Talk:Interplanetary Mining Corporation

This is the problem of mixing information from all media
I'm tempted to somehow hold this page up as an example of the imperfect page. This is exactly why mixing together information between all media can be a very bad idea. There is no way that Malcolm Hulke, writer of Colony in Space meant in any way to suggest that his IMC was the same IMC from The Space Pirates,  Yet this page implies, by connecting certain dots through novels to create a link where none was intended nor significant to the narrative. The tenuous link provided by The Menagerie should be separated out into its own section so readers can choose what they want to believe. Putting it all together forces them to believe that they're missing something when they compare The Space Pirates to Colony in Space — and they're really not. These are two totally different companies who've been grafted together by some back alley hatchet job decades after their original broadcast.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Er...that's what continuity is. Writers coming along and writing stuff in, especially with Doctor Who, and this wiki considers it call (well more or less) to be canon. If The Menagerie says that the IMC of the Space Pirates became the IMC that appeared in Colony in Space and Love and War then that's what it is. It seems that you're trying to separate out what you think the writer of the day would have thought and what the in-universe page should be. It is an inuniverse page so it has all the information pertaining to this particular subject. If you believe it's that crucial put a behind the scenes statement into the article. But the fact remains this isn't the only thing that's had information added to it by subsequent authors. --Tangerineduel 18:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see.   So Sarah Jane Smith met the Sixth Doctor, the Seventh Doctor and Eighth Doctor did she?  And Evelyn Smythe met Mel "for the first time" twice?  And both accounts of Liz Shaw's departure from UNIT are equally valid?  And Davros is the unqualified creator of the Daleks?  And John and Gillian are both to be taken "seriously" and yet a dream of the Eighth Doctor?  And every utterance of Gary Russell is to be treated as a fact to be worked into the authentic history of something?
 * While I think it makes our job endlessly more difficult than necessary, the inclusion of material from other media is not something I'm opposed to. I just think that trying to mash it all together without clear proviso and explanation is sometimes ill-advised.  Active editors on the site and other rabid original series fans, might very well be able to "read between the lines" of this article and understand that the linkage between the two IMC's is not, in fact, something that could be even reasonably inferred from the televised stories.  But the way it's worded, most new series or casual fans will just accept it on face value (to, of course, the extent they ever find this page).  And, in truth, the linkage is something done very much in passing; it's hardly important to the narrative of even the spin-off material that a link can be drawn between Space Pirates and Colony.
 * This would be all much clearer if the article just shifted the stuff in the books to a section of its own. Not "Behind the Scenes", but "Other accounts" of "In other Media" or somesuch.  There's nothing which offends the MOS or the BBC stance on canon to give primacy to televised adventures.  I think this article is symptomatic of a much larger problem with the site.  Of course this one article is easy enough to change, but when you start talking about character biography pages, you enter a scary realm  where some clear boundaries on the source of information might make things read more clearly.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the spin-off media shouldn't be used in the way it's intended to. It was made to fill out the Doctor Who universe, make connections between references, explain little mentions. Why is this supposed to be a problem?
 * As for contradictions, there will always be contradictions. Always. The show contradicts itself, that doesn't mean we should ignore it.
 * As for this example specifically, I can't see how adding the spin-off material isn't an improvement. If it's not added, then it just seems like the writers didn't do their research, and they accidentally have two organisations with the similar name. If the spin-off material is added, then it seems more like there's an actual universe, where things connect and change. No, this isn't what the original writers intended. They didn't intend for anything after they left. If they weren't intending the series to expand on what they made, they would have ended the series or not write it in the first place. -<Azes13 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not saying we should ignore spin-off material. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article.  I'm just looking for a way to include it in such a way that it's absolutely clear that it comes from a source other than TV.  I'm arguing, I suppose, that TV material on a subject should get pride of place.  You say that the reason the spin-off material was made was to make connections, but that is only partially true.  Gary Russell quite clearly believed the novels and the BFAs were happening in different universes.  The DWM comics team decided consciously to abort linkages to the NAs during the 7th Doctor's run and to build a continuity that referred back only to television episodes.  No matter how much we might want it to be so, much of the spin-off material wasn't written to be part of a whole, but merely to satisfy an audience for that particular media.   It was created, in other words, to make money by building up a loyal listener/readership.  It's actually, therefore, not meant to be seen as part of a "universal" whole.  Trying to impose an order on it by saying, "This is the definitive history of " is antithetical to the spirit in which many of these works were actually created.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CzechOut, that's a rather cynical attitude.
 * We are not going to be separating all the articles into 'TV' and then 'Other media'. Yes there are problems, and where there are problems with continuity they are addressed and then it moves on. Breaking up the articles into various medias (and how would that work, you'd end up having potentially an article of 6+ different sections).
 * What Gary Russell thinks or not thinks isn't really of any practical matter (except maybe on his author page).
 * As to whether it makes the work on this wiki easier or harder, that really depends on how much each user knows and how they can weave together the references. --Tangerineduel 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)