Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point

If you disagree with a policy or guideline, don't edit this wiki so as to prove your point. It's a truism of wiki editing that no rule can ever be written which is completely applicable in every situation. There will always be exceptions to the rules, especially because Doctor Who is a vast topic with 50 years of history.

When we say, as we do at T:HONOURIFICS, that periods should not follow "Dr", we know that there are cases where our franchise's main character is rendered "Dr. Who". This doesn't invalidate T:HONOURIFICS, and it definitely doesn't give you licence to start correcting every instance of "Dr" to "Dr."

Equally:
 * Don't create pages about false or frivolous topics. Just because you don't like T:HONOURIFICS doesn't mean we need List of times that Dr. Who appeared in the end credits
 * Don't edit articles against your own beliefs — or, more importantly, the facts — just to demonstrate a problem with a rule. So don't start an article at Dr. Who Magazine just to emphasise your disdain for T:HONOURIFICS.
 * Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.

Here are some other examples of how to uphold this policy:

A blockable offence
If you do start making the kinds of edits that this rule argues against, you will be blocked from further editing. Please remember that the administrative staff staff here are not paid — even those who work for Fandom are not generally paid for their work at Tardis — and most of this sort of activity simply creates more work for them to clean up.

Posting in the forums
It should be noted that challenging current policy in a constructive way in a public forum (so long as you stick to one space for a single issue) should not lead to blocking. This is the community's right and responsibility, per Tardis:Who writes policy.

However, new posts will be closed, potentially without warning, if no new evidence (or important change of circumstances) has been presented which sets this discussion apart from the last time the community mulled this over and reached consensus.

You may not personally have been party to the original discussion, but it is disruptive to the wiki to demand that we retread this old ground, unless you're bringing something new to the table.

(If you repeatedly start new discussions about the same topic, without new information, even after having been warned, you will be blocked from further editing. This disruptive behaviour will not lead to a faster resolution, and will not change the outcome of past decisions.)