User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20151007072528

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20151007072528 I've been looking over the old video game pages for the original bunch, and I was a little baffled by how incosistent our decisions based off of them were. Some stories, such as The First Adventure and Doctor Who and the Warlord, are listed as valid sources for pages, whilst others (such as Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror) are invalid for seemingly inconsistent reasons.

I've looked for discussions on the topic, but the best I could find are so archaic that Czech uses the term "canon" to describe our validity policy.

"With the arrival of Doctor Who: The Adventure Games comes a problem that's been bubbling around unresolved for a very long time on the wiki. Are games actually canon?"

- Weird.

According to what I understand, the logic in making the MoT invalid was that it had too little narrative information within the game to write stories on... Yet I can find information about that game's story easily, whilst the other two games are much more vague. In the case of TFA, I can't find much info on what the in-universe story for all the levels are, besides "save the companion." It's a little hard to place at any point or to fully justify any of the levels -- who are you playing as? Are you the Doctor in all levels, or a friend, or yourself as another companion? It's entirely clear. A bigger issue is DWatWl, which (according to what I can tell) is a story where your character doesn't have a name, and which I can't find much info on narratively. If the game has different path ways or is even a slight role playing game, we have decided on the site to remove them from the pool of valid stories.

Anyone have any takes on these three stories based on our modern policies?