Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-6032121-20180921191855

I support Ottselspy's immediately-above argument wholeheartedly. Perhaps he got a few facts wrong earlier, but that does not invalidate his main, factual points:
 * There's a marked inconsistency between some stories which reference non-valid ones, which are considered valid, and others which, in some cases, have even fainter references, yet are considered non-valid "by association"; so that regardless of whether we decide that "invalid by association" is a correct approach to take, there is a honest-to-Rassillon mistake in the Wiki and something will need to be done to square things up;
 * The concept of "continuity" is a veiled comeback of "canon" and is not how the Tardis Wiki works, and the only justification for "invalid by association" cited thus far, that I could see, relies on the idea of continuity.