Trusted
6,206
edits
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 2017 source edit |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::(If you want to debate the ''Dracula'' episode, well, I won't stop you. I think somebody else proposed it in the [[Forum:Temporary forums|Temp Forums]], it just didn't make its way up the chart.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) | :::(If you want to debate the ''Dracula'' episode, well, I won't stop you. I think somebody else proposed it in the [[Forum:Temporary forums|Temp Forums]], it just didn't make its way up the chart.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::Because these are invalidated by r4, shouldn't they be at least covered? I personally don't think the argument for validating the Dracula episode is particularly strong, I just think it ought to get a debate. But doesn't assuming invalidity explicitly go against [[T:VS]], which states: | |||
:::::If a work of fiction was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's ''probably'' not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. | |||
::::This ''appears'' to say that we should have a community discussion before invalidating something on r4 grounds (unless it's really obvious), and I know that we haven't been able to do this what with the lack of forums and everything, but shouldn't we assume validity, or at least coverage, by default? Sorry if I'm being annoying. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] [[User talk:Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC) |