User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150917235441/@comment-5918438-20151020013727

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150917235441
Revision as of 23:17, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

You might raise a good point there, that perhaps COMIC, PROSE, etc would tell us something more specific if it's already clear that it's an invalid source.

I happen to disagree with that stance, though. I think it's incredibly useful to emphasise that a story is not a valid source despite being in parentheses. The thing is, if you put the regular prefixes which we use for valid sources, readers might assume that the invalid stories are on the same level. In my opinion, TV, COMIC, PROSE and AUDIO should remain prefixes for valid stories only, and anything outside of that should use a prefix that tells us it's invalid.

NOTVALID, INVALID or INV instead of NOTDWU? This, I feel I can stand by, actually. The DWU, after all, is hard to define, and we do not seek to be an authority on what is or isn't part of it. Is a story set outside of the main universe a DWU story, anyway? It is much clearer to use one of the new proposed prefixes. I would got for NOTVALID, myself.