User talk:23skidoo

Timeline articles
Just a note on the timeline articles the story references within the Doctor Who universe should be (DW: The Time Meddler) rather than just ("The Time Meddler"), also the brackets should be after the end of the sentence and full stop rather than within the sentence. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 07:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Novel of Film, Who killed Kennedy
Hi, as requested I've added some detail to the novel of the film page. Also, on Who Killed Kennedy. Yes, it isn't technically a Missing Adventure...however it was produced during that era with the Missing Adventure logo for ease of use and referencing it is listed as a MA, with a note on both the novel's page and the Missing Adventure page. --Tangerineduel 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just (another) note
Just looking at your recent edit to the sonic screwdriver page. On the in-universe pages the Doctor shouldn't be written about as First Doctor, Second Doctor etc. It should be second incarnation, first incarnation, or something like that. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They're allowed, but...discouraged. It's a very rough and ready way of describing it. It's yes we can describe them that way, but for the most part it's better to word it differently. (The idea, or how it was explained...wherever I originally read it) was that if a person within the Doctor Who universe read the page how they'd write it. The X Doctor names are more a sort of bridging term between the in and out of universe, hardly ever are they used in universe. (Sorry if that's a very backwards way around of explaining things, I have a tendency to ramble) --Tangerineduel 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme arrangement
I'm inclined to leave the redirects (for now as I'm on the opposite side of the fence, redirects are sometimes good for illustrating to people, but they'll probably eventually get changed) as 'Theme arrangement' and Doctor Who theme are theoretically entirely different things. Theme arrangement, which doesn't (I had thought does but have just watched through credit sequences from the Hartnell, Pertwee, T Baker and McCoy) and the title 'Theme arrangement' doesn't seem to pop up. Ron Grainer is always credited with the credit 'Title music by Ron Grainer with the RADIOPHONIC WORKSHOP' (in the 60s), then exactly the same in the 70s except Music gets a capital letter. (sorry rambling off topic)

As to the name specifically, according to the 30 Years at the Radiophonic Workshop CD, it's just listed as 'Opening Theme' and 'Closing Theme', while Who is Dr Who? lists it as Doctor Who (Original Theme). As it's listed in the credits as stated above as 'Title Music', Doctor Who theme is an apt enough title.

Do you think it would benefit from having a separate article on the arrangement itself or is it best to keep it all within one article. --Tangerineduel 15:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity vs references
It's a layout inherited from (well it was in place when I joined the wiki). It works well in the prose stories, audio dramas and classic stories, and also much of the new series stories. I think it's generally new people wanting to put things in categories or not reading through the whole article. I'm reluctant to make it something like Cultural references, which would imply the Category:Cultural References section.

On my to do list is a complete restructure and re-write of the layout and manual of style guides to make it clear what is what and everything, (which I'll probably get onto in the next few days). Which will hopefully make things clearer, the basic thing to keep in mind is References is stuff that references the Doctor Who universe, Continuity is the interelatedness of continuity and stories.

It's like this, separated to keep the in and out of universe things separate and in many cases there is a continuity link without there being a corresponding reference, or vice versa. --Tangerineduel 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do usually go through the last couple of recent stories, and when this series ends will go back right through and make sure everything is in some semblance of order. --Tangerineduel 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Myths vs Rumours
This is another of the carry overs from the classic TV series where the Myths are long established by time. How about calling the Myths section 'Myths and Rumours' best of both worlds and keeping the layout continuous through the classic and new. --Tangerineduel 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to change all the classic series 'Myths' to myths and rumours. Rumours more suggests a recent sort of thing (good for the new series), not so appropiate for the classic. --Tangerineduel 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pest Control and ads
It's fixed, the ads and infobox problems, will all be fixed now (have also put a note on the Forum topic regarding this). As you should be able to see Pest Control now looks how it should. --Tangerineduel 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is controlled by wikia central. But the modifications I've done (which I copied from another wikia) just alter and do something to force the advert to be a banner (I only understand vaguely about the specifics, but know enough that it does work). --Tangerineduel 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

responding to User talk:BillK
Hi skid. The discussion about Wikia's New Style has recently taken a turn for the better regarding logged-in users. Please check out the announcement on the Central Discussion Forum. We're hoping to roll out this change in th enext week or so. —Scott ( talk ) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Christmas 08 Title
Hi skidoo

If there is no official Source for the title and you had to remove speculation from the plot section i think its likely that the title is fake since i don't expect the title to be released before the prom special. also due to the numerous attempts by Anons to create the Christmas page i think its safe to say its another atempt Dark Lord Xander 05:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've deleted both Christmas Special 2008 and Ghosts in the Machines, both titles are also protected which should stop anyone creating them (though I won't be surprised if a user comes up with another title) Will unlock them if Ghosts turns out to be the name (or when there's a citable source), either way. --Tangerineduel 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted File
File deleted, you can put a tag on an image just as you would other pages, it'll chuck it in the prop delete category. --Tangerineduel 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IDW Comics
Hi I was wondering if you could create pages for these individual comics (Classics, The forgotten Ect) I am uploading the covers and cover art at the moment but do not know which stories are in the classics (still waiting to buy TPB) thanks Dark Lord Xander 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers Dark Lord Xander 06:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinnacle covers
Hi, I was just browsing on here and noticed that you've uploaded a couple of the Pinnacle covers. Nice one! However they are not linked to a page. As I've done a lot of the work on the Target books and will be returning again to them (when I can break my distraction with Battles in Time and Doctor Who Adventures!!), I was wondering if there was a way of finding out which cover images you've uploaded so they can be put under the appropriate Target page under the 'associated images'. Either you can do it or if you let me have a list I'll do it. Thanks for the pictures anyway! The Librarian 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Apologies. I've just found the image to page links at the bottom of the page. I seem to remember that when you had a page open and clicked on the top left link 'what links here' it used to bring up the pages rather than scrolling down! Not anymore it appears. Anyway nice new gallery page! The Librarian 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Future episodes
My response: I suppose. (not the most eloquent). My only concern is that these pages would become a dumping ground/posting black hole for all and every single rumour that people want to post. Then again they could serve as the only place for people to dump their mis-information. Even wikipedia's future TV thing is still referenced properly, so as long as these pages have some grounding in fact and they're labled clearly, then perhaps. I'm unsure as to how a lot of the speculative information would be incorportated into the final article. --Tangerineduel 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Inability to log in
I just had to log in, and there were no problems, hopefully in the intervening 6 hours or so it's worked out. If you're still having troubles all I can suggest is checking out the Wikia Central Forums. There's just been an update of the MediaWiki, which has improved and moved a few things around, but it shouldn't have created any major issues. Other than that if it it still doesn't work...trying to log-in using different web browser, clearing your cookies, that sort of thing. Hope (some) of that has been of assistance. --Tangerineduel 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been having a think and look around re your problem, this forum posting Forum: I can't log in has an email for the community wikia team (community@wikia.com), so that might be of assistance.
 * I've had a look at the user list and you're still listed as a user (I thought maybe someone had deleted or blocked you), neither was the case.
 * On a side note, if not Netscape or Safari (and IE hasn't been supported for donkey's years on Mac), why not Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Camino or Opera? --Tangerineduel 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Billie Piper / Rose bit and alternative covers. I'll keep my eyes open. I wouldn't have thought BBC would reprint the hardbacks too quickly, little of their stuff is reprinted, especially not while they are still issuing new titles. I'm surprised Character Options haven't issued a another new Rose figure yet (maybe they need to remodel the mouth LOL) ... there's still time though! Ive been talking to the comic artist Lee Sullivan recently and hes very supportive - so look out for more comic strip stuff in the future, Battles in Time incidentally is now extended to Issue 70 I've just learnt so more work their for me to do!! Where's the talkbox thing gone anyway...thought it was odd that nobody said anything after three days!!!! Shame. Bye for now Keep chatting! The Librarian 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On Target!
Hi, just checked out The Revenge of the Cybermen (novelisation) page and can't see anything wrong with it so I guess you fixed it or it reset itself. So all's well then! Thanks again for the Target edits I'm currently gathering the bits to expand the publication histories bits. I want to see these pages as the most extensive on the web, and so the more the better. There's so much I want to do but not enough time... could do with being off work for a few months with a broken leg or something (like my boss!!)...ah well, "slowly slowly catch the monkey!!" The Librarian 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry been a way for a bit.. regarding the hardback editions of the novelisations. I don't think its a problem as their publisher was W H Allen! The series complete (not all released in hb anyway) is widely known by fans as the Target novelisations. Keep up the good work! I'm re-reading some 'deviation notes' at the moment for a later series of additions - my favourite must be "the Doctor peeing over the laundry" in Delta and the Bannermen! LOL The Librarian 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor
I have got to start reading the news first, I keep missing stuff, lol (I usually sort out the recent changes first, then everything else. I'll create protect Eleventh Doctor to unregistered users, and then think about create protecting it against everyone if there's a lot of random info being placed on there. --Tangerineduel 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rant
Yes, absolutely yes we are on the same page. As for spelling, I use Firefox which has a built in spell checker, but it still misses tons of stuff. As for grammar, well I'd put that down to all the SMS influenced people missing out on proper spelling, punctuation and sentence construction (seriously I don't get how people can mix up there, their and they're. The way my English teacher taught it was that there has 'here' in it and it's 'here, there, everywhere', they're has an apostrophe in it so you know it's 'they are' and the other about possession...now I'm ranting). I don't even go to The Next Doctor page anymore (partly because of spoilers, mostly because I don't want constantly weed out the rumours). Some users do write up article in MS Word (TheLibrarian does I'm pretty sure), though this introduces other problems, Word formats an apostrophe differently to when you type it in in the text box, so if it's part of any wikilinks it shows up as a different character, (it's also hard to notice unless you're editing the article), Word also causes problems with '...' (when copied in from Word it's one character rather than three). I'll stop here lest I rant and ramble further. --Tangerineduel 16:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Further rants & & major deleting
I've had some experience with the discontinuity problems. You can just delete it if you can't make head nor tale of it, if it's a noticeable mistake than someone else with better spelling and grammar will come along and re-add it in a manner that's readable.

Alternatively you can (try) and edit it, fixing the spelling etc errors.

Another alternative I've been pondering can be found in the Myths section of An Unearthly Child, where a user removed all the myths because they were copied from the BBC's ep guide site. I've since re-added them, with footnotes from the original source (which wasn't the BBC's site).

Attribution won't work for discontinuity, I know, as it's mostly from observation. But for Myths (and on the pages where it's Myths and Rumours) it might work.

Just back to the discontinuity sections, not everything in the discontinuity section needs italicised text suggestion an explanation, anything that has speculative phrases just cut it (that really is people coming up with ideas out of the air).

Also another thing I don't think we should have is retroactively applying continuity to the discontinuity section should also be removed. That is calling out an old story as having incorrect elements because of a newer story. (I recently edited The Five Doctors which had some stuff in the discontinuity section relating to Last of the Time Lords. It's not really The Five Doctors' discontinuity, it's Last of the Time Lords'.)

As far as restricting edits to registered users (there are times I've wanted to)...but there have been plenty of good IP editors and there are plenty who edit first as unregistered and then join, it makes it a little bit more imposing if they have to register to edit. --Tangerineduel 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 specials
With the current ebb and flow or rumours on this page would a semi-protect be useful? I'm not generally in favour them (as previously mentioned), but there is likely to be a lot of rumours floating around in the lead up and off the end of Planet of the Dead, I'm just wondering if if it's best to semi-protect (no anonymous user edits) the page or not. --Tangerineduel 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Hi, thanks for the ideas. I've added a note to both the template (I made the text small, just because having it regular sized ruined the size of the text box, I know I shouldn't worry about aesthetics like that, but it annoyed me having the text big). I've also added it to the page policy. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Announcements etc
I don't mind it being just some bold text at the top of the section. I don't think every announcement needs to be wrapped up in a banner or whatever. I'm sure if another user feels strongly enough they'll create a banner and replace the text, but the text seems fine for now. --Tangerineduel 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Spiral nebula
No worries. I gave up on trying to edit around any edit conflicts anyway, as they were coming so thick and fast. Who'd have thought that such an innocuous li'l article would've generated such controversy. And speaking of controversy, I'd appreciate your views at Talk:Spiral nebula, as you have a lot of experience in these parts. There are actually substantive issues at the heart of the major edit conflicts, and I think we need a diverse perspective.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Succeeded!
Moved The Stealers from Saiph for ya. Monkey with a Gun 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Room with a Deja View moved as well. Although I should point out, admin privileges aren't required to do a move - just click on the "Move Link" at the top of the page. It's a rather elegant system; I only recently realized it even creates a redirect page automatically, so links from other pages continue to function. Monkey with a Gun 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Discontinuity
I often leave discontinuity editing to other editors. The general rule of thumb (or at least how it should be written in the MoS) (that's on my to do list) is any vague statements should be removed, so any explanations that have 'could have', 'probably', 'maybe' 'perhaps' anything that postulates rather than actually makes a statement based on either information within the episode or outside information (ideally with a source cited if I was being hopeful). As far as contributions go I think you're above a junior editor. --Tangerineduel 18:09, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Books
Thanks for the explanation! I'm the first to admit I haven't got the hang of categories at all - so I'm lazy enough to leave that bit to others to tidy up for me. I do try though I hasten to add but invariably end up getting it wrong, or people disagree!
 * Anyway...while on a book theme, I don't suppose you've been able to find a cover image for Boxtree's The Doctor's 30 Years of Time Travel have you! Im not ashamed to admit its the gap in my library (it got so many bad reviews at the time, was totally unofficial and didnt offer me anything of interest, not particularly well designed either.) The Search goes on...I've got another box to go through that might offer hope! I did incidently pick up the DVD release which had its moment/s. Anyway thanks again! The Librarian 22:41, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on various Series 1 and Series 2 pages
A user bigredrabbit, has been leaving vast amounts of spaces on article pages, I dont know if had a chance to look at it but since you are an admin (or well Im assuming) would you mind having a look and reverting because I get a conflict edit message, Ive left a message on the users page as well. Sorry for wasting your time on this matter but Thank you Bigshowbower 02:45, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've left a not on the user in question's talk page following up on Bigshowbower's comments. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:45, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder image
That's fine for the galleries. The only images that are vaguely similar are File:Example.jpg and File:Default which mainly exist to stop people from using those file names. --Tangerineduel 04:46, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Series 5 (Doctor Who) Post / Page
Just in regards to the regeneration of Tennant to Smith: The regeneration looks like it will occur after the commencement of series 5. Reason being that filming taking place this year shows Smith running around in Tennant's old suit (albeit disheveled and torn) with Karen Gillan running after him - wearing a coppers outfit! There is a link to a YouTube page showing the images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuZnR8f0q2o

Thought you might like to know...

d33j r0j3r5 (aka dr)

D33j r0j3r5 02:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally don't post my replies on other talk pages, but just this once...
 * Please watch Spearhead from Space, Robot, Castrovalva, The Twin Dilemma, Time and the Rani and The Christmas Invasion for examples of stories in which the Doctor wears his predecessor's outfit well into his first story. There is nothing to support the idea that the regeneration won't occur at the end of The End of Time. 23skidoo 12:21, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Discontinuity and Trivia...stuff
This sort of thing came up...a while ago, and a user just deleted all the info. The discontinuity, myths and some trivia for the classic stories is often copied from the BBC's episode guide website, what a lot of people (me included early on before I learnt all this!) is that if you look all the way to the bottom of the episode guide page (see here for example) is that it states where the content comes from either the Discontinuity Guide and the Television Companion. On the An Unearthly Child page for the Myths section (which was what was removed by a user the last time around) I've gone through and referenced everything correctly using the the Television Companion book source.

It's been on my to do list to sort out these pages source/referencing wise. I haven't got around to it for a number of reasons, partially because it's time consuming and partially because I wanted to get more than a single reference for the whole Myths (and other sections), which would involve checking through books like The Sixties etc, Doctor Who The Early Years and other books like that published during the 80s and 90s (while those and others are on my shelf I've not flipped through them in a while).

What do you think? I don't want these sections completely wiped out, but they probably need re-writing/and also source citation. --Tangerineduel 09:37, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia disregards non-online sources?! I didn't know that. I only occasionally make my way to Wikipedia to edit some of the things on there. It made me long for this (and indeed any of the wikis).

Though I would like to avoid having sub-sections called 'Trivia' as they can quickly become dumping grounds for any and everything.


 * I am fine with sources being book based, even a lot of the fanzines back in the day were well researched and had stuff from authors (I'm now annoyed that I dumped most of my fanzines from the early 90s that contained interviews with authors). So I really don't think we should be disqualifying sources just because they're in print rather than online or whatever.


 * I didn't laugh, but it did amuse me the idea of creating a Wikipedia style "task force" here. It would probably work brilliantly in theory, we've probably got enough good and dedicated editors around that could be up for the task. But...I'm not enthusiastic about its success (I don't want to come across too cynical about this). I'm happy for it to be given a go.


 * I'm just saying, for example the previous Tardis:Nominations for featured articles stalled, which I've now rebooted in an attempt to get things moving again, making it very simple and removing practically all the rules, see Tardis:Feature Article policy, it works on the same idea as the Quote of the Week policy. Basically because the other system relied on articles being nominated, voted and opposed. That didn't work, as often there was more opposition than votes and things didn't get fixed (or the page wasn't watched as often as it should, or there weren't editors watching and policing it...etc). Now I'm hoping by removing the complexity things will move more swiftly.


 * How do you want to go ahead with your proposal? As I said I'm happy for it to be given a go, maybe even help out, there are a few things I've been meaning to fix in the TV stories for a while. I think it took me two months to go through all the TV stories (I think I've actually gone through them at least twice), but the last time it took me about 2 months to clear them up to the manual of style/layout and other things. Forum or a Project page to work it all out, just go forth or...whatever? --Tangerineduel 11:37, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine being an admin on Wikipedia would have...interesting.
 * Any assistance with the task at hand or whatever leave a message and I'll try to help. I wouldn't worry about how long it will take. --Tangerineduel 15:14, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
Hello! I am somewhat surprised the question hasn't come up sooner. Especially given your wikipedia admin status. You can check out the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship.

Just looking through your recent edits all seems okay. I'll just point out and grab a few random things; in World Game and indeed all novels/short stories/TV stories etc, the references section is for in-universe references, so notes concerning the psychic paper would go in the notes section (as I've done so). Canon is one article which...reads somewhat like a wikipedia article, and somewhat not.

Also, which articles showcase your creative skills and which edits/articles are you most proud of? These two questions are in the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship article. Feel free to ask any me (or indeed other admins) any further questions and I (or others) will try and answer them. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 12:04, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the novel articles do follow the same format (or perhaps I say should...they did when I last went through them all...(sigh)). But generally speaking all articles that have the 'References' section should be for in-universe references, the sub-sections all roughly follow the same layout of: Summary/Plot/Synopsis or Publisher's Summary, Cast/Characters, References, Notes, Continuity, Timeline, External Links, Footnotes. Though Footnotes is only necessary if there's actually any citation on the article. This goes for all articles, use the subsection 'Footnotes' rather than 'References'. (I'm pretty sure this is noted somewhere in the Manual of style).
 * I've been thinking about approaching the way Wikipedia is that everything, or at least a lot of it should be sourced. Perhaps not as stringently as wikipedia, but posting info randomly without info to back it I would think is not something to be encouraged. I am a little concerned about the idea of 'not being bogged down' in requiring sources, as well, the in-universe articles need their sources to support their information. Likewise the real world articles need their sources. Though again not with the maddening amount of red-tape and stringentness that wikipedia enforces.
 * Looking over your user page, I guess I need not ask about your breadth of Doctor Who knowledge? Should you come across articles concerning Chelonians, Time Trees, the Fortean Flicker, Venusians or Gallifreyan history.
 * Do you have any questions now (I'm assuming you're perused the Questions for admins article)? --Tangerineduel 15:22, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * The note on questions in the Questions for admins regarding wanting to be an admin to block etc is there mainly because I wrote said article during a time when a few many users were requesting adminship (prior to that there wasn't any article with any rules/questions concerning it) and needed something to point them to explaining why deleting and blocking wasn't the be all and end all of it.
 * Thanks for enlightening me on the whole sourcing issue, I only venture into wikipedia occasionally and try to avoid doing any citation due to the hoops you need to jump through to do so. But it's better now understanding where you're coming from and that I needn't panic too much about it.
 * Bots I've looked into and it's generally just been easier (though tedious) to do it manually, but it's something we can discuss in the future.
 * Anyways, I've just (hopefully) adjusted your status and now you (should be) an admin. Feel free to contact me with any questions, issues, problems, complaints, or...anything like that. --Tangerineduel 15:36, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Canon
Hey. I've noticed some of your edits you use the word canon in defining what should and shouldn't be "counted". Our Tardis:Canon policy is relatively clear what is and isn't canon. I can see where you're coming from (and often some stuff seems to read as though it's written for wikipedia). We don't really worry about it being canon, you need to worry more about how it fits into what's come already. "One account suggests" is a phrase that I've seen editors use often and that's as good a phrase as any.

Again, looking at your edits on Just Another Thursday I feel I should point out that in-universe references go in the References sub-heading whilst references to stories go under the Continuity subheading. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:44, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * "Grey area" is somewhat of a murky phrase, given our Canon policy is quite inclusive, phrases like "the novels are a grey area" sort of confuses the issue. Also the phrase "grey area" suggests that the on-screen stories carry more weight than other stories. Which isn't the case (on this wiki at least), the only things in the canon policy that are both valid yet carry slightly less weight against others are the novelisations which are canon until they outright contradict the TV stories.


 * For instance I've re-written the behind the scenes section of Morbius Doctors to be more neutral. I also to the Doctor's TARDIS talk page with all the instances of the TARDIS enveloping the Earth (and other things like it) that I could think of off the top of my head. --Tangerineduel 14:56, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * This wiki it isn't the Doctor Who Wiki Project (who do their own thing over on the big Wikipedia) and we're not all that consistent with wikipedia. I would argue that a lot of the in-universe articles have diverged widely from the Wikipedia articles (if they originated there at all).
 * It's generally assumed that new editors will have either read some articles on the wiki before they start editing or in fact through the help page (which includes the manual of style and associated polices).
 * Additionally the point of having the various references is to back up which bit of canon it happens to be including, and as with anything readers can pick and choose which parts they wish to believe. Which is often how fandom tends to work.
 * These info sources aren't grey areas according to our canon policy, this is an encyclopaedia of all Doctor Who and the DW universe, what one user reads as grey another doesn't, but including the term grey area only leads to implied doubt as to the validity of the information.
 * My concern about clarifications on the articles is that we would spend an endless amount of time adding notes every article that contains information from multiple sources, and that we would need to add a note stating that there is no reference to said information in a TV story and as this would set a precedent we would subsequently need to add similar notes stating that information in the novels isn't supported by the TV stories and that said information wasn't mentioned on-screen etc.
 * The view of the novels, audios, comics, short stories as being more or less equal to the on-screen sources has been in place for some time, but if you believe strongly about the "grey area" term I would encourage you to begin a Forum:Panopticon topic to open it up for all users to discuss. --Tangerineduel 06:50, December 15, 2009 (UTC)