User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4000564-20200326121602/@comment-1432718-20200425044747: 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: | ||
This thread is operating under a common mistake. Many users seem to feel that inclusion debates are settled by checking off the boxes of the "four little rules" and that's that. That has never been the case, however. The four little rules are a guideline for determining validity, but they are just a part of [[Tardis:Valid sources]]. We take the entire policy into account when determining validity. | This thread is operating under a common mistake. Many users seem to feel that inclusion debates are settled by checking off the boxes of the "four little rules" and that's that. That has never been the case, however. The four little rules are a guideline for determining validity, but they are just a part of [[Tardis:Valid sources]]. We take the entire policy into account when determining validity. | ||
And, as such, [[Tardis:Valid sources]] has ruled that the information from DWBIT (aside from the comic stories, which ''do'' have articles) is '''not valid'''. This is similar to the reasoning behind not allowing any story info on merchandise packaging. | And, as such, [[Tardis:Valid sources]] has ruled that the information from DWBIT (aside from the comic stories, which ''do'' have articles) is '''not valid'''. This is similar to the reasoning behind not allowing any story info on merchandise packaging. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200326121602-4000564/20200425044747-1432718]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:36, 27 April 2023
This thread is operating under a common mistake. Many users seem to feel that inclusion debates are settled by checking off the boxes of the "four little rules" and that's that. That has never been the case, however. The four little rules are a guideline for determining validity, but they are just a part of Tardis:Valid sources. We take the entire policy into account when determining validity.
And, as such, Tardis:Valid sources has ruled that the information from DWBIT (aside from the comic stories, which do have articles) is not valid. This is similar to the reasoning behind not allowing any story info on merchandise packaging.
