User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5545417-20150725190725/@comment-1827503-20150910032902: 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: | ||
After my review of the comics: | After my review of the comics: | ||
1. Yes, they are part of the DWU. We cannot disqualify them on the grounds of Rule 4 because they were written as part of the DWU.<br /> | 1. Yes, they are part of the DWU. We cannot disqualify them on the grounds of Rule 4 because they were written as part of the DWU.<br /> | ||
2. No, they are not part of the DWU. While there is no evidence that they are intended to be set outside the DWU, they ''are'' intended to be parodic. Our community discussion has determined that even with no explicit statement of authorial intent, we can still invoke Rule 4. | 2. No, they are not part of the DWU. While there is no evidence that they are intended to be set outside the DWU, they ''are'' intended to be parodic. Our community discussion has determined that even with no explicit statement of authorial intent, we can still invoke Rule 4. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20150725190725-5545417/20150910032902-1827503]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:26, 27 April 2023
After my review of the comics:
1. Yes, they are part of the DWU. We cannot disqualify them on the grounds of Rule 4 because they were written as part of the DWU.
2. No, they are not part of the DWU. While there is no evidence that they are intended to be set outside the DWU, they are intended to be parodic. Our community discussion has determined that even with no explicit statement of authorial intent, we can still invoke Rule 4.
