User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-1827503-20170126005443

There is no hard in-universe evidence Shalka is an alternate timeline, but it is so discontinuitous with later-released works that we may have no choice but to place it as such if valid.

We have a rules problem here - we can't use Cornell's statement to call it an alternate timeline because it is not in-universe evidence, but we cannot use the narrative differences to deem it invalid because our rules prevent this. The solution is simple: use Cornell's statement among others to determine its validity, then if it is valid, use the narrative differences to call it an alternate timeline!

Rules were meant to be broken. Trying to use our existing rules to place Shalka is so obviously impossible that we might as well bend them to our advantage.