25,433
edits
Talk:The Parting of the Ways (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:The Parting of the Ways (TV story) (edit)
Revision as of 22:13, 16 November 2017
, 16 November 2017→Continuity section: reply to N8
(→Continuity section: reply to Shambala108) |
(→Continuity section: reply to N8) |
||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
:: I would also like to thank [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] for remembering and being able to find those old discussions. I feel I should also add that [[Tardis:Format for novels]] and [[Tardis:Format for comic stories]] explicitly state that a reference to a story "does not need to be in brackets". This was already the policy during the discussion dug out by Shambala108. Whether that signals OOU is okay or simply allows a more liberal format for references in an otherwise IU format, it is hard to say. I do agree with Shambala108 that this is best discussed at Panopticon since allowing unrestricted OOU in "Continuity" (rather than just such unbracketed references) is likely to open a serious can of worms, especially in the absence of any other guidance, as on [[Tardis:Format for novels]]. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:33, November 16, 2017 (UTC) | :: I would also like to thank [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] for remembering and being able to find those old discussions. I feel I should also add that [[Tardis:Format for novels]] and [[Tardis:Format for comic stories]] explicitly state that a reference to a story "does not need to be in brackets". This was already the policy during the discussion dug out by Shambala108. Whether that signals OOU is okay or simply allows a more liberal format for references in an otherwise IU format, it is hard to say. I do agree with Shambala108 that this is best discussed at Panopticon since allowing unrestricted OOU in "Continuity" (rather than just such unbracketed references) is likely to open a serious can of worms, especially in the absence of any other guidance, as on [[Tardis:Format for novels]]. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:33, November 16, 2017 (UTC) | ||
Dear Nate, I sincerely apologise for missing your attempt at compromise. I really did completely miss it. To answer your suggestion, I would not have interfered in such an edit. It is a literal statement from the novel, so it is factual. My personal opinion is still that Platt purposefully wrote it in such a way that it is not entirely clear what is stated, so as to avoid prior/future stories contradicting this. But this is certainly not a reason to ignore his statement as long as it is not interpreted in a speculative way. In addition, I would have absolutely added the information that Ace was travelling back in time from 2001 to 1887 as that provides context to the cryptic phrase used in the novel. Then the statement on the page is painstakingly correct and readers can make their own conclusions. Regarding the Twitter discussion, as you might imagine, I was not aware of it. At any rate, we should not blindly follow any complaints/suggestions Twitter might have. It can be treated as a starting point of an investigation but should never be treated as a final authority, even when the tweet is from Moffat. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:13, November 16, 2017 (UTC) | |||
