Trusted
8,474
edits
More actions
Forum:The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered (edit)
Revision as of 02:56, 29 February 2024
, 29 February→LEGO Dimensions coverage discussion
| Line 535: | Line 535: | ||
I ''can'' see how these could be controversial, but I think we should cover as much as it feasible. (All adventure worlds? Might be a bit much, but I can see an argument for them, depending on how diagetic the portals on [[Vorton]] are) [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) | I ''can'' see how these could be controversial, but I think we should cover as much as it feasible. (All adventure worlds? Might be a bit much, but I can see an argument for them, depending on how diagetic the portals on [[Vorton]] are) [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Okay, reading through this and rereading [[Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein]], I think we have to ''at least'' do Phase 8. I'm not sure Phase 9 is necessary, but if we're doing validity I don't see a way around Phase 8. | |||
::Only information which tangibly exists within the source is Wikifiable and thus potentially valid. For example, in a video game, a pre-set cutscene or element which may or may not play depending on your choice can be cited, but not the detail of actions which a player-character might undertake moment-to-moment. | |||
:All of this seems to qualify under this standard. I don't see a clear demarcation here. If we had restricted our ruling in that thread, been more cautious... Maybe. But otherwise, if we're going to have validity, I think the entire thing becomes valid - it's all wikifiable. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ''LEGO Dimensions'' validity discussion == | == ''LEGO Dimensions'' validity discussion == | ||