide for themselves what sort of things should be considered canon. This is an encyclopedic website; we should just present the events, not our opinions on which are more canonical. Azes13 05:35, January 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * First, all of this work is already being done, continuously, and the wiki is not in anywhere near the state the official canon policy says it should be. So, I'm suggesting doing the same amount of work, just in line with a different policy instead of the one presented in the project page.
 * Second, are you arguing that Paul Cornell's script for Human Nature contradicts Paul Cornell's novel Human Nature because Paul Cornell didn't do the research and forgot about that book while he was adapting it?
 * I think it's pretty clear that, in choosing to adapt that 7th Doctor story as a 10th Doctor story, RTD and Cornell made a deliberate decision to reject the novel as canon, not a research mistake.
 * And yes, I think RTD did actually make the decision, "Screw the Looms!" at some point.
 * The editors of DWM (who RTD corresponded with) made that decision and talked about it in the magazine.
 * The writers' guide for the EDAs gave the Looms as an example of NA continuity that should not be referenced, although they later changed their mind on the whole idea of links between NAs and EDAs.
 * Various people who wrote for the EDAs--some of whom ended up as writers for the RTD series--talked about how they thought the whole Lungbarrow thing was a mistake ("wasn't the Cartmel Master Plan supposed to be about making Gallifrey mysterious again?"), and how they wished they could undo it.
 * I can imagine that RTD skimmed through the old series (or, more likely, asked one of his geekier friends to do it) and said, "Aha, there's nothing here that lets me screw the Looms and give The Doctor and every other Time Lord normal parents. Only the novels are a problem, so screw the novels."
 * Third, the whole point of this project page is to choose and impose a canon policy on the wiki. The only question is, what canon policy is to be used.
 * You could accept everything as canon. Then the 9th Doctor page could start off with Scream of the Shalka and Curse of the Fatal Death and 300 fan stories, and then come up with an in-universe explanation for how they all link together and to the TV 9th Doctor. But this would be silly. The current policy allows the 9th Doctor page to describe "a brooding and melancholic war survivor after a Time War in which he wiped out both his own race and the enemy Daleks." And it does so by proclaiming that Shalka, Curse, fan fiction, etc. are not canon.
 * Just because something isn't canon doesn't mean it can't be discussed. There is a page on the Shalka Doctor, for example, even though Shalka is not part of the current canon.
 * Changing the canon to throw out the novels wouldn't mean the articles go away; it would only mean any in-universe text that tries to get around contradictions between those novels and the series gets moved--again, just as is already done for material that's currently considered non-canonical.
 * Finally, the "expanded universe" idea, which was explicitly borrowed from Star Trek and Star Wars, does not work for Doctor Who. Those universes have a (real-world) authority who decides what is and is not canon, and figures out how to deal with conflicts. The fans just have to follow that canon list--and, when they find contradictions, the official owners of the canon resolve them. There is absolutely nothing similar in the Doctor Who universe. --99.157.75.211 04:00, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Star Trek doesn't have anyone deciding that. In the Star Trek "reality", anything on screen (except maybe TAS, depending on which day of the week it is) is canon.  Nothing else is.  The new novels contradict stuff in the comics and vice versa.  The new online game contradicts a bunch of stuff in the novels.  The new novels contradict the old all over the place.  Star Wars, on the other hand, embraces its "expanded universe" and actually does (for the most part) a decent job of ensuring that games, comics, books, and on-screen stuff all fit together well. -- sulfur 12:41, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I, for one, tend to agree with a canon policy which gives primacy to the television series. Doctor Who fans have, I think, misinterpreted the BBC's position on canon.  The BBC does have one.  It says, basically, that a programme cannot require its viewers to buy additional material in order to make sense of a story.  This implicitly means that information contained in an NSA or BFA is inferior to that seen on television.  The Beeb have been very clever about they way they've worded it, in that they've never come out and said, "This other stuff doesn't count".  Rather, by making it an internal memorandum for the various production houses, they've quietly achieved the same ends.


 * As for how we run the wiki, I'm not sure what this means operationally. I don't think there's anything wrong with referencing a comic strip when discussing the continuity of a television episode.  If "Monster A" also appeared in an EDA and a BFA, by all means mention that.


 * But I do think there's something wrong in using information contained only within a book to make pronouncements about what's happened on screen. The Polly Wright thing is a classic example.  She's not Polly Wright.  She's Polly (last name unknown).  At the end of the day, you have to buy an additional resource to know that her name is Polly Wright, and therefore that information isn't valid.  The redirects on that page should be precisely reversed.  Polly should be the name of the page, with Polly Wright being the redirect.


 * Here are some other examples of wrongheaded liberality with non-televised material. If a book, and only a book, gave us the notion that Donna had been previously married, that should not be included on the page Donna Noble, except in a way that labeled it as apocrypha.  Yes, it's interesting, but it goes against a common-sense reading of her character on television.  Circular Time: "Winter" is another great example.  This tells us about the the events of the last 30 seconds of the Fifth Doctor's life, from his perspective.  Should it be portrayed as what really happened?  Should it be integrated on the Fifth Doctor page as just another line in the biography?  I personally don't think so, because again, it changes the experience of the televised serial, The Caves of Androzani.  You can of course still refer to it in the article on Caves and even that of the Fifth Doctor, but it shouldn't just be given as a fact.


 * I think the only time you can use other media stories as fact, free and clear, is when there's nothing televised to prevent it.  The NSA range has been very good about this.  Most are very closed stories which don't attempt to really integrate with specific events on television.  So if you're chronicling the events of the Tenth Doctor's life, I think these are absolutely fine to include, without proviso, within his article.


 * I suppose, therfore, what I'm advocating is that television be allowed to dominate when there's a clash between an episode and an adventure in another medium. That seems to be what the BBC is actually saying their policy is, if not entirely publicly.  I am quite certain that in the eyes of the copyright holder, the television episodes are top-tier continuity, while all the other stuff is roughly equal.  It follows then that central facts about a televised subject — their name, their marital status, the time from whence they come, details about their regeneration or death — cannot solely come from another medium.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  16:58, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Missing episodes
That the transmitted version of an episode takes precedence over everything else makes sense to me. However that raises some questions (including whether it's best to see Human Nature as two separate stories). In particular, what about visual details of broadcast stories that are now wiped and for which no telesnaps exist - does the best evidence of the transmitted version take precedence over the concrete novelisation or BBC-authorised audio? That would seem to lead us into the area of fan research (albeit based on primary source material like production documents and PABs). I've assumed the best guess at actual broadcast still trumps other representations of the story in my recent edit at Chameleon circuit. 93.96.136.249 16:15, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor Who Experience
A couple of in-universe articles reference The Doctor Who Experience, and I notice that, despite it having run in London for a number of months, this page doesn't mention it either way. I've not gone myself, but as it apparently has a narrative structure to it, would it qualify as canon or part of the main DWU? -- 94.2.199.17 23:47, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

REF
Are we going to add something about our policy of REF books? --OS25 (talk to me.) 03:26, December 29, 2011 (UTC)