User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170224224719: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
Amorkuz wrote: | Amorkuz wrote: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
Once again: Just because we declare something invalid doesn't mean that we get to pretend that it doesn't exist in discussion. Non-valid doesn't mean non-canon. | Once again: Just because we declare something invalid doesn't mean that we get to pretend that it doesn't exist in discussion. Non-valid doesn't mean non-canon. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170224224719-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:47, 27 April 2023
Amorkuz wrote: You explained how DWU is treated in other invalid sources of the LEGO franchise.
Strawman.
It was declared invalid because of the minor RPG elements of the game. The narrative itself was deemed entirely valid, and since it is part of the LEGO canon, it is very important to deciding if non-video game Doctor Who products in this range are valid.
Once again: Just because we declare something invalid doesn't mean that we get to pretend that it doesn't exist in discussion. Non-valid doesn't mean non-canon.
