Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,219
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)
Revision as of 14:06, 13 January 2023
, 13 January 2023no edit summary
Tag: visualeditor-wikitext |
No edit summary Tag: visualeditor-wikitext |
||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
:::::But it's implementing it, and explaining this to new/pedantic users that concerns me. With our current rules it's fairly clear that we need to be able to point to an author / entity that has licence to use it, or intent for it to be valid. My concern is using narrative, even if it's multi-sourced narrative justification, it feels like we're straying into...not canon exactly but certainly narrative justifying the validity of the source and that's going to leave us open to more "what about X story" arguments. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | :::::But it's implementing it, and explaining this to new/pedantic users that concerns me. With our current rules it's fairly clear that we need to be able to point to an author / entity that has licence to use it, or intent for it to be valid. My concern is using narrative, even if it's multi-sourced narrative justification, it feels like we're straying into...not canon exactly but certainly narrative justifying the validity of the source and that's going to leave us open to more "what about X story" arguments. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
: That's fair. But in terms of current precedent, I would remind everyone that [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 4|the current Rule 4]] is very much written with a ''presumption'' of validity. Strictly speaking, we ask for direct authorial quotes to prove that something ''isn't'' intended to be set in the DWU; the presumption, in the absence of a statement, is that it ''is''. I don't find it unfair to suggest that, in turn, when a valid story references a previously-invalid one, the ''presumption'' is that intent of proxy-DWUness is there, and it's to prove the ''opposite'' that an authorial quote would be required! (Arguably we would have example of this above, with [[Jonathan Morris]]'s "''Shalka'' isn't canon" comment "counteracting" the presumption-of-validity that the Shalka Doctor cameo in itself would bring.) I think on a practical level this would also be a wiser rule to implement, because we're more likely to find authorial quotes to the effect of "I know my easter-egg ''looks'' like it means X, but ''actually…", than authorial quotes to the effect of "by the way and for the record, my easter-egg means what it looks like it means". [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Temporary forums]] | [[Category:Temporary forums]] | ||