Forum:Story pages should have reception sections: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Story pages should have reception sections (edit)

Revision as of 06:20, 28 February 2024

3,922 bytes added , 28 February

no edit summary

Najawin

Trusted

8,473

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|Panopticon}}
+{{Archive|Panopticon archives}}[[Category:Failed proposals]]
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
 :'''''"Ever wanted to see how much Daleks in Manhattan sucked, now you can with TARDIS reception sections!"'''''
 Seeing as we don't really have many behind the scenes sections, I would like to propose that we introduce sections for critical reception onto episode pages. Obviously, they would have to be rigorously sourced and [[tardis:Manual of Style#Sources|couldn't make use of personal blogs]]. The sources would have to be reputable ones, such as newspaper reviews. Wikipedia do a similar thing with films; [[wikipedia:The King's Speech#Critical response|here's an example]]. So what do you think?--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 15:01, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 ==Yes we should have reception sections==
-*{{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''15:20:54 Fri&nbsp;'''15 Jul 2011&nbsp;</span> This sounds most reasonable. So long as we're clear that statements in the section ''must'' be drawn from proper news sources, then it's fine.  Blogs at a news source are also fine (say, the media blogs at ''The Guardian''), but just AnyOldWhoFan'sBlog are not.  So, no taking opinions off of Radio Free Skaro's Chrnoic Hystoresis, or whatever it's called.  Fans who've published opinions in professionally published works are citable, too — such as the recent book by [[Robert Shearman]] and [[Toby Hadoke]].
+*{{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''15:20:54 Fri&nbsp;'''15 Jul 2011&nbsp;</span> This sounds most reasonable. So long as we're clear that statements in the section ''must'' be drawn from proper news sources, then it's fine.  Blogs at a news source are also fine (say, the media blogs at ''The Guardian''), but just AnyOldWhoFan'sBlog are not.  So, no taking opinions off of Radio Free Skaro's Chrnoic Hystoresis, or whatever it's called.  Fans who've published opinions in professionally published works are citable, too — such as the recent book by [[Robert Shearman]] and [[Toby Hadoke]].
 ==No we shouldn't==
+In theory I agree with CzechOut that it ''sounds'' reasonable. But in practice though, I'm worried we're opening ourselves up for a world of hurt. I agree more so with Tybort, that reviews aren't really where we should be going.
+We've always maintained we're doing something different to Wikipedia and that's from where I instantly recognised the 'critical reception' parlance.
+There is critical reception and then there is ''Doctor Who'' critical reception, balanced reception, even in 'respected' media (if it still exists…) is tricky to find and then, I think it will attract a lot of criticism unless we found a way to balance it ''extremely'' carefully.
+Here's Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:The_Doctor's_Daughter#Broadcast_and_reception|The Doctor's Daughter]] Broadcast and Reception section. We may or may not be able to do better, but it is sort of balanced, but just comes off being a bit…meh, I don't feel like I've really learned anything from it.
+Reviews I feel don't bring a lot to the table in terms of framing the story enough or offering a balanced enough opinion, just due to the limits of newsprint / online publishing. I don't think reviews help to frame a story enough or help us to understand it enough to warrant including something like this.
+There are sites I think are more useful in '''understanding''' a story, such as these two blogs (both of which I read); [http://tachyon-tv.co.uk/news_cat/wife/ Tachyon TV - Adventures with the Wife in Space] brings something new to the review idea because it is someone who has not seen a majority of the content, and therefore the opinions are new and different to what's come before, [http://tardiseruditorum.blogspot.com/ TARDIS Eruditorum: A Psychochronography in Blue] has really great analysis of each story and each story is properly framed into a period context, it's also written by a guy with a PhD, which helps.
+I would probably be more in favour of a section called "Critical analysis", that would bring in trying to ''understand'' the story, rather than just opinion. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:56, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
+*No, we shouldn't have a reception section; people's opinions are not encyclopaedic. It isn't our place to have judgement on episodes, just stick to the facts. Just because the opinions are from professionals doesn't mean they should be on an encyclopaedia; there's better websites for that. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 16:36, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
+Hmm a bad idea in my opinion too, the wikia is an encyclopaedia and we deal with facts, not opinions. Reception sections in the end wouldn't be much better than speculation. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 16:41, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
+:There are enough sites where we, the fans, can toss our opinions on shows, et al, at each other. Please skip the critical reviews. I think you will be opening a swamp full of quick sand, even limiting it to 'official' reviews. [[User:Mgailp|MGailP]] 04:15, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
+:
+:I do reviews of Dr. Who on the IMDB and get an extremely mixed reaction.  Certainly, a lot of professional reviewers who tackle Dr. Who seem to miss the point. For the classic series they miss a lot and see the cheap production values.  For the modern show they see the production values and the audience ratings which, while enjoyable ''are not the point of the show.'' People who come here are perfectly capable of making up their own minds as to what they like and dislike, even if they lack skills in composition.  I think that, as we try to avoid citing something here as fact until it is nailed down flat, we should avoid posting opinions.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 00:18, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
 ==I'm on the fence==
-I'm incredibly wary, if not outright opposed. I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
+Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC)