User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150917235441/@comment-88790-20151009070051: 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 agree with Ottselspy25 in their first post. | I agree with Ottselspy25 in their first post. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
So as INVALID, while straight to the point, it does have multiple definitions, I'd suggest NOTVALID. | So as INVALID, while straight to the point, it does have multiple definitions, I'd suggest NOTVALID. | ||
That way there is a clear distinction between [[T:VS|Valid]] and NOTVALID. | That way there is a clear distinction between [[T:VS|Valid]] and NOTVALID. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20150917235441-4028641/20151009070051-88790]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:17, 27 April 2023
I agree with Ottselspy25 in their first post.
NOTDWU is a somewhat counter-intuitive name for a prefix / template.
I also agree that Doctor Who Universe is a term that's used elsewhere synonymous with "Doctor Who canon" and using the NOTDWU could be confusing for new users and could lead people to look for DWU to work out the difference. And while the Doctor Who universe page is fine in itself, it doesn't really explain the difference between what we do on this wiki and the Doctor Who universe term in general.
So as INVALID, while straight to the point, it does have multiple definitions, I'd suggest NOTVALID. That way there is a clear distinction between Valid and NOTVALID.
