Click this button to go to discussions that need your comments and suggestions.Active forums
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.
I propose the elimination of the "foreshadowing" sections that have recently crept into articles about the various incarnation of the Doctor. I can understand in a couple of cases, where there's a story that actually depicts the known next incarnation interacting with the current version. But not every Doctor has such events. Look at Ninth Doctor#Foreshadowing. It's completely out of control. Zagreus, written long before any Ninth Doctor was ever on the horizon, is not "foreshadowing" the Ninth Doctor, for goodness sakes! Every time the Eighth Doctor had a near death experience is chronicled there. And that's not really foreshadowing. If it were, we'd have to count a lot of different "near-death" experiences.
More to the point, "foreshadowing" is a literary term, and therefore out of universe. It has no business titling the first section of the in-universe part of an article!
Our most-viewed articles must be examples against which all other articles can be judged. These "foreshadowing" sections are introducing too much subjectivity into articles and should go.
Does anyone care to defend the existence of these sections?
- I can understand some, like the Eleventh Doctor's bit about To Sleep, Perchance to Scream, but most I think can go. In most cases in the info can eb reworked into the "legacy" section. We can still keep the sections about early deaths (I.e. Fourth Doctor) right? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:11, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Get rid of it.
- Any information in the "foreshadowing" sections should be covered in the article that deals with the information.
- If it's really needed then it can be dealt with in the behind the scenes section if there were any explicit forshadowed references or stuff like that which needs to be noted. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:19, April 24, 2012 (UTC)