Forum:Facts vs. rumours

I am sick and tired of of confirmed rumours, promo pictures, and the like ending up in rumours. It's stupid. If something is confirmed, it's not a bloody rumour. Confirmations so far include the enemies who are appearing in The Pandorica Opens and/or The Big Bang (some of the pictures showing this are even visable at the bottom of the page), the confirmation that van Gogh, Winston Churchill, and Liz 10 return in some form. Not only was the latter confirmed in a new interview with Karen Gillan (who implied quite a number of series 5 characters will return for either part of the finale, not only the three of them), but some new info regarding the finale mentioned the van Gogh painting from the symnosis being passed through the ages (or something of the like) through people such as Chuchill, Liz 10, and eventually landing in the hands of River Song. Then, there was the spoilers that confirmed they're returning, and then there was a review of the first part which mentioned the events seen throughout series 5 being revisited from a different perspective (note: this really fits with the thoery that the Doctor goes back through the events of series 5, one picture even showing him with young Amelia again).

Therefore, it's not a rumour. It's a fact. The rumours are fopr the things there is no confirmation for, so stop putting confirmed things in the bloody rumours. It's getting really annoying, having to move them to story notes or something. At the bottom of the page, there is now a gallery showing several of the confirmed enemies that will appear (the ones pictured are Cybermen, Sycorax, Judoon with a helmet on, Silurians, and Weevils). Yet, they mysterious ended up in rumours, despite being confirmed both by spoilers and the images in the gallery.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Facts shouldn't be in the rumours section. Delton Menace 00:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Facts aren't facts until the episode airs. Period. I don't understand your apparent anxiety. We have nine months of long, Who-less nights to edit this wiki and get our series 5 articles "right". While we allow spoilers here, it's not the job of this wiki to be a source of news. We're here to catalogue that which has happened, not which might happen. Confirmation doesn't, I would suggest, mean what you think it does. It is the job of the production team to whet our appetites, and thus they may give interviews which don't strictly lie, but do shade the truth in a most exciting way. And, if you listened to Steven Moffat on his American tour at the beginning of the series, he believes he absolutely does have the right to lie. So just because there's a pre-broadcast interview out there "confirming" something, well, it don't mean jack to this wikia. What's even more annoying than what you describe, above, is having to come back months later and take out of the article those things that were "confirmed" but either never happened, or were massively more incidental than the initial language suggested.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 19:54, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about such a stupid opinion, not accepting the facts just because an episode hasn't aired, no matter how painted-out it is right in front of you. A rumour is NOT a rumour is something has clearly been confriemd (and the majority know) in some form. A good example is the fact that there are images from The Pandorica Opens showing a number of returning enemies, it was already confirmed ages ago, too. Therefore, it is NOT rumour that so-and-so feature when you can clearly see that they do on the page itself. Delton Menace 05:38, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider this, though. If this whole thing is something created from Amy's mind, then how can we be sure that what we're seeing is real?  Our eyes can in fact deceive us.  Is it right to say that Roman Centurions were actually in the episode?  No.  So if we'd reported it as fact just because it was "confirmed" by pictures, we'd be wrong, wouldn't we?  There's no way you can tell me at this point that you know what's going on in this story.  Unless of course you're in possession of a final shooting script.  But how likely is that?   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:16, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Delton. Once a character or creature appears in a legitimately sourced advert or publication (such as a episode trailer, publicity still, episode description, or the BBC website) it is no longer a rumor (rumor defined by Miriam Webster as "1 : talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source" or "2 : a statement or report current without known authority for its truth").
 * Czech, you're right that there are 9 months to get the articles right. So using your example, once publicity stills showed Romans, then the information could be properly sourced and referenced.  Were they REAL Romans?  No, but there is nine months to clean that up and the image, while a misdirection, still stands.
 * In addition, if we take the ideas that "Facts aren't facts until the episode airs." and "We're here to catalogue that which has happened, not which might happen." then a page for any episode that has not aired should not be allowed upon the wiki.  Even episode titles couldn't be properly sourced using this strict of a rule.  For all intents and purposes, the page for ANY episode that has not yet aired is nothing BUT rumor and supposition. --Raukodraug 04:23, June 21, 2010 (UTC)