![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since there seems to be slo-mo edit warring going on over this, I thought I'd create a section for discussion. Have at, folks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be acknowledgment that this episode of this series has popularly been regarded as one of the worst so far. Just look at some of the negative reviews people have been making on online forums. For example why do we hear their footsteps while they are walking on the moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.239.98 ( talk) 09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it seems a bit strange that this site says it was critically acclaimed, when I've heard nothing but complaints about this episode from all over my Twitter and Facebook news feeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: The Talk Page Guidelines say "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Phrases like "I personally loved it" really don't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.53.244 ( talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kill the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
There isn't any source, such as MC or RT, that indicates "(wildly) polarising reviews". The reviews can speak for themselves. Sebastian James ( talk) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure you are okay?to [Alex]. Ted Edwards 13:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A bitterly polarizing episode, [2]
shaping up to be the most polarizing episode of season 8 so far. Also, one edit at a completely unrelated article does not support you - just because other stuff happened, it doesn't need to here. Also, polarizing doesn't mean mixed, positive and negative reviews, it's as Ted said: "some (very) positive reviews and some (very) negative". Each end of the scale, not just a bit of everything. -- Alex TW 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
All that is needed to resolve this is a source in the lead, and sources that fulfill MOS:TVRECEPTION in the relevant section. Is that too much to ask? 2001:8003:591D:2400:CC14:5979:5AE1:1879 ( talk) 23:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
So consensus needed to REMOVE the sentence.Since when? Are you saying that you want to keep an unsourced info because of reverting issues? Sebastian James ( talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
you have been able to edit to post this request I regret that you do not have the necessary "genuine and exceptional need".So what I said. I'm guessing you have IPBE because you have to use proxys, but you used another proxy to edit your talk page to make a request (perhaps before that proxy was blocked). So what was stopping you using another proxy? And don't call other editors stalkers, it breaches WP:CIVIL (thought you might ignore the warning if I put it on your talk page given your past actions). Ted Edwards 22:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
you should analyse how the television show was received(which is something I notice from my watchlist you've done many times), so a valid analysis of this episode is while a majority were positive, some reviews have completely opposite opinions. So describing the reviews as "polarising" is a valid analysis. Ted Edwards 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The reception was clearly about average, and in no way justifies making it the starring section of this article. About 90% of it needs editing into the spacetime vortex, or at least compactifying. This must be the the biggest such section in the sixty years of the program. I hope those responsible are properly embarrassed. They should be the ones to wield the machete, before others have to do the clean up in aisle six routine for them. 84.67.32.241 ( talk) 03:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since there seems to be slo-mo edit warring going on over this, I thought I'd create a section for discussion. Have at, folks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be acknowledgment that this episode of this series has popularly been regarded as one of the worst so far. Just look at some of the negative reviews people have been making on online forums. For example why do we hear their footsteps while they are walking on the moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.239.98 ( talk) 09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it seems a bit strange that this site says it was critically acclaimed, when I've heard nothing but complaints about this episode from all over my Twitter and Facebook news feeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: The Talk Page Guidelines say "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Phrases like "I personally loved it" really don't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.53.244 ( talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kill the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
There isn't any source, such as MC or RT, that indicates "(wildly) polarising reviews". The reviews can speak for themselves. Sebastian James ( talk) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure you are okay?to [Alex]. Ted Edwards 13:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A bitterly polarizing episode, [2]
shaping up to be the most polarizing episode of season 8 so far. Also, one edit at a completely unrelated article does not support you - just because other stuff happened, it doesn't need to here. Also, polarizing doesn't mean mixed, positive and negative reviews, it's as Ted said: "some (very) positive reviews and some (very) negative". Each end of the scale, not just a bit of everything. -- Alex TW 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
All that is needed to resolve this is a source in the lead, and sources that fulfill MOS:TVRECEPTION in the relevant section. Is that too much to ask? 2001:8003:591D:2400:CC14:5979:5AE1:1879 ( talk) 23:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
So consensus needed to REMOVE the sentence.Since when? Are you saying that you want to keep an unsourced info because of reverting issues? Sebastian James ( talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
you have been able to edit to post this request I regret that you do not have the necessary "genuine and exceptional need".So what I said. I'm guessing you have IPBE because you have to use proxys, but you used another proxy to edit your talk page to make a request (perhaps before that proxy was blocked). So what was stopping you using another proxy? And don't call other editors stalkers, it breaches WP:CIVIL (thought you might ignore the warning if I put it on your talk page given your past actions). Ted Edwards 22:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
you should analyse how the television show was received(which is something I notice from my watchlist you've done many times), so a valid analysis of this episode is while a majority were positive, some reviews have completely opposite opinions. So describing the reviews as "polarising" is a valid analysis. Ted Edwards 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The reception was clearly about average, and in no way justifies making it the starring section of this article. About 90% of it needs editing into the spacetime vortex, or at least compactifying. This must be the the biggest such section in the sixty years of the program. I hope those responsible are properly embarrassed. They should be the ones to wield the machete, before others have to do the clean up in aisle six routine for them. 84.67.32.241 ( talk) 03:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)