User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-1432718-20170311233453: 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: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
OttselSpy25 wrote: | OttselSpy25 wrote: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
Also, I don't think it's particularly fair for the person who starts the thread to be calling for its closure, especially after only a week. | Also, I don't think it's particularly fair for the person who starts the thread to be calling for its closure, especially after only a week. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170306172600-4028641/20170311233453-1432718]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:51, 27 April 2023
OttselSpy25 wrote: "Unanimous" as a phrase was a reference to the fact that there has been no differentiating opinion in the thread. That is still true. It is still a fact that the debate so far has been unanimous. As in, no one has disagreed, and these days if people didn't agree with something they would tell you about it.
Once again, you are making assumptions about why people aren't posting. Given the personal attacks in several of the previous validity debates, it's no wonder people are shying away.
At any rate, you want a dissenting opinion? Here's mine.
I have not been convinced by any arguments above that a sequel/prequel to an invalid story could be itself valid.
And, given that we have hundreds of valid stories that are missing plot summaries, there are at least dozens of pages that could use images, there are dozens of orphaned pages, hundreds of articles needing proper citation, etc. etc. (see Tardis:To do list), I see no good coming from the incessant re-opening of closed debates that we've had recently when there is so much other work to be done on the wiki.
Also, I don't think it's particularly fair for the person who starts the thread to be calling for its closure, especially after only a week.
