[005]
151.230.134.121
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"all we need to know is that these are the feelings of a significant number of fans a thereby worth mentioning when describing Steven Moffat. The page would be remiss in not including reference to discussions that have become a major part of the conversation around Moffat.\\\"
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is not Wikipedia, a news article or a blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since \\\'\\\'\\\'we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles\\\'\\\'\\\'. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and maybe even stereotyping. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is not Wikipedia, a news article or a blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since \\\'\\\'\\\'we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles\\\'\\\'\\\'. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and maybe even stereotyping. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"all we need to know is that these are the feelings of a significant number of fans a thereby worth mentioning when describing Steven Moffat. The page would be remiss in not including reference to discussions that have become a major part of the conversation around Moffat.\\\"
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is not Wikipedia, a news article or a blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and maybe even stereotyping. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is not Wikipedia, a news article or a blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and maybe even stereotyping. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"all we need to know is that these are the feelings of a significant number of fans a thereby worth mentioning when describing Steven Moffat. The page would be remiss in not including reference to discussions that have become a major part of the conversation around Moffat.\\\"
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is not Wikipedia, a news article or a blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and petty. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is not Wikipedia, a news article or a blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and petty. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"all we need to know is that these are the feelings of a significant number of fans a thereby worth mentioning when describing Steven Moffat. The page would be remiss in not including reference to discussions that have become a major part of the conversation around Moffat.\\\"
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is neither Wikipedia or a news article or blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and petty. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is neither Wikipedia or a news article or blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and petty. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote (or possibly a quote mine), and a really OLD misquote too.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"all we need to know is that these are the feelings of a significant number of fans a thereby worth mentioning when describing Steven Moffat. The page would be remiss in not including reference to discussions that have become a major part of the conversation around Moffat.\\\"
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is neither Wikipedia or a news article or blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and petty. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote, and a really OLD misquote too.
Why is this still being followed up on? Comments akin to a review on works pages are frowned upon by the guidelines and the mods. This site is neither Wikipedia or a news article or blog.
From the Home Page: What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
From the review index: We figured we had better give folks a place to talk about those opinions, since we don\\\'t want that sort of judgement in the Main articles. So here we are. This is a list of the most recently edited reviews. Opinions belong to the writers. \\\'\\\'\\\'TV Tropes itself obviously doesn\\\'t have an opinion about good or bad storytelling.\\\'\\\'\\\' We leave all that to these folks.
From HowToCreateAWorksPage: Things \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to include: quality judgements (don\\\'t say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that\\\'s just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don\\\'t tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers.
From the TipsWorksheet: We are not interested in whether or not something is or was popular. Whether or not it was liked has nothing to do with tropes.
I will apologise for the bit about \\\"daring to portray the Doctor as anything other than asexual\\\". That bit was a bit dumb and petty. But his female characters, whether this means \\\'\\\'Doctor Who\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Sherlock\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'Jekyll\\\'\\\', do not follow some \\\"same mold\\\". That is literally wrong, stupid and the result of not paying much attention. And the bit about the 50th anniversary, you know, because I removed it in \\\'\\\'July of 2013\\\'\\\', is outdated and untrue now due to, as it turns out, \\\'\\\'Moffat lying and misleading to keep the audience guessing\\\'\\\'. Funny that. And as I\\\'ve said, several people have determined the bit about \\\"anything male\\\" to be a misquote, and a really OLD misquote too.
