Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-1272640-20161224050306

< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-1272640-20161223201024
Revision as of 13:15, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

SOTO wrote: We've never discussed this? I see nothing new here at all. Scream of the Shalka's unquestionable invalidity as a source was already established in Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, for example.

Do we really need to open discussions on everything we've ever slapped the {{invalid}} tag on (or {{notdwu}}, as it were)?

The thing is, Shalka passes the four little rules with flying colors. No one actually debated Shalka in that discussion - it was just a single person saying something.

1. Is it a story? Yes.

2. Was it licensed? Yes.

3. Was it officially released? Yes.

4. Was it intended to be set in the DWU? Yes. It was advertised as a continuation of the series.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.