Trusted
8,473
edits
More actions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Archive|Panopticon archives}}[[Category:Policy changers]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Why are we writing articles about stories that appeared in a charity publication, and are, therefore, no better than fan fiction? Isn't one of our sacrosanct rules that the BBC has to have licensed something for us to care about it? Shouldn't we be shunting all this info over to the fanon wiki instead? I'm especially troubled to note that some of these stories are slipping over into firmly real world cats like [[:category:Fifth Doctor stories|Fifth Doctor stories]]. The twain should never meet. Either something is real world or it is non-canonical. I can kind of understand the utility of an article about the charity anthology — you need it there to say that we don't cover it — but we should resolve now to abolish the articles about the individual stories, and refer people to the articles at one of our sister wikis instead. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | Why are we writing articles about stories that appeared in a charity publication, and are, therefore, no better than fan fiction? Isn't one of our sacrosanct rules that the BBC has to have licensed something for us to care about it? Shouldn't we be shunting all this info over to the fanon wiki instead? I'm especially troubled to note that some of these stories are slipping over into firmly real world cats like [[:category:Fifth Doctor stories|Fifth Doctor stories]]. The twain should never meet. Either something is real world or it is non-canonical. I can kind of understand the utility of an article about the charity anthology — you need it there to say that we don't cover it — but we should resolve now to abolish the articles about the individual stories, and refer people to the articles at one of our sister wikis instead. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''05:18:35 Mon '''28 Feb 2011 </span> | ||
:I think the idea was that the stories (written by authors related to DW) included information that may not be elsewhere. But reading your comments and thinking back to other discussions concerning this and the discussion concerning ''[[Time's Champion]'' I think yes we should remove the Charity publications stories' references from in-universe articles and real world categories. All the stories can be moved over to DW Expanded. | :I think the idea was that the stories (written by authors related to DW) included information that may not be elsewhere. But reading your comments and thinking back to other discussions concerning this and the discussion concerning ''[[Time's Champion]'' I think yes we should remove the Charity publications stories' references from in-universe articles and real world categories. All the stories can be moved over to DW Expanded. | ||
:I've some mixed feelings regarding the actual articles on the anthologies, I think '' | :I've some mixed feelings regarding the actual articles on the anthologies, I think ''Campaign'' and ''Time's Champion'' should definitely be kept as while they're unofficial they have a somewhat stronger connection than others. | ||
:But on the flip side ''do'' we need individual articles about the anthologies? Would it perhaps be better to push all the charity anthologies articles off to DW Expanded and have 1 article here about the charity anthologies? Of all the articles in the Unofficial prose fiction category only about half have publisher's summaries, then aside from a list of stories there's between 1 and 3 notes concerning each book. All of this could easily be incorporated into a concise and interesting article about charity anthologies. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:45, February 28, 2011 (UTC) | :But on the flip side ''do'' we need individual articles about the anthologies? Would it perhaps be better to push all the charity anthologies articles off to DW Expanded and have 1 article here about the charity anthologies? Of all the articles in the Unofficial prose fiction category only about half have publisher's summaries, then aside from a list of stories there's between 1 and 3 notes concerning each book. All of this could easily be incorporated into a concise and interesting article about charity anthologies. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:45, February 28, 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Bumping this up in the hopes of sparking some more comments on it. It'd be nice to get some other views on what to do about charity publications. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::Bumping this up in the hopes of sparking some more comments on it. It'd be nice to get some other views on what to do about charity publications. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''23:02:38 Wed '''01 Jun 2011 </span> | ||
My opinion is that chariy publications should not be included on the wikia. The case of now official stories such as ''Toy Story'' and ''The Wings of a Butterfly'' should mention their origins as charity stories but nothing more than that. On the case of ''Campaign'' and ''Time's Champion'', I believe that they should be kept as they would have been official stories if things would have gone better. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 09:42, June 3, 2011 (UTC) | My opinion is that chariy publications should not be included on the wikia. The case of now official stories such as ''Toy Story'' and ''The Wings of a Butterfly'' should mention their origins as charity stories but nothing more than that. On the case of ''Campaign'' and ''Time's Champion'', I believe that they should be kept as they would have been official stories if things would have gone better. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 09:42, June 3, 2011 (UTC) | ||