Trusted
8,496
edits
User talk:NateBumber: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Arc content
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 407: | Line 407: | ||
See [https://web.archive.org/web/20170202012221/http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:178134 here]. I was thinking of how the wiki used to group stories into arc categories. It was widely agreed to that this was a bad idea due to vagueness. Some of the nuances are gestured towards in the thread, we have a page on the [[Bad Wolf meme]], but we don't have a category for stories that are part of the Bad Wolf arc. Interlinking material between stories is fine as a distinct thing in itself, the stories themselves as discrete events are fine. But when you start trying to actually pull them together into an arc it got vague and messy. (At least, that's how I'm reading the thread. Could just be the titles on the categories. There's enough ambiguity to disagree. But I think there's hard and fast objection to the categories writ large there.) Unfortunately we don't have all of the thread, but it looks like OS25's proposal was rejected for whatever reason. We can ask him if he remembers the conclusion. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | See [https://web.archive.org/web/20170202012221/http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:178134 here]. I was thinking of how the wiki used to group stories into arc categories. It was widely agreed to that this was a bad idea due to vagueness. Some of the nuances are gestured towards in the thread, we have a page on the [[Bad Wolf meme]], but we don't have a category for stories that are part of the Bad Wolf arc. Interlinking material between stories is fine as a distinct thing in itself, the stories themselves as discrete events are fine. But when you start trying to actually pull them together into an arc it got vague and messy. (At least, that's how I'm reading the thread. Could just be the titles on the categories. There's enough ambiguity to disagree. But I think there's hard and fast objection to the categories writ large there.) Unfortunately we don't have all of the thread, but it looks like OS25's proposal was rejected for whatever reason. We can ask him if he remembers the conclusion. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
:I fully expected the answer to be relatively off the cuff. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6902.pdf These] [http://astrofrelat.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/filosofia_cientifica/media/papers/Evans-Can_There_Be_Vague_Objects_.pdf four] [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-25002-6_39 papers] [https://prce.hu/w/preprints/metameta.pdf are] my go to examples for this. But looking through my downloads I [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2250337 did] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666659 find] [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/127647/ some] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03543 fun] [https://philpapers.org/rec/ESTMOP ones]. | :I fully expected the answer to be relatively off the cuff. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6902.pdf These] [http://astrofrelat.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/filosofia_cientifica/media/papers/Evans-Can_There_Be_Vague_Objects_.pdf four] [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-25002-6_39 papers] [https://prce.hu/w/preprints/metameta.pdf are] my go to examples for this. But looking through my downloads I [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2250337 did] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666659 find] [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/127647/ some] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03543 fun] [https://philpapers.org/rec/ESTMOP ones]. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
