User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26285319-20170104192003/@comment-28349479-20170125200240

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26285319-20170104192003/@comment-28349479-20170125200240 Amorkuz wrote: But never mind, let's just get back to shouting at each other: Dear NateBumber, could you please allow other users to participate in developing policies of this Wiki even when their views are opposite to your own. Sincerely, Amorkuz Shouting? My friend, I cannot shout; I have no mouth! I simply asked you several posts ago to give me a reason why to change the rule by citing a series that has been fallaciously allowed onto this wiki per the misinterpretation of rule 4. You've replied only with a currently open debate (that is to say, not yet allowed at all)! Meanwhile, on other threads, you have slandered me and other editors with accusations of trying to "shove [series you don't like] down your throat" and maliciously manipulating the rules. You cite T:BOUND one minute, and you discard authorial intent as "obviously biased" the next. Forgive me for being puzzled and concerned by this behavior; oftentimes, it leaves me at quite a loss at how to proceed, and when I finally figure it out,

OncomingStorm12th wrote: Yes. Covering spinoffs of spinoffs is fine. But we need to be carefull before covering everything that shares a simple character or a concept with DWU. For instance, a Weeping Angel can be seen on Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham (a video game). That, by no means, is enough to make any of us cover all characters present on the video game, or even everything related to LEGO. There's a specific reason for that, actually: "Fictional information presented non-narratively" is banned by T:VS. The same policy says that, when Doctor Who characters owned by others are used in spinoff stories, we generally allow those kinds of stories.

Amorkuz wrote: The more steps away from their original DW licensed story they make, the less likely they are to think about creating a DWU story. Keeping track of continuities is hard work actually. Didn't we all marvel how Rowlings managed to tie things together? There is zero incentive for Magrs to keep track of DWU continuities while writing Vince Cosmos stories. T:VALID says, "A story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories." Do you intend to overturn this precedent by pursuing this train of reaasoning? Because that path could quickly lead to a huge purge of materials from this wiki.