Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-27280472-20161225193653

The quote has nothing to do with whether Shalka is part of Doctor Who continuity. All it establishes is that Trickey didn't see it as part of the continuity of the then-upcoming BBC Wales series. The revived series is not Doctor Who. It's part of Doctor Who. Shalka is still part of the universe of the original series, regardless of the revived series divergence, as is painfully obvious to anyone who watches it. You can't say it doesn't pass rule four, because it is set in the universe of the original series. The revived series is also set in the universe of the original series. The only difference is that the revived series failed to set itself in the universe of the entire DWU as it existed at the time, because it didn't take into account Shalka. But that's not a good reason to call the entire revived series NOTVALID (and an even worse reason to call Shalka NOTVALID). Because the same logic could be applied to every story ever. We could track down every author of every story and ask them for a specific list of what they considered "canon" at the time they wrote the story, and then ban articles on each story from referring to stories not on the correct list. Or we could pick the "canon" list of one particular story, and deem everything not on it NOTVALID. But instead, we just ignore the contradictions. Because canon is stupid and an unfeasible headache. There's no reason not to do the exact same thing for Shalka. We don't disallow references between TV stories by Steven Moffat and New Adventures stories, even though Moffat has described the New Adventures as "a separate continuity." So regardless of whether the creators of Shalka became aware that the coming TV series would almost certainly ignore their story, there is no reason to dishonestly treat it as something separate from the rest of the DWU.