Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
More actions
Forum:Story pages should have reception sections (edit)
Revision as of 15:20, 15 July 2011
, 15 July 2011no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:'''''"Ever wanted to see how much Daleks in Manhattan sucked, now you can with TARDIS reception sections!"''''' | :'''''"Ever wanted to see how much Daleks in Manhattan sucked, now you can with TARDIS reception sections!"''''' | ||
Seeing as we don't really have many behind the scenes sections, I would like to propose that we introduce sections for critical reception onto episode pages. Obviously, they would have to be rigorously sourced and [[tardis:Manual of Style#Sources|couldn't make use of personal blogs]]. The sources would have to be reputable ones, such as newspaper reviews. Wikipedia do a similar thing with films; [[wikipedia:The King's Speech#Critical response|here's an example]]. So what do you think?--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 15:01, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | Seeing as we don't really have many behind the scenes sections, I would like to propose that we introduce sections for critical reception onto episode pages. Obviously, they would have to be rigorously sourced and [[tardis:Manual of Style#Sources|couldn't make use of personal blogs]]. The sources would have to be reputable ones, such as newspaper reviews. Wikipedia do a similar thing with films; [[wikipedia:The King's Speech#Critical response|here's an example]]. So what do you think?--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 15:01, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
==Yes we should have reception sections== | |||
*{{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''15:20:54 Fri '''15 Jul 2011 </span> This sounds most reasonable. So long as we're clear that statements in the section ''must'' be drawn from proper news sources, then it's fine. Blogs at a news source are also fine (say, the media blogs at ''The Guardian''), but just AnyOldWhoFan'sBlog are not. So, no taking opinions off of Radio Free Skaro's Chrnoic Hystoresis, or whatever it's called. Fans who've published opinions in professionally published works are citable, too — such as the recent book by [[Robert Shearman]] and [[Toby Hadoke]]. | |||
==No we shouldn't== | |||
==I'm on the fence== | |||
I'm incredibly wary, if not outright opposed. I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | I'm incredibly wary, if not outright opposed. I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||