Forum:Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Mini-mitch (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::I've acquired it for Christmas, and I plan to look into all of these things mentioned. --[[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me.]]) 23:20, December 27, 2011 (UTC) | ::I've acquired it for Christmas, and I plan to look into all of these things mentioned. --[[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me.]]) 23:20, December 27, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::I think we need to directly reference the Brilliant Book inour manual of style. Last night, myself and [[User:OttselSpy25]] where nearly locked in an edit war with another user, who shall not be named, over a dispute on wether it should be added to the main body of the article. | |||
:::This User, without reason and research reverted OttselSpy's hardwork and used the weak term 'this is canon'. Upon telling him to look at the manual of style and forum he said he could not find it and continued to add information from what is not a narrative source - which he was told and which he ingorned. | |||
:::The User was blocked - something which I did not want to do but I had to for the sake of keeping to the editing war poilcy - and will be unblocked next week, which will give him time to find the correct poilcy. | |||
:::As [[User:Tangerineduel]] stated, it is only valid if it's an narrative source and if it's not it goes into the behind the scenes section - which OttselSpy was doing. This needs to be added to the manual of style and directly reference the Brilliant Book. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 16:08, December 29, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2011
Index → Panopticon → Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Specifically, for "also known as" names for River Song? People keep trying to add "Mels Zucker", and I keep chopping away. One person has cited the Brilliant Book, without specifing any addiitonal context. Would anyone who has actually read the d***ed thing and is aware of the usage please comment?Boblipton talk to me 11:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
- It's valid if it's a narrative source and in this case it should note the exact story that it's mentioned in.
- If it's not then it should go in the behind the scenes section. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:44, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Pretty much as I figured. Boblipton talk to me 03:49, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I've acquired it for Christmas, and I plan to look into all of these things mentioned. --OS25 (talk to me.) 23:20, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need to directly reference the Brilliant Book inour manual of style. Last night, myself and User:OttselSpy25 where nearly locked in an edit war with another user, who shall not be named, over a dispute on wether it should be added to the main body of the article.
- This User, without reason and research reverted OttselSpy's hardwork and used the weak term 'this is canon'. Upon telling him to look at the manual of style and forum he said he could not find it and continued to add information from what is not a narrative source - which he was told and which he ingorned.
- The User was blocked - something which I did not want to do but I had to for the sake of keeping to the editing war poilcy - and will be unblocked next week, which will give him time to find the correct poilcy.
- As User:Tangerineduel stated, it is only valid if it's an narrative source and if it's not it goes into the behind the scenes section - which OttselSpy was doing. This needs to be added to the manual of style and directly reference the Brilliant Book. MM/Want to talk? 16:08, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
