Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?


 * 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 ST: 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 NA: 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 are explained fairly well, the surprise appearance of Jimmy Savile makes it VERY questionable.

Now, we've had a similar forum conversation over The Curse of Fatal Death, but I think this is different, because instead of it being suggested, it is clearly stated as to be a sequel to AFWS. Now, I'll admit, I don't have the text, but if someone who has the adventure could pull us a quote or plot description, then we might be able to more easily settle this.

Now, I think the information above qualifies the story to be placed into a canon state, possibly just up tot he Jimmy Salville scene. But I am just a small fish in a pond of like twenty. So, what do you guys think? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:26, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's canon
OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:26, January 11, 2012 (UTC) Yes, for the reasons above.

No, not canon
Without a doubt, I think that both AFwS and its ST sequel are both non-canonical. There's too much that has changed since it first aired to be able to slip in into canonicity, even if they were originally supposed to be canonical (which I kinda doubt).  Tardis1963   talk  00:42, January 11, 2012 (UTC) (Moved from Talk:A Fix with Sontarans)

No. Boblipton talk to me 03:15, January 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry. I should've mentioned this above: Its always a good idea to give an explanation for your opinions. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:17, January 11, 2012 (UTC)