1,847
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
mNo edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 2017 source edit |
||
Line 2,172: | Line 2,172: | ||
:::: Regarding your latest post, we certainly don't mean that it has to ''effectively'' be referenced by something, just that the authorial intent has to be that it could be. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 08:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | :::: Regarding your latest post, we certainly don't mean that it has to ''effectively'' be referenced by something, just that the authorial intent has to be that it could be. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 08:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::As a note, that IP edit was me (in case I'm somehow still logged out ,I'm Cousin Ettolrhc); I was accidentally logged-out. As for what to name the breaks - fair enough, I suppose, although Id like it to be fully up to the digression of whoever writing a big reply to choose the name. But anyway, @aqua As for what I mean by "intended to be referenced" - it should be the presumption that a source published in a series which has already been concluded to be intended to be referenced by future otherwise-DWU works. This narrows down the amount of cases we need to consider. If a source within a series intended to be referenced by future otherwise-DWU works has an authorial quote clarifying that it actually ''isnt'' intended to be referenced by future otherwise-DWU works, then in ''that'' case we could discuss invalidating it. And we decide whether a series is intended to be referenced by future otherwise-DWU works by ''presuming that it is'' (if it is a covered source, that is, in the current model, it passes r1-3) unless there is an authorial quote clarifying in the reverse, or if it fits into our category of "genres presumed to not be intended to be referenced by future otherwise-DWU works unless otherwise clarified", which, as far as I know, only includes parodies as of right now. I'm aware your against the inclusion of this clause, and that's fair, you can have that opinion. We'll see if the closing-admin or participants of Part 2 agree with this | |||
@Scrooge, will look forward such more eloquence, here or in Part 2.[[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
edits