Forum:Alternate Versions

Because of reconstructions, audio versions, novelizations, updates and in some cases outright remakes, perhaps we should add a section to some articles called Alternate Versions.

This could result in the merging and consolidation of articles, particularly where Target novels are concerned, as well as avoiding some continuity issues or leaving out information.

Just a thought that came to me in response to a few of my own discussions and the recent discussion on the Target novelizations canon status. (I forget who brought it up.)--TheOmnius 18:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * very good idea though I would call it Alternative Version, not Alternate.


 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative


 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternate


 * (the second definition specifically says that "alternate" sometimes mistakenly gets used in the place of alternative.)


 * also, though I think others will disagree, I would count the book version of Human Nature, say, as the alternative, and not the television version, because as a television story it "counts" more (IMO). otherwise, the adaptation counts as the alternative version.


 * lastly, I think a picture of Peter Cushing as Dr. Who (Dalek movies) would make a good photo for this. Stardizzy2 20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we need a whole section on the page for the alternative versions. I mean, for a page like the creation of the Daleks, it is only about the different versions. But for a page like Osirians, there are two accounts on Osiris' death, but the rest of the page is pretty consistent. There's no real need to have a new section just to point out that some of the history is contradictory.
 * A template above the contradictory sections might work, though. -<Azes13 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood the original post to mean a template to put in alternative versions, like the Real World template. though I also like the idea of an alernative versions section as well. --Stardizzy2 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the Human Nature example, Stardizzy. Blink is a very similar example. Then there's the many versions of Shada, and the stage plays being re-released. Lots of things seem to apply here.

And Azes, you're right - not all of the examples will really deserve an entire section - but plenty of them will. When you consider all the alternative versions of things we've seen, not just in different media releases but in re-writes, retcons, and revisiting the same era... Turn Left and Father's Day (TV story) are both examples where there are timelines with major differences between versions of history.--TheOmnius 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I realized I accidentally edited a bit out of my response.

Azes. I think your idea of the template would work well for some of the smaller examples, like the one of Orisis' death. However, if more than one or two details are different, I think it may deserve more.--TheOmnius 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we talking 'Alternative Versions' within in-universe articles or out-of-universe articles?


 * If it's in-universe I think 'Alternative Accounts' or something might be a better heading (as alternative versions suggests parallel versions of people etc).


 * I don't think this should be about "counting" one story above another, as Talk:Human Nature (novel) states there are so many differences between the novel and the TV story it would silly to count them as the same thing.


 * I think we need to keep the separate articles for the various versions of stories, they're all different from one another, not just that they are different, but they each have their own information to impart, that consolidating them into one would just be confusing. --Tangerineduel 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be about counting one story over another either - and I don't think that's what anyone meant to suggest. I think it's about providing, in one source, different versions or presentations of the same basic events.


 * I think it can and should be applied at any situation where there are official or semi-official versions of the same (basic) events.


 * While I do think this can be applied to either/or in or out of universe articles, and truthfully the virtue of in-universe articles escapes me, but I don't think it should be applied to such things as the Canadian broadcast of Journey's End being cut down on time, since they still broadcast it online and even advertised for it during the broadcast, calling it the uncut version. (Or something like that.) Since there is no reason to believe that the Canadian broadcast was editing for content or continuity and only for time, it seems to be an ill-match for anything else.


 * I thought about something like what you suggested, Tangerineduel - using an Alternative Account or Alternative Timeline tag instead - I settled on "Versions" because it does seem to be more inclusive and generic, applying to different media releases, re-interpretations, and re-makes of stories.


 * I also think the tag should not be applied on some story pages, such as Father's Day. Father's Day has alternate versions of the same events, caused by Rose's mucking about, but the different versions of the events all occur in the same story and even the same episode - so on the story page, all the details of this can and should be laid out in the plot section in a linear fashion. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by the in/out of universe question, but I think it's an important distinction in any case.


 * I hope that clarifies things.--TheOmnius 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I should add - one of the reasons I like this idea is because it avoids continuity/canon/which-story-is-absolute issues, not because it places one account or version above another.


 * I'm also fine with using Alternate Account and Alternate Timeline tags for their respective and separate uses - it just seems simpler to use an all-inclusive tag instead of separating it out into more tags that cover the same type of thing in different instances.--TheOmnius 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Archivist's notes
This isn't current policy, but it's not fair to say it was outright rejected. I think it just wasn't made quite clear what was wanted, and so no one actually went ahead with implementation. Still, it failed through lack of implementation. 01:09:57 Tue 31 May 2011