Forum:Story pages should have reception sections: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==No we shouldn't== | ==No we shouldn't== | ||
==I'm on the fence== | ==I'm on the fence== | ||
Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". 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) | Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". 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. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:33, 15 July 2011
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
- "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 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; here's an example. So what do you think?--Skittles the hog - talk 15:01, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yes we should have reception sections
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">15:20:54 Fri 15 Jul 2011 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
Conditionally in favour if done right and well, but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". 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. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. Tybort 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
