Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20170311235331

Shambala108 wrote: I have not been convinced by any arguments above that a sequel/prequel to an invalid story could be itself valid.

Be more specific.

The best I can do is explain my stance again then.

Dimensions in Time is invalid because of its hard-to-decipher licensing. It is not invalid because of any narrative elements. Rescue does not hold any such issues. Neither does Storm in a Tikka. Thus it shouldn't be retroactively invalid.

A Fix With Sontarans has been declared invalid because it's hard to tell when the in-universe narrative ends and the real-world curtain-call starts. Fixing a Hole does not have this issue. Thus it shouldn't be invalid.

That's pretty clear-cut dude. If anything, I need logic to support the idea that these stories aren't valid. We don't work with canon anymore, we can't keep using the same tactics as if we do.

And, given that we have hundreds of valid stories that are missing plot summaries, there are at least dozens of pages that could use images, there are dozens of orphaned pages, hundreds of articles needing proper citation, etc. etc. (see Tardis:To do list), I see no good coming from the incessant re-opening of closed debates that we've had recently when there is so much other work to be done on the wiki.

"Go do something else" is not an argument I take seriously. Also, I do take part in most of those activities. I just also do this, and I do this the most often because it's the thing I have the most free time to do.

I re-opened the debate because the original debate was wrong.

I started the "original debate." (It was only on FaH, thus the quotation marks) It was my debate and I was wrong. I was the only person who argued for these stories to be invalid, and now I think that I was wrong. You can't close down a valid discussion just because "Oh, we should stick with the rule we made up back when we thought canon was a thing. Man, I was so smart when I was 14 years old I should stick with the decision I made back then."

I mean, I agree for the most part that these re-opened discussions are dry and not worth dealing with. The Shalka forum really has served no purpose. Other ones have legitimate points, which is the real reason no one wants to touch them; because that's more trouble.

Also, I don't think it's particularly fair for the person who starts the thread to be calling for its closure, especially after only a week.

You see, I didn't actually fully want that to happen I just figured it would be a way to get people who disagreed to post.

It kinda did and kinda didn't. I still get the feeling that you're more upset about the "unanimous" thing than anything else. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have the debate before the idea that the debate is wrong.