User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20180919190904

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20180919190904 I think many of your posts above this are simply misinterpretations of my posts. There is no ill-will intended. Additionally, I think your threat to close the thread over minor errors in the discussion is without precedent. On my talk page, you furthermore threaten to delete my posts based on these disagreements, which is again without precedent. If you disagree with a statement I make, I would generally like to hear why.

My point was that the entire purpose of Short Trips and Side Steps is to create sequels to "weird" stories in the Doctor Who franchise. Countdown to TV Action and Face Value are both key examples of this. Both valid. Yet Storm in a Tikka isn't? That's inconsistent. That's my point. I amend the word "most," I should have said "some." "some of the stories in Short Trips and Side Steps."

I do not take the point back. I stand by it completely. Stronger now than before. I furthermore think my example of Frozen Time is another perfect example of the hypocrisy shown by this rule.

Basically, I got one word wrong. I did not present something that wasn't true, I just flubbed my delivery. One word should not be something to result in the closing of the thread or the deletion of my posts, especially not when the rest of the sentence is totally fine.

Shambala108 wrote: And I am still waiting to hear just how a story that is a prequel or sequel to an invalid story can be valid. It's still part of the invalid story - a continuation of the story. And I don't need a re-quote of the four little rules...I want adequate reasoning for how "part" of a story can be valid when another "part" is already invalid.

That's a strongly inaccurate account of this discussion. If it makes it easier to understand, let's say it like this: these are hardly even sequels or prequels. They can be and should be viewed as stand-alone adventures. They just happen to somehow reference the events of stories which are invalid for reasons entirely outside of their "continuity." Can we really say that Storm in a Tikka has to be invalid because at the start the Doctor mentions an adventure involving the Rani's TARDIS? Or that Rescue can't count as a story on this wiki because it features a character from Dimensions in Time? Where would we stop? If a story referenced the events of Fixing a Hole, would that be invalid as well? What if another story was a sequel to the story that referenced Fixing a Hole? That's a logic trap. An all-consuming loop that would eventually end with most of the site being consumed. That's why we don't discuss or cover canon on this site, because it ends just like this. So I think we should stick to our guns, think not of canon or stories being connected to each other, and that we should allow our editors to cover these stand-alone adventures no matter what other stories the authors choose to reference.

That's not a consensus I'm trying to claim, I'm not speaking for anyone else. It's just my strongly-held belief that we need to allow these stories for the sake of having a properly-functioning wiki.

JangoAndLiteFoot's point above is a perfect summation of this discussion. Surely the Star Trek crossover references Star Trek stories that we consider non-valid? It's even a semi-prequel if you look at it a certain way. Thus, it must be a part of stories which we do not cover. Should it then be invalid by association? What about all of the stories which feature Death's Head? They follow up from where stories left off, they are sequels to stories we don't cover. Then should all Death's Head comics be invalid? Is Follow That TARDIS! a prequel of sorts to the comic series which followed with the two main characters? If so, then that should be invalid as well!

Let alone the works of Big Finish and other companies, who constantly do these very same things. Basically, this rule makes no sense and has never been consistently enforced. That's why it's being openly questioned by so many editors.