Discussion:
← Older revision
Revision as of 02:58, February 3, 2017
Line 23:
Line 23:
== Discussion ==
== Discussion ==
+
*'''Comment''' I really don't see how those two pages can be an acceptable source for the name [[Io Facility]], but not be considered a production source and therefore unused production material. Seems like you can't have it both ways.<br>Unrelated other comment: as part of the promotion campaign this viral stunt definitely warrant us documenting it, at least on the STID page. This case is pretty much sui generis, so I don't see much harm having unused production material type articles on it, should that help us document it better. (not saying that should happen, just that it seems acceptable) Because it's not like what deserves to fall in that category has ever been completely defined. Sure, we've recently come to agree that unused script and prop references can go there and that's all the new unused material articles that get created these days, but beyond that the category has from the very start contained a few oddballs too. -- [[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] ([[User talk:Capricorn|talk]]) 02:58, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
== Admin resolution ==
== Admin resolution ==