Forum:Temporary forums/10,000 Dawns crossovers (Final Round): Difference between revisions

Forum:Temporary forums/10,000 Dawns crossovers (Final Round) (view source)

Revision as of 13:13, 30 May 2023

3,687 bytes added , 30 May 2023

Correcting link

OncomingStorm12th

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

81,877

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums]]
+{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums archives]][[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
+{{archive}}
 == Opening post ==
 [[File:Sibylline Oracles.jpg|thumb|The elders spoke of ''10,000 Dawns''.]]
@@ Line 47: / Line 48: @@
 In the original series of threads, there was much made of the notion that, as these stories were published on the Internet freely, we had no evidence that they were truly licensed. However, even setting aside the imbalanced weight of evidence for a case like this, with the release of ''[[The Outer Universe Collection]]'' on [[29 August (releases)|29 August]] [[2019 (releases)|2019]], this point was well and truly put to rest, so let's please not retread that whole area of debate unless new, ''reliable'' evidence surfaces. '''Baseless aspersions will not be tolerated.''' We should never, as a community, have ''assumed'' wrongdoing.
-The foreword of ''The Outer Universe Collection'' also described the three stories within as "''10,000 Dawns'' / Universe of ''Doctor Who'' crossover stories", well and truly putting an end to any quibbling around [[Tardis:Valid sources|Rule 4]] along those lines.
+The foreword of ''The Outer Universe Collection'' also described the three stories within as "''10,000 Dawns'' / Universe of ''Doctor Who'' crossover stories", finally putting an end to any quibbling around [[Tardis:Valid sources|Rule 4]] along those lines.
 As a brief history lesson, these were the subject of multiple successive inclusion debates in the final years of [[Special:Forum]], with the final attempt being deleted from the site by Fandom Staff after [[User:Amorkuz|a user]] stooped to doxxing one of the editors arguing for validity. This had been meant to be '''one last chance for dissenting voices to come forward''' with good-faith arguments against, after all previous attempts had similarly devolved into [[Tardis:Forum policy|improper forum use]]. Now, at this point, as established [[Thread:260549|by my previous closing statement]], the burden of proof was on those who would see these stories invalidated, else they would get full inclusion ''by default'' once the three weeks had elapsed.
@@ Line 105: / Line 106: @@
 :I '''support '''Validity. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
-:: @[[User:Najawin|Najawin]]: It looks like we may (''may'') have the actual archives to hand before this thread's span is over, but until then, going off of my recollections — I ''believe'' it was eventually shown that in fact, despite the URL, jameswylder.com is ''not'' a "personal" website, but in fact a business website of Wylder's company [[Arcbeatle Press]]. hence, while the procedural issue was never quite resolved, this is in part because it proved to be subtly irrelevant to the ''Dawns'' case.
+:: @[[User:Najawin|Najawin]]: It looks like we may (''may'') have the actual archives to hand before this thread's span is over, but until then, going off of my recollections — I ''believe'' it was eventually shown that in fact, despite the URL, jameswylder.com is ''not'' a "personal" website, but in fact a business website of Wylder's company [[Arcbeatle Press]]. Hence, while the procedural issue was never quite resolved, this is in part because it proved to be subtly irrelevant to the ''Dawns'' case.
 :: (Though I'll also restate something I said multiple times in the old threads, which is that this is all a big [[T:BOUND]] thing. Perhaps there could be merit in a thread discussing these issues, but ''as it stands'' there would be no policy objections to a story released on a personal website. Indeed I believe we cover [[Prelude to Against Nature (short story)|some things in that category]] currently.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 22:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
+It almost goes without saying that I support validity here. As someone who spent significant time participating in all four of the original discussions there was never any convincing rationale for invalidity and no doubt this was the reason the three stories released at the time of the first debate were originally created as valid.
+I'm really glad this fifth (and, this time, ''definitely'' final) thread will give the Wiki some proper closure on the matter and allow us to move on from a particularly fraught chapter of the site's history. [[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::: It should be noted, @[[User:Najawin|Najawin]], ISBN numbers are decently expensive. As an author about to self publish a book, I've looked into the prices, and in the UK, it costs £80 per ISBN. So a small company can arrange licensing and set up a print on demand arrangement of their books for a cost covered in the sale of each book, but to get an ISBN, it requires money to begin with. I do not feel that is a fair requirement for a source to be covered to have to fulfil.
+:::: I do '''support validity''', to be clear. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
+(To be clear, I don't agree with these qualms. I just understand them and think they're prima facie reasonable. It's a nuanced topic, and we should note that. That's all I'm saying.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
+: I appreciate you bringing up these old arguments Najawin, so we're at least going by the book here. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
+::I was not around for the original debates around this issue, so I can’t really comment on any of it. So I’ll just say I support the validity of these. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
+:Support [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
+I support completely and heavily (and whilst this is definitely not what we are covering here as mentioned in the op I would like to say that should a forum ever be opened about validating the rest of 10,000 Dawns my sentiments would be the same as they are towards the crossovers, but like I said this has nothing to with the main thread)[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
+:Three and a half years later, it's time to do what we should have done all along. I '''support validity'''. [[User:Bwburke94|bwburke94]] ([[User talk:Bwburke94|talk]]) 22:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+:'''Support''' validity.[[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] [[User talk:Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+At last! Following the three-weeks deadline of our Slots, I'm closing the final discussion on the '''''[[10,000 Dawns (series)|10,000 Dawns]]'' crossovers in favor of their validity'''. This was a mostly-procedural thread, ''just in case'' actual evidence for their invalidity was raised, so I won't regurgitate the specifics of it, but all 6 short stories presented in [[#The 10,000 Dawns crossovers]] are now valid, as laid out by SOTO's opening post. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
+</div>