User talk:JDPManjoume

RE: Thanks
Not a problem at all :) LauraBatham ☎  02:14, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

Re: The Mission of Doom
Huh! Interesting. Yeah, all I knew was the idea that it was supposed to be "a third Dalek movie" in its creator's mind and that it had the movie Daleks in it — I wasn't actually sure any Doctor played a part in it, whether Cushing-slanted or otherwise.

Looking forward to that documentary, do tell me when and where I can watch it!--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:39, September 2, 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Confidential
Hi, I just wanted to drop by and commend you for your work on our Doctor Who Confidential articles. You have decreased the amount of "Confidential stubs" by over 50 percent. Keep it up! --Borisashton ☎  20:05, September 8, 2020 (UTC)

Class timeline
Hi again. Once again, I'd like to compliment you on your work on the Class timeline. I've added the specific dates for The Coach with the Dragon Tattoo and Nightvisiting by copying the rationales from the story pages. It might help pin down some specific dates for the books and the audios since they are all set within such a small timeframe. Best wishes, --Borisashton ☎  21:07, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you could push Nightvisiting forward by a week if you take the "this month" comment to mean 28 days and not October but it is difficult if they contradict each other. Good luck anyway, I've only seen the TV stuff so can't help you. --Borisashton ☎  22:35, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

Time Scope
Great to know a Time Scope author! Which story was yours? And what name were you credited under? ;) – n8 (☎) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ and PoC categories
Hey, if you didn't know already, there are two in-universe categories related to this, being Category:Non-heterosexual individuals and Category:Non-cisgender individuals. 📯 📂 11:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Queries
Both interesting "legal puzzles"!

T:NO SELF REF is only a part of the Wiki's policies for out-of-universe sources, so we needn't focus on T:NO SELF REF specifically. The section of Tardis:Valid sources dealing with untrustworthy real-world sources is quite vague, and is built more with Doctor Who-focused reference sources in mind than biographical information about tangentially-connected real-world individuals; however, it does make mention of… "(…) sites which are "forbidden" because of their fan involvement and lack of intellectual rigour"

- T:VS

I think it is quite easy to discount that fan-club website based on those broad criteria and the circumstantial evidence you have uncovered.

For the record, however, I don't believe that "The third-party source got their information from the individual themselves" is in general a situation that should be rounded down to being in violation of T:NO SELF REF. The truth is that most "reliable" biographers will in large part get their information from the horse's mouth. The reliable secondary source's role is to double-check this information's basic accuracy, but that does not change the fact that information ultimately traced back to testimony from the individual involved is not, and indeed, cannot always be held to be in violation of T:NO SELF REF.

…Now as to the second query: I'm afraid another thread/decision would be neated to implement such categories. I sadly cannot include direct quotes due to the Forums' present state of, er, non-existence — but the mood in the original thread that led to the creation of the in-universe category was actually that such categories for real-world individuals would be a very bad idea due to the potential for misuse, and the general trickiness of applying labels to real-world people. That refusal to create the real-world categories is not necessarily the final word on the matter — but it was where discussion left off the right time it came up, so T:BOUND applies, I'm afraid. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I've removed the statement again — I hadn't clocked that whether the thing exists at all was in question. (Fitting for the Burton Doctor, though, eh?)


 * Also, have just glanced at your "threads to have in the future" user page — don't forget you can also add stuff to User:Najawin/Sandbox 5! And at any rate, I'm personally not convinced there's a sensible way to implement the PoC categories, whether in- or out-of-universe. With the "queer individuals" categories we could be reasonably objective by resorting to "non-heterosexual" and "non-cis", but I don't think "non-white" would be any less blurry than the alternative… Just a puzzle to highlight the kinds of difficult lines in the sand we'd have to draw: was Sacha Dhawan the "first PoC Master", or was the Hispanic Roger Delgado? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Prefixes & the Two Shadas
Just saw your many additions to User:Najawin/Sandbox 5! Among them, I have some counter-proposals to your idea to retain WC as a legacy prefix, which would provide an alternative answer to the Shada conundrum. Namely, I contend that we should actually introduce a new prefix: CARTOON, or something of the kind. In other words, rather than focus on something as increasingly blurry as the method of first release, we should concern ourselves with something's actual medium/format, and that might mean separating live-action from animation. Retaining TV for live-action (whether televised, webcast, or home-video), we'd get TV: Shada for the version primarily featuring live-action footage of Baker, and CARTOON: Shada for the McGann animation. This would likely mean reclassifying The Infinite Quest and Dreamland, of course, and the prefix could also be used for animated recons if and when we decide on a special way of citing them vs. the missing live-action originals. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  02:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)