User talk:SOTO

To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO. Also, please sign your messages. Thanks.

× SmallerOnTheOutside  (☎/ ✍ / ↯ ) If you've come here to request a simple, uncontroversial page move, please consider using instead. This puts all rename requests into a neat little chart that all admin can see and work on.

Audio!!
Would you tell me why you dab the story Revenge of the Nestene as a short story? It's clearly an audio. --DCLM ☎  21:44, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could you please do something about User:Connorguy and User:DoneNothingWrong. They continuously insert false information based on speculation and they are consistently edit warring as a result. I have tried multiple times now to warn them, but they continue the tirade. The "speculation" was originally inserted by User:Cynical Classicist. --DCLM ☎  22:38, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not originally post the information. Someone else did, and once you removed it another user added it back. I, a third user, believed that the information was valid enough to be on the page (and since then a fourth user has also contributed). This puts you at odds with several members - if you felt that the information was wrong / false you should have started a discussion on the talk page (like I suggested). However, you continued to repeatedly remove the information despite being asked to stop. Connorguy ☎  22:43, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The only 3 users who consistently inserted it were all new members unfamiliar with a large portion of how this wiki works; that's you, DoneNothingWrong and Cynical Classicist. The only other user, who apparently don't realize this is pure speculation (and therefore not allowed), was User:NateBumber, who also simply expanded upon this. Also you apparently didn't read my comment above, which even said who the original "creator" of the content was. I'm not the one supposed to start up a discussion on whether this shouldn't be there. It's you people who need to start a discussion on whether it SHOULD be there. -DCLM ☎  22:50, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a new member. Unfortunately I have lost the credentials to my original account, although I haven't been interested in the show until the recent Russel T. Davies material was released - so recreated today. I am familiar with "a large portion of how this wiki works". There's a big difference between "speculation" and heavy "implication". Connorguy ☎  22:53, March 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to comment, but since Danniesen has name-dropped me above, I feel obligated to add that I very strongly dispute his characterisation of Special:Diff/2865071 as "false information based on speculation". The edit had two halves: a short but serviceable summary of the story (which I was particularly happy to see, since so many of our pages lack summaries); and a "Behind the scenes" note about the connection to Boris Johnson. While Boris' name is not explicitly given in text (hence why Cynical Classicist correctly placed it in a real-world "Behind the scenes" section rather than an in-universe section like "References", where discussion of prominent off-site speculation is absolutely allowed), with how the story is written, Russell T Davies' intention is very clear, especially considering his previous comments concerning Johnson as a political figure. This has been noticed by countless commentators on Twitter, GallifreyBase, Reddit, and every other Doctor Who community the sun touches, so it would be completely negligent of our wiki to not at least mention it.


 * When Danniesen reverted Classical Cynicist's edit and dismissed it as "false info" -- and then when he did the same thing another 3 times -- he removed not just the bit about Boris but also the very valuable, and by no means "false", story summary. This was done so repeatedly and so quickly that no one even noticed MystExplorer dodging in and adding the same content in the "Notes" section! I have since tried to do my part in diffusing the edit war by re-adding the summary and combining the two explanations of the Boris link, complete with a source from the RadioTimes; but I completely sympathize with the frustration of Connorguy and DoneNothingWrong in this scenario. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 00:07, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * Funny how some speculative content is allowed while other speculative content isn't. (by the way, nothing wrong with the story summary, that was fine). Just saying. --DCLM ☎  09:04, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * If there was nothing wrong with the story summary, why did you remove it four times and describe the edit (in this section header) as vandalism? I think how the wiki treats speculation makes perfect sense: for an illustrative example, see The Woman (The End of Time). We do not speculate on her identity in the in-universe portion of the page, but in the real-world “behind the scenes” section, we freely discuss potential identities. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:07, March 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't see the summary. I only saw the speculation. Also, if speculation is allowed in BTS sections, please tell me why speculation in BTS sections have consistently been removed in the past. This is exactly like sticking out some rules that everyone must follow, then someone else comes along and go against these rules, and everyone praises that, leaving the one actually following said rules feeling immensely dumb. --DCLM ☎  13:14, March 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said, there's a difference between speculation and heavy implication. If only one user was speculating something, with no real evidence to back it up, then of course it would not be allowed. However, in this instance the wording is specific enough to be universally agreed as to who it was referencing (just look at the comments on the audio version of the story on YouTube - half the comments are about Boris Johnson) then it should be. Xx-connor-xX ☎  13:18, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding past removals, maybe it’s because of the lack of a source/citation for the speculation? Idk, give me some examples of what you’re talking about. I’m not an admin but I’ll go to bat for you if something was improperly removed. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:21, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Time War volumes
I've just moved the The Eighth Doctor: Time War volumes to their new titles, but upon checking Special:WhatLinksHere, I've... decided that maybe it's best to ask SV7 a bit of help - I'm sure they'll have more fun moving the links than I would :p So, when you have the time, could you run the bot to change: (and, as I said in Talk:The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three I'm on the opinion that only volumes 1 and 2 should keep the old names as redirects; I've only kept the volume 3 as a redirect for now until we get the links done) - thought do let me know if you disagree. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 23:11, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume One to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume One
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Two to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Two
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three
 * Oh I didn't realise that hadn't "ripple-effected" yet; usually the links change fairly quickly. Yeah, the changing on the marketing was unusual, but everyone I saw assumed they did it to match the Gallifrey: Time War releases (after all, they incorporated its logo) - and now we get all 8TW sets with the Whittaker-era logo, so that's two wins. But anyway, thanks for doing the changes (and thank SV7 as well). OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:01, April 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do the Time War again: Category:The Eighth Doctor: The Time War and it's subcategories were never changed from  to   (sans the The) - so if SV7 still has some spare batteries... OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:07, April 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if you (and SV7 as well) would allow me, I think I found another task for them. There's quite a few pages that are categorised [directly] as Category:Audio cast stubs, but don't use . If they could remove the category and add the template, it'd be amazing. :) OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:52, April 10, 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Vansell page
Can you please block this IP user for vandalizing the Vansell article? Thanks! -- Jamie248 [  T  •  C  •  E  • 📝 ] 21:38, April 10, 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Answers closed
Doctor Who Answers has been closed. The new website will go up at http://www.doctorwhoanswers.com/, but right now it's not quite ready because they've not had enough spare time to sink into it. Doctor 25 ☎  20:12, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Pollard
I began to make a category for Charlotte Pollard short stories, since there's already one for her audio stories, but I began to wonder if it's really necessary. That category was deleted in 2018, and she's only had two boxsets of her own series. Do you think I should create Category:Charlotte Pollard short stories, or should Category:Charlotte Pollard stories be deleted? Danochy ☎  06:44, April 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with you there. If Charley were to get her own category, then so would the likes of Donna, Rose, and Liv with their recent solo series, and it could start to get a bit much. I'll pop a deletion tag on it now. Danochy ☎  06:58, April 13, 2020 (UTC)

Meta-fictional Doctor Who
Hi there. As you're the one who originally created Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) and formally moved it from its old title of TV series (Remembrance of the Daleks) I'd like to request that it be moved back to that original title.

The reason for this is that when I was still very new to the wiki I modified it to include all references to the Doctor existing in fiction. In doing so, I drew many speculative connections between all the sources that I can now say probably constituted a violation of policy. The Doctor in popular culture and mythology now exists to serve this purpose without speculation and in effect, the Remembrance page has been replaced by Doctor Who (N-Space) which also serves its purpose without speculation. I have already moved all the links to the most appropriate destination page.

If you could also move Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks), Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) cast, Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) crew and Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) stories so that they all instead contain The Thief of Sherwood as a dab term that would be excellent. If it would be easier to just delete the categories and then change them on the individual pages please drop me a message. I'd be more than happy to do the work by hand to correct this mistake.

Thanks for your time, --Borisashton ☎  22:12, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Since posting the above request it has come to my attention that Doctor Who also appeared in COMIC: The (Final) Doctor Who History Tour. To avoid the abominable title of "Doctor Who (The (Final) Doctor Who History Tour)" renaming Doctor Who (N-Space) to have the dab term "N-Space" seems like the best option. As well as avoiding the aforementioned name, readers will also immediately realise the scope of the article, that is the programme of Doctor Who as it exists within N-Space.


 * As such, the categories should be moved to Category:Doctor Who (N-Space) et cetera while the move of Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) to TV series (Remembrance of the Daleks) remains unaffected. Thanks for your help in this matter, --Borisashton ☎  21:13, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

Check on
Hello, User:SOTO. I just wanted to stop by and check how you were doing in these trying times of self-isolation?BananaClownMan ☎  09:50, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Annuals, non-fiction, non-DWU
While you are obviously correct in saying that Men Who Made History and its ilk should be in the category Category:Doctor Who Annual non-fiction, I think you were hasty in telling User:ToyStoryFan123 that "puzzles and features" go there. There are features in Annuals which are also fiction, though they are not narrative (The Dalek Dictionary, for example) and thus go in Category:Non-DWU features, and there are wholly narrative puzzles and games; something like this or this may not be valid due to fourth-wall-breaking and/or branching story elements, but it's hardly "non-fiction". Cheers!--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:04, April 18, 2020 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi, if it's not too much trouble could you please move the following pages:
 * Thales → Morgan Thales
 * Grace Kelly → Grace Kelly (song)
 * Vega (Vanderdeken's Children) → Thorn Vega
 * Banham → Charles Banham
 * Collins (Casualties of War) → Joey Collins
 * Miguel Gonzalez's father → Miguel Gonzalez' father
 * Miguel Gonzalez's mother → Miguel Gonzalez' mother
 * Vera Juarez's brother → Vera Juarez' brother
 * Vera Juarez's ex-husband → Vera Juarez' ex-husband
 * Kadoguchi-roshi → Kadoguchi
 * Black (Vincent and the Doctor) → Henry Black
 * Alex Romanov → Alexei Romanov
 * Selby → Selby (A Merry Little Christmas)
 * Steve (Infamy of the Zaross) → Steve Thomas
 * Thannos System → Thannos system
 * Barry Whittaker → Barry Whitaker
 * De Winter → De Winter (Dumb Waiter)

All pretty self-explanatory stuff, but I've explained the reasons in more detail on the talk page of each and the links are already moved. I know it's kind of a lot to drop in your lap, but I just don't want people to keep encountering the redlinks when they should be able to get to the pages themselves instead. Thanks! Toqgers ☎  00:09, April 22, 2020 (UTC)

Page rename request
If possible, Eaglemoss Publications Ltd should be renamed to "Eaglemoss Collections" when you have the time. I went through and did some digging, the actual company "Eaglemoss Publications Ltd" was dissolved in 2016, with the US Eaglemoss FAQ stating that they're owned by "Eaglemoss Capital Ltd", which was incorporated in 2015, the page can simply note the name change occurred without getting into the actual corporate shenanigans. This change will hopefully allow for less "you need to link to the particular imprint publishing the thing" issues for.

Rosita
Hey there SOTO! Would you mind tackling a move of Rosita (The Next Doctor) to Rosita Farisi, on account of the surname finally being corroborated by a valid source (The Time Lord Letters)? Pretty happy to see that one settled! :D Thanks for your time and take care. Toqgers ☎  03:53, May 1, 2020 (UTC)

ClemWasLoomed
This user is adding memes from the Facebook group TARDISposting to this wiki and it’s not the vandalism I mind so much as why couldn’t they add memes from somewhere actually funny. I imagine the vandalism is the part you’ll be more concerned about though. NightmareofEden ☎  13:53, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

A couple of technical things
Hi there, not sure if you're the best admin to ask about this stuff but hopefully you can point me in the right direction if not.

Can you make the "|reprint" variable in stop automatically linking? I'm planning to add It's Even Bigger on the Inside to the infoboxes of Doctor Who? stories and the best way I can think of doing that is by typing out: It's Even Bigger on the Inside|It's Even Bigger on the Inside. Or is there a way just to bypass it?

Also, the "|WithThanksTo" variable in needs to be expanded to "|WithThanksTo17" to account for all the thanking in The Curse of Fatal Death.

Aside from all the above, Sea Devil (Doctor Who?) needs deleting and I have continued the discussion at Talk:DG (Doctor Who?). Much thanks, --Borisashton ☎  16:58, May 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! If it's not too much trouble could I also trouble you with renaming Tom Baker (Ever Wondered What Happened At.. The Auditions For The Seven Doctors?) to Tom Baker (Doctor Who?)? I mistakenly believed that Baker appeared in Ever Wondered but he doesn't which means the dab does not represent his first appearance or even his first mention. Thanks again, --Borisashton ☎  11:08, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

Another Vandal
Hi SOTO, could you please block 86.31.40.129? They have inserted vandalism into at least two pages. Thanks! Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:29, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

A confirmation on the forum
Hullo! Some minor drama has been unfolding at Thread:212365, "Sequels/prequels to invalid stories". Could you pop over confirm my impression that you intend to close it some time soon, and are simply putting in the time to have a full and well-argued closing argument? User:Shambala108 appears to fear that the other admins might be leaving her to handle all the closures on her own, and recent user User:Epsilon the Eternal (among others!) was, as is often the case, asking quite impatiently "why the thread cas still open"… A reassurance that a closure from you is forthcoming might help greatly, I feel. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:14, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

Talking to an IP address
Can you have a talk with 52.168.128.46? A lot of their edits aren't exactly appropriate for this wiki. I would have already done so, but I figured it would be overstepping my bounds as a regular user. Najawin ☎  21:43, June 8, 2020 (UTC)

Using Autoblock to defeat trolls?
Hi SOTO, hope you're doing well. So, I was scrolling through the block list recently, and noticed autoblock, and came up with an idea. I'm sure you're aware of the mass trolling done by a few nazis (or one nazi with sockpuppets) a couple days ago. I was wondering if there was a way to code the autoblock so it blocks certain words? (like slurs, nazi dogwhistle 1488, etc) Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  17:30, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

How do you edit the leaderboard appearance for Rassilon badges? Thanks. '''I pushed the wrong button (This is literally my signature)

Categories
So looking at the categories for reasoning, logic, mathematics and science, I feel like they could do with some reshuffling in relation to each other. But I figured it would be best to ask you about procedure here before I did anything. Normally we wouldn't place either logic or mathematics as branches of science (my rewrite would be to group all of them as branches of reasoning, then that under reason, then that under concepts, but science also stands alone under the time space visualizer), but I wouldn't want to go in and change how the wiki handles things there haphazardly, and since you added logic to the science category I just wanted to get your take on it. I understand that they might be taken to be so similar for the purposes of this wiki that they're just grouped together, even if it's not technically correct. Hence why I'm asking. Najawin ☎  00:17, June 17, 2020 (UTC)

Categories 2
Thanks for removing the category "currency from the real world" from Skrätch Marks, as I didn't notice that I mistakenly added it. :D Epsilon the Eternal ☎  02:41, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Exography
On Category:Science it says that there shouldn't be any individual pages. That's why I moved it out. Apologies for doing so twice, I figured that I missed it the first time when it popped back up and forgot about it. But that's why I'm going through and doing a mass purge of individual articles in that category, it's specifically saying that individual pages shouldn't be there. Najawin ☎  05:56, June 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear lord that did not link properly. Najawin ☎  05:57, June 21, 2020 (UTC)

Hiding Gallery button
Thank you very much, I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realize the gallery button must be hidden at all times. I will try get to it in the morning but if I don't, there's a page that still has the gallery button visible: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Character_Options_action_figures Thank you again and I'll try to be more vigilant in the future! DoctorQuoi ☎  05:09, June 24, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Korean Wiki Closure
So a few days ago User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 noticed "random letterings" on Rose Tyler and removed it. This was a link to the Korean Wiki that was broken, and so had appeared as just a dead hyperlink at the bottom of the page, as I pointed out at Talk:Rose Tyler, because the Korean Wiki has been closed. Since then I've kept my eye out on pages to see if this was a massive problem, and while it's not, a few pages, like Doctor Who and Clara Oswald still have dead Korean links. Most pages, including most pages you'd expect to be translated (like, for example, pages for companions or incarnations of the Doctor) do not have these links, but it seems that there are going to be some throughout the site. As a regular user I'm unable to systemically search for them to my knowledge. If an admin has the ability to mass delete links to another website, or we could get a bot to remove these dead links, that would probably be the best course of action. Najawin ☎  08:09, June 24, 2020 (UTC)

Cyber-pages
Hello. I see you've given a ruling on The ArcHive Tapes discussion. Now that that is resolved, could you please restore the long-deleted pages CyberTelosian and CyberNeomorph. In addition, CyberMondasian as I recall had a history before being deleted and ultimately recreated as a redirect to CyberMondan. I believe it would be useful to restore that history and possibly useful content within. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎  08:18, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

The Eternal Summer (Audio) Slight Problem
Hey SOTO, hope you're doing well. I finished "The Eternal Summer" and it is an absolute gem! There's one little thing I wanted some help on. In the story, Maxwell and the Doctor have a scene where Maxwell references the TV trope where a stupid character says something stupid which inspires the smart character to figure out the solution, inspired by the dumb idea. I know they make fun of this in this particular story but it's actually a pretty common Doctor Who trope. Which leads me to two questions:

1) I added this to the "Notes" section, is that appropriate? Otherwise, where should it be added because I do think it's important to mention...?

2) I was trying to remember an example off the top of my head and I remembered that scene from one of the Second Doctor stories where Jamie suggests an idea and the Doctor realizes that it was actually brilliant and says to Jamie "No Jamie, it's an idea that only you could have though of!" and Jamie goes "Aye!... Eh?" in a charming confused and not sure if he should feel insulted sort-of-way. Anyway do you remember which episode it was (it's definitely not The Underwater Menace, not referring to the scene where the Doctor runs away with Victoria when Jamie has an idea haha), I can't remember if it was "The Dominators" of "The Krotons". I'm like 99% sure it's the Dominators and that's what I added to the notes but just in case I'm wrong I thought I should run it past you first.

Also, it is mentioned that Dudley's child was aborted in one of his flashbacks (not explicitly but HEAVILY implied and it did turn out to be false in the end as a test by Jane but still it's there in some capacity). I don't feel I have the right/enough finesse to make that page (or at least I can't find it if it already exists) since it is a touchy subject, would you be able to create it instead so I can add the link on the Eternal Summer page? Cheers! DoctorQuoi ☎  06:36, July 2, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Short Trips anthologies
Hi, I hope you're doing well. Now this is a bit of a long shot, as it happened seven years ago, but I noticed you added some specific dates to the various Short Trips series, such as here: Special:Diff/1541669. Would you happen to have any idea where you might have sourced that from? I'm asking because, after searching the web archives of the old Big Finish website, I've come across various release dates which don't correspond to those dates. For example, you can find my citation for a date of that same release over at 16 June (releases) (the date is given on the sidebar of the sourced web page).

My guess is that maybe my date is when they are shipped out from BF directly, and yours were the dates they were released in stores? Either way, not really expecting you to remember something from that long ago, just wanted your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Danochy ☎  06:45, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

T:SPOIL issue
As I see you just edited the relevant spoilered page, could I trouble you to come correct the T:SPOIL violation at Talk:List of recurring Doctor Who concepts not owned by the BBC? I believe it would not be appropriate for a non-admin to edit another poster's message.

Of course, if you chime in there on the subject of the actual conversation (there and about the T:POINT issue at Thread:279761, whose OP admitted they "had no new evidence" but refuses to stop the conversation until an admin steps in to point that out), that'd be lovely. But T:SPOIL is the most urgent order of business.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:12, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * Cute, but the spoilers were already removed long ago. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  13:18, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * Were they? You didn't say you had. Apologies to SOTO for bringing them out-of-date information, then. The side-issues remain, mind. We're all very eager for admin opinions in both discussions, both on the actual issues and on the pressing T:POINT concern.


 * ( Though DiSoRiEnTeD1, what do you mean, "cute"? (Note: please reply to me on my talk page, not on here. Admin talk-pages are not to be crowded with messages addressed to other people than the admins.) )--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:41, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

Escape Games
So Thread:245019 said that when we have a third escape game we should create a new category for them. Well, The Hollow Planet (escape game) (which I will be creating shortly) has been created, so it seems like that should happen? The issue is that it's not a traditional escape game. Even while not having played it, the instructions and needed materials make that clear. Should I go ahead and create the category anyhow, or does this merit a panopticon thread? Najawin ☎  03:06, August 16, 2020 (UTC)