Forum:Rumours and their sources: Difference between revisions
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Anything else I've missed? I think it is important we do this, so rumours don't go OTT and people add random rumours and unrelated topics. It will also stop fan-based rumours and ideas creeping into the wiki. Let us discuss. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 14:39, November 7, 2012 (UTC) | Anything else I've missed? I think it is important we do this, so rumours don't go OTT and people add random rumours and unrelated topics. It will also stop fan-based rumours and ideas creeping into the wiki. Let us discuss. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 14:39, November 7, 2012 (UTC) | ||
: I think if we use fan sources, we should cite at least 5-10 of them to show that it was wide spread and relevant. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 20:30, November 8, 2012 (UTC) | : I think if we use fan sources, we should cite at least 5-10 of them to show that it was wide spread and relevant. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 20:30, November 8, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::It seems to me that [[T:RW SRC]] already covers all this. Is there some way in which you feel it's insufficient? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 17:18: Fri 09 Nov 2012</span> | |||
Revision as of 17:18, 9 November 2012
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
I think it is time we officially decide what websites we can and can't use for rumours.
There is a confusing over what counts as a valid source for rumours and what doesn't. There are a couple of things we need to look at regarding rumours.
Firstly: The original source. If any site, weather it be Doctor Who TV, Doctor Who News, Digital Spy, Twitter, Gallifrey Base, the Sun etc report a rumour that comes from another source (i.e they are not starting the rumour, they have heard the rumour elsewhere (i.e 'The Daily Mail' are reporting means the Daily Mail would be the original source)) then the original source in which the rumour comes from must be the one that is cited.
Secondly (and mot importantly): What 'original sources' should we be allowed to site. Original source would be where the rumours started. We should come up with a clear list of what websites we should be allowed to cite for rumours. I propose the following be allowed:
- Any BBC website (BBC, Doctor Who, Torchwood etc).
- Newspapers (The Scotsman, Daily Star, The Sun etc).
- Other news websites (Digital Spy, Google news, Sky news etc).
- Social media pages ((Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc) Must be officially recognised and Doctor Who related).
We should then decide on:
- Fan based Doctor Who website (such as Doctor Who TV, Gallifrey Base, Doctor Who News etc).
- Social media pages of fans ((Again, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc) with filming pictures, videos etc).
- SFX, Radio Times, TV guides etc.
- TV/Sci-fi websites.
- Image sites, such as Flickr etc.
Anything else I've missed? I think it is important we do this, so rumours don't go OTT and people add random rumours and unrelated topics. It will also stop fan-based rumours and ideas creeping into the wiki. Let us discuss. MM/Want to talk? 14:39, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
- I think if we use fan sources, we should cite at least 5-10 of them to show that it was wide spread and relevant. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:30, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
