Talk:Retcon

I dispute the idea that says retcon is able to change memories rather than just erase them. The person who propsed this cites Something Borrowed as a source and nothing in that episode suggests the guests remember an alternate wedding. More likely they think they all drank enough to forget the ceremony and think the wedding happened because they knew they were going to a wedding that day. --User:Mjswrtings 1-May-09 17:52 UTC Yeah, exactly it was meant to make them think they got pissed and forgot the whole wedding, not replace their memories.I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 21:36, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
This article is very inconsistent in its capitalization of the word. I'm a stickler for grammar, so I'd really like to know if, canonically, "Retcon" is supposed to be capitalized or not. 71.184.135.241talk to me 07:18, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Rename to "retcon (drug)"
I'd like to voice my support of this proposed rename, for the reasons given in the template - that is, we also have a page for retroactive continuity, most commonly referred to as "retcon", and so this page name is confusing. Please voice your support as well. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  16:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As the editor who added said rename template, I too support the change. 16:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Do we need a page for the concept as it exists in the DWU, do you think? As in Collective of the Retconning Crocodiles? (as a side note, I support the proposal, for the reasons outlined in the rename template) Aquanafrahudy  📢  18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Disagree, I think this is the primary topic as far as the DWU is concerned. Najawin ☎  19:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the rename proposal to "Retcon (drug)". — Fractal Doctor @  20:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Najawin that, as far as the Doctor Who Universe is concerned, the drug would seem to be the primary topic. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You say that, but I don't think it is anywhere near as simple as a "primary topic". For one, a lot of pages that link here are referencing the literary trope, not the drug, because who would ever think that a page called "retcon" is not about... y'know... retcons...? It is downright confusing! It would be like RTD introducing "diegetic" as a name of an in-universe concept, but absolutely should not remove our current redirect to diegesis. And that leads me into my second point: I feel that this was a deliberate reference to the real concept, as a meta-joke, so Tardis:Disambiguating in-universe counterparts applies. Heck, if we don't want a dab term... Compound B67 is right there.
 * And sometimes, dab terms can be good! Having retcon (drug) is as good as Jenny (The Doctor's Daughter) as the dab terms can actually be beneficial. 22:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Speaking for my intent, though it matters far less than Bongo's, as he closed the relevant thread, (potentially not at all!) I certainly never meant for T:DAB IU to apply to a case like this, it was more to refer to IU counterparts - trying to be broadly phrased. Indeed, I use the term "counterpart" multiple times in the opening post at Forum:Temporary forums/IU DAB Terms. I don't think Bongo did as well, see his closing post, where he also uses the term "counterpart" and "equivelants" [sic] However, I do concede that the wording is broad and interpretation will be nuanced depending on if you listen to my intent, Bongo's, the strict text, the will of the community, etc etc. So ultimately I'm not too upset if it goes the other way. But I still am unconvinced as to its strict applicability. Najawin ☎  22:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I feel naming an unrelated in-universe concept after a literary trope/concept used frequently in the production of Who fiction is something that should be covered under Tardis:Disambiguating in-universe counterparts even if it isn't an in-universe counterpart per se. 22:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, hey, that's your right to do so. Wasn't my intent, I don't think it was Bongo's, but you'll have to ask him. The rule is definitely written broadly enough that this interpretation could be seen as valid. I disagree, but that's where interpretation of rules comes into play. Najawin ☎  22:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)