231,276
edits
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161221160519 (edit)
Revision as of 14:21, 27 April 2023
, 27 April 2023Bot: 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)
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7/-/-)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: | DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
Both of those stories are excluded because they're parodies; we have subzero reason to believe that Faction Paradox falls in that category. Since authorial intent is the last of the [[four little rules]] to be resolved, this would mean it's a valid source. Besides, [[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox is ''already'' an invalid source.]] This thread is about why Faction Paradox should be considered valid, and any other discussion is off-topic. | Both of those stories are excluded because they're parodies; we have subzero reason to believe that Faction Paradox falls in that category. Since authorial intent is the last of the [[four little rules]] to be resolved, this would mean it's a valid source. Besides, [[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox is ''already'' an invalid source.]] This thread is about why Faction Paradox should be considered valid, and any other discussion is off-topic. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20161216221639-28349479/20161221160519-28349479]]</noinclude> | ||