User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45692830-20200711195355: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
So [[Devious]] is somewhat not analogous, as it was released on something the BBC ''sold''. But even if we ignore that, it's sort of famously not valid? | So [[Devious]] is somewhat not analogous, as it was released on something the BBC ''sold''. But even if we ignore that, it's sort of famously not valid? | ||
I think everyone in this thread agrees, except perhaps DiSoRiEnTeD1's "what would really be lost by their removal?" comment - I've been told not to interpret other user's comments, that they should remain on this site. The question here is validity. | I think everyone in this thread agrees, except perhaps DiSoRiEnTeD1's "what would really be lost by their removal?" comment - I've been told not to interpret other user's comments, that they should remain on this site. The question here is validity. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200505204802-1432718/20200711195355-45692830]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 27 April 2023
So Devious is somewhat not analogous, as it was released on something the BBC sold. But even if we ignore that, it's sort of famously not valid?
I think everyone in this thread agrees, except perhaps DiSoRiEnTeD1's "what would really be lost by their removal?" comment - I've been told not to interpret other user's comments, that they should remain on this site. The question here is validity.
