214,430
edits
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200511054726/@comment-6032121-20200511161054: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200511054726/@comment-6032121-20200511161054 (edit)
Revision as of 23:46, 27 April 2023
, 27 April 2023Bot: 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)
(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: | ||
You're on the wrong thread for questions about the story's validity. [[Thread:272784|This]] is the inclusion debate. But the supposed "frequent and unexplained fourth wall breaks" have already been brought up there, and largely refuted, though the thread has yet to be ''definitively'' concluded by an admin ruling. | You're on the wrong thread for questions about the story's validity. [[Thread:272784|This]] is the inclusion debate. But the supposed "frequent and unexplained fourth wall breaks" have already been brought up there, and largely refuted, though the thread has yet to be ''definitively'' concluded by an admin ruling. | ||
Also, ''[[The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast)|The Castellan…]]'' was ''created as invalid'' because of the much more blatant and unexplained lapse in in-universe logic. But it's not a hard precedent, I think, because there's never been a proper inclusion debate with an admin decision. (And I don't think there ''should'' be one yet until [[User:SOTO]]'s concerns about the thing's copyright status as expressed on the talk page are alleviated.) | Also, ''[[The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast)|The Castellan…]]'' was ''created as invalid'' because of the much more blatant and unexplained lapse in in-universe logic. But it's not a hard precedent, I think, because there's never been a proper inclusion debate with an admin decision. (And I don't think there ''should'' be one yet until [[User:SOTO]]'s concerns about the thing's copyright status as expressed on the talk page are alleviated.) | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200511054726-45692830/20200511161054-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
