User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222064850: Difference between revisions
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)) |
m (SOTO moved page User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222064850 to User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1/@comment-1272640-20161222064850: Preparing for split. Edit history will be retained at Inclusion debates 1.) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 03:15, 4 May 2023
I think we need to readdress numerous stories in and.
Take Global Conspiracy, for instance. It's not a parody, just tongue-in-cheek. A lot of the "parodies" are like this.
Others are claimed to be advertisements - but at least one is explicitly stated on its page to be a story, NOT an advert, and to have all the licenses!
So, here's my proposal:
One by one, we examine the invalid stories that have NOT already been discussed and deemed invalid (as the FP debate is ongoing, we're excluding that, too). This means all those little five-minute stories are readdressed, like The BAFTAs, the NTA 2011 sketch, etc.. Some will certainly be placed right back in the invalid bin - but how many of us have watched all of these stories, or read them, etc.?
