Trusted
8,474
edits
Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives (edit)
Revision as of 20:59, 3 January 2024
, 3 January→Ninth Break (Christopher Eccleston Edition)
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 2,456: | Line 2,456: | ||
: In practical terms we probably ''could'' "define R4 invalid works solely by people expressing their intent not to be part of an in group even if it's poorly defined in the first place", but ''why, positively, should we'' do any such thing? That is the question which I think requires active belief in the proposition "the Wiki is ''trying'' to talk about 'the' 'real' DWU, an externally-extant if blurrily-defined ''thing''" to be answered in the positive. And as that belief cannot be countenanced, I place the onus on you to find an alternative reason why we ''should'' define R4 in such a way; to tell me (and the rest of us) why you think it ''makes the Wiki better'' to write R4 that way.[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | : In practical terms we probably ''could'' "define R4 invalid works solely by people expressing their intent not to be part of an in group even if it's poorly defined in the first place", but ''why, positively, should we'' do any such thing? That is the question which I think requires active belief in the proposition "the Wiki is ''trying'' to talk about 'the' 'real' DWU, an externally-extant if blurrily-defined ''thing''" to be answered in the positive. And as that belief cannot be countenanced, I place the onus on you to find an alternative reason why we ''should'' define R4 in such a way; to tell me (and the rest of us) why you think it ''makes the Wiki better'' to write R4 that way.[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
::I think everyone is best served if we leave the larger T:CS/T:VS discussion for the next thread, where more users can be a part, to be perfectly honest. And we've tried everyone's patience too much with this one as it is. I'll leave you the last word on that front, as a result. But I do want to call attention to | |||
:::I mean, yes, it would fail current R4, but that's a bit of a tautological statement. What I am asking is ''why'' we have written R4 in such a way that such a thing fails it. | |||
::No you're not, these are just not the prior statements you have made. You're claiming that validity ''is'' about merging pages. Not that it ''should be'' about merging pages. That this is what the thing ''is''. This is '''strictly''' false. If you want to say that validity ''would make more sense'' as a merging policy, based on the philosophy you've outlined above, I think that's perfectly within the scope of whatever the next thread would be (as I'm quite confident it would erase the T:CS/T:VS distinction for anything but R1 breakers). But that's just not what you've argued until now. You've repeatedly asserted that this is what validity ''is''. From your original OL response to the latest. These distinctions '''''matter.''''' [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
