Board Thread:Help!/@comment-32744161-20181012183405/@comment-6032121-20181012211942

This isn't the place for that debate (and I'm not trying to be offensive or anything; Tardis's way clearly works, empirically), but I definitely think some of the image policies, at least, definitely qualify as "harsh", especially in their "delete on sight without forewarning" application. Ibid for the exclusive licensing-based rules — I'm not asking for it to be valid, but I think it would be a net positive if the Wiki had a page for, say, Gene Genius.

And forbidding sensical or widespread speculation at all to the extent that this wiki does, I think, also falls within the "harsh" category. For example, not being able to raise the possibility that the Curator might be the same fellow as the Doctor Who Night Doctor, or that the Eleventh Doctor (Ganger) survived, or that House was a time-splinter echo of the Greatest Intelligence. All this should of course not be written as fact on the in-universe portions of the page, but acknowledging theories like these seems to me to enhance the reading experience rather than detract from it.

But anyway, you got your answer, Opdagon.