Trusted
8,511
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround (view source)
Revision as of 23:10, 8 April 2023
, 8 April 2023→Fourth Wall discussion
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
::I somewhat agree. There's just so much here and you're jumping around from section to section that things will fall through the cracks. I missed that there was a proposal to validated 10k Dawns here as a complete sidenote! Given how controversial that was, it clearly shouldn't be an after thought in a thread like this, we need to make sure it's done right, and we shouldn't even be discussing it at present time. In the same way, I just can't comment on some of these, I need to look into specific reasoning used, etc. There's so much here that the only one I feel confident to comment on ''already'' I did. Like, I'm not thrilled about the three week time limit already. Compacting 10 threads into 1 just makes the issue worse. I'm not sure Memes is correct here about his R4 concerns, we could discuss that at length, but I think compacting everything into 1 thread is bad precedent and makes for bad policy. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | ::I somewhat agree. There's just so much here and you're jumping around from section to section that things will fall through the cracks. I missed that there was a proposal to validated 10k Dawns here as a complete sidenote! Given how controversial that was, it clearly shouldn't be an after thought in a thread like this, we need to make sure it's done right, and we shouldn't even be discussing it at present time. In the same way, I just can't comment on some of these, I need to look into specific reasoning used, etc. There's so much here that the only one I feel confident to comment on ''already'' I did. Like, I'm not thrilled about the three week time limit already. Compacting 10 threads into 1 just makes the issue worse. I'm not sure Memes is correct here about his R4 concerns, we could discuss that at length, but I think compacting everything into 1 thread is bad precedent and makes for bad policy. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
::I love the speedrounds. I think OttselSpy is a genius for creating them. This is why rule 4 needs changing. It should be is it intended to be set in "a" DWU. Most of these things are trying to tell a story with the Doctor in some form of DWU, some form of continuity of its own, even if it's not the same one. Everything with the Doctor, bar outright spoofs, is intended to be in a universe where the Doctor is a character. | :::I love the speedrounds. I think OttselSpy is a genius for creating them. This is why rule 4 needs changing. It should be is it intended to be set in "a" DWU. Most of these things are trying to tell a story with the Doctor in some form of DWU, some form of continuity of its own, even if it's not the same one. Everything with the Doctor, bar outright spoofs, is intended to be in a universe where the Doctor is a character. | ||
::Disney Time is the exception. It goes out of its way to link into the events of Terror of the Zygons. It goes out its way to restore the cliffhanger of Revenge of the Cybermen so Disney Time fits. Just like Time Crash. Tom isn't just in costume, he's portraying the Doctor. | :::Disney Time is the exception. It goes out of its way to link into the events of Terror of the Zygons. It goes out its way to restore the cliffhanger of Revenge of the Cybermen so Disney Time fits. Just like Time Crash. Tom isn't just in costume, he's portraying the Doctor. | ||
::I'm a strong believer in the validity of every non-parodical piece of fiction on this site. I believe "not set in the DWU" is fine for evaluating whether a seemingly semi-licenced spin off with characters from a DWU story, Senor 105, is actually Doctor Who. I genuinely believe that if it has the Doctor, it passes rule 4, it's clearly set in some universe where the Doctor is a being that exists. | :::I'm a strong believer in the validity of every non-parodical piece of fiction on this site. I believe "not set in the DWU" is fine for evaluating whether a seemingly semi-licenced spin off with characters from a DWU story, Senor 105, is actually Doctor Who. I genuinely believe that if it has the Doctor, it passes rule 4, it's clearly set in some universe where the Doctor is a being that exists. | ||
::Wanting these things to be invalid feels more like wanting them to be "non canon". I want the Spy Master to fail rule 4, alas he won't, I just ignore him. Much love. [[Special:Contributions/81.108.82.15|81.108.82.15]]<sup>[[User talk:81.108.82.15#top|talk to me]]</sup> 23:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | :::Wanting these things to be invalid feels more like wanting them to be "non canon". I want the Spy Master to fail rule 4, alas he won't, I just ignore him. Much love. [[Special:Contributions/81.108.82.15|81.108.82.15]]<sup>[[User talk:81.108.82.15#top|talk to me]]</sup> 23:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::Conversely, I think insisting that we think of things as being in "a" DWU is insisting on thinking of things in terms of canon, just the broadest possible one. So perhaps we should refrain from using it as a term of abuse. Even in the exact opposite sense of what Cornell first referred to. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== ''TARDIS Yule Logs'' == | == ''TARDIS Yule Logs'' == | ||