User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222064850: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
(User intended to link to categories, not add to them.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|Inclusion debates/Random stories in the Not-DWU material category}} | |||
I think we need to readdress numerous stories in [[Category:Non-DWU material]] and [[Category:Non-DWU stories]]. | I think we need to readdress numerous stories in [[:Category:Non-DWU material]] and [[:Category:Non-DWU stories]]. | ||
Take ''Global Conspiracy'', for instance. It's not a parody, just tongue-in-cheek. A lot of the "parodies" are like this. | Take ''Global Conspiracy'', for instance. It's not a parody, just tongue-in-cheek. A lot of the "parodies" are like this. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
So, here's my proposal: | So, here's my proposal: | ||
One by one, we examine the invalid stories that have NOT already been discussed and deemed invalid (as the FP debate is ongoing, we're excluding that, too). This means all those little five-minute stories are readdressed, like ''The BAFTAs'', the NTA 2011 sketch, etc.. Some will certainly be placed right back in the invalid bin - but how many of us have watched all of these stories, or read them, etc.? | One by one, we examine the invalid stories that have NOT already been discussed and deemed invalid (as the FP debate is ongoing, we're excluding that, too). This means all those little five-minute stories are readdressed, like ''The BAFTAs'', the NTA 2011 sketch, etc.. Some will certainly be placed right back in the invalid bin - but how many of us have watched all of these stories, or read them, etc.? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20161222064850-1272640]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 04:36, 4 May 2023
I think we need to readdress numerous stories in Category:Non-DWU material and Category:Non-DWU stories.
Take Global Conspiracy, for instance. It's not a parody, just tongue-in-cheek. A lot of the "parodies" are like this.
Others are claimed to be advertisements - but at least one is explicitly stated on its page to be a story, NOT an advert, and to have all the licenses!
So, here's my proposal:
One by one, we examine the invalid stories that have NOT already been discussed and deemed invalid (as the FP debate is ongoing, we're excluding that, too). This means all those little five-minute stories are readdressed, like The BAFTAs, the NTA 2011 sketch, etc.. Some will certainly be placed right back in the invalid bin - but how many of us have watched all of these stories, or read them, etc.?
