Forum talk:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround

Conclusion?

I'm kind of at a loss for what to do next since this thread doesn't seem to have any kind of conclusion post from a mod, despite the archive claiming it to be resolved. So… what? What do we now officially class as valid? What don't we? WaltK ☎ 17:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh crap wait yes there is. It just wasn't showing up in the list for some reason.WaltK ☎ 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That being said, said conclusion's annoying habit of beating around the bush doesn't make things much clearer. Because of the vague wording, I'm no more the wiser whether or not Chute! or Disney Time are now valid. WaltK ☎ 18:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

They are — I'm sorry, I thought that was clear. Feel free to ask for clarifications on any other point at any time. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"The Original Inclusion Debates"

For the record, I will note that this was an article talk page, and it grew in a largely top down fashion over the course of years that was later moved to a forum thread to better archive it. It is wholly disanalogous to a thread this large and convoluted taking place in the span of three weeks. This is not to say the rest of the ruling on the speedround in general being Kosher is wrong, merely that this is a really bad comparison for the purposes of why people were hesitant towards this thread. Najawin ☎ 18:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. Indeed, it's fair enough that I'm going to edit this caveat into the thing as a footnote. Though yes, I stand by the idea that a Speedround is a sound idea in principle even if this one got too big. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)