Forum:More complaints about the discontinuity sections: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
Stardizzy2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:The Discontinuity section sort of grew from the classic series where there was defined bits (like boom mics in shot), or jump cuts, or items switching hands, or actual errors. For the new series articles it has become a bit of a dumping ground for people to have their own little forum within the article. For the most part it's easy enough to keep in control, some of the points are valid enough. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | :The Discontinuity section sort of grew from the classic series where there was defined bits (like boom mics in shot), or jump cuts, or items switching hands, or actual errors. For the new series articles it has become a bit of a dumping ground for people to have their own little forum within the article. For the most part it's easy enough to keep in control, some of the points are valid enough. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
::in general, contributors to the Wiki like giving justifying evidence or counter-evidence for their particular theories on canon. (personally, I don't like that.) --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:22, 19 June 2008
Index → Panopticon → More complaints about the discontinuity sections
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Hi, I don't think I've ever really contributed here, but I do read it often - so keep up the great work! Currently the article pages seem to be slightly 'messy'; I'm refering to the way in which under the 'Discontinuity, Plot Holes, Errors' section people write how peoples ideas are wrong - I think that if they are wrong it should be removed, put on the discussion page with the reasons why it's wrong. It's just something which bugs me as it's handled very differently on similar wikis.-- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Discontinuity section sort of grew from the classic series where there was defined bits (like boom mics in shot), or jump cuts, or items switching hands, or actual errors. For the new series articles it has become a bit of a dumping ground for people to have their own little forum within the article. For the most part it's easy enough to keep in control, some of the points are valid enough. --Tangerineduel 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- in general, contributors to the Wiki like giving justifying evidence or counter-evidence for their particular theories on canon. (personally, I don't like that.) --Stardizzy2 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
