User:Aquanafrahudy/Sandbox the Second

Opening Post

So, this is less one single unified proposal, but a set of intertwined proposals, all of which revolve around sources which we call "non-covered".

Useful links

Forum:Temporary forums/Subpage policy, Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0 (Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/Subpages 2.0/Non-valid sources), Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes.

Introduction

Non-covered material is material that

So, as I understand it, there are three types of sources which we cover to some extent but call "non-covered":

1. Minor appearances of licensed DWU concepts in non-DWU media that fails the parameters set out at Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (series): Any non-DWU work that features a minor licensed appearance of a DWU concept that has no evidence of intent to be set in the DWU is legible for this sort of coverage. (e.g. Torchwood Institute#In non-valid sources, Qualactin (although both of these sort of have arguments for coverage, especially Hitchiker's, but that's neither here nor there), The Rose & Crown (The Snowmen))
2. Stories which utilise licensed concepts while simultaneously using unlicensed DWU concepts: These are probably what is most asso
3. Information from series that we do not cover, which are briefly

Prefixes

So, I know this is borderline T:POINT, but I think this is a proposal that nobody's suggested, and it presents new arguments from the previous one, so I think this is okay.

So, whether or not something is covered by this wiki is, in most cases, almost as arbitrary as whether it is valid or not. And saying that something is NOTCOVERED is about as unhelpful as the prefix being THISDOESNTACTUALLYCOUNT. And besides, it's not actually true. We obviously cover them in some shape or form, or else we wouldn't need the prefix.

Discussion

to be added