Talk:The Parting of the Ways (TV story): Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: sourceedit
(→‎Continuity section: new section)
Line 18: Line 18:


[[Special:Contributions/91.62.229.128|91.62.229.128]]<sup>[[User talk:91.62.229.128#top|talk to me]]</sup> 18:22, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/91.62.229.128|91.62.229.128]]<sup>[[User talk:91.62.229.128#top|talk to me]]</sup> 18:22, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
== Continuity section ==
{{quote|It's important that our articles be consistently written from the same point of view. Otherwise, we'd end up with one article written in past tense, another in future tense, and yet another in present tense. Or maybe, some of the articles would be written from a character's perspective rather than the audience's.|Tardis:In-universe perspective|T:IU}}
{{quote|When writing the behind-the-scenes section of an in-universe article, write from the point of view that your subject is fictional. There should be an obvious perspective shift from the rest of the article.|Tardis:Out-of-universe perspective|T:OOU}}
What is not explicitly stated, indeed, is whether the "Continuity" section should be written from the in-universe or out-of-universe perspective. However, as is clear from the above quotes, it must be written from the same perspective throughout, for all the articles, let alone within the same article. In addition, the shift in perspective from in-universe to out-of-universe parts of the article must be "obvious" and the DWU must be treated as fictional in writing OOU. The second example of right vs. wrong in [[T:IU]] explains that even using terms such as [[DWU]] in the in-universe parts of the articles is prohibited, let alone names of stories.
Arguing that "Continuity" sections are actually out-of-universe is arguing against an almost universal practice of the wiki. It may not be recorded in policies, but it is very hard to find examples of "Continuity" parts written from the out-of-universe perspective. The "Plot", "References" and "Continuity" sections are all, in the absolute majority of cases, written from the in-universe perspective (albeit in present tense) while "Notes" are explicitly marked at [[T:FORM TV]] as containing behind-the-scenes information.
Now to CoT's edit summary "Sometimes a much more concise and accurate statement can be made by going OOU." Actually, a much more concise statement would have been, in this case,
* "[[Time Vortex]] appeared blue while traveling back in time and red while traveling forwards. ([[PROSE]]: ''[[Lungbarrow (novel)|Lungbarrow]]'')
Neither CoT nor N8 before him, opted for this simple and much more standard entry. My only guess is that this would not be accurate? Perhaps, not accurate like
* The Doctor's name is Basil. ([[TV]]: ''[[The Zygon Inversion (TV story)|The Zygon Inversion]]'') ?
Or in some other way? If the provided statement is not a hard fact, then, one would think, the readers of the wiki deserve a clarification rather than an obfuscation "It is established". Established by whom? By one of the characters? By the narrator? By N8? By CoT? Established how? By looking? By direct speech? By prior knowledge?
If CoT found it appropriate to undo an admin's edit to restore this information to the page instead of engaging in a discussion, as [[T:NO WARS]] would suggest, it must be pretty important. In the spirit of T:NO WARS, seeing that CoT has a strong desire to have this information on this page in this form, I am now engaging in a discussion of the information itself. I would appreciate it if CoT could answer two questions:
# How is this information related to this story, ''The Parting of the Ways''? Why is it crucial to have it in the "Continuity" section of this particular story?
# Exactly how and by whom was it established in ''Lungbarrow'' that "Time Vortex appeared blue while traveling back in time and red while traveling forwards."?
Thank you in advance for your reply. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:36, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:36, 14 November 2017

Uncredited cast

I've moved the uncredited cast to the talk page until they can be properly sourced (not IMDB). Shambala108 23:23, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I applaud — seriously, I really do — your efforts at verification. I wish more editors did this. Only trouble in this case is that it's obviously Jenna Russell. She's a fairly famous British actor, having been the female lead in Chris Chibnall's Born and Bred. Returning to article. This is a case like Bill Nighy being included at Vincent and the Doctor even though he wasn't credited. We know he's Bill Nighy because he looks, sounds, and acts like Bill Nighy.
On a side note, it was kind of a coup to get her in the episode at the time, because she was still filming Born and Bred.
czechout<staff />    00:37: Tue 18 Dec 2012
That's cool, but I've got to say I'm not British and I've never heard of her. That's why I removed her pending citation. There's probably loads more pages where I've done this so I apologize in advance. Shambala108 03:54, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Fun Fact (not worth adding though)

This doesn't have to go to the main page, just wanting to point out a fun fact.

In the "Harry Potter"chapter "The Parting of the Ways", the character Barty Crouch Jr. dies. In this "Doctor Who" episode, the Tenth Doctor is seen first time. Both are played by David Tennant.

91.62.229.128talk to me 18:22, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

Continuity section

It's important that our articles be consistently written from the same point of view. Otherwise, we'd end up with one article written in past tense, another in future tense, and yet another in present tense. Or maybe, some of the articles would be written from a character's perspective rather than the audience's.Tardis:In-universe perspective [T:IU [src]]

When writing the behind-the-scenes section of an in-universe article, write from the point of view that your subject is fictional. There should be an obvious perspective shift from the rest of the article.Tardis:Out-of-universe perspective [T:OOU [src]]

What is not explicitly stated, indeed, is whether the "Continuity" section should be written from the in-universe or out-of-universe perspective. However, as is clear from the above quotes, it must be written from the same perspective throughout, for all the articles, let alone within the same article. In addition, the shift in perspective from in-universe to out-of-universe parts of the article must be "obvious" and the DWU must be treated as fictional in writing OOU. The second example of right vs. wrong in T:IU explains that even using terms such as DWU in the in-universe parts of the articles is prohibited, let alone names of stories.

Arguing that "Continuity" sections are actually out-of-universe is arguing against an almost universal practice of the wiki. It may not be recorded in policies, but it is very hard to find examples of "Continuity" parts written from the out-of-universe perspective. The "Plot", "References" and "Continuity" sections are all, in the absolute majority of cases, written from the in-universe perspective (albeit in present tense) while "Notes" are explicitly marked at T:FORM TV as containing behind-the-scenes information.

Now to CoT's edit summary "Sometimes a much more concise and accurate statement can be made by going OOU." Actually, a much more concise statement would have been, in this case,

Neither CoT nor N8 before him, opted for this simple and much more standard entry. My only guess is that this would not be accurate? Perhaps, not accurate like

Or in some other way? If the provided statement is not a hard fact, then, one would think, the readers of the wiki deserve a clarification rather than an obfuscation "It is established". Established by whom? By one of the characters? By the narrator? By N8? By CoT? Established how? By looking? By direct speech? By prior knowledge?

If CoT found it appropriate to undo an admin's edit to restore this information to the page instead of engaging in a discussion, as T:NO WARS would suggest, it must be pretty important. In the spirit of T:NO WARS, seeing that CoT has a strong desire to have this information on this page in this form, I am now engaging in a discussion of the information itself. I would appreciate it if CoT could answer two questions:

  1. How is this information related to this story, The Parting of the Ways? Why is it crucial to have it in the "Continuity" section of this particular story?
  2. Exactly how and by whom was it established in Lungbarrow that "Time Vortex appeared blue while traveling back in time and red while traveling forwards."?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Amorkuz 20:36, November 14, 2017 (UTC)