User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28743561-20191009174707/@comment-4028641-20191103134250: 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:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28743561-20191009174707/@comment-4028641-20191103134250'''
Fair, fair.
Fair, fair.


Personally, I've always felt is was best to cover animated/reconstructed stories on separate pages from the originals. But this has no precedent, so I think it's fine to expand the original to reference this as a reconstructed version. To me, it certainly seems like this was made because of how unlikely an animated version is, so it's basically the same category of content.
Personally, I've always felt is was best to cover animated/reconstructed stories on separate pages from the originals. But this has no precedent, so I think it's fine to expand the original to reference this as a reconstructed version. To me, it certainly seems like this was made because of how unlikely an animated version is, so it's basically the same category of content.
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20191009174707-28743561/20191103134250-4028641]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 14:26, 27 April 2023

Fair, fair.

Personally, I've always felt is was best to cover animated/reconstructed stories on separate pages from the originals. But this has no precedent, so I think it's fine to expand the original to reference this as a reconstructed version. To me, it certainly seems like this was made because of how unlikely an animated version is, so it's basically the same category of content.