User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-24894325-20170228150713

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-24894325-20170228150713 I agree that excluding future stories by default is wrong. But That's not how I understood AED. My feeling was that he proposed, while considering a LEGO story to assume it is a "toy story" by default until proven otherwise.

It's my general qualm with the explanations of Rule 4. They are written for stories that are by default written as DW stories, but may be excluded given sufficient evidence. We do not really have a clearly formulated rule for stories not written for DWU, be they crossovers or something else, which should be invalid by default but accepted given sufficient evidence.