| Display title | An update to T:VS |
| Default sort key | Temporary forums/An update to T:VS |
| Page length (in bytes) | 56,056 |
| Namespace | Forum |
| Page ID | 322589 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 1 |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow only administrators (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only administrators (infinite) |
| Page creator | Scrooge MacDuck (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 18:04, 11 January 2023 |
| Latest editor | SV7 (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 16:12, 21 October 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 56 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 18 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 2 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Transcluded templates (8) | Templates used on this page:
|
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | Within hours of Tardis:Temporary forums being activated, it began filling up with suggestions that we redeem all sorts of things from Scream of the Shalka to Vienna from {{invalid}} status. Now, any one of these cases might have some hitherto-undocumented aspect which would justify their validity under the current regime of T:VS, and I do not mean to make their potential validation depend upon the following proposal — but it seems to me that there is a common theme to all these proposals, constituting evidence of a systematic disconnect between our validity policies and the intuitions of readers and editors alike. I propose that we tackle the problem at the rule, and examine the possibility of fixing that underlying issue. |
