User talk:Amorkuz

Categorical Imperative
(Not my strongest title, I know ...) For a long while now I've been planning for the rename of The War to War in Heaven (as suggested on the talk page) and I'm wondering what the procedure would be for dealing with the twelve categories that refer to The War in their names. Is there a way to rename categories? Or will someone have to enlist a bot to manually removed the old and add the new? – N8 ☎ 16:20, July 17, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and the advice! And don't worry about transcribing Goodbye Piccadilly; I'm no stranger to the difficulties of keeping up with BF's output. I'm planning on listening to it within the week, and then I'll share the relevant section with AdricLovesNyssa. Cheers! – N8 ☎ 18:59, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hope you're able to find this on your page... Since User:Revanvolatrelundar gave their approval of the move from The War to War in Heaven, I've gone ahead and replaced every with the corresponding. I know this is a tall order, if you get the chance, could you think about deleting some of the empty categories that are left over, and/or pulling the trigger and moving The War to War in Heaven (while leaving a redirect)? Here are the leftover categories, for your consideration: No pressure or anything, just figured I'd put it out there. Hope you're well! – N8 ☎ 23:42, October 27, 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:The War
 * Category:Conflicts in the War
 * Category:Faction Paradox members in the War
 * Category:Great House members in the War
 * Category:Groups in the War
 * Category:Individuals in the War
 * Category:Species in the War
 * Category:Technology in the War
 * Category:Vehicles in the War
 * Category:Weapons in the War
 * Category:Great House members in the War in Heaven

Royal template
I have no objections to tweaking it a little. In fact it was User:LegoK9 that created it last year. I had the idea to create a similar template so searched up "Template:Monarchs" in case such a thing already existed and found their template. I saw that it hadn't been implemented so I added it to the relevant pages.

I also thought about adding Scottish monarchs and spouses of monarchs to the template but didn't have the time. --Borisashton ☎  15:15, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor
Hi, I've been advised to ask you directly the rationale for this undo at Sixth Doctor - apologies for the hasty revert, but considering there was no explanation given I couldn't understand how this could have been done in good faith. I've looked over the edit again and I don't see how it's in any way controversial - in particular, the section over Six's regeneration was a total mess when I came across it (and is now back in that state), with references from directly contradictory accounts (that the section's entire purpose is to outline) mixed throughout. It's not fit for purpose as is, so if you do have a particular objections to the edits I made could we work together to find a workable solution? As for the notion of Sylvester McCoy playing the Sixth Doctor, it's quite frankly hair-splitting of the highest degree that doesn't belong anywhere, based on nothing more than the use of a wig during the regeneration sequence. Is there really a consensus to include that? TheOtherJenny ☎  07:23, August 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Regarding Sylvester, I strongly disagree (particularly that it's in any way analogous to the Curator), but if there's a consensus there I'll defer to it.
 * With my edits to the "death" section, however, they seem to have been misunderstood. The purpose of this section is to outline the three contradictory accounts of the Sixth Doctor's regeneration. The version I encountered (and as it currently exists) is the version that attempts frutlessly to stitch together a single narrative from these irreconcilable accounts, which is why I edited it. With the specific Spiral Scratch example you point out, the element of the sentence that causes an issue is not that but the following clause, attributed to Head Games. Head Games is the basis of the first account (suicide), so sourcing it in the second account is incorrect: it's a different account, and does not in any way concern the Doctor's chronal energy drain as currently implied. (The Spiral Scratch information remains in my edit, although the citation would indeed be better placed at the end of the paragraph - easily fixed.) The brief introduction I added to the top of the death section mentions the commonalities, i.e. the link to Time and the Rani (which is far better placed here than at the end of each sub-section, where it currently implies that the TV episode/novel supports particular accounts where it doesn't) and hitting his head on the TARDIS console (which can be appropriately sourced to Head Games there). I retained all sources, and in fact added one to novel The Room with No Doors, but rearranged instances where the prose switched between accounts (in one case even mid-sentence) - as the entire function of the three sub-sections is to outline one account each. The only detail I didn't retain is that of Mel seeing the Doctor attempt to activate the HADS (from the Time and the Rani novel), which I wouldn't object to being worked into the top section.
 * I'll say again that the current version is simply impossible to understand, entirely obscuring which account comes from which source due to a tangle of cross-references. Hopefully we can find a good way to move forward with it now. TheOtherJenny ☎  07:47, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Just to flag that I'm happy to continue discussing this, whenever your time allows :) TheOtherJenny ☎  02:24, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Hit the Dab
For a while now I've had the idea of making a Panopticon thread about starting to use a (novel series) dab term on pages like Virgin New Adventures and BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures. Since you're the local king of the dab term around here, I figured I'd run the idea past you first to see if there are any obvious objections before I make the thread. So, any thoughts? – N8 ☎ 14:10, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
 * No rush! Enjoy your internet inaccessibility :) – N8 ☎ 02:14, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful explanation! The point about anthology titles vs story titles in particular was really insightful. I think I have a better understanding now of your dabbing vision (and may I say that I find it quite quite amenable).

Under these rules, my hastily-worded proposition is obviously senseless; it was careless of me to not be more clear. I want us not to just slap (novel series) or (prose series) at the end of each article title, but to shoot straight for New Adventures (prose series) and Eighth Doctor Adventures (prose series)! My main reason for this is that the format of putting the publisher in front of the series title (like on the recently-renamed Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series) has fallen out of style, and rightfully so: in the example of the recently-renamed Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series, to italicise properly, you need to manually correct it to Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series – and then lord help the poor soul who clicks on "Big Finish" expecting Big Finish !

From where I stand, something something T:NPOV, the same logic applies for Virgin New Adventures versus New Adventures (prose series) ; in practice, many articles just pipe away the word "Virgin" anyway! Hopefully that makes more sense. – N8 ☎ 05:58, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Chancellery Guard template
Hello, I had an idea for a template, but thought I'd run it by an admin first. It's essentially a template which lists all known Chancellery Guard members who have a page on the wiki, like the High Council template. It'd have Castellan, Commander, Captain and so categories.

If you don't think it's necessary, that's fine, I thought to check to see what an admin would make of it.

Thanks Ben Moore512 ☎  20:29, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Visiting Vehicles
Hi, you reverted my edit at The Eye Above because "Locations visited by X" categories aren't applied to vehicles. Whilst I can understand this rationale for things like Bessie one can actually go inside a spacecraft, hence visiting it. Indeed, all the random pages I visited just now in Category:Individual spacecraft possess the "Locations visited by X" category if applicable. Could you explain this for me since it seems like it was well-established that the category was applicable to spacecraft? --Borisashton ☎  23:23, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * In short, I think a separate vehicles category is an excellent idea. I look forward to hopefully help implement it. --Borisashton ☎  22:58, November 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Vehicles entered by the Doctor perhaps? --Borisashton ☎  11:53, November 23, 2018 (UTC)

Audio covers
Hi. A few months ago, User:Animan2001 uploaded individual covers for the stories from Charlotte Pollard: Series Two, The New Counter-Measures: Series Two and Tales from New Earth (audio anthology). However, the only other place these "covers" appear when I search them in Google is a Pinterest account which has several fan art covers uploaded as well. I've tried contacting Animan2001 trough their talk page, but have recieved no reply for over two months now (a time in which they edited other pages). I'm 100% sure these covers are fanmade, as there's no sign of them anywhere else but that account (Vortex, artist covers' social media, et al.). What's the best procedure now? OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:03, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it. In all honesty, I wouldn't have waited this long as well, but ended up forgetting about this. Anyway, glad the situation's resolved. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:45, January 7, 2019 (UTC)

Re: forum posts
Hi, first of all, if you have something to say to me, it's better to post it on my talk page.

The reason I posted those comments to User:Danniesen is because he is not an admin. It's not the job of a non-admin to determine personal attacks and/or validity of forum/discussion posts. I stopped him precisely because I didn't want the situation to escalate. It's not the first time I (or other admins) have had to caution users against overstepping what they're allowed to post.

And I didn't block User:DW114 for two reasons: one, because I saw his/her message at User talk:CzechOut before I saw the forum posts and feel CzechOut should deal with the matter, and two, because, I hate to admit but honestly, I skimmed over all the posts (it's a very long thread) and didn't see the last sentence.

I am still concerned about the reception given to new users, as I have in the past been accused of making new users feel unwelcome. We do have to remember that new users know very little of our rules, are inclined to gravitate towards the forum boards for their first edits, and may have come from much smaller wikis that don't have the whopping huge amount of rules that we have. That is why, in almost everything I do here, I try to make things as consistent and easy as possible.

I do think that what happened with DW114 was a huge misunderstanding, but I will take some kind of action if User:CzechOut doesn't respond in a reasonable amount of time. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  15:57, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

T:DISCUSS - No need to apologise!

 * "if an editor who is older than me applies my admittedly harsh evaluation of one user onto them, clearly I have to apologise to this long-time editor and explain myself better." -Thread:237423

Hi Amorkuz. Just wanting to clarify that I took no offence by the comments regarding T:DISCUSS and that there is no need to apologise! My comments relating to that point were a relatively tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the fact that I've barely appeared at all these past few years as well as my probably long-forgotten by now reputation of being pretty much a forum only contributor.

In fact, I quite agree that somebody who doesn't have much stake in the mainspace shouldn't have their opinion bear equal weight to somebody more involved, despite being one of the people responsible for decriminalising forum-only posters in the first place. I wouldn't expect my opinion as effectively an outsider to bear equal weight to somebody who has actually been following and participating in the ins and outs of TDC these past few years. I know how annoying it is to be on the receiving end of having an effective outsider come along and assert that their opinion is correct onto your community despite not knowing the history and nuances of the local situation (naming no names here).

Indeed, in my particular case, my motive behind following that particular forum thread is actually in seeing how TDC handles the topic to inform what we do over at Doctor Who Answers. Since we don't have such a big or such a widely-read community as you guys do, it can be informative to see what conclusions you guys come to, given the similarity of our two wikis. But that also means that I have little direct stake in the outcome relative to TDC, and so naturally my opinions as to the direction this wiki goes in matter less than those who have made more than one set of edits a year for the past few years.

In short, there is no need to apologise as I agree with the policy as written and enforced. 😊 11:54, January 12, 2019 (UTC)