Forum:Coverage/validity: The LEGO Batman Movie: Difference between revisions
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:: To clarify this point - yes the Daleks were always licensed. We had evidence they were licensed in the original forum, with quotes from the director. The idea that they are not licensed is just an untruth that was invented on the fly. But I don't think we gain anything by having a debate about this when it very clearly is a topic we aren't ready to tackle yet. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC) | :: To clarify this point - yes the Daleks were always licensed. We had evidence they were licensed in the original forum, with quotes from the director. The idea that they are not licensed is just an untruth that was invented on the fly. But I don't think we gain anything by having a debate about this when it very clearly is a topic we aren't ready to tackle yet. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: (I, er, also agree with this; should definitely be covered, but it’s much easier and simpler doing ''LD'' first) [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:34, 24 August 2023
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
The LEGO Batman Movie is not currently covered by this wiki because it was believed that the movie's use of the Daleks was unlicensed. However, DWM 564 confirms that they were, in fact, officially licensed. So I believe that it should be covered by this wiki, although I'm not sure about validity. I'm aware that Cookieboy 2005 planned to start an inclusion debate after our eventual LEGO Dimensions debate because he believes he could use Rule 4 By Proxy to argue for its validation if Dimensions is ruled valid, but I think we could just start another thread after that debate (assuming R4BP is still a ting, that is). Cgl1999 ☎ 22:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
I do agree with coverage of the film, although I still think this would've been best after a LEGO Dimensions validation. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thread:211485 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2 is the relevant discussion. What does 564 actually say? Najawin ☎ 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have a forum I've been writing about LEGO Dimensions. In my opinion, we should not have this debate until after that point. Hugely relevant topics - such as if Rule 4 by proxy applies - can not be discussed again until we've had that discussion. My OP is about 90% done but I have not had time to finish it totally. I request some patience as I've been very busy this summer.
- To clarify this point - yes the Daleks were always licensed. We had evidence they were licensed in the original forum, with quotes from the director. The idea that they are not licensed is just an untruth that was invented on the fly. But I don't think we gain anything by having a debate about this when it very clearly is a topic we aren't ready to tackle yet. OS25🤙☎️ 23:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- (I, er, also agree with this; should definitely be covered, but it’s much easier and simpler doing LD first) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
