231,276
edits
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7/-/-)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Now '''this''' is an inclusion debate I can get behind! | Now '''this''' is an inclusion debate I can get behind! | ||
Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
Oddly enough, the original decision to exclude Phoenix Court appears to have been done in a complete absence of anyone who'd actually read the trilogy, meaning the series was judged based on cobbled-together online reviews instead of any real familiarity with the source material. I think that's a pretty funny way to decide inclusion debates, especially when it's a matter as small as three books involving a character who's mostly doing her own thing nowadays anyway. I see no reason for Phoenix Court to be invalid. | Oddly enough, the original decision to exclude Phoenix Court appears to have been done in a complete absence of anyone who'd actually read the trilogy, meaning the series was judged based on cobbled-together online reviews instead of any real familiarity with the source material. I think that's a pretty funny way to decide inclusion debates, especially when it's a matter as small as three books involving a character who's mostly doing her own thing nowadays anyway. I see no reason for Phoenix Court to be invalid. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170106043421-1272640/20170106045231-28349479]]</noinclude> |