Welcome to the new Tardis Wiki! Please see our announcement for details!

Forum:A Fix with Sontarans: Fixing Fix's Validity: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 69: Line 69:


::: I have said this before and I will say it again - the current site policy as envisioned by the editors and forum-users has more weight and precedence than any older rulings which are barely unarchived and heavily difficult to find in the first place. A forum from 2017 can not and should not be used to overrule a forum from something like six months ago. This is the very foundation of now only the New forums but also [[T:BOUND]]. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::: I have said this before and I will say it again - the current site policy as envisioned by the editors and forum-users has more weight and precedence than any older rulings which are barely unarchived and heavily difficult to find in the first place. A forum from 2017 can not and should not be used to overrule a forum from something like six months ago. This is the very foundation of now only the New forums but also [[T:BOUND]]. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Surely we ''can'', given that the continuity in question is referring to our ''wiki'' notion of continuity, and R4bp is a ''wiki'' rule. Remember what the criteria for R4bp is. A story that 'seeks to "bring [invalid stories] into continuity" in one way or another'. Does this happen here if it's deliberately ignoring the ending? I'm unsure.
::::Scrooge, I very much wanted to leave a teaser and move on, it's very much outside the scope of this discussion. If you prefer the phrasing "the reasoning behind R4bp as enshrined in the thread discussing it and in [[T:VS]] entails X" rather than "R4bp entails X" I'm fine with accepting this. But I fundamentally see no daylight, as R4bp ''is'' the rule as expressed at [[T:VS]].
::::I fundamentally disagree with OS25's view of past arguments, and the thread I'm envisioning will be ''much'' more in depth, as it will touch on every area that I think R4bp corrodes the rest of our rules, but that will be part of it. I don't think it's necessary for discussion in this thread, as in this thread [[T:BOUND]] applies and R4bp is the law of the land. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Trusted
8,512

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.