Forum:Inclusion debates: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Protected "Forum:Inclusion debates" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 08:22, 21 May 2023
.jpg)
Welcome to the Tardis inclusion debates!
Inclusion debates are a specific type of Forum thread. They deal in serious, unbiased analysis of stories or sometimes entire series, to check whether they pass the four little rules of Tardis:Valid sources and all their corollaries, so that we may determine if they should be covered-as-valid, covered-as-invalid, or not covered at all.
In greater detail
These threads are fact-finding and policy-reviewing efforts, and also serve to test the community's opinion; in some edge cases, the community's consensus on whether we want to cover something will serve as a tiebreaker — though even such a decision should be phrased in terms of the good of the Wiki, not whether you like a given piece, or whether you believe it to be "canon".
An important note: the name means that these are debates about inclusion, not necessarily debates arguing for inclusion: for example, if a source is currently valid, but you have evidence that its status should be changed to invalid, this is also the place to discuss it.
When policy changes
Sometimes, properly accounting for a new and peculiar case which isn't properly accounted for by current policy, means that an inclusion debate will end up doing double-duty, and also being a "policy changer" in the vein of a Forum:The Panopticon thread. This is fine and expected. However, if you know from the start that what you are proposing is an alteration to policy rather than a specific debate about how to cover something in particular, it would be better to open the thread in the Panopticon to start with.
Get started!
Please remember to sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~").
Thread list
Archive
Template:Main\Forum:Inclusion debates/Archive
.jpg){kind=link}