Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-5.2.105.85-20170222095120/@comment-5.2.105.85-20170223103203

OttselSpy25 wrote: That's on a bureaucratic level of deciding if the story is valid or not. I mean when a story retcons random stuff from another story that the writer had nothing to do with.

The Forgotten says that in the TV movie the Doctor lied about being half-human. We include this alongside the equally-possible contingency that he wasn't lying, because the writer of TF had nothing to do with the TV movie.

If a comic said that the events of The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe was entirely the Doctor having a coma, we'd say "you can't do that" and we'd include it with a solid grain of salt.

What I'm getting at is that we can't just decide that DiT is a dream.

An already established story that is deemed valid, and that was said to be a dream, we'd just ignore it.

However with Dimensions in Time there is a slight difference, this piece of information can help up establish it within the DWU which no other source has tried to do.

Your example is valid already, it has already been explained in the DWU in the story itself. The thing with 'DiT'' is that it wasn't and never has been explained. That comic example would be additional information whereas this VNA is the only information.

My I also ask, where do you stand OttselSpy25, are you for or against?