User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649/@comment-188432-20121218220502: 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"> | ||
Shambala108 wrote: | Shambala108 wrote: | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
Since you have referenced the article [[canon]] as somehow representing what the wiki believes about canon, it may be that admin need to lock that article down and make it more reflective of [[T:CAN]]. I dunno. Neither I nor any other admin have felt particularly bound, in a policy sense, to what the page [[canon]] says. | Since you have referenced the article [[canon]] as somehow representing what the wiki believes about canon, it may be that admin need to lock that article down and make it more reflective of [[T:CAN]]. I dunno. Neither I nor any other admin have felt particularly bound, in a policy sense, to what the page [[canon]] says. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20121212231649-4028641/20121218220502-188432]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:13, 27 April 2023
Shambala108 wrote: If you look at the Canon page, you'll see the wiki's definition of continuity ...
There is a distinction which must be made between the page about the term "canon" and the wiki's canon policy.
The first is trying to define the term, and is not particularly overseen by the wiki's administrative staff. It has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
The second is the practical usage of canon on the wiki, and it's what we're talking about. The only operational definition the wiki has about canon is, "it is something which does not exist".
Since you have referenced the article canon as somehow representing what the wiki believes about canon, it may be that admin need to lock that article down and make it more reflective of T:CAN. I dunno. Neither I nor any other admin have felt particularly bound, in a policy sense, to what the page canon says.
