User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-24894325-20170228150713: 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: | ||
I agree that excluding future stories by default is wrong. But That's not how I understood AED. My feeling was that he proposed, while considering a LEGO story to assume it is a "toy story" by default until proven otherwise. | I agree that excluding future stories by default is wrong. But That's not how I understood AED. My feeling was that he proposed, while considering a LEGO story to assume it is a "toy story" by default until proven otherwise. | ||
It's my general qualm with the explanations of Rule 4. They are written for stories that are by default written as DW stories, but may be excluded given sufficient evidence. We do not really have a clearly formulated rule for stories not written for DWU, be they crossovers or something else, which should be invalid by default but accepted given sufficient evidence. | It's my general qualm with the explanations of Rule 4. They are written for stories that are by default written as DW stories, but may be excluded given sufficient evidence. We do not really have a clearly formulated rule for stories not written for DWU, be they crossovers or something else, which should be invalid by default but accepted given sufficient evidence. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170228150713-24894325]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:46, 27 April 2023
I agree that excluding future stories by default is wrong. But That's not how I understood AED. My feeling was that he proposed, while considering a LEGO story to assume it is a "toy story" by default until proven otherwise.
It's my general qualm with the explanations of Rule 4. They are written for stories that are by default written as DW stories, but may be excluded given sufficient evidence. We do not really have a clearly formulated rule for stories not written for DWU, be they crossovers or something else, which should be invalid by default but accepted given sufficient evidence.
