Forum talk:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround: Difference between revisions
(→"The Original Inclusion Debates": new section) Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: Oh crap wait yes there is. It just wasn't showing up in the list for some reason.[[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | : Oh crap wait yes there is. It just wasn't showing up in the list for some reason.[[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: That being said, said conclusion's annoying habit of beating around the bush doesn't make things much clearer. Because of the vague wording, I'm no more the wiser whether or not ''Chute!'' or ''Disney Time'' are now valid. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | :: That being said, said conclusion's annoying habit of beating around the bush doesn't make things much clearer. Because of the vague wording, I'm no more the wiser whether or not ''Chute!'' or ''Disney Time'' are now valid. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
== "The Original Inclusion Debates" == | |||
For the record, I will note that this was an ''article talk page'', and it grew ''in a largely top down fashion'' over the course of ''years'' that was later moved to a forum thread to better archive it. It is '''''wholly disanalogous''''' to a thread this large and convoluted taking place in the span of three weeks. This is not to say the rest of the ruling on the speedround in general being Kosher is wrong, merely that this is a '''really''' bad comparison for the purposes of why people were hesitant towards this thread. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:37, 22 April 2023
Conclusion?
I'm kind of at a loss for what to do next since this thread doesn't seem to have any kind of conclusion post from a mod, despite the archive claiming it to be resolved. So… what? What do we now officially class as valid? What don't we? WaltK ☎ 17:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh crap wait yes there is. It just wasn't showing up in the list for some reason.WaltK ☎ 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
"The Original Inclusion Debates"
For the record, I will note that this was an article talk page, and it grew in a largely top down fashion over the course of years that was later moved to a forum thread to better archive it. It is wholly disanalogous to a thread this large and convoluted taking place in the span of three weeks. This is not to say the rest of the ruling on the speedround in general being Kosher is wrong, merely that this is a really bad comparison for the purposes of why people were hesitant towards this thread. Najawin ☎ 18:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
