Forum:More complaints about the discontinuity sections: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Stardizzy2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Stardizzy2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
==Discontinuity, plot holes, errors== | =="Discontinuity, plot holes, errors" section== | ||
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.--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | 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.--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::I agree. The sections on myths/discontinuities/plot holes/errors seem to attract wild speculation, disproven theories, and--for some reason--absolutely terrible writing. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | :::I agree. The sections on myths/discontinuities/plot holes/errors seem to attract wild speculation, disproven theories, and--for some reason--absolutely terrible writing. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
==Other sections== | |||
OK -Thanks! With some relevance to this forum, may I draw your attention to [[Template talk:Infobox NewTV|here]].--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) | OK -Thanks! With some relevance to this forum, may I draw your attention to [[Template talk:Infobox NewTV|here]].--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 5 July 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.
"Discontinuity, plot holes, errors" section
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)
- Actually, writing about how the ideas are wrong on the main article is important to stop other people (ones who don't look at talk pages) from adding them back in. Whether or not it is a good thing to add them in the first place is another matter entirely. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- At the expense of making the wiki look messy and unprofessional... Is that a fair trade? I don't think so. I was for a while an editor at the Star Wars Wiki [1] and I think there is no reason why a Doctor Who wiki cannot be even better than this... We have 45 years of history (and counting!) here... If done correctly this could be the envy of all other wikis, IMHHO. — beeurd talk 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The sections on myths/discontinuities/plot holes/errors seem to attract wild speculation, disproven theories, and--for some reason--absolutely terrible writing. Nightsky 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Other sections
OK -Thanks! With some relevance to this forum, may I draw your attention to here.-- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
