Forum:Origins of The Howling

&nbsp

could we have a new section for discussing of continuity. proposing theories to patch continuity holes, critiquing other theories, bouncing around various trivia and such.

people have a tendency to justify plot holes and gaps into continuity, let them speculate and offer their own theories in articles and give them a place to vent. more boldly, we could even move the discontinuity, errors, etc. sections to this new forum. give each story a link to the new forum and let anyone who wants to debate, justify things or whatever. call it the Hall of Fanwank or Continuity Hell or something. or maybe the Shadow Parliament?.--Stardizzy2 15:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, alright I think we can manage another forum. Not sure about the discontinuities section being moved a lot of them are pretty genuine...more or less.
 * Anyone else have any preference for names for it? I don't mind any of those that Stardizzy2's suggested, Continuity Hell is good. --Tangerineduel 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * or The Void, as a more Who-specific alternative. --Stardizzy2 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind, Shadow Parliament, The Void, they're both good. The Void has a nice ring to it or should we be a bit more dramatic and call it The Howling? --Tangerineduel 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily dramatic names are always good. I like "The Howling". Bonus points for obscurity. Monkey with a Gun 05:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go I present: Forum:The Howling. --Tangerineduel 15:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you! can I make a further suggestion that discussion of rumors should also go to the Howling? again, to stop that kind of discussion from spilling over into the main articles.Stardizzy2 19:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, there's no reason not to create a fourth forum for rumors. Call it The Land of Fiction. Monkey with a Gun 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, on both counts. But I'd rather not as there are forums out there for people to waffle on about rumours. Any rumours that get posted here should (or will need to) have sources anything else should/will be removed from the articles.
 * At least continuity issues are cemented in stuff to do with the wiki and its running, rumours are a lot more about waffling on about stuff that's not really apart of the articles and all. --Tangerineduel 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not have rumours in articles even if they do have sources. --Stardizzy2 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that as upcoming story articles. Some of the rumours also can be preserved (if they're right or maybe interesting) in the Myths section of articles. --Tangerineduel 15:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would lean toward properly sourced rumors having a place in an article for an upcoming story. When sourced, they serve a legitimate purpose. --Raukodraug 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * personally, I don't welcome discussion of rumours because they might spoil me for upcoming stories. I mean in general articles, not ones marked with spoilers, i.e. the general article on the Doctor. apart from that, I don't think that Wikis devoted to fictional universes usually include spoilers anyway. I forget the details, but Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki said not to create any articles on fictional elements of the new movie until the movie had already gotten released. --Stardizzy2 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the rumours section is a part of this wiki, going back to the Myths section. At least now with the rumours we can cite them correctly. Some of the rumours form a tapestry as do the myths on the page.
 * The rumours should only relate to that specific story on the article anything else shouldn't be on there. (Just starting the indenting again otherwise we'll end up with all the text compressed onto the left hand side of the page). --Tangerineduel 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I was kind of hoping to see how short we could get each line of text... --Raukodraug 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)