Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190914173756/@comment-6032121-20190918180232

That's a fair point, but authorial intent is relevant (in a very narrow context) when it comes to the matter of identifying characters, I think — in much the same way, as I said, that even though it's technically possible the text is referring to someone else by the same name if looked at in a void, we know that if a Third Doctor story has him mention "that jackanape the Master", he means the Master.

So my intent in the relevant section was to establish that in Peel's mind "Dalek Prime" is the name of a character rather than a Dalek rank, so that this same reasoning can establish that when he speaks of a Dalek Prime in other stories he means the same character rather than some other Dalek with "Dalek Prime" as their rank.

Compare, for an earlier Wiki decision based on authorial intent of what character is being talked about in a situation where the text itself is ambiguous, the decision that the Cabinet Doctor is not the Shalka Doctor based on O'Mahony's words to this effect.

But yes, that is where the relevance of "authorial intent" in this matter ends. Peel is free to think what he wants of Dalek History, but the only bits that matter to the Wiki are the one he squeezed into his valid works.