Trusted
25,260
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
I'm skeptical but optimistic, the second condition seems too arbitrary in application. The rest seems fine. If that can be made more consistent I think this works. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC) | I'm skeptical but optimistic, the second condition seems too arbitrary in application. The rest seems fine. If that can be made more consistent I think this works. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
:I am with Najawin in that the second is rather arbitrary and may lead to arguments, whilst the rest works rather well.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) | :I am with Najawin in that the second is rather arbitrary and may lead to arguments, whilst the rest works rather well.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: I think Nate's [[#When the story title is insufficient as a dab term|expanded reasoning]] of that condition is a little clearer. The idea of a character not originating in their first story (Victoria) or having a non-unique name are pretty distinct. It's more the Aunt Lavinia example which could create debate. Perhaps if the condition were reworded to specify the ideas of non-originality and non-uniqueness, then it would be clearer? I think, whatever the case, making decisions on dab terms will always require some editor discretion. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) |