Trusted
8,511
edits
Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy (view source)
Revision as of 18:36, 30 April 2023
, 30 April 2023→Discussion
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
:::@[[User:Najawin|Najawin]] - I was going a bit far to call P.S. an adaptation, your right. And I think a better solution that whatever I was going for with "partial R3 breaker" is what Pluto said - us changing R3 so that it no longer has the deleted scenes part, and making most deleted scenes fail by R4 (as they were published as "this is what *could have* happened, but didn't). [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | :::@[[User:Najawin|Najawin]] - I was going a bit far to call P.S. an adaptation, your right. And I think a better solution that whatever I was going for with "partial R3 breaker" is what Pluto said - us changing R3 so that it no longer has the deleted scenes part, and making most deleted scenes fail by R4 (as they were published as "this is what *could have* happened, but didn't). [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::But this isn't part of R3. It was added to [[T:VS]] in late 2020 by Scrooge as an explanation for why Deleted Scenes aren't valid. At the risk of perhaps being accused of falling afoul of [[T:POINT]], see his recent comments at [[Slot 4: The Daft Dimension and Doctor Who? as parallel universes]]: | ::::But this isn't part of R3. It was added to [[T:VS]] in late 2020 by Scrooge as an explanation for why Deleted Scenes aren't valid. At the risk of perhaps being accused of falling afoul of [[T:POINT]], see his recent comments at [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 4: The Daft Dimension and Doctor Who? as parallel universes]]: | ||
:::::If there is a part of T:VS which does not in fact logically flow from the 4LR by at least ''some'' intelligible argument, that part of T:VS stands in error, and should be corrected. | :::::If there is a part of T:VS which does not in fact logically flow from the 4LR by at least ''some'' intelligible argument, that part of T:VS stands in error, and should be corrected. | ||
::::This is a ''modern'' interpretation of T:VS, and is one that is only tenable after the 2020 rewrite. [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tardis:Valid_sources?oldid=2888037 Prior to that] absolutely no effort was taken to explain the exceptions in terms of the 4 little rules. Why would there be? They were ''exceptions''. Indeed, this can be seen in wording still present in [[T:VS]] to this day: | ::::This is a ''modern'' interpretation of T:VS, and is one that is only tenable after the 2020 rewrite. [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tardis:Valid_sources?oldid=2888037 Prior to that] absolutely no effort was taken to explain the exceptions in terms of the 4 little rules. Why would there be? They were ''exceptions''. Indeed, this can be seen in wording still present in [[T:VS]] to this day: | ||
:::::Our simple little rule [sic] works to help you understand what works of fiction "count" on this wiki well over 90% of the time. The rest of this document is concerned with the ''other'' 10% — the marginal cases that are a little less clear. | :::::Our simple little rule [sic] works to help you understand what works of fiction "count" on this wiki well over 90% of the time. The rest of this document is concerned with the ''other'' 10% — the marginal cases that are a little less clear. | ||
::::Let me be clear that I '''''actually quite like this policy change qua policy'''''. The old way caused a lot of headaches when the old forums were up, and I found it very annoying. But, you know, procedural quibbles, as always. More importantly for the context of this thread is that it causes confusion as to why certain things have been ruled invalid or not covered, since those decisions were made in a time period in which this standard wasn't being applied. (I went on to write another two or three paragraphs about how we should do historical analysis of things on this wiki, but deleted it because it was getting super far off topic and we should focus on the issue at hand.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | ::::Let me be clear that I '''''actually quite like this policy change qua policy'''''. The old way caused a lot of headaches when the old forums were up, and I found it very annoying. But, you know, procedural quibbles, as always. More importantly for the context of this thread is that it causes confusion as to why certain things have been ruled invalid or not covered, since those decisions were made in a time period in which this standard wasn't being applied. (I went on to write another two or three paragraphs about how we should do historical analysis of things on this wiki, but deleted it because it was getting super far off topic and we should focus on the issue at hand.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
