Trusted
45,834
edits
More actions
Undo revision 3405253 by Timelydia1234 (talk)
Tags: Reverted 2017 source edit |
(Undo revision 3405253 by Timelydia1234 (talk)) Tag: Undo |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
im sorry that's stupid why would you put a invalid stories in appearances lists they are not canon so the doctor did not go on that adventure because its invalid this rule should be changed. {{Unsigned|Timelydia1234}} | im sorry that's stupid why would you put a invalid stories in appearances lists they are not canon so the doctor did not go on that adventure because its invalid this rule should be changed. {{Unsigned|Timelydia1234}} | ||
: In regards to [[User talk:Tsjadwtc]], I think that you've misunderstood, actually. The exact quote is: | |||
{{Simplequote|Moreover, as proposed in the opening post, rule 3-failing (e.g. unreleased/unproduced) stories may now be added to lists of appearences as a separate section below the main list.|@[[User:Bongolium500|Bongo50]]}} | |||
: @[[User:Bongolium500|Bongo50]] specifically specified [[T:VS|rule three]] failing stories go in a separate section, not regular invalid sources. You can ask @[[User:Bongolium500|Bongo50]] for clarification if you want. Many thanks, and happy editing. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 14:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Also to clarify about canon, our validity systems are fundamentally not the same as a canonicity system. As highlighted on [[T:VS]]: | |||
{{simplequote|A valid source is one that we as a wiki believe satisfactorily and intentionally describes information and events in the Doctor Who universe. If a source is marked invalid, '''it is not because it is "worth less" or "didn't happen"'''; it simply means that due to some aspect(s) of the nature of the source, we don't consider it able to be used as a reliable and actual account of the DWU. Hence, two contradicting sources can be considered equally valid, while one that seems like it fits in may not be for the reasons below.|[[T:VS]] (emphasis mine)}} | |||
:: Many of our "invalid" sources are as such for technical reasons such as branching narratives or even lack of narratives, but this never meant that the author intended for them to be non-canonical. There is a big difference between invalid sources and non-canonical sources, and as per [[T:CANON]], this Wiki does not care about canon. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 14:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||