Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,395
edits
Forum:A Fix with Sontarans: Fixing Fix's Validity (edit)
Revision as of 20:01, 16 July 2023
, 16 July 2023no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
: Retconning parts of a story so it fits into continuity... I mean, that is literally a form of continuity as {{w|Retroactive continuity|"retcon" is just short for "retroactive continuity"}}. Ignoring a previously established part of a story is just one of many forms of a retcon, but it still involves continuity; we can't pick and choose what sort of continuity is continuity enough to say something is in continuity! {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 19:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | : Retconning parts of a story so it fits into continuity... I mean, that is literally a form of continuity as {{w|Retroactive continuity|"retcon" is just short for "retroactive continuity"}}. Ignoring a previously established part of a story is just one of many forms of a retcon, but it still involves continuity; we can't pick and choose what sort of continuity is continuity enough to say something is in continuity! {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 19:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: @[[User:Najawin|Najawin]]: I don't know if your purported line or argument is akin to the thing we previously exchanged about on my talk page — but either way, it seems to me to be unshakably clear that if there is some error in the wording of R4BP (or any other policy) which would seem to point to ''Fixing a Hole'' coming out invalid, then the error is in the policy and ''it'' should be corrected while leaving ''Fixing a Hole''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> validity untouched. Especially if it's some systemic issue affecting more stories than just the ''Fix''es, as you imply. | |||
:: But ''prima facie'' I doubt such an error actually exists (unless, again, you mean the "different standards of evidence" thing, but that's not an error; you just personally think it's untidy). But certainly I do not see by what stretch of the imagination R4BP as it stands could have ''any bearing'' on ''[[Fixing a Hole (short story)|Fixing a Hole]]'', being that R4BP is a policy which applies exclusively to stories which appear to fail garden-variety Rule 4, whereas ''Fixing a Hole'' is a story which — as far as we know — passes Rule 4 the regular way, that being the entire basis for its original validation. (If you believe ''FaH'' doesn't pass regular Rule 4 on its own merits, ''contra'' the findings of the old "Sequels to invalid stories" thread, that's all very well but would then be true with or without R4BP.) | |||
:: If that wider OP is going to take some time yet, I would appreciate your outlining what sort of rationale you're talking about here, or else avoid muddying the waters of what R4BP is about in the minds of casual readers of this thread, because again, short of a very, very clever loophole that's completely eluded me, I do ''not'' see how it could ''possibly'' have any bearing whatsoever on ''Fixing a Hole''. And I wrote it. (Which within ''some'' legal theories would be enough to say that R4BP "doesn't" as a matter of fact mean that, though I'm too much of a Barthesian in lit-crit to entirely put myself behind such a line of argument.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | |||