User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-6032121-20200905235512: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
…How is this an inclusion debate, exactly? Somebody asked a question. It was answered. And if anything it'd be an ''ex''clusion debate, the current state of affairs being thus-far-unquestioned validity. | …How is this an inclusion debate, exactly? Somebody asked a question. It was answered. And if anything it'd be an ''ex''clusion debate, the current state of affairs being thus-far-unquestioned validity. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
I think the precedent set by [[Thread:177099]] is fairly clear here, and I don't see why we have to open another lengthy debate just because some new users asked a question on the talk page due to being apparently unfamiliar with the finer points of our policy in this matter. | I think the precedent set by [[Thread:177099]] is fairly clear here, and I don't see why we have to open another lengthy debate just because some new users asked a question on the talk page due to being apparently unfamiliar with the finer points of our policy in this matter. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200905235227-1432718/20200905235512-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:31, 27 April 2023
…How is this an inclusion debate, exactly? Somebody asked a question. It was answered. And if anything it'd be an exclusion debate, the current state of affairs being thus-far-unquestioned validity.
Beyond that, I've said my piece: there is nothing obviously parodical in these stories, and in the absence of a statement from the authors which might show that it breaks Rule 4, I don't know why these could possibly be invalid. They're undoubtedly licensed, released, and stories.
I think the precedent set by Thread:177099 is fairly clear here, and I don't see why we have to open another lengthy debate just because some new users asked a question on the talk page due to being apparently unfamiliar with the finer points of our policy in this matter.
