Talk:Friend from the Future (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(→Webcast?: Link to validity debate) Tag: sourceedit |
Tag: sourceedit |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::::: Though you've already found it, here a [[Thread:214342|link]] for others who'd like to discuss whether this story is valid. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:27, May 1, 2017 (UTC) | ::::: Though you've already found it, here a [[Thread:214342|link]] for others who'd like to discuss whether this story is valid. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:27, May 1, 2017 (UTC) | ||
::::: Ah, sorry, I got confused. I thought we were literally debating whether to include or delete the page. I see. I'm not sure why it WOULDN'T be valid, myself, but I suppose if people think it isn't we do need a debate. [[Special:Contributions/217.43.40.225|217.43.40.225]]<sup>[[User talk:217.43.40.225#top|talk to me]]</sup> 18:29, May 1, 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Validity == | == Validity == | ||
Anyone wishing to argue for or against the story being valid should see [[Thread:214342]]. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|Talk]]) 20:45, April 16, 2017 (UTC) | Anyone wishing to argue for or against the story being valid should see [[Thread:214342]]. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|Talk]]) 20:45, April 16, 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:29, 1 May 2017
Webcast?
I thought this was a TV story, first being broadcast on Match of the Day, and then later being released to the internet. --Borisashton ☎ 11:43, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems to be the case. If no one disagrees, I think we can move this up to a Template:Speedy rename. OS25 (Talk) 04:08, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
- It's been a week now since my original comment and nobody has objected. I'll change the template to a Speedy rename. --Borisashton ☎ 09:14, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
- Well... given that it was in fact broadcast on TV (as it says on the page) I see no reason why it shouldn't be dabbed TV story. --DCLM ☎ 09:38, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, this page really needs moving. The title, as it stands, is objectively inaccurate. 217.43.40.225talk to me 10:19, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- 217, Moving it is up to the admins, and any attempt to create the story under a different dab term will be deleted (again). And Borisashton, you can't use a speedy rename tag if the rename is under discussion. See Template:Speedy rename. Shambala108 ☎ 14:00, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be a discussion. It wasn't a webcast. 217.43.40.225talk to me 14:27, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- We have discussions like this to not be dictators, democracy is the way to go rather than be declarative, bossy and ignorant. Snivystorm ☎ 14:38, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, this page really needs moving. The title, as it stands, is objectively inaccurate. 217.43.40.225talk to me 10:19, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Well... given that it was in fact broadcast on TV (as it says on the page) I see no reason why it shouldn't be dabbed TV story. --DCLM ☎ 09:38, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
- It's been a week now since my original comment and nobody has objected. I'll change the template to a Speedy rename. --Borisashton ☎ 09:14, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Except this isn't a matter of opinion. It is undeniable that this thing was first shown on television. It's not the sort of murky thing that would require a vote. CoT ? 14:49, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Shambala said the admins are taking care of it and this is a discussion, which implies to me that they are voting so... Snivystorm ☎ 14:56, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong, I"m trying to prevent any non-admin from moving the page or creating a version of it with the TV story dab term. Shambala108 ☎ 15:49, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Shambala is right, no non-admin user should attempt to move this page. An admin interested in sorting the issue out will get to this eventually, likely when the inclusion debate is closed. OS25 (Talk) 16:30, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Inclusion debate? 217.43.40.225talk to me 18:21, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Shambala is right, no non-admin user should attempt to move this page. An admin interested in sorting the issue out will get to this eventually, likely when the inclusion debate is closed. OS25 (Talk) 16:30, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Though you've already found it, here a link for others who'd like to discuss whether this story is valid. Amorkuz ☎ 18:27, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I got confused. I thought we were literally debating whether to include or delete the page. I see. I'm not sure why it WOULDN'T be valid, myself, but I suppose if people think it isn't we do need a debate. 217.43.40.225talk to me 18:29, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
Validity
Anyone wishing to argue for or against the story being valid should see Thread:214342. OS25 (Talk) 20:45, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
