Forum:Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|Panopticon}} | {{Forumheader|Panopticon}} | ||
<!-- 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 ~~~~ --> | ||
Specifically, for "also known as" | Specifically, for "also known as" names for River Song? People keep trying to add "Mels Zucker", and I keep chopping away. One person has cited the Brilliant Book, without specifing any addiitonal context. Would anyone who has actually read the d***ed thing and is aware of the usage please comment?[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 11:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:It's valid if it's a narrative source and in this case it should note the exact story that it's mentioned in. | :It's valid if it's a narrative source and in this case it should note the exact story that it's mentioned in. | ||
:If it's not then it should go in the behind the scenes section. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 03:44, October 21, 2011 (UTC) | :If it's not then it should go in the behind the scenes section. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 03:44, October 21, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Thanks. Pretty much as I figured. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 03:49, October 21, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:49, 21 October 2011
Index → Panopticon → Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?
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.
Specifically, for "also known as" names for River Song? People keep trying to add "Mels Zucker", and I keep chopping away. One person has cited the Brilliant Book, without specifing any addiitonal context. Would anyone who has actually read the d***ed thing and is aware of the usage please comment?Boblipton talk to me 11:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
- It's valid if it's a narrative source and in this case it should note the exact story that it's mentioned in.
- If it's not then it should go in the behind the scenes section. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:44, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Pretty much as I figured. Boblipton talk to me 03:49, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
