User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5545417-20150725190725/@comment-188432-20150731070301

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5545417-20150725190725/@comment-188432-20150731070301 Earlier the following snippet was quoted from T:VS Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction. We specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story. This was never intended to be a loophole through which to allow in parodic stories. This passage is only meant to allow in stories which conflict, and to not use apparent quality of story to be a determiner of validity. To give a specific example, The End of the World, The Ark in Space and The Ark all give different stories about the end of the Earth. What you can't do is say that because The End of the World has higher production values than The Ark, it must therefore be considered the final word on the destruction of the Earth.

By contrast, Doctor Who is not Doctor Who?. The former is the thing which is the major creator of the DWU, and therefore the main topic of this wiki. Episodes which belong to it are explicitly valid on this wiki. The latter is a parodic comic strip, which the authors and publishers have called parodic, and its individual strips have no validity when writing of articles here.

We absolutely can and will kick parodies to the curb with extreme prejudice. Please note that Tardis:Valid sources specifically outlaws parodies.

Having said all that, I personally have no position on these stories. I'm just pointing out that if they are parodic, T:VS does give us the power to red flag them.

But you would have to do a bit more than say that they are drawn in a whimsical style, as we don't disqualify comics solely on the basis of their artistic style. Several mainstream DWM stories are drawn with a lighter or more representational style, and we're fine with them.

So disqualification would come either with a) a statement by the publisher or author that they were intending a parody or b) consensus of Tardis editors in a discussion like this one.

Interestingly, consensus can indeed vote a story "off the island" because Rule 4 specifically says it can, stating that "a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination".