Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
→Do we cover RPGs or not?
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
::::: As [[Douglas Adams]] once said, "And another thing..." I notice we thoughtlessly cover [[VG]]: ''[[Attack of the Graske]]'', despite it being '''WORSE''' at what you guys claim then this is. Now, Czech argues that the "companion" in the game is just another way of saying "you," "you're" helping the Doctor. I don't see it that way. He's not talking to "you," he's talking to "you're character." This is not the case of ''Attach...'', in that, he is literally telling you that YOU'RE helping him. From your couch, through your TV. No character, no cover-up, just "YOU need to help me... remote control..." So, why is ''Graske'' episode not up to question but ''WIT'' is? I digress. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 23:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC) | ::::: As [[Douglas Adams]] once said, "And another thing..." I notice we thoughtlessly cover [[VG]]: ''[[Attack of the Graske]]'', despite it being '''WORSE''' at what you guys claim then this is. Now, Czech argues that the "companion" in the game is just another way of saying "you," "you're" helping the Doctor. I don't see it that way. He's not talking to "you," he's talking to "you're character." This is not the case of ''Attach...'', in that, he is literally telling you that YOU'RE helping him. From your couch, through your TV. No character, no cover-up, just "YOU need to help me... remote control..." So, why is ''Graske'' episode not up to question but ''WIT'' is? I digress. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 23:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Don't mistake "having a page" for "what we cover". We're on a multi-year saga to define the scope of the wiki. As with the issues expressed at [[Forum:BBV and canon policy]]. we start from a position where the wiki wasn't policed and was covering everything that ''vaguely'' had an association with the DWU to firming up the borders a bit. [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]], [[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revanvolatrelundar]] and I have been trying to actively prune the wiki for a while now, and we've deleted scores of articles, while at the same time redacting hundreds more. It's a ''process'', so you can't use the argument "You've got somethign on ''Attack of the Graske'' so that means you must have something on ''Worlds in Time'' | |||
:Put simply, that ain't the way the ball bounces. | |||
:I the last coupla rounds of posting have strayed from the original question. I'm not looking, at the moment, at the merits of ''Worlds in Time''. What I want to know is this: | |||
::'''Doesn't the ban we already have in place against the FASA RPG naturally cover all RPGs?''' | |||
:Clearly, the current wording at [[T:CAN]] is not the real reason the FASA thing is banned. Narrative contradiction is the rule of the DWU, not the exception, so you can't throw something out just because it doesn't jive with another story. The real reason for the ban must surely be that RPGs are '''internally''' unstable narratives. They don't come out the same each time you play them. So anything which happens differently each time you play it shouldn't be considered a part of our tardis.wikia.com canon, because we don't know which outcome to go with. This would mean things like the [[DYD]] and [[FYF]] books would also be slapped with a {{tl|nc}} warning. I don't see anything wrong with saying: | |||
::'''Only those narratives with a consistent narrative, experienced in the same way for all those that consume that narrative, may be considered a valid source for the writing of articles.''' {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">19:51: Thu 29 Mar 2012 </span> | |||