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

13 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.