Forum:Doctor Who Novelisations - canon or not?

I've noticed that several articles have been citing Doctor Who novelisations as references in them backing up a variety of information (see Special:WhatLinksHere/DWN). However both our Canon page and our Tardis:Canon policy pages both state that they are not canon ''What is not considered a Valid Resource, and why? "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."'' (from Tardis:Canon policy).

Some of the information does give interesting insights that weren't present in the TV stories, but many novelisations also rewrite elements of the TV stories for their novelisation sometimes creating conflicting information. The problem with using the novelisations for information is illustrated by this review of The Universal Databank (NZDWFC Review - The Universal Databank). For example Lofficier used info from the novelisations for many of the entries in their book, so something like Hoothi (mentioned in The Brain of Morbius appeared in Love and War), is actually listed under 'Moothi' as it was spelled in the novelisation. --Tangerineduel 13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I assumed it would follow the general method of the novelization being canon until it contradicts the episode, and then the episode takes precedent. I mean, that's what I've always done. -<Azes13 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Related to this... should entries in the "Discontinuities/Errors/Etc." section of TV episodes be removed if the discontinuity is with a novel? I was looking at The Sound of Drums and many of the cited errors are with novels such as Lungbarrow. I know that Lungbarrow came first, but since the TV series takes precedence, technically isn't the novel a discontinuity with the series, not the other way around? So, really, it's not a discontinuity in the episode, but should be noted on the novel page as apocryphal. I was going to make these changes, but thought it would be best to check in first. Monkey with a Gun 05:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense at all. If the novel is in discontinuity with the series, then the series must also be in discontinuity with the novel. And who says the series "takes precedence" anyway? It's not even as if The Sound of Drums is from the real TV series anyway, just the modern fake stuff that RTD made up. At least Lungbarrow has a proper in Doctor in it, not one of the modern imposters. --solar.penguin 11:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that the TV series takes precedence (if it does say it anywhere it needs rewording in any case). Everything in the Tardis:Canon policy Valid resource section carries relatively equal weight, and are presented as such (with 'another account' style statements in-universe articles).
 * The Discontinuity/Errors etc sections are always going to be in a state of flux, the statements on The Sound of Drums page deals with this adequately The production team may not count X as canon. It's nice and neutral and doesn't enter into a discussion. --Tangerineduel 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my own definition of canon has always been "TV only". I think most fans would agree the TV series is canon (although there appears to be at least one on here that doesn't) and at the end of the day no-one involved in making the TV series is going to lose sleep over contradicting a group of spin-offs that already contradict each other and 99% of the audience aren't aware of. However, if someone includes information from the novels, audios or novelisations and makes it clear that's what they're doing, then that would be fine. The problem with The Universal Databank was that it didn't say whether information came from the series or the novelisations and sometimes gave precedence to the novelisations (with regard to characters' first names, for example). It's also worth noting that some novels, such as Blood Heat and Placebo Effect, seemed to favour the novelisations over the TV episodes. Skteosk 16:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)