Trusted
49,623
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::Furthermore, this forum itself is arguing for the validation of non-fiction information while the four rules of [[T:VS]] clearly state that Rule 1 is "only fiction counts." This exists, explicitly, to disqualify non-fiction. | ::Furthermore, this forum itself is arguing for the validation of non-fiction information while the four rules of [[T:VS]] clearly state that Rule 1 is "only fiction counts." This exists, explicitly, to disqualify non-fiction. | ||
:@OS25, this thread is in the Panopticon, and from what I can tell seems to call for the abolishment of Rule 1. I'm not an admin, but to the best of my knowledge Rule 1 existing shouldn't stop this proposal from occurring, because Rule 1 is the thing being discussed, if you see what I mean. (You're probably confused because of the title.) On the matter of whether we ''should'' abolish Rule 1, I remain entirely neutral, until somebody presents an argument for one or the other. :) [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 15:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | :@OS25, this thread is in the Panopticon, and from what I can tell seems to call for the abolishment of Rule 1. I'm not an admin, but to the best of my knowledge Rule 1 existing shouldn't stop this proposal from occurring, because Rule 1 is the thing being discussed, if you see what I mean. (You're probably confused because of the title.) On the matter of whether we ''should'' abolish Rule 1, I remain entirely neutral, until somebody presents an argument for one or the other. :) [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 15:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: While I disagree about @[[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]]'s views on the ''Curse'' Doctor names, I do completely agree that we absolutely should not get into that can of worms here. The talk page has been going on for ages with no end in sight, so let's not drown this thread! | |||
::: And to be honest, while our current rule one does limit certain bits of non-fiction that contribute certain bits of useful in-universe information... if we were to completely abolish it, it would mean the floodgates are opened to a lot of stuff that would cause issues. | |||
::: With published works of fiction, especially ones closely tied to the BBC, they have to go through rewrites, reviews by editors, copyright holders, producers, and so on; there is a long list of people who make sure that this work of fiction is sound to be published ethically, legally, within the copyright holder's views, etc. | |||
::: But this level of scrutiny doesn't apply to non-fiction, such as Tweets. While allowing such sources may mean we could acknowledge [[The Woman (The End of Time)]] as [[the Doctor's mother]] (or father!) it would also mean we would have to create the [['Jacob Keith' Master]] also because [[Gary Russell]] joked about it in a Tweet. | |||
::: Long story short, while there is some in-universe information to be gleaned from OOU sources, these are often not held to the same level of quality as actual works of fiction and would mean we may have to start covering random things an author once said in a Tweet. And ''that'' could become harmful if someone decided to abuse that. | |||
::: Also, we do sort of allow names near-universally used by the fandom and the BBC, like with everything from [[Romana II]] to [[Meta-Crisis Doctor]] without {{tlx|conjecture}}, so it's not like there is a ''complete'' ban on in-universe info from OOU sources. | |||
::: As for things like in-universe info from toy packaging... why ''can't'' that be valid? If it is a work of fiction, it can be covered. We don't disallow "commercial fiction" anymore! {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |