14,790
edits
(2nd the motion) |
|||
Line 1,243: | Line 1,243: | ||
:I won't go on, but the stuff that's been left in as "Discontinuity, Plot Holes, Errors" is of shockingly poor quality and is in dire need of an overhaul. --[[User:Ben Paddon|Ben Paddon]] 11:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC) | :I won't go on, but the stuff that's been left in as "Discontinuity, Plot Holes, Errors" is of shockingly poor quality and is in dire need of an overhaul. --[[User:Ben Paddon|Ben Paddon]] 11:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::I agree. [[User:Stillnotginger|Stillnotginger]] 17:15, February 15, 2010 (UTC) | :::I agree. [[User:Stillnotginger|Stillnotginger]] 17:15, February 15, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Same here. I've done a few edits to rationales and the like, but in this article (and others) quite often the so-called "errors" are either cases of people not paying attention to the story, looking for an excuse to bash the writer (usually those with the initials RTD it seems), are perhaps unfamiliar with backstory, or who might be bringing "fanon" into the proceedings. Fanon for those who don't know is a term that started to get some cachet during the waning years of the Trek franchise when people were condemning the writers of shows like Voyager and Enterprise for violating canon, only to find their assertions were based upon fan assumptions not actually supported by anything on screen. An example of such assumptions is the one about Wilf knowing about regeneration; it's stated that the Doctor usually doesn't speak about it. Name me one episode in which he states that it's a topic he doesn't discuss. We definitely do need an overhaul of all these sections so that they have legitimate errors, rather than ''perceived'' errors, which is not the same thing. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 17:20, February 18, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== russel t davies build up == | == russel t davies build up == |