Talk:In the Forest of the Night

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Image

How about this? https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlLHvKdChDTy4Gp3xT9BC_00b8j1l9FHDGAA9VjnWZOHuGPp0v Or this? https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzdCXfnA_V5i4bcOjq21B8y69zzErHZbN1YkTzYp5SRkpvquWe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.241.239 (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of images are to help illustrate hard-to-explain concepts within articles. DonQuixote (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Episodes 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all used promotional images for their infobox images. (Note, this is a counter to the "hard-to-explain" concepts point, not a violation of WP:OTHER.) AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, promotional materials are acceptable too, but in context of the above pictures, the main purpose of images is the above as opposed to decorations. DonQuixote (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

There have been repeated edits that indicate the plot summary may be excessively detailed, and other edits reverting those. This has been going on for a while... can this be settled? 128.12.254.132 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary's length is fine. Episode articles are meant for extended summaries. Alex|The|Whovian 09:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think there's a strong chance that the bulk of the current plot is my own writing, it is long for a TV episode. Plot summaries on WP are to be concise, and there's clearly room to cut down. Unlike the FILM project that aims for plot summaries of no more than 700 words, TV episode don't have any similar limit though we should be able to clear 700 words without issue. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In the Forest of the Night. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20141026171339/https://www.the-newshub.com/stories/doctor-who-810-in-the-forest-of-the-night-review to https://www.the-newshub.com/stories/doctor-who-810-in-the-forest-of-the-night-review

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]