Talk:Canon

Should this article mention the questionable canonicity of Human Nature? 90.198.228.244 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No why? Both are canon. Just because the Doctor has had two separate though similar experiences does not diminish the validity of them, there are numerous explanations for this out in fandom. --Tangerineduel 11:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and tone
Reading through this article I'm not sure where the tone of this article is sitting or its neutrality, or in fact its audience.

I know it would be relatively tricky to write an article to keep all fans happy, but this is an encyclopaedia and it's about presenting information; neutrally. Several statements throughout the article seem to be suggesting that certain elements are more or less canon or are "generally" considered canon (or not).

The use of a collective "fans" also needs to be addressed as it assumes that fans have a collective ideas about this sort of thing, but the opening sentence states that it "differs from fan to fan", which makes the collective term of 'fans' throughout the article some what moot. --Tangerineduel 16:43, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Or is there an actual policy?
Over at Doctor Who Answers, someone has posted the claim (of course without giving a source) that all claims that there is no official policy are lies. Here's the link to the discussion: As someone (OK, me) responded, the person didn't provide a source so why should we believe him and not, well, Paul Cornell (and I've heard others make the statement - hell, I think RTD referenced it once). That said, given Doctor Who's growth as a product of the BBC in the last few years, is it possible that there is now a policy in place as to what is canon? I personally can't see it. I do know the BBC has long held that viewers shouldn't need to have to go elsewhere to follow the storyline of Doctor Who - so the Adventure Games, for example, while they may be extensions to the Season 5 and 6 storylines aren't required for understanding the TV episodes. Likewise you shouldn't have to listen to any Big Finish audios or read any novels to get what's going on. But that's not the same as "decanonizing" things; it just forbids multi-platform crossovers, is all. The only case of "fanon decanonizing" I'm aware of is Scream of the Shalka and Dimensions in Time; even then, as far as I know the BBC hasn't done this. Anyway, I'm just leaving this here for others to hash out. Me, until DWM or some trusted source like that (or, OK, someone here who has done the research) says otherwise, the non-policy regarding canon is still in place. 70.72.223.215talk to me 00:32, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re. 'counting' of Shalka
Have moved the following here for now; by the time of its release, the authors of Scream of the Shalka had complied with the BBC's guidelines and acknowledged that the story "didn't count".

One reason being that it's a strong claim to make that internal BBC guidelines made any such call without a citation. Another being that we have a uncited quote with no indication of whom it's from. (Russell, BBC spokesperson... someone else?) And a third being an issue I want to raise with 'by the time of its release,' - episode 1 of the unmade Blood of the Robots was first-drafted in December 2003. Obviously, I understand saying that I've got said script on hand wouldn't be admissible evidence, but this is something that Simon Clark and Paul Scoones can both personally attest to as well. As can Jon Arnold, who covered the topic in Black Archive No. 10. This does raise quite a question (particularly for future validity discussions on Shalka) in that it does mean the Shalka Doctor series was still in active development in December 2003 whilst the story was at least halfway through its release. Coupled with the active commission of The Feast of the Stone, it does cast rather a bit of doubt on the situation. Why would the team on this still be actively working on a further story's script as Shalka went out, if they weren't of the belief that they would be continuing on & that they 'counted'? JDPManjoume ☎  00:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well… I'm with you on all of this. We're due for a nth Shalka thread, there, to be sure, When The Forums Reopen(TM). But the fact is that per T:BOUND we do have to take the earlier information to be true. Yes, it is unfortunate that we have to continue peddling potentially incorrect information until a new thread can be created — but it would be worse, for the Wiki's integrity overall, if we acknowledged all the reasons it should be valid even as we continued to tag Scream of the Shalka as invalid. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)