User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-25421326-20200308132630/@comment-6032121-20200506100939: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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: | ||
Yes, it's a sort of double-whammy. | Yes, it's a sort of double-whammy. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
All that being said, [[User:Shambala108]], you really ought to read the original post in full. It explains better than I can why this debate is necessary for the good of the Wiki — and while I share your distaste for the white-on-blue colour scheme of most forum posts, OPs are actually white-on-brown, so there's that. Also, could I recommend, if it really gives you trouble, copypasting the text of the long post into a Word document or similar? I've done so on occasion when wanting to avoid a headache. | All that being said, [[User:Shambala108]], you really ought to read the original post in full. It explains better than I can why this debate is necessary for the good of the Wiki — and while I share your distaste for the white-on-blue colour scheme of most forum posts, OPs are actually white-on-brown, so there's that. Also, could I recommend, if it really gives you trouble, copypasting the text of the long post into a Word document or similar? I've done so on occasion when wanting to avoid a headache. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200308132630-25421326/20200506100939-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:07, 27 April 2023
Yes, it's a sort of double-whammy.
- A), the references to DCtT’s events in later, clearly Rule-4-compliant media keep piling up, with one happening in the recent and high-profile release At Childhood's End. We acknowledge that on its own, a reference in later valid media doth not a valid story make — but it's certainly new evidence, which justified, on a formal level, the reopening of the debate. It's not ironclad evidence on its own but it does suggest the old debate's interpretation of Nev Fountain's supposed statement of "it's not set in the DWU" might have been misguided.
- B), a careful analysis of the original debate(s) show that it was overdue for a revisit anyway. The original was carried out before T:VS in its final form existed, it interpreted the supposed Rule 4-breaking quote rather arbitrarily, and even the latest closure of a discussion about DCtT seemed to rely on a personal feeling of "it doesn't fit into the canon" rather than hard facts about authorial intent.
All that being said, User:Shambala108, you really ought to read the original post in full. It explains better than I can why this debate is necessary for the good of the Wiki — and while I share your distaste for the white-on-blue colour scheme of most forum posts, OPs are actually white-on-brown, so there's that. Also, could I recommend, if it really gives you trouble, copypasting the text of the long post into a Word document or similar? I've done so on occasion when wanting to avoid a headache.
