Talk:TARDIS Teaser (game): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Is there ''actually'' a reason this is invalid apart from discontinuity? As per [[T:VS]] — "'''''Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.'''''" — the fact that this contradicts the television series is not reason enough for invalidity, especially as ''[[Dr. Ninth (novel)|Dr. Ninth]]'' also contradicts the television series and is ''valid''. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 19:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) | Is there ''actually'' a reason this is invalid apart from discontinuity? As per [[T:VS]] — "'''''Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.'''''" — the fact that this contradicts the television series is not reason enough for invalidity, especially as ''[[Dr. Ninth (novel)|Dr. Ninth]]'' also contradicts the television series and is ''valid''. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 19:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
: Upupup. I'm sorry, but we have Forums now, albeit Temp ones. If you want to argue this, argue it in an inclusion debate. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC) | : Upupup. I'm sorry, but we have Forums now, albeit Temp ones. If you want to argue this, argue it in an inclusion debate. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: Yes but no, it has been stated that inclusion debates ''aren't'' being accepted right now due to not being a priority! ''Especially'' as this story may not even necessitate an inclusion if its invalidity is a mistake based upon a misconception of [[T:VS]], which has happened a lot before! And surely it'd be better to work out if this even ''needs'' an inclusion debate, here, first, rather than clogging up the proposed threads with yet inclusion debate that has no chance of being accepted currently. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:35, 12 February 2023
Validity
Is there actually a reason this is invalid apart from discontinuity? As per T:VS — "Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction." — the fact that this contradicts the television series is not reason enough for invalidity, especially as Dr. Ninth also contradicts the television series and is valid.
19:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Upupup. I'm sorry, but we have Forums now, albeit Temp ones. If you want to argue this, argue it in an inclusion debate. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but no, it has been stated that inclusion debates aren't being accepted right now due to not being a priority! Especially as this story may not even necessitate an inclusion if its invalidity is a mistake based upon a misconception of T:VS, which has happened a lot before! And surely it'd be better to work out if this even needs an inclusion debate, here, first, rather than clogging up the proposed threads with yet inclusion debate that has no chance of being accepted currently. 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
