User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20151008222758/@comment-4028641-20161108020306

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20151008222758/@comment-4028641-20161108020306 Shambala108 wrote: The issue that everyone seems to have missed is that, because we have a strict policy regarding what can and can't go on Tardis:In-universe perspective, it's just easier maintenance to keep the nonvalids out of the infoboxes.

The infoboxes are out-of-universe tho. They include actors and, spoilers, stories. That's out-of-universe, unapologetically. There's not that big of a difference between infobox lists and appearance lists. It's just that one is longer usually.

Appearance lists should be entirely factual and unbiased in nature. Someone wanting to research the show shouldn't *need* to read a 70 page essay on our inherently confusing policies to hunt down simple facts. When I go to Twelfth Doctor - list of appearances, I should have every story that includes the Capaldi Doctor -- weather we consider it valid or not. The average reader won't *care* very much if Worlds in Time or LEGO Dimensions fits our meticulous standards for what Game narratives we accept. They're there to read a list of things that the Doctor has been in, not things that *TARDIS wiki has decided to label as valid*.

If we're going to ditch canon on this site, as we've been claiming that we have for years, we need to be consistent. If we were arguing that those stories weren't canon, it would make sense to not include them. It would make sense to separate VALID and INVALID stories in infoboxes if VALID meant "canon" and we could easily draw the line on the everyone's interpretations of both of those things. But as the only thing that we can argue is that *we can't write about them,* it's ridiculous to keep this charade up. If it's out of universe information, weather the Wiki finds the story to be "valid" or not shouldn't be relevant to whether or not it's discussed.