Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Doctorwhospoilers.com is not a valid resource (edit)
Revision as of 16:12, 29 March 2011
, 29 March 2011no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
I have to take the blame for this. I was the person that started using D.W.S as a active source, so I apologise, BUT I do have a point to make. Soem of the facts are true, like episode 3's name is ''The Doctor's Wife'' and they have extensive CV sources that notify them when a casting decision is made. Mabye, instead of totally blacklisting it, we should only use casting sources? I know it would be hard and it's breaking the manual of style, but some of the facts are true. --[[User:Ghastly9090|Ghastly9090]] 15:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | I have to take the blame for this. I was the person that started using D.W.S as a active source, so I apologise, BUT I do have a point to make. Soem of the facts are true, like episode 3's name is ''The Doctor's Wife'' and they have extensive CV sources that notify them when a casting decision is made. Mabye, instead of totally blacklisting it, we should only use casting sources? I know it would be hard and it's breaking the manual of style, but some of the facts are true. --[[User:Ghastly9090|Ghastly9090]] 15:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | ||
You should have stopped with the apology.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 15:53, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | :You should have stopped with the apology.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 15:53, March 29, 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Oh, some facts are true on ''any'' site. A 10-year-old experimenting with web design might well create a ''Doctor Who'' site which asserts a true fact about the show. But we still don't use such a site as a reference. In the cases you give, above, the thing you would site is the '''actual CV''', not someone's ''report'' of the CV. Put another way, there's ''never'' a reason to cite DWS directly, but it's certainly possible that DWS might ''lead'' you to a source acceptable to our MOS. And there's no reason to apologise. It's an understandable mistake. But if you could please start removing your mistaken citations, that'd be great. :) {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''16:12:29 Tue '''29 Mar 2011 </span> | |||