Forum:Inclusion debates: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 2017 source edit |
(Doing a temporary fix for this; SOTO will later do a more general solution to it) Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
=== When policy changes === | === When policy changes === | ||
<!--{{first pic|Six and Valeyard promo.jpg|"A-ha! So there ''is'' an exception!"}}--> | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
== Thread list == | == Thread list == | ||
{{fortop}} | {{fortop}} | ||
{{forsec|Inclusion debates (sorted by last | {{forsec|Inclusion debates (sorted by last edit date)}} | ||
<forum> | <forum> | ||
namespace=Forum | namespace=Forum | ||
addcreationdate=true | addcreationdate=true | ||
category={{PAGENAME}} | category={{PAGENAME}} | ||
notcategory=Panopticon archives | |||
notcategory=Panopticon stickies | notcategory=Panopticon stickies | ||
notcategory=Tech notes | notcategory=Tech notes | ||
notcategoryregexp=.*Archives | notcategoryregexp = .*Archives | ||
shownamespace=false | shownamespace=false | ||
addlasteditor=true | addlasteditor=true | ||
Latest revision as of 20:52, 4 June 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 ("~~~~").
Archive
- Main article: Forum:Inclusion debates/Archive
.jpg){kind=link}