User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20151008023030/@comment-38288735-20191119201810: 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: | ||
That’s fair. We really could do with a summary. | That’s fair. We really could do with a summary. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Basically, if we’re aiming for consensus, we’re waiting to see if the people who objected still object. | Basically, if we’re aiming for consensus, we’re waiting to see if the people who objected still object. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20151008023030-4028641/20191119201810-38288735]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:20, 27 April 2023
That’s fair. We really could do with a summary.
Consensus seemed to be moving toward a proposal of grouping everything from when the Master got baked to when he received his new set of regenerations in “Day of the Master” into one section, which each “portrayal” having its own subsection. Ringo put a proposal into his sandbox here. One of the main benefits of this approach is that it absolves us of having to determine which Crispy Master is which in each of his appearances and covers up small bits of continuity weirdness like Ainley going back to Crispy for a hot second after “The Five Doctors” only to steal regeneration energy and regenerate . . . back into Ainley. This proposal would mean the template wouldn’t have to accommodate five different Crispy Masters and two different Ainleys.
Since that proposal, I believe we have had two objections. The first was TheChampionOfTime, who stated that they thought how the template currently appears is fine and that making Pratt a subection of Delgado was a bad idea. However, the proposal didn’t put Pratt as a subsection of Delgado, so it’s unclear if they actually looked at the proposal. They have not responded back since they were informed of this, but that was only three days ago.
The other objection was OttselSpy, who said, “I am thoroughly against including all of the Ainley appearances as part of the Pratt/Beavers lineage, it feels reductive to say the least.” I submitted a rebuttal, while Ringo suggested a slight alternative. This was only two days ago.
Basically, if we’re aiming for consensus, we’re waiting to see if the people who objected still object.
