User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-46649152-20200910013458: 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: | ||
Hello, OP here, been looking for information on this and finding nothing concrete. All first-person statements from Tim Quinn and Dicky Howett I've been able to find after 2 or 3 days of on-and-off google searches and looking through old DWMs refer to all of their DWU work as "comedy strips" or "humour strips" or some other phrase referring to parody. I've found a few instances in which they talk about the series, but never mention anything about its status as parody. In some instances, they refer to their Who work as parodical, not specifying between their main strip and this series, sometimes even making these claims closely following mentions of History Tour. Now, I'm pretty new to this whole wiki thing, so I don't really know where this leaves us. Do we consider this invalid? Do we keep it valid until we are given proper evidence to the contrary? Does what I've described above count as reasonable evidence towards invalidity? Thanks for being patient with me! | Hello, OP here, been looking for information on this and finding nothing concrete. All first-person statements from Tim Quinn and Dicky Howett I've been able to find after 2 or 3 days of on-and-off google searches and looking through old DWMs refer to all of their DWU work as "comedy strips" or "humour strips" or some other phrase referring to parody. I've found a few instances in which they talk about the series, but never mention anything about its status as parody. In some instances, they refer to their Who work as parodical, not specifying between their main strip and this series, sometimes even making these claims closely following mentions of History Tour. Now, I'm pretty new to this whole wiki thing, so I don't really know where this leaves us. Do we consider this invalid? Do we keep it valid until we are given proper evidence to the contrary? Does what I've described above count as reasonable evidence towards invalidity? Thanks for being patient with me! | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200905235227-1432718/20200910013458-46649152]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:31, 27 April 2023
Hello, OP here, been looking for information on this and finding nothing concrete. All first-person statements from Tim Quinn and Dicky Howett I've been able to find after 2 or 3 days of on-and-off google searches and looking through old DWMs refer to all of their DWU work as "comedy strips" or "humour strips" or some other phrase referring to parody. I've found a few instances in which they talk about the series, but never mention anything about its status as parody. In some instances, they refer to their Who work as parodical, not specifying between their main strip and this series, sometimes even making these claims closely following mentions of History Tour. Now, I'm pretty new to this whole wiki thing, so I don't really know where this leaves us. Do we consider this invalid? Do we keep it valid until we are given proper evidence to the contrary? Does what I've described above count as reasonable evidence towards invalidity? Thanks for being patient with me!
