User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222064850/@comment-20607870-20161223090207: Difference between revisions
m (SOTO moved page User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222064850/@comment-20607870-20161223090207 to User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1/@comment-1272640-20161222064850/@comment-20607870-20161223090207: Preparing for split. Edit history will be retained at Inclusion debates 1.) |
m (SOTO moved page User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1/@comment-1272640-20161222064850/@comment-20607870-20161223090207 to User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222064850/@comment-20607870-20161223090207 over redirect: I didn't want subpages moved.) |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 03:18, 4 May 2023
Thefartydoctor wrote: I agree with Ffwhiffahder. There's nothing wrong with having these characters in the cast list of the story page but I don't see the point in having pages for EastEnders and Call the Midwife characters, simply because they once appeared in a skit that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, which I believe relates somewhat to rule 4. DiT was never meant to be taken seriously, and quite rightly the Wiki treats it as invalid. Yet the Wiki is happy to give each EastEnders characters unnecessary articles. If this story is invalid, then so are its characters.
It has to be said that a Wiki isn't great just because it has more pages. A Wiki is only great when the rules are solid and when its team knows what it's doing haha.
It's nice to know which characters appeared and what they did. It's important. DIT isn't a skit, it's not a parody just a story that's so tounge-in-cheek that it can't be taken seriously.
