Trusted
8,503
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)
Revision as of 13:04, 12 January 2023
, 12 January 2023→Comments and concerns
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
=== Comments and concerns === | === Comments and concerns === | ||
::'''Do you have specific concerns about this proposal that are getting in the way of you making up your mind? Leave them here for discussion.''' | ::'''Do you have specific concerns about this proposal that are getting in the way of you making up your mind? Leave them here for discussion.''' | ||
So before I complain, let me just note that I would love for this proposal to pass. I really would. My ideal version of the wiki is substantially more lenient and open than the one we currently have, if I was the dictator of the wiki we'd have twice the number of pages we do, almost nothing would be invalid, it would be a very different place. And the proposal as it stands is certainly worth ''discussing''. | |||
But I don't think we should implement it as it currently stands. Why's this? Because the criterion Scrooge has selected for bringing these stories "into validity" is too vague, and, quite frankly, smacks of canon. (/Gasps of outrage/ "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but it's true - those who are feint of heart - avert your eyes!") | |||
We've already resolved the issue of "sequels/prequels to invalid stories", and I'm not sure at a glance how this isn't fundamentally the same discussion. This is one area where it's frustrating that the old forums are still dead, because there are clear overlaps in the two discussions, but it's hard to tell precisely how much of what's being said is a reiteration of that previous discussion, though we can be sure some of it is. | |||
[[User:Scrooge MacDuck/The Lost Closing Post#Canon Thinking? In your brain? It's more likely than you think|But to needle Scrooge a little:]] | |||
{{quote|Come ''on''. You're refusing to take seriously a story that's clearly being referenced in these other ones. It's obvious that they intend the original story to be... |Scrooge?}} | |||
I'm also not sure that the proposal as it stands is even workable. It's going to turn into elaborate games of tea leaf readings, trying to find out if a particular source tries to bring "them into continuity" (imagine me rolling my eyes completely into the back of my head here) or if it's just a fun little easter egg. For instance, I wouldn't consider Tomorrow Windows to do this! Maybe my interpretation is idiosyncratic, but Tomorrow Windows is explicitly showing potential futures. | |||
''With that said,'' I think there's a workable version of this proposal here. But it's weaker than Scrooge and I think others would like, including myself. Let's go back and read [[T:VS]], which we all have, but since we're discussing amending them we need to be clear. | |||
{{quote|If a story was ''intended'' to be set outside the DWU, then it's ''probably'' not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination.|Rule 4}} | |||
From further down: | |||
{{quote|Consequently, '''extraordinary non-narrative evidence''' — such as the story's author directly saying that the story wasn't intended to take place in the DWU at all, but merely make use of DWU licenses to tell a very different story — must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4|[[T:VS]]}} | |||
Now, I'll be honest, in reading the past forum threads when they were up, I don't think I ever saw an example of a story intended not to be in the DWU that was still allowed in. Were this more regularly the case, I don't think we'd be in this predicament. | |||
But in effect, when it comes to rule 4 the burden of proof is on those who wish to invalidate them using ''statements about authorial intent''. I would like to suggest that a clearly workable approach to Scrooge's proposal, one that doesn't get bogged down in tea leaf reading or canon thinking, is to do the reverse! Once a story has been invalidated by the original author's authorial intent, it can be ''revalidated'' by the authorial intent of authors of other stories, ''being held to the same standards of evidence as we hold rule 4 discussions currently.'' | |||
This approach allows us to "provide a path to citizenship", as it were, to the stories that are the [https://twitter.com/Prog_Ares/status/1507170074280579077 beloved black sheep] of the larger DWU franchise. We can bring them in out from the cold, accept them once more back into the family, but in doing so be careful to distinguish between fun references and gags and those authors who genuinely are trying to weld things together. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Temporary forums]] | [[Category:Temporary forums]] | ||
