emailconfirmed, Administrators
15,041
edits
m (Scrooge MacDuck moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Slot 6: Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy to Forum:Slot 6: Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy) |
NateBumber (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
::::But, again, by this metric ''every'' deleted scene "released" ever is an actual new piece of content, because you always add at least some editing to the product and "release" it. So now our prohibition against deleted scenes doesn't invalidate ''anything'', which is clearly not the intent of the actual ruling. Regardless, this is very much [[T:POINT]] on ''P.S.'' in particular. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) | ::::But, again, by this metric ''every'' deleted scene "released" ever is an actual new piece of content, because you always add at least some editing to the product and "release" it. So now our prohibition against deleted scenes doesn't invalidate ''anything'', which is clearly not the intent of the actual ruling. Regardless, this is very much [[T:POINT]] on ''P.S.'' in particular. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::By referencing [[T:POINT]], do you mean that there's been no new information brought forward to justify a reconsideration of the status of ''P.S.''? I don't see how that's the case. ''[[Rory's Story (webcast)|Rory's Story]]'' hadn't been released the last time we discussed it, and also the validity rules have changed since then. (You may not like or agree with R4BP, but frankly, no one's ever accused our validity rules of internal logical consistency.) Reconsidering ''P.S.'' in light of these developments seems sufficiently justified. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 21:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |