User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-6032121-20180921191855: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I support Ottselspy's immediately-above argument wholeheartedly. Perhaps he got a few facts wrong earlier, but that does not invalidate his main, factual points: | I support Ottselspy's immediately-above argument wholeheartedly. Perhaps he got a few facts wrong earlier, but that does not invalidate his main, factual points: | ||
* There's a marked inconsistency between ''some'' stories which reference non-valid ones, which are considered valid, and others which, in some cases, have even fainter references, yet are considered non-valid "by association"; so that regardless of whether we decide that "invalid by association" is a correct approach to take, there is a honest-to-Rassillon ''mistake'' in the Wiki and ''something'' will need to be done to square things up; | * There's a marked inconsistency between ''some'' stories which reference non-valid ones, which are considered valid, and others which, in some cases, have even fainter references, yet are considered non-valid "by association"; so that regardless of whether we decide that "invalid by association" is a correct approach to take, there is a honest-to-Rassillon ''mistake'' in the Wiki and ''something'' will need to be done to square things up; | ||
* The concept of "continuity" is a veiled comeback of "canon" and is ''not'' how the Tardis Wiki works, and the only justification for "invalid by association" cited thus far, that I could see, relies on the idea of continuity. | * The concept of "continuity" is a veiled comeback of "canon" and is ''not'' how the Tardis Wiki works, and the only justification for "invalid by association" cited thus far, that I could see, relies on the idea of continuity. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170306172600-4028641/20180921191855-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:53, 27 April 2023
I support Ottselspy's immediately-above argument wholeheartedly. Perhaps he got a few facts wrong earlier, but that does not invalidate his main, factual points:
- There's a marked inconsistency between some stories which reference non-valid ones, which are considered valid, and others which, in some cases, have even fainter references, yet are considered non-valid "by association"; so that regardless of whether we decide that "invalid by association" is a correct approach to take, there is a honest-to-Rassillon mistake in the Wiki and something will need to be done to square things up;
- The concept of "continuity" is a veiled comeback of "canon" and is not how the Tardis Wiki works, and the only justification for "invalid by association" cited thus far, that I could see, relies on the idea of continuity.
