Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1827503-20150731042136/@comment-188432-20150731064205

Audio Visuals are disallowed because they all do indeed fail rule 2. Rule 2 disqualifications are easy to spot and non-controversial. There's no reason to wait for a ruling, as T:VS spells things out quite clearly. The only titles which spawn debate are those involving rule 4, but of course rule 4 inherently allows for such debates.

Once upon a time we maintained a list of things that were disallowed, but that became laborious, especially because people would sometimes say of things that were clearly invalid, "Well, you didn't specifically disallow it, so it must be okay."

By switching to a rules-with-examples-based system, we have greatly reduced the number of questions.

That said, it's a borderline case whether a tag is really necessary, and whether it would be confusing. There's a case for a tag, because the linked stories on the page are actually valid stories, and some readers might think we were saying those stories, like Cuddlesome, were invalid. Moreover, the article says within the first sentence that the AV stories were unlicensed, so the point of invalidity is immediately made.

Finally, is typically used for individual story pages, not articles about ranges.