68,596
edits
More actions
Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)
Revision as of 13:29, 13 January 2023
, 13 January 2023→Comments and concerns
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
::::I'm not ''entirely'' sure what your alternate phrasing is, since your original comment suggests it's something Scrooge created. You seem to be gesturing towards some ideas I'm comfortable with, and some I might be less comfortable with? I'm really not trying to be difficult here. Authorial intent, good. Retroactive authorial intent, I like that, even if I don't think it was brought up prior. The thing is, I'm not convinced that we always do consider narrative to be strong evidence of authorial intent, and I think Tomorrow Windows is a perfect example of where this approach would fail. Or see [[Oa]], which I know you're aware of. (Yes, the situations are different in terms of whether the policy would apply to them, but the point is that I think it shows that we clearly shouldn't always infer intent.) The question has to be "how do we differentiate the authorial intent of allowing people to pick and choose what stories they want to hold true as opposed to simply providing a fun Easter egg". And I don't see a clear answer except for explicit statements from the authors. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC) | ::::I'm not ''entirely'' sure what your alternate phrasing is, since your original comment suggests it's something Scrooge created. You seem to be gesturing towards some ideas I'm comfortable with, and some I might be less comfortable with? I'm really not trying to be difficult here. Authorial intent, good. Retroactive authorial intent, I like that, even if I don't think it was brought up prior. The thing is, I'm not convinced that we always do consider narrative to be strong evidence of authorial intent, and I think Tomorrow Windows is a perfect example of where this approach would fail. Or see [[Oa]], which I know you're aware of. (Yes, the situations are different in terms of whether the policy would apply to them, but the point is that I think it shows that we clearly shouldn't always infer intent.) The question has to be "how do we differentiate the authorial intent of allowing people to pick and choose what stories they want to hold true as opposed to simply providing a fun Easter egg". And I don't see a clear answer except for explicit statements from the authors. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::I think [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] has wrapped up many of my concerns for this proposal, and if I were in a camp it'd be neutral at this point. | |||
:::::I agree with many of the points like the multiple Ninth Doctor pages above. | |||
:::::But it's implementing it, and explaining this to new/pedantic users that concerns me. With our current rules it's fairly clear that we need to be able to point to an author / entity that has licence to use it, or intent for it to be valid. My concern is using narrative, even if it's multi-sourced narrative justification, it feels like we're straying into...not canon exactly but certainly narrative justifying the validity of the source and that's going to leave us open to more "what about X story" arguments. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Temporary forums]] | [[Category:Temporary forums]] | ||