Well you know what they say "Demons run when a Doctor Who fan starts discussing canon"

I believe events in the books, radio plays, magazine stripes etc. become canon when mentioned in the show.

Say, for example, a character or event from Virgin New Adventures story is mentioned by the 11th Doctor in the show, that would make that character/event canon.

By that logic, the novel Lucifer rising, which features Bernice Summerfield and a newly returned Ace is canon because Lucifer was referenced in Bad Wolf, but the novel Love & War, which introduces Bernice Summerfield and wrote out Ace is not. That makes little sense to me.

I'm firmly in the "Its-Only-Canon-If-Its-On-the-TV-Show" orthodoxy. Call me an apostle of "The Classical Show and Born Again Series".

In 1996 there was a great schism and a number of heretics broke off to form The Church of The TV Movie. We believe this is when the true faith was polluted by Star Trek ideology and reject completely the idea that the Doctor could in any way be half human. Although we do accept Paul McGann as a true incarnation of the Doctor.

Canon is not about what events did or did not happen in the story's universe. It's about who created a set of works.

I know two longtime fans who don't consider anything past 1989 to be canon, and another who accepts the classic series, the TV Movie and Big Finish but not the books; all three refuse to acknowledge nu-Who at all. I know another who accepts the books and both TV series but not Big Finish, and who insists that while McGann may have been the eighth Doctor, we've never seen a canonical eighth Doctor adventure as the TV Movie isn't canon to him. In the early days post 2005, there were even people claiming only the new series counted!The only permuation I don't think I've ever come across is someone claiming only the TV Movie is canon. I wonder why?

That was the definition according to Sherlock holmes fans, yes. I think it's changed its meaning since then.

I believe Classic Who, the TV Movie, New Who, the Virgin novels, the BBC Novels and the Big Finish audios are all canon and that trying to come up with explanations for the many contradictions is half the fun of being a Doctor Who fan.

Amen brother.
Now join me in my holy war against Ja88ed and the Orthodox heretics!

er, where do you stand on the TV Action comic strips and the Sky Ray ice lolly cards, by the way?

Not canon, because I never read those comics and prefer other types of ice lolly.

Ogri! Bring me the head of JohnnyForget!

I'm one of the Headless Monks, so that might be a problem!

Ogri! Bring me the neck of JohnnyForget!

Damn!

I'm not Orthodox, since I place the sanctity of The Plot above all else.

*solemn*

I like to think that everything can be fitted in and explained away even when it contradicts something else.

There were so many contradictions within the classic series itself, so I see no problem if something in a book or audio play contradcits something thats been said/done on screen previously.

Anything involving the Doctor, in any format, is canon. Any inconsistencies can be explained away as timey wimey.

If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with the Doctor....and Who is most likely to be right.

I love the new Doctor Who books, and there isn't anything controversial in any of them.
May I recommend reading some of them. "The Glamour Chase" and "Dead of Winter" are some of my favourites of the 11th Doctor range so far.
However "The Forgotten Army" was awful and "Night of the Humans" wasn't much better.

Anyway, I don't see any reason why they can't be canon, unless something on the show directly contradicts them.

It's refreshing to see that the opinions on canon have become far less argumentative on here - still some difference of opinion but everyone willing to accept what others thinks.

I've always said canon is personal to the individual and maintained I think the books, audioplays etc are part of my own personal canon, but have been involved in threads before where myself and Ting were backed into a (virtual) corner and surrounded by people screaming at us our opinions were wrong.

I can't help thinking the person who started this thread has perhaps witnessed this before and was hoping for more of the same.... if that was the case he or she must be feeling most disappointed about now.......

Oh the Forgotten Army was just drivel.

I like the one with the robots though. What was that one called? Nuclear Time that was it. I liked going back over it knowing what was going on from the other way around. Spoilers!

Well, to try and make it controversial, I'll say that all the TV programmes and the two Peter Cushing films are canon (you can't ignore St Bernard of Cribbins in his first outing) and the Paul McGann film is more akin to the cannon it should be fired out of. Dr Who confidential just creeps in to the canon sphere. The books and audio plays may be entertaining, but they are not mainstream enough to be canon. Torchwood and SJA are also canon.

I'm not sure about the Dr Who annuals from the 1970s though

I'm of the make up your own canon camp, if such a camp exsists. Obviously the TV show is canon, and I'll accept the movie although I've never managed more than 20 minutes of it. Aside from that, I just pick and choose from various different things I've read and heard, and sometimes bridge a gap a little with own imagination (all the rest is a slightly more official version of peoples personal imagnations, so I don't see why not )

Personally, I don't care about what others consider canon, as long as they don't go explicitly agasint the TV shows.

Brave person for raising this thorn

For me the books and audios are not canon.

1. Whether you like it or hate it the TV movie starring Paul McGann is unquestionably canon.

2. The fact that the books and audios are not mainstream is totally irrelevant.

3. A good case can be made for the books and audios to be canon because they feature an incarnation the Doctor (from the first to the eleventh) as we know him from the TV series, and their continuity often compliments that of the TV series.

4. A good case can also be made for books and audios not being canon when they directly contradict the continuity of the TV series.

5. No disrespect to Bernard Cribbins' first outing in a Who-related venture (he was excellent, as always), but no case whatsoever can be made for the Peter Cushing films being canon. The main character is not a Time Lord but a human "mad scientist". He is known as Doctor Who rather than The Doctor and the two films are obvious re-makes of the first two Hartnell Dalek stories. The Cushing films canon? As Del Boy so succinctly put it: No way, Pedro!

The new adventures of the 8th doctors fit canoniclly...being showran by nic briggs and having no real condradiction on any post 2005 who...the only reason these arent being taken as such is because 1.they arent getting tv transmition.

Granted allot of 90's who novels such as vanderdekens children when his companion reveals he only hides his name cos its unpronounceable to anyother species than timelord, can be understood.

But stylisticlly, Narratively and for relevance sake i'd say the only thing canon in WHO media outside the 2005 onwards anuals are the new series of 8thDoctor audios

My fanboy fantasist dreams of a primetime hour and a half special written by davies and canonised by moffat explaining the timewar....the moment....and how the eight doctor uses it....and moreso how he becomes judas eccleston