Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
81,877
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} | {{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} | ||
{{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers]][[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] | |||
{{big toc}} | |||
==Opening post== | ==Opening post== | ||
Well, this is the first inclusion debate this wiki has had since the old forums fell (which I wasn't around for). I think the fact that this proposal managed to climb to the top of [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads]] anyway demonstrates that, bounded as it is, it reflects an issue where the community feels we need to act, and sooner rather than later. | Well, this is the first inclusion debate this wiki has had since the old forums fell (which I wasn't around for). I think the fact that this proposal managed to climb to the top of [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed threads]] anyway demonstrates that, bounded as it is, it reflects an issue where the community feels we need to act, and sooner rather than later. | ||
Line 93: | Line 95: | ||
::: I fully support inclusion and feel that it is absolutely fine for whatever gets voted to the top being what's discussed, within mod discretion. Like OttselSpy, I'll believe a permanent forum will happen when it is live and functional and not a moment before. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | ::: I fully support inclusion and feel that it is absolutely fine for whatever gets voted to the top being what's discussed, within mod discretion. Like OttselSpy, I'll believe a permanent forum will happen when it is live and functional and not a moment before. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
Alright, alright. We're around 5 days of closure, and over for a week there have been no further comments. A lot has been discussed about ''Shalka'' in this wiki's past, and it's been, I'd say, fairly summarized in this very thread's opening post. | |||
[[User:Cousin Ettolrhc]] has made a really solid case under the "Classic Rule 4" argument that ''Shalka'' has always passed our [[T:VS|Valid sources]] requirements, and for that alone this thread's conclusion should be that '''''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' and its sequels are now to be treated as valid sources'''. | |||
However, I think there's some beauty in using our recently-codified "Rule 4 by Proxy" to help us solidify '''how''' we're treating these stories: as-of-2023, ''"the"'' [[Ninth Doctor]] of the ''Doctor Who'' universe is, in our collective minds, [[Christopher Eccleston]]. But as [[The Doctor's ninth incarnation]] illustrates, there's also no doubt that he isn't ''the only'' possible successor to Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor, on [[John Hurt|TV ''Who'' itself]]. Therefore, '''[[Richard E Grant]]'s Doctor and companions fall within the realm of "possible futures"''' (applying [[alternate timeline]], [[parallel universe]] or whichever other terminology individual stories may use). [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> |