[011]
BURGINABC
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
\'\'\'Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.\'\'\'
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as being a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because Administrivia/ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
\'\'\'Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.\'\'\'
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as being a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because Administrivia/ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of Administrivia/ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
\'\'\'Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.\'\'\'
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as being a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
\'\'\'Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.\'\'\'
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as being a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
\'\'\'Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.\'\'\'
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
\'\'\'Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.\'\'\'
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence in the work leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists and be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies potentially unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands in my preferred version, the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]] I believe aside notes are supposed to be for extraneous information which either clarifies unclear points or is simply interesting, but doesn\'t flow well when placed on equal footing with the main content. I don\'t think it\'s really intended as a means to provide Wikipedia-style citations for backing up statements. [[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]]which I believe is what aside notes are supposed to be for[[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]]which I believe is what aside notes are supposed to be for[[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]]which I believe is what aside notes are supposed to be for[[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]]which I believe is what aside notes are supposed to be for[[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
I just don\'t think it\'s good editorial form, even in the aside note, to talk about fans\' inferences being \"confirmed\" in a main trope list or a character sheet. And without said fan inference being explicitly mentioned, the \"confirmed\" wording just seems odd.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that everything that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]]which I believe is what aside notes are supposed to be for[[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
I feel like in the version in my most recent previous comment, it is adequately implied that everything that the \"discussion\" mentioned in the aside note is fully consistent with and relevant to the main body of the example, which states that the line implies Gideon saw a psychiatrist.
Ultimately what I don\'t like about the \"confirmed\" wording is that it relies on the presumption that it was in doubt and in need of confirmation.
Though it could be argued that\'s technically true, as we (perhaps wrongly) wouldn\'t accept that implication as a part of the work rather than as a speculative fan inference until corroborating WordOfGod was found, I don\'t think it\'s good editorial form to have an example that treats itself as being in doubt, even if it can provide evidence to resolve that doubt. If an example exists, it should take for granted that it exists an be written with full confidence in itself. If the example \'\'is\'\' in doubt, it shouldn\'t exist, because ExamplesAreNotArguable. As it stands the aside note is sort of a cheat to get evidence in there, in the guise of an interesting tidbit about the example[[note]]which I believe is what aside notes are supposed to be for[[/note]], which fortunately it legitimately is.
Any doubt, about if an example actually objectively exists in the work or is simply being read into it from the viewer\'s perception, really should be confined to the discussion page, and stay out of the example itself. That the example exists should imply that it isn\'t in need of confirmation. If the argument about a trope\'s presence leaks out of the proper channels (edit summaries and discussion pages) and gets into the example, that reeks of ConversationInTheMainPage.
