User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649 Okay, so recently Mini has been going around removing continuity sections from non-cannon stories. This is not something new, and has been done by multiple admins in the past, and I must say; it is most silly. No personal attack against anyone who has enforced this silly idea though.

The idea is simple enough; if the story isn't canon, it can't have continuity. Especially when it does. And my reply is simple as well.

"What?"

Basically, what this rule says is this; "Sure, sure, Devious is a direct sequel to The War Games and a prequel to SfS, and references multiple other stories... But we can't say that on the page; it's non cannon."

"Sure, Sympathy for the Devil has a direct sequel and the Doctor in it was mentioned in 100 Days of the Doctor, but, gol-ee, SftD is non cannon, so we can't put that on the page!"

"Yeah, so the Rani may be appearing for the first time sense Time of the Rani and there are at least three sequels to it, as well as many other references to other Doctor Who episodes and plays, but hey... Dimensions in Time is non cannon, so pfft! Can't put that info on there."

"Yeah, so the line in Night Terrors was a reference to The Seven Keys to Doomsday but how are we to put that on the page? The story is non-cannon!"

As a wikia which for years has yelled "The stories we cover are not "canon", and those that we don't are not not cannon, just don't and can't cover them. We've also postulated the idea that "If you want to call it cannon, that's great, but we don't!" This suggests that someone who things "DiT" is cannon can just stop by and look at the info as if the story was cannon. But that person can't do that, because this stupid rule suggests that because it isn't cannon, we have to and can with hold information.

It also doesn't help that you can't scroll down one inch without seeing the word "non-canon", because one of our editors is very persistent.

So why keep this rule? It's silly, unreasonable, and stumps and stubs our pages! It's a silly rule thought out of a silly word connection and needs to be dropped.