Forum:Rumours: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:Just to repost my comment from [[Talk:The Next Doctor]]<br> | :Just to repost my comment from [[Talk:The Next Doctor]]<br> | ||
Well I'm not entirely happy with such a section myself. I did start it just to have some place for the amount of unsourced information going into the articles, but I would be quite happy if it wasn't there at all. [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | :Well I'm not entirely happy with such a section myself. I did start it just to have some place for the amount of unsourced information going into the articles, but I would be quite happy if it wasn't there at all. [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 11 October 2008
Index → Panopticon → Rumours
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.
Quite a few of the pages I look at or edit have so called rumours on them which in my view are just personal opinions. I firmly beleive that all rumours should always have sources cited or discussed first else be removed. What do other contributors think?
An example where rumours are getting ridiculous are on the The Next Doctor page Smokin Fish 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just to repost my comment from Talk:The Next Doctor
- Well I'm not entirely happy with such a section myself. I did start it just to have some place for the amount of unsourced information going into the articles, but I would be quite happy if it wasn't there at all. Jack's the man - 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
