Forum:Web comics

I've noticed a couple of fan-made comics posted on the BBC website as part of the Comic-Maker function, have been added to canon on this wiki. Surely they are as canon as fan-made films, which are non-canon. I think they should be excluded from canon, many have contradicting statements to the TV series. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 00:07, December 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point towards them, the only ones I'm aware of are the BBC Writers' Comics and as Golden Monkey says they're all written by writers of production staff. --Tangerineduel 01:39, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

For

 * --I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 00:07, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * However, some of them are created by members of the writing and production staff. Shouldn't we keep content from them, since even if they're non-canonical they're fairly official? --Golden Monkey 22:42, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the case for doing the article perfectly clear. The stories are all written by staff writers and/or published novelists, have been archived by the BBC website alongside the short stories, and were directly commissioned by the BBC. As far as I'm concerned the point in bold ends the argument. 23skidoo 14:01, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a vote For Keep. -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Against

 * Not just no, but hell no. Nothing made with the Comics Maker should be on this wiki.. Not sure how you can construct an argument which allows the professional writers' comics in, but disallows the amateur ones. They both use the same facilities. I know the professional ones are "featured" by the site, but that makes no difference. The "professional" comics are really put up there to show kids the potential of the software. By allowing them as canon, what we're saying is something is canon purely based upon who wrote it. Which is clearly not a distinction of merit. If we say this, then every single piece of fan fiction Paul Cornell or Rob Shearman — or whoever — wrote is suddenly debatable. Furthermore, this software, by its very nature, limits the stories that can be told. You can only use characters that are already there. Basically, it's the equivalent of those word magnets you put on your refrigerator. Yes, it might show how clever you are, but there's a world of difference between a sentence created with word magnets and one over which you had complete control. The former is a puzzle, the latter is actually art. Same thing with the Comic Maker: it's more a puzzle limited by the images it provides than a genuine storytelling opportunity.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 05:16, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to a news update on the BBC's site here it seems to suggest that they commissioned the writers to do these comics as a special feature.
 * Where does it say that these were commissioned to show younger users the potential of the comic maker? --Tangerineduel 12:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * It implies that as much as it implies the "professional" comics are, in fact, "professional". Just look at how the information is laid out. Twice it follows a mention of the Alford comic with an invitation to make your own comics. I'm quite confident that any kid using the site would at some point go to see the "example" comic and then go to make their own. We don't know, though I suppose logic would dictate, that they got paid. But the question of whether these "professional" writers got paid for their Comic Maker stories is irrelevant to how seriously we should treat these stories.


 * Do we acknowledge they exist? Yes, although I think they should be included as a section of an article on the Comic Maker, which explains the whole phenomenon. I don't think they deserve their own separate article as at BBC Writers' Comics, and I strongly don't feel that each individual story deserves its own page.


 * The Comic Maker is a simplistic, limited piece of software. It gives the "author" only so many different options, which they must then rearrange to tell a story. Look at how many times the same pose of characters is used within the space of a 6-page comic. Yes, there's a bit of variety to the fact that writers can free form the speech balloons, but even these have a character limit. It is not writing in the full sense; again, it's more of a writing exercise or a game than an act of free-form creativity. The fact that any old person can use the same software to make the same sort of stories means were are preferencing these particular comic strips simply on the basis of who wrote them. And the fact is, the stories by "non professionals" were published by the BBC as well. Fine these "writer's tales" eventually got a wider, global publication, but that surely makes no difference to how seriously they should be taken. The software allows for the electronic publication of the stories by the BBC under the Doctor Who logo. So either you take them all seriously, or you take none of them seriously.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 17:31, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that preferencing them based on being written by the writers of the show is valid. -- Noneofyourbusiness 19:51, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the For column (and I assume the "For" column are votes in favor of keeping the articles), my entire rationale for creating the article is based on a) the stories being archived by the BBC alongside the short stories, b) written by established Doctor Who authors and script editors and c) commissioned by the BBC. And unless someone here has direct connection to these writers, we don't know where these stories originated. The plotlines of any one of them could have been considered for an annual or Doctor Who Adventures, or even the show itself for all we know. If we disqualify these then we may as well start deleting the Annual stories and comics over the years many of which, frankly, play just as fast and loose with canon. John and Gillian, anyone? 23skidoo 14:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)