Talk:The Stranger (series): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Fennel Soup (talk | contribs) (→Re:Reversion: new section) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Re:Reversion == | == Re:Reversion == | ||
[[User:Cookieboy 2005]], if this source isn't considered invalid, the language in the article lede should probably be clarified. "They are not valid sources" and "they are invalid sources" have the same meaning in colloquial speech and may mislead other readers as well as myself. You seem to be invested in the status of this source and would probably do a better job correcting the ambiguity than I would. [[User:Fennel Soup|Fennel Soup]] [[User talk:Fennel Soup|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I believe the wording comes from a time where "this source is invalid" and "this source is not covered" were synonymous, or at least from a period where "this source is not valid" didn't carry the connotation of "this source is invalid". (Hence [[Tardis:Valid sources]] instead of [[Tardis:Covered sources]]. There was some discussion of this in [[Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives]], but that's hardly relevant.) Will fix the wording. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 00:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:12, 15 November 2024
What this page is missing
If anyone would like to add to this page, there's only two things which I think we should cover under the scope of this wiki:
- A list of DW publications to review each film (like which issues of Doctor Who Magazine)
- A section discussing the reception in those reviews, vs more current publications
- Some more historical info from Downtime – The Lost Years of Doctor Who
Good luck to any who are interested. OS25🤙☎️ 05:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Re:Reversion
User:Cookieboy 2005, if this source isn't considered invalid, the language in the article lede should probably be clarified. "They are not valid sources" and "they are invalid sources" have the same meaning in colloquial speech and may mislead other readers as well as myself. You seem to be invested in the status of this source and would probably do a better job correcting the ambiguity than I would. Fennel Soup ☎ 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the wording comes from a time where "this source is invalid" and "this source is not covered" were synonymous, or at least from a period where "this source is not valid" didn't carry the connotation of "this source is invalid". (Hence Tardis:Valid sources instead of Tardis:Covered sources. There was some discussion of this in Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives, but that's hardly relevant.) Will fix the wording. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 00:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
