Information for "Forum:Doctorwhospoilers.com is not a valid resource"
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
| Display title | Forum:Doctorwhospoilers.com is not a valid resource |
| Default sort key | Doctorwhospoilers.com is not a valid resource |
| Page length (in bytes) | 7,832 |
| Namespace | Forum |
| Page ID | 65357 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
View the protection log for this page.
| Page creator | CzechOut (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 19:02, 28 March 2011 |
| Latest editor | CzechBot (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 03:33, 28 August 2012 |
| Total number of edits | 17 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 5 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
| Transcluded templates (6) | Templates used on this page:
|
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | Y'know, I don't really go to the series 6 page so much. But some recent technical concerns by mini-mitch drove me there recently, and I was appalled at what I saw. Do you know we have over 40 citations from doctorwhospoilers.com? Guys, that site is in no way valid under tardis:resources. All links to it must be removed, and the site should be explicitly blacklisted in our resources policy. It's not a reputable news outlet. (As things stand, the policy simply doesn't list doctorwhospoilers.com as an acceptable website. We should probably go stronger and specifically deny it.) It's very clear that it's one fan maintaining the site, so it's in no way a peer-reviewed publication. And he explicitly says at the bottom of the front page: |
Information from
Extension:WikiSEO
