User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170226034425

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170226034425 Thefartydoctor wrote: 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.

Dimensions in Time has been invalid since the wiki started because we used to not have valid and invalid tags. It used to be canon and non-canon. DiT had to be challenged when we took under new rules.

I've been here a long time, and precedent is in fact not to declare something invalid until discussion has been had. Even if it was something really obvious, like a story being a parody or being set in the real world, you still have had to had a discussion on it. And until that discussion was over -- no calling it invalid and no adding it to pages.

In this one case, SOTO decided to keep the invalid tag only so people outside of the discussion wouldn't get confused and start adding pages on every character in the LEGO Batman movie. We had that problem during the LD discussion. People were making all sorts of pages when the discussion wasn't even over! It was madness.

Thefartydoctor wrote: Moffat's a nuisance because he never takes responsibility

Alright, I don't think we can prove that really.

Thefartydoctor wrote: Dicks went out of his way to write novels and novelisations to clear up plot holes and generally explain canon and continuity.

And he was terrible at it!

Thefartydoctor wrote: It's good that we have you and Amorkus here to strongly oppose one-another.

I agree. If both of us weren't here it would be a one-sided discussion.

Thefartydoctor wrote: 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.

You could tweet some people, but... The problem is that I don't think anyone really cares. We're used to the TITAN back-up guys having really nice responses, but they at least made a Doctor Who product. The LEGO Batman creators likely spent a long time making every frame of the film special and filled with fun. Who would have the answers to the question "Is this valid?" And the biggest problem here -- about the kid in the basement thing -- that's not something that they're going to spoil. It's something they've been building up for a long time, and even if they wanted to give us answers they note themselves that not all of the rules are worked out yet.

Them not having a response to if it's valid or not doesn't make it invalid -- I must note. Rachael Smith said she had no idea if A Rose by Any Other Name was canon. I believe she directly said "I was hired to make something funny. Never thought about that." Sometimes you are allowed to take "I don't know" as "I didn't mean for it to be non-canon." In this case, the problem is that we don't even have that that.

Again, no rush to close the thread. I'm just against keeping it open until the next Lego movie comes out just in case a Dalek sweeps by.