User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150917235441/@comment-4028641-20151020215327: Difference between revisions
(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: | ||
Don't we already? I recall there being one at one point? | Don't we already? I recall there being one at one point? | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
The reason I think that we should go without the prefix (but with the categories) is that I think that the concept of something being invalid is far less concrete than many here seem to believe it is. It isn't a completely solid idea that all fans must subscribe to -- it's a mostly technical ruleset which is used to tell if a story can be written about on the site. This can include things beyond "canon" (which is still evidently the mindset of most users and policies around the invalid workings), including if the book let's you choose your own path, to if you are the main character of the story, to if the story is even a complete narrative. We can hardly expect every person seeking info to abide by or care about what we deem valid. We can put that ''Curse of Fatal Death'' tag at the top, put in a paragraph explaining why it's not included in ''in-universe, narrative sections'', and then leave well-enough alone. | The reason I think that we should go without the prefix (but with the categories) is that I think that the concept of something being invalid is far less concrete than many here seem to believe it is. It isn't a completely solid idea that all fans must subscribe to -- it's a mostly technical ruleset which is used to tell if a story can be written about on the site. This can include things beyond "canon" (which is still evidently the mindset of most users and policies around the invalid workings), including if the book let's you choose your own path, to if you are the main character of the story, to if the story is even a complete narrative. We can hardly expect every person seeking info to abide by or care about what we deem valid. We can put that ''Curse of Fatal Death'' tag at the top, put in a paragraph explaining why it's not included in ''in-universe, narrative sections'', and then leave well-enough alone. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20150917235441-4028641/20151020215327-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:17, 27 April 2023
Don't we already? I recall there being one at one point?
We'd also need one for films that premiere in cinemas, which we kinda already need for The Doctor's Meditation.
The reason I think that we should go without the prefix (but with the categories) is that I think that the concept of something being invalid is far less concrete than many here seem to believe it is. It isn't a completely solid idea that all fans must subscribe to -- it's a mostly technical ruleset which is used to tell if a story can be written about on the site. This can include things beyond "canon" (which is still evidently the mindset of most users and policies around the invalid workings), including if the book let's you choose your own path, to if you are the main character of the story, to if the story is even a complete narrative. We can hardly expect every person seeking info to abide by or care about what we deem valid. We can put that Curse of Fatal Death tag at the top, put in a paragraph explaining why it's not included in in-universe, narrative sections, and then leave well-enough alone.
