Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170226032602

OttselSpy25 wrote: If I had to close the debate now, I'd say that we should declare it valid based off of lack of evidence of it being invalid.

You said earlier that something is "innocent until proven guilty". I have to point out that while I've been on this Wiki (and that in itself is a while), that's never been the protocol. When Dimensions in Time was introduced, it was invalid right from the beginning. When Faction Paradox was being debated, that was invalid until proven valid. That's how this Wiki works. That's why when you removed the "invalid" sticker on the movie's article, it was quickly placed back on. It's just how it goes here.

Also, when you bring Moffat's idea of "canon" up, I think we take all of that with a pinch of salt. Moffat's a nuisance because he never takes responsibility, whereas someone like Terrance Dicks did. Dicks went out of his way to write novels and novelisations to clear up plot holes and generally explain canon and continuity. Moffat declares that everything is "canon" and "head-canon" one day and then declares that "there is no canon in a show like Doctor Who" the next. That's why I'd never use anything out of Moffat's mouth as a source. That sounds libellous but frankly, it's the truth.

Like I said, you want this movie to be valid. Amorkus wants it to be invalid. What I'm saying is this: I don't care either way. If it's valid, it's a nice addition to the DWU. If it's invalid, it was nice to see how the LEGO Daleks performed under the physics of the LEGO universe, where you can take your bed apart and make it into a car for the hell of it.

It's good that we have you and Amorkus here to strongly oppose one-another. But the facts are, whether it is four months... or five years... we have to wait for that one gem of a quote that clinches it. If it helps, I can always tweet the writer? :) Don't know how much use that'd be.