User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-31010985-20180428165444/@comment-6032121-20191213155610
More actions
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-31010985-20180428165444/@comment-6032121-20191213155610 Woah, woah, woah. I was basically with you thus far (at no point did I suggest we should move pages to the hypothetical Dalek Movies Wiki and stop covering the Cushing movies here).
But these last three paragraphs… dude. Not only do in-universe pages about invalid characters work IMO (what exactly is wrong with Vorgenson?), but they're some of my favorite pages from this Wiki. You'll have to pry an in-universe Doctor Why page from my cold dead fingers, is that clear?
I'd support making a separate category of the Wiki for full-on "separate canons" like the Cushingverse, if it is "as a separate canon" that we agree is the best way to cover it. (My whole "why is it Rule-4-breaking anyway?" argument did indeed intend to raise the possibility of just covering the movies the way we do novelisations or audio adaptations, as alternative and equally true takes on the same in-universe events, for the record.) But at no point do I support a deletion of the usual {{Invalid}} pages.
Indeed, to tell you the truth, what I think is that the whole "invalidity" idea is overrated to begin with. What would be the harm to the Wiki if Inside a Skaro Saucer were valid? Does it murder you dog if we treat the Colossus Chicken of Gigantus as a real being who exists somewhere, someplace in the Doctor's multiverse? We do need rules for what we'll have pages about at all, or else all hell breaks loose. But I fundamentally don't see why we need to act like some stories are more real than others.
That being said, this all seems terribly off-topic to me. The different ways in which you or I would overhaul the entire {{Invalud}} system do not belong at the bottom of a thread called "The Cushing Conundrum".