User talk:OverAnalyser

'''Welcome to the OverAnalyser

Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first. British English, please We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card. Spoilers aren't cool We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details. Other useful stuff Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
 * the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
 * our Manual of Style
 * our image use policy
 * our user page policy
 * a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. -- Mini-mitch (Talk) 01:44, 6 September 2012

Real world
Hi! You might want to take a look at Tardis:Valid sources under the section "The Real World Doesn't Count". We don't use real world history as a source for in-universe pages. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  17:30, September 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * To follow up on Shambala108, this also applies to images. Do not upload any real world images for use on in-universe articles. --Tangerineduel / talk 04:13, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

STOP - Real world info
Please stop adding real world information to in-universe articles. Pope Gregory IX has been deleted as it is not clear where you have pulled the information from. Please be aware of our Tardis:Tardis Manual which details our style guide and other information and please also see our Tardis:Help page for a full list of our polices. Please consider these policies as some of these edits are verging on vandalism, albeit I believe unintentional. Your addition of real world information and information that is not derrived from within the DWU may not appear vandalism, but it erodes the accuracy of information on this wiki as a DWU source. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:59, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Century in Infobox
Do not add year or century to an individual's infobox, see Template:Infobox Individual for a full explanation of the different fields. Edits including century in the infobox will be rolled back / undone. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:41, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please do not mark edits such as this as a minor edit. As our Tardis:Edit summary page explains a minor edit is only for minor spelling, grammar or wikilink corrections. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:44, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Individual, and indeed any infoboxen are a summary of the article, they don't need citations unless it's a very unusual fact that needs further explanation. For practically all articles do not put citations in the infobox. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:10, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Citation
See T:CITE for more information, though in short only use ref tags for real world articles. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:10, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Warning
As I have noted above, do not include real world information as you did on the Richard I of England articles. Further actions such as this will be interpreted as vandalism and you may be blocked from editing on this wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:22, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Final warning
Understand, that citing a real world source on an individual such as Albert Einstein is in violation of our Tardis:Valid sources. Adding a real world source for an in-universe character is not done on this wiki. Please leave a message on my talk page if you do not understand any of the policies on this wiki. Any further violations - this means any further additions of real world to any in-universe pages and you will be blocked from editing on this wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:38, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Block
Take a powder. For a week. We're serious. You can't go adding information from the real world into our articles. I've today discovered this edit, which clearly shows you adding real life information to Ringo Starr earlier today. We have no idea that his real name is "Richard Starkey" from DWU sources. You must observe T:NO RW if you want to continue editing here. 18:30: Fri 28 Sep 2012

Ref tags and Reflist
If you're adding & / and information within them onto a page you need to add the to the page also, otherwise the information does not show up on the page. Place this at the bottom of the page above the categories:

Troy image
Where abouts is File:Troy0-1250 A.jpg from as all the episodes are missing? --Tangerineduel / talk 04:45, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Image Categories
The categories that you need to add to images are separate from the article categories. Please do not add article categories to images. You can find all the image categories in the Category:Images by content category and the various sub-categories within it. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 04:52, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Redundant categories
I've noticed you've been adding more categories than you need to on some articles. Take for example your edits on the Policemen from the Daleks' Master Plan. I believe one or more of them were tagged as Human police officers, Individual police officers and Metropolitan police officers. Really, only the last one is necessary, as it's the most specific. Basically, avoid redundant categories if you can. Memnarc ☎  04:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Loose Cannon are not valid
Loose Cannon images, DVD, video or anything else related to any fan productions are not to be used on this wiki. Their images, reconstructions and any footage, images or anything, anything they produce cannot be used on this wiki. Do not upload anything created by Loose Cannon for use on any articles on this wiki. Because they are reconstructions we cannot be sure what they have made up and what was (if anything) original. --Tangerineduel / talk 10:32, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

P.S.
PS is not a valid source. Please see Forum:P.S. for a discussion centred on this story. --Tangerineduel / talk 04:19, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Do not place out of universe information on an in-universe page. Please look at any in-uiniverse page. Behind the scenes, real world information is placed in the "Behind the scenes" section. --Tangerineduel / talk 04:25, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Categories on images
Thanks for trying to comply with our request that images should be categorised. However, it's important to put them into the right categories. Images should only go into categories that end in the word "images". Please see this comparison between your edits and my edits of file:Finch General.jpg. Thanks :) 21:51: Sat 22 Dec 2012

Pic commision
You appear to have a copy of The Snowmen (TV story), can I ask for you to retrieve an image for me?

I'd like an image of the big ball of snow that the Great Intelligence speaks out of. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 08:21, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, no real world information
Could you please leave a note on my talk page explaining why you continue to add information from the real world into our articles? Just today, you entered precise Google locations of the Drayton Court into that article. You've been asked by at least two admin, and have been banned before, for violations of T:NO RW. I'd like to understand why you keep violating it.

If we can't figure out why you're continuing to ignore this rule, we will have to permanently suspend your ability to edit on this wiki. You have seven prior warnings, from three different users, on violations of this rule. And you've been banned before.

I have very few options in such a case. It appears to me as if you are now deliberately breaking this rule. If you don't provide me with an explanation of your difficulties prior to your next edit of any kind, you will be permanently banned from editing this wiki. 23:50: Fri 28 Dec 2012

Thanks for replying. It's good to know your rationale. But I must stress that your reasoning is in explicit contradiction to our rules. I'll try to explain things based on your examples, but please understand that this is not in the way of debate. The rules stand and you are bound to uphold them. If you choose to continue introducing real world information into articles, you will be blocked.

That plainly understood, let me highlight your central thesis:


 * "Simply put, when reality and the depiction contradict, the depiction rules. But when reality is not challenged by the depiction, reality is reality."

That's completely opposed to T:NO RW, which says in part:


 * "Don't go any further than what the DWU source actually tells you."

Starting an article at Drayton Court is fine, because we have signage. Moreover, the article must have a name of some sort, and it's better to have a genuine name rather than some generic thing like Tavern (Survival). We obviously allow some identification of cultural references from the real world based on auditory or visual information alone, because otherwise we wouldn't have a good title for a number of pages. For instance, we hear "Voodoo Child" and we know it is this song, because that's evidently what it is. Otherwise, we'd end up with some ridiculously unhelpful name like Song the Master Played (The Sound of Drums).

So, yes, there is a utility in using purely auditory and visual information to name — and again I stress, name — our articles.

But that is as big an assumption as we're willing to make. As you can see at Voodoo Child, we're very careful to note that the title is not revealed in-narrative, but that we're titling the article based upon the fact that the work is recognisably that song.

Your edits go rather far afield from this. Giving Google geo-coding, or saying they're in Ealing, is not acceptable, because Survival merely asserts they're in Perivale. In this case, you're actually contradicting information given in narrative.

Generally, however, your edits have been giving more information than is actually present on screen.

You've used that most dangerous of phrases in your explanation: "it's reasonable to assume". But we're trying to keep assumptions to a minimum around here, because they may not, in fact, be reasonable. Take your Invasion example. You're placing the story in the City based upon the costume given to a PC? C'mon, this is the Doctor Who costume department we're talking about. They could easily have got it wrong. What you see as proof could just as easily be production error. Equally your points about trying to judge location based upon perceived distance fails because you're depending on editing and shot framing to be realistic. That's in no way a "reasonable assumption".

Your other major point is even more unsupportable. You say:


 * "If a location is appearing as itself, then its information is real."

You call this "clumsy" wording, but actually it sums up your view pretty well. It's not clumsy so much as obviously wrong. It's fundamentally illogical to say that if you film a building which actually exists, all the real life details of that building are then a part of the DWU — but if you film at a "stand-in" location.

Doctor Who recently filmed in Central Park. That doesn't make a part of the DWU. It filmed in the Louvre, but that doesn't mean we know for a fact that the DWU Louvre contains great Egyptian works, even though the real world Louvre certainly does.

It is essentially a happenstance of scheduling and good location management that Doctor Who is occasionally able to shoot at the real life locations called for by its scripts. To suggest that we should allow a different sort of coverage for studio work, location work, and on-real-location work is to invite chaos.

The rule must be the same no matter where filming occurred. It must also be a rule that applies to stories where filming never occurs, such as novels and audios. We therefore go with the most conservative, narrowest interpretation of what the narrative gives us. If it's a real location, we put a tag up, and let the reader decide if she wants more real life information.

So, again, I stress that your interpretation of how we handle real life information is not the one we're using, nor is T:NO RW up for debate. If you'd like further clarification, I'll do my best to oblige. But please stop introducing real world information into the in-universe portions of articles. 05:32: Sat 29 Dec 2012

p.s. If you haven't read it already, you would probably benefit from reading the following explanation of real world articles. The message is actually meant for category pages, which is why the first paragraph reads a little oddly. But the rest sums up our view on this subject pretty well.

See for more. Okay, sorry about that fiddling around with your talk page. I forgot that had a  declaration — which is really a very bad thing to put onto a user talk page.

Now, onto what seems to be your main concern.

The bulk of your latest message seems concerned with various bits that I removed from Perivale and Ealing, and whether I was making a specific statement about each of those bits. The truth is that since you were a "repeat offender" against T:NO RW, it seemed a waste of time to go through all your revisions, one by one, to determine which were worth keeping and which not. I therefore took the standard administrative approach of administering what was, in effect, what's called a "rollback". That's just a thing whereby all edits from a particular user, between two endpoints, are reverted. Essentially, since you were on the verge of being permanently blocked, your edits were removed without judging each and every one of them, because enough of the edits on those pages were in violation of T:NO RW to make individual removal tedious.

Admin often can't get bogged down in the minutiae of individual edits, especially when one user — in this case, you — were making the same mistakes on multiple pages. You can say that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And from your point of view, that's an apt metaphor. But from my perspective, since I'm having to go back and work on a lot of articles, it's more like firefighting. In pouring water onto a burning structure, you're going to add water damage to the fire damage. But if you save the structural integrity of the house, you've achieved a better outcome than just letting the house burn down.

This is not the same thing as saying that there was actually something of value in the house that I should have rescued. For all I know, you were a collector of cheap, stuffed unicorns, and so the world is no worse for their burning. I was merely noting that there were clear violations of T:NO RW in those articles, and it was more important to revert them, than to sift through each and every edit, trying to separate the chaff from what may or may not have been the wheat.

The lack of specific review shouldn't be taken on your part as license to add back bit after bit until suddenly we've got exactly the same article as was reverted. It's a deliberate pause to allow time for reflection, so that if you do make further additions to those articles, you'll make ones that are more sound.

I'll be back later to talk about your more specific hypotheticals. 16:36: Sat 29 Dec 2012 Before I move into a discussion of your specific examples, I want to try to impress upon you the utility of a general approach. Like you, I have an interest in articles about things that also exist in the real world. But I think it's important to be very cautious with them. It's a good idea when you're starting an article about such a subject to understand that your primary function is to create an article that links to Wikipedia. That's it, really. It is not to bring Wikipedia's content here. It's to acknowledge the existence of a thing from the real world in the DWU and then to push people off the wiki.

I know that may seem counter-intuitive. But if you start from the mindset that an article which links to Wikipedia is not a stub or a cop out — but in fact properly written — then I think you'll be able to focus then on the second goal: contextualising the usage of that thing in DWU narratives.

Before we move on to that second goal, I should point out that it's only at this first step of creating a link to Wikipedia that we allow any significant assumption. As I said in an earlier post, if we see or hear a thing from our world, it's okay to give it the name of the thing from our world — even if the story doesn't — because wikis depend on names. It's a technical fact that an article must have a name, and that name should make some kind of sense to our readers, who, after all, need to be able to search for an article for our wiki to be at all useful. So do we say that it's La donna è mobile, even though we never have it confirmed in The Tenth Planet that this is the song's name? Sure. I think we have to assume the names of familiar things from the real world just because the wiki wouldn't work if you didn't. Also, I think that DW authors often omit names because they don't want their audiences to feel stupid. I'd have to check, but I'm not entirely sure that Let's Kill Hitler doesn't contain the word "swastika". Does that mean that we'd have to come up with some silly name for "swastika"? No, we see it often enough in that episode to name it.

However, when we do go beyond what is actually said or heard — when the name isn't explicitly given us — I think it's important that we include a behind the scenes note explaining why we've gone ahead and used the real world name. See, for example, "The Lion Sleeps Tonight".

So: the main purpose of a "cultural references from the real world article" is to link to a wikipedia article. And the names of real world things can be used, even if they're not made explicit by DWU narratives, as long as we explain why we're making that assumption.

The second goal is then to add details from DWU usage. Note where we are, though. We've totally relieved ourselves of the burden of explaining what the object is. Since our primary goal with these articles is to create a link to Wikipedia, we're no longer obsessed with trying to actually explain what the object is. We don't really care about the factual details of Central Park, or the Statue of Liberty, or Russia, or Earth, or Mars. That's Wikipedia's job. It's only our job to talk about how DWU characters interacted with those real world things.

So we're not writing a history of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. We're saying the damn thing got blown up by the Daleks and the Third Doctor didn't really do much to prevent it. We're also saying that somehow it must have been rebuilt, because it was clearly around by 31 December 1999 and was nearly destroyed again by.

When we talk about a song, like "L'amour est un oiseau rebelle", we don't care that it is especially associated with, and that therefore Callas is a part of the DWU. Why? Because we don't know for sure it's the Callas version, and it's really not relevant to our understanding of its usage in the DWU.

And I suppose that's the most important thing about the secondary phase of "from the real world" article writing: relevance. What matters is how the thing impacts our characters. The real life Google geocode of a pub is totally irrelevant to Ace. What matters is merely that it's in Perivale and what she did at that pub.

Since I've started now to side into specifics, let me go ahead and address your specific questions.


 * Do we accept that we're in Westminster just because we see Big Ben, Nelson's Column, et al? No, unless there is some book which actually explicitly says that.  It's not important to our understanding of any story, so far as I'm aware, to know the district of London in which these landmarks are situated. (In fact, there are a rather opulent number of prose and audio stories which describe Westminster in some detail — The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel. The Indestructible Man, The Longest Night, The Adventuress of Henrietta Street to name but a few.  So maybe this isn't the best example of the situation you're conjuring.  But ya get the point.)
 * Is it the O2 Arena and Canada Tower we see at the top of The Eleventh Hour? It's irrelevant to the story.
 * Is the Williams' graveyard in Queens? Again, irrelevant to the story.  All we know from the story is that it's NYC.  If it is Queens, what does it matter?
 * Is it the Albert Memorial in The Dalek Invasion of Earth?' Sure, but — again — irrelevant to the story.  Might be relevant to getting a picture of the statue, should additional narratives give the Albert Memorial enough context to merit an article.
 * If a character were to be shown kicking pigeons in Trafalgar Square and trotting up and into the big long building to the north, and is then shown looking at art, we would say that he is in the National Gallery (unless there is something in the dialogue or signage to say he's somewhere else or that the gallery has a different name in-universe) -- even if the location used for the interior doesn't actually look like the National Gallery's interior, because the National Gallery is clearly where the setting is, right? This question's a bit different from the others, since you're asking about a hypothetical, whereas the others were about scenes that actually existed.  Why isn't there signage or establishing dialogue?  There has been every other time we've gone into a museum.   I would be very hesitant to make any sort of determination in this very odd circumstance without seeing actual footage.  I honestly don't think the producers of Doctor Who would be likely to do such a thing because their home audience doesn't all live in London and so wouldn't naturally make that connection with the National Gallery. If it's important that it be the National Gallery, one would think that the producers would make it explicit.  The NG isn't quite the same tier of landmark as Big Ben or Number 10.

I'm not sure I've answered every example of yours, but this post is growing long and I think you should be able to see where I'm going with this. I would spend less time on writing articles about things that are in the periphery of action, and much more time on articles that are about things which have some level of interaction with the characters. If we start down the road of filling in details about everything that is the background of every shot, we quickly descend to a very, very dangerous place: the first shot of Rose. The first thing we see in S1E1 is Earth. So, according to the logic you're pushing, everything on Earth is deserving of an article here. And that viewpoint would quickly turn this wiki into a nonsense.

The key, I think, is relevance to our characters. To use your language, where we draw the line is more or less the level of interaction our characters have with a thing. If Kate Stewart goes to a tube station explicitly named Tower Hill, then that means that ... Kate Stewart went to a tube station named Tower Hill. It does not mean that Tower Hill tube station is in the City (even though that's what it does mean in real life). If the Doctor subsequently says to his companion, "We need to go to the City" and he points to the Tower Hill station on a London Underground map, then at that point Tower Hill tube station can be safely placed in the City in the DWU.

A good example is maybe Planet of the Dead. Here we have a London bus plying the #200 route. We can, thanks to HD, clearly see what that bus route is. It may or may not be — depending on when you watch the episode — the actual #200 route operated by London Transport. If it is the real deal, does this by default mean that we can extrapolate that all London bus routes currently on the real life schedule therefore exist in the DWU. By your logic, I rather think it would, and I can well imagine editors who are list freaks jumpin' on this one. If we allowed it. But we don't. The presence of one real life thing does not automatically validate other, related real life things.  The only thing we know in the DWU is "the 200" — even though that obviously implies a number of other routes.

I also think there's a lot of merit in treating shots the same regardless of their source. You say that there are shots with Liz which definitively give us St Pancras. Okay, fine. But there are also shots with the Tenth Doctor which purport to be Muswell Hill, but are actually Crouch End. I gather you're not so interested in scouring the background shots of The Idiot's Lantern or Planet of the Dead for "real life" details because it's not actually London.

And I just don't think you can do that sort of thing, because then what you're saying is that location work is "more valid" than the studio work. For classic era stuff, you'd quickly end up with a "film good, video bad" situation, which is, frankly, silly. And as we got into new series material, you'd have to work out whether you were actually seeing real London or fake London.

Whew. That's a lot of talkin'. Let me in by saying that a lot of your observations are maybe better suited for "behind the scenes" sections. Indeed a part of the reason that I rolled back rather than gingerly re-edited you, was because the article would have had to have been significantly refactored in order to put your info into a "behind the scenes" section.

If you like using Google maps to point out where things are located in real life, you might enjoy the template, which automatically adds a clearly-labelled behind the scenes section and a Google map of the place. (See, for instance, Bethesda.)   20:44: Sat 29 Dec 2012

Image categories, part 2
Well, I can see that you're now at least trying to use image categories. Thank you very much for this.

But they do need to be appropriate image categories. Please note that the category Third Doctor images means, as the title obviously implies, images of the Third Doctor. It does not mean images from the Third Doctor's era.

Thus, ForbesCpl-ActorGeorgeLee.jpg in no way belongs in that category.

Also, I'm extremely worried by the title of file:Lethbridge-Stewart ribbons-clear.jpg, as it implies you might be trying to make some sort of real word "sense" out of the ribbons. I pre-emptively encourage you to avoid this, except as a part of a "behind the scenes" section. (Also, if you are planning to compare his ribbons, it would probably be interesting to examine them across time, rather than making some sort of generalisation based upon the season 7 costume.

Finally, I note that you've been using in-universe images on actors pages. Though technically acceptable, we very much discourage this, and are still trying to clean up after one especially prolific editor began doing this last year. As stated at the "What kinds of pictures are acceptable?" portion of T:ICC, what we really want on actor's pages are images of what the actor looks like in their everyday life. 05:39: Sun 30 Dec 2012
 * To remove categories, edit the page, then look over on the right-hand column and find the section called "categories".  Find the category you wish to remove, highlight it, delete it, and then publish the page again.


 * As for what picture should go on an actor's page, the thinking is that in fact it would be better to go blank than go with an in-universe picture, yes. A picture of Sarah Jane is not the same thing as a picture of Elisabeth Sladen. Note that the rule isn't actually allowing in-universe pictures; it's allowing promotional images of the character, or what we might call the "actor in costume".  20:52: Sun 30 Dec 2012

City of London
Again, please don't bring real world "common knowledge" into in-universe articles. You really do need narratives explicitly using the phrase "City of London" in order to assert it here. I've therefore deleted that article and your recent references to it. You can recreate, but the article can only cite instances of explicit references to the City of London. Good luck finding that, though.

To limit your frustration, I strongly urge you to maybe select a new area of the wiki to edit. I really do hate having to eliminate so much of your work here. If you went really far away from the real world description of London, you would probably find that more of your work survives. 21:28: Mon 07 Jan 2013