Talk:79B Aickman Road: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Bold Clone (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
#{{user:CzechOut/Sig}}. It's really mere coincidence. ''So what'' if the shape is similar. Now, if you can find a behind-the-scenes person remarking on its similarity to the Jagaroth ship, fine, that's relevant. But for an editor to comment on its similarity is a rather weak reason to include it in a BTS note. | #{{user:CzechOut/Sig}}. It's really mere coincidence. ''So what'' if the shape is similar. Now, if you can find a behind-the-scenes person remarking on its similarity to the Jagaroth ship, fine, that's relevant. But for an editor to comment on its similarity is a rather weak reason to include it in a BTS note. | ||
#It's similar, but not related. The information is ''not'' noteworthy, and there was no real practical ''or'' beneficial reason to have even put it in the article in the first place. --[[User:Bold Clone|<span style="color:blue">'''Bold'''</span>]] [[User Talk:Bold Clone|<span style="color:gold">'''Clone'''</span>]] 22:38, February 4, 2011 (UTC) | #It's similar, but not related. The information is ''not'' noteworthy, and there was no real practical ''or'' beneficial reason to have even put it in the article in the first place. --[[User:Bold Clone|<span style="color:blue">'''Bold'''</span>]] [[User Talk:Bold Clone|<span style="color:gold">'''Clone'''</span>]] 22:38, February 4, 2011 (UTC) | ||
#It not even true. Just because it has legs doesn't mean its automatically the consensus that it has the same design.--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 22:48, February 4, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:48, 4 February 2011
Appearance
Sigh...since go one else will bother to go here to file their complaint as according to the site policy, I will, because I respect the rules. The information is coincidental. Why is it up there? --Bold Clone 22:05, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- To me, it seems just like continuity. There are some bits of continuity on pages that state person X did thing Y is similar to what they did in situation Z. There is no need to remove it, it's not speculation, like you said it's coincidental - so what? - because it is coincidental, there's nothing wrong with adding it to the Behind the scenes section - it's worthy of one. Unless you want to remove all 'coincidental' information removed from this wiki, just like you want every single thing that could be speculation? Mini-mitch\talk 22:10, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Continuity is different; you're using a false analogy. Regardless, I don't see the point of saying "this guy did this, similar to how that guy did that." I don't see why you have to point out that two incidents or objects are similar, unless they are related. If they are related, then you have a reason to point out the similarity. If they aren't related, then it's just coincidence and of no value whatsoever to the page or the wiki. I don't see why the specific info on this page should have been added in the first place. There's nothing wrong with taking it off the BTS section, because it never belonged there anyway. --Bold Clone 22:18, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- It does belong there. Anything that is noteworthy should go there. And this is noteworthy, and several User have also noticed this and discussed it, and hence the reason it was added. Mini-mitch\talk 22:21, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- It is not noteworthy! Just because the two are similar does not make it noteworthy! What makes it noteworthy is if the similarity is because of a relationship between the two! Did you even read what I said? "I don't see why you have to point out that two incidents or objects are similar, unless they are related. If they are related, then you have a reason to point out the similarity. If they aren't related, then it's just coincidence and of no value whatsoever to the page or the wiki." --Bold Clone 22:25, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- If there were similar, they would go under the heading See also. Mini-mitch\talk 22:29, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- And they aren't similar, which is my point! If they were similar, then you would have a reason to mention it. However, since there is no connection between the two ships, why are you pointing it out? What is it about an unrelated similarity that makes you want to mention it, when there is no advantange or practical point for the page? --Bold Clone 22:37, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
What the fuss is about
When I encounterd this page, the above users were talking about a certain line that was in the behind the scenes section. After some digging in the history, I discovered the line was:
- Some fans have noticed that Number 79B, Aickman Road has a similar external appearance to the Jagaroth ship from DW: City of Death.
Please do not place this line back in the text until the matter is resolved here.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍
This line should go back in the article
- --Mini-mitch\talk 22:39, February 4, 2011 (UTC) - It's noteworthy, but I'll with go with the decision of the wiki. But please don't let this turn out to be another Howling Halls and don't start a 'Coincidental information policy' either.
This line should not go back in the article
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ . It's really mere coincidence. So what if the shape is similar. Now, if you can find a behind-the-scenes person remarking on its similarity to the Jagaroth ship, fine, that's relevant. But for an editor to comment on its similarity is a rather weak reason to include it in a BTS note.- It's similar, but not related. The information is not noteworthy, and there was no real practical or beneficial reason to have even put it in the article in the first place. --Bold Clone 22:38, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
- It not even true. Just because it has legs doesn't mean its automatically the consensus that it has the same design.--Skittles the hog--Talk 22:48, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
