User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-5465689-20161218192353

So I do want to make it clear that, however we're read, we do not, at Tardis, assert rules for how things "should" be read, or how fans "should" define their own personal canons.

The existence of the Faction Paradox Wikia as a "sister" wiki, with a total ban on mentioning anything which might allow anyone to read the FP stories in context, is precisely such an assertion. There are all sorts of statements on the front page of that site saying that Faction Paradox "is not a part of the DWU" and is "an intentional reaction against the use of Faction Paradox by the British Broadcasting Corporation." Those statements exist because the FP Wikia is a "sister site" to the TARDIS Wikia and run by a subset of the latter's admins.

But we do need some rules for us, as an encyclopedia, to make any sense. That's why we have T:VALID and our four little rules to determine what effectively "counts" in the writing of in-universe articles. In general,

Yep, and by all four of those rules, Faction Paradox counts.

I personally definitely sympathise with the view that the FP series and the DWU are deeply interconnected, now more than before, and hard to truly separate.

I disagree with the "now more than before". At no point was Faction Paradox ever separated from "the DWU" -- or at least, no more so than Time Hunter, Iris Wildthyme, Gallifrey, Dalek Empire, Kaldor City, Lethbridge-Stewart, or any other of dozens of spinoffs.

I would like to know, however, what the real proposal is here. Is what's being put forward here that the entire Faction Paradox series be considered part of the "main" Doctor Who universe?

Yes. Because it is. But if TARDIS Wikia people really insist, despite all the evidence, that it isn't, then the second-best solution would be to stop applying those same rules to the FP Wikia. But it would be a very distant second.

(ETA: Just realised that this comes off as a little more confrontational than I intended, tone-wise. I'm not trying to have an argument, just put forward a point of view.)