6,562
edits
Forum:Early 2010 dissatisfaction with Discontinuity sections: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Early 2010 dissatisfaction with Discontinuity sections (edit)
Revision as of 23:03, 27 August 2010
, 27 August 2010no edit summary
Mini-mitch (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Forum archives header|Panopticon archives}}<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Are you're discontinuity sections actually for discontinuity? Cause they seem to be used by silly people to attack everything they can in the new series whether it's an actual plot hole or not. If you're trying to be an encyclopedia - tidy them up to remove the stupid ones - if you're a classic series fan based site simply trying to Hate the new series regardless of what it does, then say so on the front page. [[Special:Contributions/188.221.79.22|188.221.79.22]] 16:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC) | Are you're discontinuity sections actually for discontinuity? Cause they seem to be used by silly people to attack everything they can in the new series whether it's an actual plot hole or not. If you're trying to be an encyclopedia - tidy them up to remove the stupid ones - if you're a classic series fan based site simply trying to Hate the new series regardless of what it does, then say so on the front page. [[Special:Contributions/188.221.79.22|188.221.79.22]] 16:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::The OP has a point. Discontinuity sections should be wholly removed, I think. They're little more than a playground for half-remembered "truths" and kneejerk reactions in the immediate aftermath of watching an episode. There's a reason why Wikipedia pages on episodes don't have discontinuity sections, but instead stress the more positive ''continuity''. To steal a line from their manual of style: "The easiest way to do this is to limit continuity points specifically to those that are referenced by reliable sources or self-evident, undisputable facts from inspection of the source material; for example, [[Sarah Jane Smith]] encountered [[Davros]] in the [[serial]] ''[[Genesis of the Daleks]]''." | ::The OP has a point. Discontinuity sections should be wholly removed, I think. They're little more than a playground for half-remembered "truths" and kneejerk reactions in the immediate aftermath of watching an episode. There's a reason why Wikipedia pages on episodes don't have discontinuity sections, but instead stress the more positive ''continuity''. To steal a line from their manual of style: "The easiest way to do this is to limit continuity points specifically to those that are referenced by reliable sources or self-evident, undisputable facts from inspection of the source material; for example, [[Sarah Jane Smith]] encountered [[Davros]] in the [[serial]] ''[[Genesis of the Daleks]]''." | ||
