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)

Yaz's age
Hello, Amorkuz, I was hoping to ask you a question that will clear something up for me. You see, I've been trying to find The Secret in Vault 13 in my local book shops for the past two weeks, to no avail. So, since you've edited the page more than anyone, I wanted to ask you this; thus the book state that Yaz is 20-years-old currently, or does it explicitly and unambiguously state that she was 20-years-old when she met the Doctor in The Woman Who Fell to Earth.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  18:44, January 19, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That clears everything up nicely.BananaClownMan ☎  20:38, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

The Kahn Conundrum
Hi Amorkuz. I do remember listening to the audio, if not very much about the story itself. I'll have written the surname down as I heard it phonetically. I doubt that even today they'll be anything written down anywhere to clarify the spelling for us. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. --Revan\Talk 09:03, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

On Scrooge MacDuck's block
Hello! So, an acquaintance of mine, the user Scrooge MacDuck, has asked me to leave you this message on his behalf. It seems that you recently blocked him from the wiki for a month for the reason of "calling an admin an "incompetent bully" for a personal attack block", in response to a message which he left on the user Shambala108's talk page. However, it seems that there has been a misunderstanding, as this is not what he meant by the message at all. What he actually meant in the message that he left is that a bully who came up with "poppycock" as his best insult would be an incompetent bully indeed, and was thus clarifying that he had not meant to be a bully when he called a post "poppycock". He was not calling the admin in question an incompetent bully. Clearly, this was nothing but a misunderstanding, but as you can see, Scrooge MacDuck's block was entirely undeserved. Drleevezan ☎  00:39, February 14, 2019 (UTC) Drleevezan

Re; Scrooge MacDuck's block
Hey, got your message.

I don't actually have a problem with the misspellings of my name. First of all, though it's a great song featured in a great show, not everybody has heard of it and may not know how to spell it. Second, I have seen it spelled another way (in the Doctor Strange movie). So it's not really an issue.

However, I do have a problem with User:Scrooge MacDuck's reaction to the blocks, as you so clearly pointed out in your post to him. My original block is considered an "error" because I got "carried away" - there is no real apology ("if User:AdricLovesNyssa perceived such I'm sorry" passes the buck to AdricLovesNyssa) or admission that he could/should have been more careful with his words.

And as we both pointed out, this isn't his first offense. The first time I gave a warning, and that apparently had no effect. Given his contributions to the wiki, I made my block only three days, and there was no gratitude or acknowledgement of fault, just complaining and denying that he committed any offense.

So, to make a long story short, it's up to you. I'm fine with the length of your block, but if you want to change it, I have no complaints. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  03:15, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Inclusion Debate
I was disappointed to see my inclusion debate closed so early despite your comment and User:Scrooge MacDuck's comment being in opposition of the story's validity (thus a debate). Since I failed to fully understand Tardis:Valid sources for my initial post, am I allowed to make a new discussion explicitly defending the story within the confines of the "Four Little Rules"? The fourth rule is what allows a community discussion on what is intended to be in the DWU, after all. LegoK9 ☎  17:50, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Tabs?
Hei Amorkuz, I feel it would be very helpful to add more organization to the Doctor pages (like tabs, for example). When I am looking for a special scene or an episode I can't recall the title of I have to scroll down miles of text. Am I the only person who feels this could be much easier? Greetings, Ivy Adrews ☎  22:53, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Editing before validity is decided

 * "On a separate but related note, it has come to my attention that you have on occasion implemented the projected results of a validity debate weeks before even starting the actual debate, for instance, at Special:Diff/2605116." Please refrain from this in the future.

1. Understood.

2. I was the one who made the page of Captain Britain (1985) months ago, I believe? (I can't see the history now that it has been deleted) I then made Free-Fall Warriors (comic series) a few weeks ago while working on Doctor Who spin-offs. In my defense, I had no reason to think these stories were not valid; nobody questioned the validity of these pages for many weeks. I had never made an inclusion debate until the last week, so I must say I was not projecting results of a debate because I did not know I needed to make one in the first place. (I still posit that they are a spin-off akin to, say, the Virgin Bernice Summerfield novels.) I was operating that they were valid because no one told me other otherwise for months.

The sad irony is that I was planning to finally read these obscure stories this weekend...

Please forgve my error made in ignorance.

Image aspect ratio?
has been removed twice for "Aspect ratio wrong: should approach widescreen dimensions".

The image guidelines say, "images should have a widescreen orientation, where possible", so I resubmitted the image with the top caption cropped off to approach widescreen. While it was still vertical (500 x 561), I see no way to crop this vertical comic panel to be widescreen and contain all the subject matter. (I want to link to an off-wiki scan of the full page to illustrate, but I'm not sure if that is allowed.)

Am I misunderstanding the guidelines? What aspect ratio is approaching widescreen but is still vertical? LegoK9 ☎  03:01, February 22, 2019 (UTC)

DWTV template issue
Could you please take a look at an issue with protected template: Template talk:DWTV ? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:26, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

Obverse expertise sought
Hi Amorkuz. Unfortunately I don't own the anthology in question, in fact, I'm a good few years behind on Iris' adventures. I've instead left quite a "War and Peace" length message on Rachel's talk page with my thoughts on the subject. This is quite a new era for us, having authors editing pages, and I hope my views will help us form some consensus on the subject. If you would, I'd like you to read over what I've put, and perhaps we can start some kind of forum thread where we can get to the bottom of the subject and establish some policy on it. --Revan\Talk 15:23, March 6, 2019 (UTC)


 * Jumping in here to reply to the same message: I do in fact own a copy of the story in question! So I'll accordingly bump it up my priority queue and leave a nice message on Rachel's talk page. Thank you for bringing the situation to my attention, and know that you're never a bother! – N8 ☎ 18:48, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Deadname treatment
I don't know if you read my edit summary when you reversed the edit on Lilah Sturges page, which said "Not relevant. Before reversing this edit please consider the Hate Crimes Act 2003 and the Equalities Act 2010 in relation to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'. Also Stonewall's advice in relation to not deliberately deadnaming." but either way I would strongly urge you to reconsider reversing my edit and locking the page, otherwise I will be forced to take further action. Given TARDIS wiki's frankly abysmal reputation I think insisting on deadnaming, despite other sites such as wikipedia now widely avoiding this, does not reflect well on the wiki. If you were to revise your policy it would be a step in the right direction for cleaning up this wiki, and making it a more tolerant place.

Thanks, BamMitch ☎  08:12, March 20, 2019 (UTC)