Forum:Inclusion debates: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
(Doing a temporary fix for this; SOTO will later do a more general solution to it)
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
An important note: the name means that these are debates ''about'' inclusion, not necessarily debates arguing ''for'' inclusion: for example, if a source is currently valid, but you have evidence that its status should be changed to invalid, this is also the place to discuss it.  
An important note: the name means that these are debates ''about'' inclusion, not necessarily debates arguing ''for'' inclusion: for example, if a source is currently valid, but you have evidence that its status should be changed to invalid, this is also the place to discuss it.  


=== When policy changes ===
<!--{{first pic|Six and Valeyard promo.jpg|"A-ha! So there ''is'' an exception!"}}-->
Sometimes, properly accounting for a new and peculiar case which isn't properly accounted for by current policy, means that an inclusion debate will end up doing double-duty, and also being a "policy changer" in the vein of a [[Forum:The Panopticon]] thread. This is fine and expected. However, if you know ''from the start'' that what you are proposing is an alteration to policy rather than a specific debate about how to cover something in particular, it would be better to open the thread in the Panopticon to start with.
Sometimes, properly accounting for a new and peculiar case which isn't properly accounted for by current policy, means that an inclusion debate will end up doing double-duty, and also being a "policy changer" in the vein of a [[Forum:The Panopticon]] thread. This is fine and expected. However, if you know ''from the start'' that what you are proposing is an alteration to policy rather than a specific debate about how to cover something in particular, it would be better to open the thread in the Panopticon to start with.


Line 15: Line 17:


<hr>{{forums add box}}
<hr>{{forums add box}}
== Archive ==
{{main|Forum:Inclusion debates/Archive}}


== Thread list ==
== Thread list ==
{{fortop}}
{{fortop}}
{{forsec|Inclusion debates (sorted by last edited date)}}  
{{forsec|Inclusion debates (sorted by last edit date)}}  
<forum>
<forum>
namespace=Forum
namespace=Forum
addcreationdate=true
addcreationdate=true
category={{PAGENAME}}
category={{PAGENAME}}
notcategory=Panopticon archives
notcategory=Panopticon stickies
notcategory=Panopticon stickies
notcategory=Tech notes
notcategory=Tech notes
notcategoryregexp=.*Archives
notcategoryregexp = .*Archives
shownamespace=false
shownamespace=false
addlasteditor=true
addlasteditor=true
Line 32: Line 39:
count=
count=
</forum>
</forum>
== Archive ==
{{main\Forum:Inclusion debates/Archive}}


[[Category:Forums]]
[[Category:Forums]]
[[Category:Inclusion debates|*]]
[[Category:Inclusion debates|*]]

Latest revision as of 20:52, 4 June 2023

What to do with you? I wonder.

Welcome to the Tardis inclusion debates!

Inclusion debates are a specific type of Forum thread. They deal in serious, unbiased analysis of stories or sometimes entire series, to check whether they pass the four little rules of Tardis:Valid sources and all their corollaries, so that we may determine if they should be covered-as-valid, covered-as-invalid, or not covered at all.

In greater detail

These threads are fact-finding and policy-reviewing efforts, and also serve to test the community's opinion; in some edge cases, the community's consensus on whether we want to cover something will serve as a tiebreaker — though even such a decision should be phrased in terms of the good of the Wiki, not whether you like a given piece, or whether you believe it to be "canon".

An important note: the name means that these are debates about inclusion, not necessarily debates arguing for inclusion: for example, if a source is currently valid, but you have evidence that its status should be changed to invalid, this is also the place to discuss it.

When policy changes

Sometimes, properly accounting for a new and peculiar case which isn't properly accounted for by current policy, means that an inclusion debate will end up doing double-duty, and also being a "policy changer" in the vein of a Forum:The Panopticon thread. This is fine and expected. However, if you know from the start that what you are proposing is an alteration to policy rather than a specific debate about how to cover something in particular, it would be better to open the thread in the Panopticon to start with.

Get started!

Please remember to sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~").


Please make sure that your topic name summarises your topic in a way that will be easily searchable.

Archive

Main article: Forum:Inclusion debates/Archive

Thread list

next →

Begun

Topic

Last edit

Last author

Inclusion debates (sorted by last edit date)
10 April 2024Inclusion debate: The works of Douglas Adams16:02, 5 November 2024Scrooge MacDuck
10 February 2024Validity: AU games16:14, 23 September 2024Cookieboy 2005
30 June 2023BBC-produced shows and episodes that make extensive use of DWU elements22:01, 12 September 2024Borisashton
16 July 2023A Fix with Sontarans: Fixing Fix's Validity21:54, 30 August 2024Cookieboy 2005
6 March 2024Coverage quickie: the individual "It's Showtime" continuity tags14:24, 25 August 2024Cookieboy 2005
19 July 2024Validity: An Adventure in Space and Time22:12, 21 July 2024Najawin
17 September 2023Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks22:36, 28 February 2024OttselSpy25
28 October 2023Just how do we cover that time when Katy Manning, in character as Iris Wildthyme, showed up at the Utopia convention and was interviewed by Paul Magrs?21:54, 28 October 2023Najawin
10 July 2023Roland Rat: The Series19:16, 11 September 2023Danochy
21 May 2023Inclusion debates20:52, 4 June 2023OncomingStorm12th