Trusted
8,512
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround (view source)
Revision as of 09:16, 9 April 2023
, 9 April 2023→''Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time'' discussion
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 506: | Line 506: | ||
::::: I maintain, with respect, that I am misunderstood. No The Simpsons doesn't count it isn't licensed, only licensed things should count, but Fangs of Time is made by the BBC with the Fourth Doctor. Maybe he's not there through conventional means, but he's there somehow. As a character. To exclude it still feels too much like canon. [[Special:Contributions/81.108.82.15|81.108.82.15]]<sup>[[User talk:81.108.82.15#top|talk to me]]</sup> 08:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | ::::: I maintain, with respect, that I am misunderstood. No The Simpsons doesn't count it isn't licensed, only licensed things should count, but Fangs of Time is made by the BBC with the Fourth Doctor. Maybe he's not there through conventional means, but he's there somehow. As a character. To exclude it still feels too much like canon. [[Special:Contributions/81.108.82.15|81.108.82.15]]<sup>[[User talk:81.108.82.15#top|talk to me]]</sup> 08:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
I have no strong opinion on Fangs of Time, I don't know enough about the specific thread that invalidated it. But you're arguing that we should replace "the DWU" with "a DWU". Appealing to R2 as the delimiter is completely irrelevant. We could imagine a country where even for these cameos you have to get permission from the corporation to do so. This permission wouldn't entail that they're part of "a" DWU, they're something completely different. The character being there is ''not sufficient'' to entail that they're part of the DWU. "DWU", as the wiki understands it, refers to '''''a literary universe''''', not a specific universe or multiverse in some sort of textual metaphysical sense. There is no reference to canon here. Not one. Stop accusing people of being against things because of residual canon thinking. This is precisely the term of abuse we should avoid. Neither Memes nor I are thinking in terms of canon, I assure you. Indeed, it's precisely because of my extreme disinterest in canon that I'm against rephrasing things in the manner you're suggesting. Validity is about what the wiki covers. No more, no less. I'm a "validity positivist", as it were, if Memes can appreciate the joke. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== ''Requiem for Death's Head'' == | == ''Requiem for Death's Head'' == | ||