60
edits
Forum:Story pages should have reception sections: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Story pages should have reception sections (edit)
Revision as of 04:15, 17 July 2011
, 17 July 2011add my opinion
m (add my opinion) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*No, we shouldn't have a reception section; people's opinions are not encyclopaedic. It isn't our place to have judgement on episodes, just stick to the facts. Just because the opinions are from professionals doesn't mean they should be on an encyclopaedia; there's better websites for that. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 16:36, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | *No, we shouldn't have a reception section; people's opinions are not encyclopaedic. It isn't our place to have judgement on episodes, just stick to the facts. Just because the opinions are from professionals doesn't mean they should be on an encyclopaedia; there's better websites for that. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 16:36, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Hmm a bad idea in my opinion too, the wikia is an encyclopaedia and we deal with facts, not opinions. Reception sections in the end wouldn't be much better than speculation. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 16:41, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | Hmm a bad idea in my opinion too, the wikia is an encyclopaedia and we deal with facts, not opinions. Reception sections in the end wouldn't be much better than speculation. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 16:41, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:There are enough sites where we, the fans, can toss our opinions on shows at each other. Please skip the critical reviews. I think you will be opening a swamp full of quick sand, even limiting it to 'official' reviews. [[User:Mgailp|MGailP]] 04:15, July 17, 2011 (UTC) | |||
==I'm on the fence== | ==I'm on the fence== | ||
Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
