Trusted
8,473
edits
Forum:Validating non-fiction: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Discussion
No edit summary |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
::: While I think ''how'' we should cover in-universe info given in OOU sources still needs to be worked out, I think I support the ''idea''. | ::: While I think ''how'' we should cover in-universe info given in OOU sources still needs to be worked out, I think I support the ''idea''. | ||
::: And for some sources, they probably could just be covered as "(features)" and stuff, as they fall into that far edge of non-narrative fiction I outlined in [[Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1]], where it is mostly in-universe but may have phrases like "in ''Thingy of the Daleks''" and so on, and they're not even flat-out invalid now, they just need case-by-case inclusion debates. I do intend to open an inclusion debate for ''[[Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia]]'' given it does have a lot of new info. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | ::: And for some sources, they probably could just be covered as "(features)" and stuff, as they fall into that far edge of non-narrative fiction I outlined in [[Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1]], where it is mostly in-universe but may have phrases like "in ''Thingy of the Daleks''" and so on, and they're not even flat-out invalid now, they just need case-by-case inclusion debates. I do intend to open an inclusion debate for ''[[Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia]]'' given it does have a lot of new info. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::We've already validated non-narrative fiction; non-fiction is just the natural next step | |||
::::I reject this in no uncertain terms. I encourage everyone to look at [[Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1]], I gave ''four'' different options for how to approach the issue in my opening post. (In practice, he grumbles, it seems there are only three because people have decided to ignore that the "exceptions" list at the bottom really does mean that and people are trying to get things off it as quickly as possible.) | |||
::::How natural a next step is must be defined by the reasoning that led to the prior step, not the conclusion reached. There is '''''no''''' reasoning present in the prior thread that would lead one to conclude that we should validate formal non-fiction, and, indeed, the idea is repudiated in the strongest terms in my opening post, and vaguely alluded to in Scrooge's closing post. One might as well argue that after this thread closes we validate all non-fiction, not just the formal stuff, given it's the "natural next step". No. | |||
::::I would politely suggest that we avoid the topic of ''Curse'' as well, given the nuances of that discussion. It's also wildly uncharitable and inaccurate to say that people are against the move because they merely dislike the names and are claiming "speculation" to stall the debate. (And I say this as someone who doesn't care that much about the issue. People can read for themselves - [[Talk:Thirteenth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death)]].) | |||
::::But I just don't see an argument here? It's that perhaps we should document things in the BTS sections better - indeed we should - or there being an assumption that BTS sections are somehow inferior given the issue at hand, or that the thing described is "plainly true within the narrative itself" (I'd love some examples for this, just to see what you're referring to, if you don't mind). These aren't arguments per se. There's no fleshed out reasoning for ''why'' we should validate non-fiction. Do you have one? Or is this just that you would prefer certain comments to be seen as IU and don't see a reason why they aren't already? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
