3,075
edits
Talk:Castrovalva (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→"People's Comments and Ratings": Response
Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) ("People's Comments and Ratings"?) |
(→"People's Comments and Ratings": Response) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Do we want to have this sort of section or not? It seems to me that it opens up a can of worms, with the possibility of people arguing over their opinions of different stories. There are plenty of sites ([http://www.gallifreyone.com/reviews.php Outpost Gallifrey's Reviews page], [http://www.pagefillers.com/dwrg/ The Doctor Who Ratings Guide], to name but two) with reviews of ''Doctor Who'' stories. That shouldn't, I think, be the purpose of this site. '''TARDIS Index File''' should aspire to be an encyclopedia of ''Doctor Who'' facts, not opinions. --[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] 19:38, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT) | Do we want to have this sort of section or not? It seems to me that it opens up a can of worms, with the possibility of people arguing over their opinions of different stories. There are plenty of sites ([http://www.gallifreyone.com/reviews.php Outpost Gallifrey's Reviews page], [http://www.pagefillers.com/dwrg/ The Doctor Who Ratings Guide], to name but two) with reviews of ''Doctor Who'' stories. That shouldn't, I think, be the purpose of this site. '''TARDIS Index File''' should aspire to be an encyclopedia of ''Doctor Who'' facts, not opinions. --[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] 19:38, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT) | ||
:I would concur on this. In keeping with most other WikiMedia sites, ours should be a neutral point of view. Plus, quoting other people's reviews verbatim, even with the source cited, runs the risk of copyright infringement. --[[User:Freethinker1of1|Freethinker1of1]] 00:48, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT) | |||
