User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5791028-20171230034337: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO | Forum Archive
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|The Panopticon/Should we delete the pure historical category?}} | |||
Now that the pseudo-historicals category has been deleted, I think we should have a debate the pure historicals. The other category was deleted for being poorly defined so how do we feel about the definition of a "purely historical" story (i.e. no science fiction elements apart from the Doctor and the TARDIS)? Is that good enough or is more needed to justify the category? | Now that the pseudo-historicals category has been deleted, I think we should have a debate the pure historicals. The other category was deleted for being poorly defined so how do we feel about the definition of a "purely historical" story (i.e. no science fiction elements apart from the Doctor and the TARDIS)? Is that good enough or is more needed to justify the category? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20171230034337-5791028]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:53, 27 April 2023
Now that the pseudo-historicals category has been deleted, I think we should have a debate the pure historicals. The other category was deleted for being poorly defined so how do we feel about the definition of a "purely historical" story (i.e. no science fiction elements apart from the Doctor and the TARDIS)? Is that good enough or is more needed to justify the category?
