User talk:Danochy

Categories
Hi, please stop adding categories to pages. You are new here, and you aren't familiar with our very strict policy at Tardis:Valid sources and our rules on categorization. If you see something missing from a page, please ask an admin before adding it, as there is most likely a good reason for it. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  22:22, June 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry just seen this now. How would I ask an admin something?


 * Finally, to answer your question. To ask a question, you need to go to the talk page of that person and leave a message there. You can find the list of admin at Tardis:Administrators, complete with links to our talk pages. Whenever an admin leaves a message for you here, a link to their talk page is contained in their signature (it looks like an old-fashioned telephone). Note that leaving a message on your own talk page for someone else is not likely to elicit any response, as you have doubtlessly learned. The reason for that is that a message left on my talk page results in an email notification, but a message you leave on your page is largely unnoticeable for anyone else, unless they are specifically investigating your behaviour, which does not normally happen. With more than 15 millions registered users and more than 200 users who actively edit the wiki at the moment, the admin cannot possibly check talk pages of every user to see if they left a message. Please do not hesitate to ask your question using my talk page. Amorkuz ☎  09:52, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Removing information from talk pages
Hi, please be advised that under no circumstances are you allowed to edit or delete messages left by other editors on any talk pages, including yours. Note that you are not allowed to edit or delete your own messages either. If you need to make a correction, you must post a follow-up note. The policy can be found at Tardis:Vandalism policy. Amorkuz ☎  09:42, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Categories revisited
Please leave categories alone (unless creating a new page that needs categories). I've already asked you to not put categories on pages; now I'm asking you to leave those alone that are part of the Game of Rassilon (the stupid achievement track we're currently using). Categories in the Game of Rassilon are exempt from the "redundant categories" prohibition.

Please also consider that when an admin or long-term editor undoes one of your edits, they might actually know what they're doing. Instead of reverting their reverting, ask on their talk page.

If you're curious about what exactly the Game of Rassilon is, please see Tardis:Game of Rassilon rules. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  06:33, September 3, 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to get back to you on this. The Game of Rassilon includes certain categories from the wiki. For example, "Conflicts" is one of the categories. Normally, that category would not be on the pages in question because of the redundant category rule; however, since it is part of the "game", it's on the page, and we don't remove the existing categories, because hopefully one day the Game will be removed from the wiki and then it'll be a relatively easy job cleaning up. If you are unsure which categories are part of the game, you can check on your user page: off to the right side there is a box that lists all the achievements (keep in mind that some of them no longer count). Shambala108 ☎  00:46, September 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * That's correct. For example, all planets currently have the "Planets" category, because that's another Game of Rassilon track. However, they also have their more specific categories, which are not to be removed. That way, when/if the Game ends, all we would have to do is send a bot run to remove the Game categories, and the original more specific categories will already be on the pages. Less work for all. Shambala108 ☎  03:48, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Well, it mostly boils down to personnel preference, I guess. When I was editing the timeline pages, I cut out all the adaptations, since the focus was on the events of the originals that the adaptations mostly follow to the letter. I never got round to reading them, only adding a note on the information about the story that showed how the adaptation affected the placement.

That's why I don't find them necessary as such, but if you prefer them there for the reasons you sent to me, then I have no issue with it. ;) BananaClownMan ☎  22:19, September 5, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Zygon timeline
Hi, yeah, sorry about that. I meant to leave you a message, but I got sidetracked and then forgot.

The problem is actually the opposite: a page move always leaves a redirect behind, and in most cases that redirect is unnecessary. But only admins can delete the redirects, so when non-admins move pages, there is a redirect left behind, whether or not it's needed. See Thread:128198 for the reasoning behind the rule and the proper procedures when a page needs moving.

Anyway, I moved it back to your new title, and deleted the incorrect redirect. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  15:49, January 14, 2019 (UTC)

Dalek Empire
I'll look for the source of the relevant dates and get back to you! GusF ☎  10:15, April 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet, I'm afraid. I'll keep looking and redouble my efforts! GusF ☎  03:56, June 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * I am afraid to say that I have been unable to locate my copy of the Dalek Empire short story collection anywhere but I will continue looking to see if it turns up. GusF ☎  10:19, June 28, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in here but I have a copy of Short Trips: Dalek Empire. If you could let me know on my talk page a little more detail of what you're looking for, I can take a look. Shambala108 ☎  14:10, June 28, 2019 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I'll take a look through my book and get back to you. I don't think I'll get to it this weekend, but maybe early to middle next week. Shambala108 ☎  15:05, June 29, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've done a quick pass through Short Trips: Dalek Empire, and there aren't a whole lot of dates. I'll look more closely into each story when I get a chance.


 * Unfortunately, I think I've figured out where User:GusF (or whoever else) got the dates for the audio series. It looks like he was using the Discontinuity Guide (we weren't as strict back then about timelines or about copying from other sites). So it looks like, since you haven't been able to find the dates in the stories themselves, that those dates will have to be removed from the main namespace. You could use them as guidelines for the theory pages, as long as everyone else working on those pages doesn't have a problem with it, but any dates/timelines/ordering that comes from the Discontinuity Guide won't be allowed on the story pages or any in-universe pages.


 * It looks like most of the audio stories have a link to the Discontinuity Guide at the bottom of the page under "External links". Shambala108 ☎  04:39, July 9, 2019 (UTC)

Brooke/River
Nice! Hadn't seen that talk page before. I only have my phone in hand right now, and I don't like using the wiki in it very much. But I'll get to it in a few days. Thanks!! OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:24, July 15, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of that! I had truly forgotten about it. Going to the talk page right now before I forget it again. OncomingStorm12th ☎  14:05, July 28, 2019 (UTC)

RE: video
That's perfectly alright. I understand it was not intentional, and that at least now you're acquainted with the rule laid out at Tardis:Video policy. I decided just to upload the video myself, over your upload, so we don't have a problem anymore.

In future, T:VREC is always open for suggestions, and you can feel free to bug me so I can force myself to get around to finally catching up on the last year or so of videos I've yet to upload here. 09:44, September 3, 2019 (UTC)

Re: speedy rename
Hi, if you take a look at Template:Speedy rename, it will show you how to fill out the required fields for a speedy rename tag. Unlike the tag, the speedy rename doesn't allow for giving a reason, because theoretically it's only for non-controversial page moves - like adding a dab term or correcting misspelling. I don't agree with that, however, because some of these speedy renames are not obvious to me (for example a recurring character given a last name in a later story) and I would prefer to have a reason. User:Borisashton corrected your tag and stated that the reason for it should be given in the edit summary - this is incorrect, as edit summaries are not as easy to find as talk pages, so Thread:213632 asks for speedy rename reasons to be placed on article talk pages. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  14:58, December 2, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Destiny of the Daleks infobox
Hope you had a good week. Initially I dated the page to circa 4949, as given by the audio story Neverland in relation to the Movellan War, even though there are MANY conflicting dates. However, the new date is from Eric Saward's novelization of Resurrection of the Daleks, which is set in 4590, 90 years after Davros is frozen in Destiny, thereby making Destiny set in 4500. Of course, since this is a novelization, I understand if it's not "official" - I'm not an admin lol. Whatever the policy says it should be. Steed ☎  00:16, March 7, 2020 (UTC)

Second Doctor Timeline
Hi there, just to let you know that I’ve responded to the talk page. It’s not much help and I know I’m not the one who you’re looking to respond to it, but just so you know we’re on the same page. SarahJaneFan ☎  12:01, March 12, 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve said before, I’m not hugely knowledgeable of the timeline, but I reckon just from looking at it needs a huge overhaul. I’d imagine you’d agree and honestly it’s getting rather frustrating that the talk page is ignored. If it were up to me, the whole thing would be torn down and rebuilt tbh. SarahJaneFan ☎  22:02, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I pretty much agree with that. And yeah I guess the issues mainly stem from the Zoe part of the timeline. My personal bugbear is how the non-existent gap between The Wheel in Space and The Dominators has seemingly been crowbarred open. And yeah The Two Doctors 100% needs to be placed twice with an “according to one account” note below it. Otherwise separate timelines need to be made.

I think the problem generally is on all the timelines, that release order is either followed too rigidly or stories are assembled in any random order even if there’s no evidence suggesting any kind of an order. Like release order seems to be enforced on the Thirteenth Doctor page, especially for comics where it doesn’t really make any sense but then you go to the Second Doctor timeline and there’ll be a load of arbitrary stories in a random order with absolutely no justification. Imo, it should either be in release order or have a note explaining why it’s placed out of release order but perhaps that’s something that needs to be discussed in detail.

A possible third point is the fact that the timelines are rigidly being made to match with the wiki articles. I don’t know if this is against the rules as such, but it’s certainly been made clear by mods before that timeline theory has no place on the main pages so that’s something that needs discussed especially as it makes the timeline pages messier and restricts placement. SarahJaneFan ☎  22:52, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

Great! Hopefully that means we can get discussion moving soon. Is there anyone else that regularly edits the timelines that we can bring in on these discussions as well? SarahJaneFan ☎  11:02, March 24, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, I’ve responded on the timey-wimey talk page and I’m about to respond on the Second Doctor talk page as well. Perhaps we should drop a link on those guy’s talk pages asking if they’d like to contribute to the discussion? SarahJaneFan ☎  12:48, April 3, 2020 (UTC)