Talk:Ithe

I distinctly recall an important set of rules stating that "If science hinders you, axe it!". Has this rule became void?

-- Triskelle3 ^{Talk to me!} 22:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an important rule. Even then, you forgot the second clause, Triskelle. "Someone skilled in science or whatever was axed will come along fix it for you." - This is a wiki. Due to this, all men are free to edit anything provided they submit to our site doctrines. Common courtesy has bound us to also respect the OOC rights of others. So long as it doesn't mess with OOC, we can edit it.

Remember the disclaimer that we, by CC-BY-SA law, post:

“	Legally speaking, anything you create here can be edited mercilessly, and the only thing holding it back is the respect of users towards new work and the wiki spirit. That aside, anything you do not want edited or modified by anyone else except you AT ALL (with no exceptions) should not be here. This wiki is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, and anyone can copy what you write here as long as they credit you for the document.	”
	— CPFW Disclaimer

The "axe it" doctrine is meant to provide ease for the writer with the idea. It means that, if you hit a science roadblock, "axe it" and keep on going. Someone will fix any error down the road. It also means that you can't be blocked for lack of realism. You are erronously construing the doctrine, my friend. "Axe it" doesn't mean disregard in perpetutity, it means disregard so you can get your writing on, and it means don't worry about the details, because they will be done for you.

--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{Oh biscuits.} † † HI AL GORE! ――–――――― 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Great article.

Well guys, I think that it doesn't have to be realistic. Can't we add something that says the Bureau of Fiction changed the properties of Ithe? Remember, this is Fanon. We don't always have to be all science nazi on everything.--Sir Kwiksilver of TARDIS-What kind of hallway is this? Is this your house? 23:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

there is no excuse to be inaccurate; it was easy to fix and now is much more accurate. --refractor this is a thing<staff /> 23:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kwik - Yes, but we're not having stupid stuff like shooting people through the earth with a few pounds of explosive. Having an EDIBLE radioactive substance that is activated upon contact with liquid is self-contradictory. Your saliva would cause it to go off inside your mouth, and if not your saliva, the moist mucus in your throat and esophagus certainly would. I don't think we want exploding penguins. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Ah, cease your lacrimation!) v • e 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I did not create the BoF to be used as an excuse for absurdity; I created it to exploit elements in literature and breaking the fourth wall.

lawl, Explorer the science nazi. I actually didn't think it was that bad. --Austin8310 ^{Bow ties are COOL.} 23:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad, either, but what's to say making it more accurate DETRACTED from the quality? If I removed anything absolutely central to the entire purpose of creating Ithe, please let me know and I'll put it back. I can draw a line. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Ah, cease your lacrimation!) v • e 23:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually liked the part where instead of going to space he bashed himself through the wall.

Science really doesn't detract THAT MUCH. On the other hand, CENSORSHIP DOES. Like, whoever censored the picture of that sword through SN's head wasn't too bright. That wasn't gory at all. --Austin8310 ^{Bow ties are COOL.} 23:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Austin, are you really dumb enough to ask who censored it? Really? --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{Oh biscuits.} † † HI AL GORE! ――–――――― 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that watching Oliver Twist is making me sound fancy?

Stupid archaic English. =\ Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Ah, cease your lacrimation!) v • e 23:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you always sound like that. --Austin8310 ^{Bow ties are COOL.} 23:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Heh. Science Nazis. They're better than Grammar Nazis and also less annoying than Moral Guardians. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{Oh biscuits.} † † HI AL GORE! ――–――――― 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  
  

Me, I love science. I have been in national science competitions etc. But even I know that not everything on fanon has to be 100% realistic. Let's take a random example. The X virus? A disease that meakes you cough up a mysterious goo which forms into a creature who is your opposite and hates you with a burning passion. Science content? Less then 20%.

THE WHOLE WIKI involves talking civilised penguins! Who went to mars! Science content? Less then 5%. This is about as hypocritical as it gets. Leave the article alone, or you may as well just delete the wiki. --THE SHEEP! |FIGHTTHEPOWER! (Stuff I did and stuff) 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're kind of exaggerating. X Virus was already explained by TS, and the whole civilized penguins thing is artistic license (if we took it out in favor of being scientific, that would defeat the purpose of the article). Also, you can't really assign definite percentages.

As for Ithe, I tried to take out what could be taken out without destroying the core purpose of the article. If I were really going to "ruin" the article, I would have would have removed most of the stories involving ithe because no one in their right mind would come into close contact with a radioactive substance for that long. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Ah, cease your lacrimation!) v • e 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The percentages were to illustrate my point,butmaybe sommething else would have worked better.

If we can take "artistic license" elsewhere, why not here? BTW, I never for a moment thought that you actually wanted to ruin the article. --THE SHEEP! |FIGHTTHEPOWER! (Stuff I did and stuff) 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but I would really prefer that people would get the right conceptions instead of the wrong ideas. For example, you don't identify a substance with a microscope; that's more often done by observing its physical and chemical properties. And if I can make the article a tad more realistic without harming its essence/point, then why revert? Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Ah, cease your lacrimation!) v • e 20:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)