User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-4028641-20170111032350

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-4028641-20170111032350 It's very complex to talk about our policies, because we often have to bring into the forefront things terms that we don't use. Because even if we've disowned them, they still existed outside of this domain.

For instance, our validity policies have nothing to do with if a story is meant to be a set in the DWU or not. But if a story was meant to be a valid, "canon" in-universe story at the time of release is a pressing issue.

The difference between a story being "not set in the Doctor Who Universe" and a story being set "in another universe" are notably different. If we had evidence that Shalka was envisioned from the start as an alternate universe story, then it'd be valid in the same vein as The Infinity Doctors. But now the topic falls to if the story was meant to be a valid, main-universe story when it was made.

The disagreement that has befallen us now is a more specific definition of what that even means. Czech argues that because by the time the BBC released it it already "no longer counted," it should be ignored in the same sense of Planet of the Rain Gods.

Others would argue that we should only view this from the point of view of the people making it, who presumably had no idea that a much better show was about to be announced which would make their series seem totally irrelevant.

I have no idea.