User talk:TheChampionOfTime

HAVOC
The page has been moved, as requested. 06:22, January 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * Very, very much. I'm also quite busy with it at w:c:snicket. I mean, fun busy, of course. 06:43, January 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * Might I also add: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek. :D 06:45, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Legacy Wiki interlinking
High, I seem to remember you are a proponent of including the game more on this Wiki. I hope our arguments did not create an impression that I dislike the game. I really don't. And so I suddenly had an idea how to increase the visibility of the game on this Wiki. We already track playable characters of the game in the notes/behind the scenes sections (well, not very consistently, but still. The idea is to add interwiki links to the pages on DWLegacy wiki. They have kinks to this Wiki, and there are many editors in common. Of course, for the Doctors, this would be barely noticeable. But for minor characters, like Kharitite or Cerebravore, whose pages are pretty short, this would add credence to the character and at the same time alert readers to the game, which is, ultimately, the point I guess. Since you are more of the specialist on wikifying the game than me, I wanted to ask your opinion before doing anything. My own interest here is that I try to flesh out Titan comic books at the moment, and Titan and Legacy seem to have a robust collaboration going on. So there are quite a few characters in common. I'll try to add some data, say to Kharitite page, to see how it might look and whether admins think it is against some policy I don't know. Amorkuz ☎  10:24, January 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Great idea about the template. Well, let's see what others think. I went into my game and entered all companions starting from A and B. In doing so, I got some additional thoughts (some of which are based on observing your work):


 * First, I'm not sure anymore if the BHS section is needed unless one can say something interesting, like "is both character and enemy".
 * I don't think it makes sense to provide links to each playable character or to both character and enemy in all cases (the 5 shades of Adipose is a prime example; for him I linked to the disambig page on DWL wiki). However, there are cases where the choices of the game designers say something. For instance, Me for the ally and for the enemy is taken from different episodes. Or the three versions of Amy and where they're taken from. (In fact, looking at the choices of the DWL creators, shouldn't there be a page for Amy Pond from River Song's World here on this wiki? I mean the creators are as much fans as the best of us, so their choices are not arbitrary though not always in line with our policies.)
 * Where there is a discernible difference between the characters, I tried to explain it in the BHS, sometimes naming the episodes. I think that's an additional view of the characters. I mean though our policies do not provide for creating a separate page for "The Girl Who Waited", I never liked playing with her because her story is just too sad. Thus, mentioning that she has been separated in DWL may be interesting for some people.
 * To summarise: I think if we overlink, people might get mad as this is not DWL wiki. But there are interesting points to make, IMHO, regarding the nature of some characters. Amorkuz ☎  01:01, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on someone else's user page
Thank you for making note of the vandalism done at User:PicassoAndPringles' user page. However, as the rule goes, non-admins should never edit the user page of another, even in these cases. To quote from T:USER OTHER:
 * "If you notice that someone else's user page has been vandalised, please do not revert on your own initiative. Instead, please alert an admin. Admin have greater powers to notice editing patterns, and so are in a better position to identify the seriousness of the vandalism."

That said, your efforts are appreciated. But do try to keep this in mind in the future. 01:47, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

My vagabond shoes
Thanks for noticing my interest in New York. In fact, Brooklyn was what compelled me to start editing Titanic pages more seriously. I'm happy that my efforts are appreciated even though I came to the game pretty late when it was already very well established. I would be honoured to summarise the effect Anubis and Dorothy had on New York. By the way, do you know if Jack ever established a new Torchwood base under the Rockefeller Center? There were hints on the possibility of this in COMIC: Arena of Fear. But I am sadly not up-to-date on BF and Titan Torchwood. Amorkuz ☎

War Chief
I can't think of any others besides Divided Loyalties, and that's in what the Doctor refers to as a "bad dream". The only other appearance of the War Chief is Timewyrm: Exodus, which has, near the end, Ace describe the War Chief as "a young man, tall, dark and satanically handsome" - which is something Dicks has used in the past to refer to Delgado's Master. So, really, one book is not "many", and I'm not sure what you could be referring to. --Pluto2 (talk) 02:08, January 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more that I feel none of the dream in Divided Loyalties should be taken at face value. This is the Celestial Toymaker giving people bad dreams, so any info from those parts shouldn't be taken as fact. This is in general, as Divided Loyalties seems to have been trying to tie threads together that simply shouldn't be tied. Putting the Monk and the Doctor together as school buddies flies in the face of The Time Meddler, which is abundantly clear that the two have never met before. --Pluto2 (talk) 03:14, January 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * The excessive continuity isn't the problem. It's that it's bad continuity. It tries to lead into The Nightmare Fair but doesn't do so very well. It lumps all the renegades into the same clique. It has a pseudonym used by the Master be his actual name. Incidentally, can you join the Discord server? --Pluto2 (talk) 03:36, January 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * Hit the plus sign or "join a server" and type in this link: --Pluto2 (talk) 03:55, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

Vince Cosmos
Sure, I didn't read it. Nor am I planning to. But Enter Wildthyme very clearly does not have him in the character list but does have him as "mentioned" in the continuity section. I'm sorry that people who know this stuff (I don't mean you) prefer to argue for adding more Vince stories instead of fixing pages that already have him to a state usable for others. Since you also know this story, could you please correct the page then? Amorkuz ☎  11:57, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

Magrs
Yeah, man. Amen to that. He feels like my kind of writer. But, to be honest, he's been tainted for me ever since Fwhiffahder tried to shove it down our collective throat. I never take lightly to that. It's Newton's Third Law, really, the more they try to push Magrs, the more people would resist. I never even paid attention to these inclusion debates as they are about stories I don't know. And, oh, how I would love admins to handle all this policy-creation changing. Alas, when I see a a request to an admin to fast-track closing of a thread, go to the thread and see three people, all known for their love of (currently) invalid stuff, all agreeing that of course this should be included, guess what, it does look like a consensus, if only because nobody else read/listened to the stories and refrained from commenting out of caution. Amorkuz ☎  19:09, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

message
Hi! I removed the message from denchen you posted on his talk page. I don't necessarily approve of a user, who has been so completely banned that he can't post on his own talk page, posting a message via another user. However, whatever I feel about that method, I certainly do not approve of his message criticizing the person who caught him breaking one of the most important rules on this wiki. Thanks for your attention. Shambala108 ☎  00:39, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages
Unfortunately, at Tardis we've made it policy that admin have to perform the renames. It's not just a matter of leaving behind a redirect; it's understood that when an admin hits the button, he or she (or in my case, they) has made sure that links have been moved, and that it's the right thing to do in the first place. Sorry, sorry, I'm going off.

Short answer: no. 00:41, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Companions of the Twelfth Doctor
The only reason I haven't done this yet is that I want to confirm that I should. The fact that it's locked gives me, and the other admins, the responsibility, in updating it, of making sure that this is done correctly. Even just within TV, Rigsy is, if anything, Clara's companion, in a way. In his first appearance, he barely interacts with the Doctor at all, and Clara even pretends to be him, then he contacts Clara in his second appearance. I don't see how he's a companion more than, say, Danny.`Danny's been part of the main action, too. And Bors seems, to me, a ridiculous stretch.

I'm not sure how I feel about Grant and gang being "comic originals", though I see the logic, and otherwise it all looks fine. Somehow, television companions are always the least clear-cut. So for now, I'm leaving the television line as is, but I updated the rest as requested. I'd be happy to add entries to the television section as well, if appropriate, but I've yet to really hear any arguments/reasoning for those additions. Naturally, the Paternoster Gang would only be added if also added to. 04:28, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I didn't? Well, there you go. I realised afterwards it would actually be better to wait until the new companions comes in, but even now I know I didn't actually update it, I did tell you I would. Here's my edit. 04:02, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Dating for "Image of the Fendahl"
Hello. I think that there might have been a calendar in the story but I can't be 100% sure as I haven't watched it since I made those edits, I'm afraid. --GusF ☎  20:37, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Bovril
Quite right. I did go to sleep, and did not mind the creation of the page in the slightest. I couldn't have made it better myself. In fact, I'm glad you did it because I was not aware of this thing in the real world. Amorkuz ☎  12:16, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

President Doom Coalition
That might be the best way round it until it is fully confirmed, though I've argued somewhere that in the Eleven it actually sounds like it's Romana who's president s there's a line where Farina mentions how close the current adminstration is to the the Doctor. I think I assumed it was Livia due to the Eighth Doctor's Timeline running parallel to Gallifrey. I might ask Big Finish Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 15:54, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Jane's bibliography
Done and done. Changed all links, and moved those two in-universe pages to the proper titles (The Seeds of Doom and A Girl's Best Friend), as clearly demanded in T:DAB. Thank you for bringing this to me; SV7 says hello. 04:46, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

W. Hartnell
LOL.

By the way, I may have an idea whom they meant by P. Lars. It could be Lars Pearson. But since I couldn't find any N. Chen, other than Mavic Chen, I am keeping this speculation to myself. Amorkuz ☎  13:51, April 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * Hah! There seems to be enough W. Hartnells for a dab page already. Part of me wants Hartnell to mean "bad" in some rare language. Amorkuz ☎  19:26, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

J&L alternate cover
I think your idea to put the alternate cover in the infobox is great. I even downloaded it and tried to compress it to the allowable size, but there is some strange glitch that prevents me from doing it. Or else I'm really bad at it. Could you do it? Amorkuz ☎  20:25, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

Images
Ok, first of all, if you want someone to do you a favor, don't insult them. You may not be aware of the fact that humor and sarcasm don't translate well on the internet, but they don't. Being called a "destroyer" because I'm upholding wiki policy doesn't really make me want to respond to your post.

But to answer your request:

Why do images get deleted?
 * no license - if an image has no license, it gets deleted. Period. If an admin doesn't get to it, a bot will eventually. And no admin is going to add a license to something uploaded by someone else. If I don't know where an image came from, I'm not giving it validity.
 * too big - considering the slow internet speeds some users have, too-large images are a detriment to easy wiki viewing. Therefore, they get deleted. I'm not going to take the trouble to resize an image, especially when the uploading user has been warned at least once about image sizes.
 * black borders not cropped out - Once again, I'm not going to take the trouble to clean up someone else's images. I've put a lot of time in the past trying to make users aware of our image policies. If they choose not to read the policies in their entirety, then their images get deleted.
 * logo visible - see above
 * comic word balloons - see above
 * wrong dimensions - see above
 * using .png instead of .jpg - see above
 * too blurry - this wiki's policy is not "better blurry than none". If an image can't be clearly seen at thumbnail size, it goes. It's not even fixable except by uploading a clearer version.

I won't be making a list of images that need fixing. It's too much work, and what if no editors take on the task of fixing the images? I've been burned in the past by editors taking on projects that they later abandon (for probably good real-life reasons), so I can't rely on anyone taking on the task of fixing the probably hundreds of images that violate policy. You may not be aware of this, but admins don't get paid. It's volunteer work, and cleaning up the wiki takes way too much time away from the wiki projects I'd rather be working on. Thanks for your attention. Shambala108 ☎  00:51, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi! Please review Tardis:Edit summary and Tardis:No personal attacks before you leave another edit summary. Your edit summary at Sweetville ("Honestly, just be upfront about what you're doing."), when combined with the message you left on my talk page yesterday ("I am Shambutek the destroyer. Where I tread I leave nothing but dust and deleted images."), could qualify as a personal attack against me. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  03:20, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Huh?
Ok, I think I replied to this right. I just have one question: huh? I just saw a missing thing and added it. Haven't a clue what you're on about coding articles and stuff. If you removed my edit that's fine but i don't really understand why. I've actually never edited an article before so I'm not privy to all the ins and outs of the rules and stuff. Anyway have a nice day or night wherever you are!

RE: Page move
Well shit. I restored all previous edits at Friend from the Future (webcast), and took a mental note to actually check page histories before acting like I did. You may need to clear your cache to see the original page history reflected again. 03:03, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Gone six months and suddenly I'm every unregistered user, LOL. ;) Thank you for approaching me, we need more minds like yours to prevent wasting time on edit wars and tattle telling.

I read your comment on that unregistered's page, though I'm having a little trouble understanding the context there. Did you right it in a rush, cause there are some spelling and grammar mistakes, and a randomly placed "Ben", in the first message, but I think I get the gist of it.

Personally, I would be against this; the undated section is mainly for brief summaries of incidents that can't possibly be placed, like when River mentions meeting the past Doctors in The Eternity Clock or 11 talking about the Second Doctor in The Rise and Fall, or 12's cameo in Day of the Doctor. Adding whole story recaps would just be to big. Also, Kill the Moon ends with Clara storming out the TARDIS, and Mummy picks with her already back on board. To say the Doctor couldn't travel alone between the two is like saying the Eleventh Doctor couldn't travel with Alice Obiefune during Amy and Rory's honeymoon, to give an example.

Also, there are more than one way to attest when something happens to the Doctor without companions. Release date is one of the biggest; stories like The Doctor and the Dalek was released during Series 8, so that narrows it down to then. Personality can also play a factor; 12 is a lot more like his compassionate Series 9 self in Helana and the Beast than his pragmatic Series 8 self, with the release date also indicating its placement. Clothing and accessories also play a part, such as the sonic sunglasses. I hope this helps.

Furthermore, if you look up the history of Twelfth, you can see that, though I am a constant presence, I'm hartdly the sole editor of the biography page, flattered though I am that you thought of me first. I'd recommend starting a debate on this, or adding it to the talj page, for a more varied response.

Also, I don't think that unregistered's getting backed to you on this; their tall page says their "exiles".

Finally, in relation to the Fifth Doctor and Turlough; "Violent times" covers the television serials between Warriors of the Deep and Resurrection of the Daleks, the most time of the Fifth Doctor's life, while "Changed ways" reflects on the Doctor's promise to himself at the end of Resurrection of the Daleks.

I hope you have found this helpful, and feel free to discuss this further. To your health, BananaClownMan ☎  14:23, April 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you like to talk about what happened that left you with a "hatred for timelines"? Maybe sharing it will help weave out any negative feelings that could cloud your judgment about this?

Truth be told, the reason I, and I image other users, follow the "time alone" section is also for simplicity; if there is no mention of Clara (or any other companion) in a story, it must take place at a time the Doctor was on his own. In the case of the Twelfth, the time those stories came out, Twelfth was only traveling absolutely alone after Kill the Moon and sometime before Mummy. Not great logic I'll admit, but you can see there is logic behind it.

Besides, think about it like this; using the logic you're suggesting, we'd have to put every story outside of the television series in the undated section, since they is no way of knowing for sure how they follow the Doctor's narrative. Like, how do we know that the Sixth Doctor traveled with Evelyn so soon after his trial, or where his other companions fit in between Peri and Mel, or when the Fourth Doctor was busy at Nest Cottage? Heck, what about the First and Second Doctor eras, where the majority of stories seemed to flow into one anther, do they go in the undated section because we can't be sure how they fit in without some mild speculation?

All we can do is look at the facts presented in the fiction, or authorial intent, and come to a conclusion from there. And when that doesn't work, all that is left is to speculate where/when it happens. Take the case of The Shopping Trolleys of Doom and Running on Empty; there's no evidence in the fiction where they happen, but they were both released after Kingdom of Silver, so the fans can only take that as proof they happen after it.

I know its not perfect; that in order to get some, well, order we have to indulge in some chaotic thinking, but I'm afraid sometimes the tiniest continuity note and circumstances of the story are all we can go on.

I hope you feel better, and are open to talk about anything, To your best well being, BananaClownMan ☎  19:53, April 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course it matters, my friend; the well being of everyone on this wiki is important. I mean, think about it; all of us of different backgrounds and age groups coming together simply because we care about the same show and find comradery in each other. Just remember, if you ever feel you need to get something of your chest, I and everyone on the wiki are just a talk page away.BananaClownMan ☎  10:47, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Admin powers booting up
I live to serve. I can't promise to close it. But, if there is a consensus, I'll do my best. Amorkuz ☎  19:37, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

AE and Titan
So I was all ready to do the move you had proposed because we should use BE. Everybody knows that. You know that, and I know that. But I looked into the policy anyways. I mean, I knew it, but wanted to refresh it. Guess what? "In the case of products aimed at a non-British market, their spellings and word choices should predominate. IDW Publishing titles should always reflect American spellings, as should anything to do with Doctor Who Insider magazine, or BBC America." Though Titan Comics are not mentioned there, there is no difference between them and IDW. Hence, from now on, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to stick to the spellings we see in the comic and not to replace them with British equivalents. Moreover, when things happen in the States, there is another rule: "American topics should get American spellings." Sorry to make your editing (life) more complicated. Amorkuz ☎  22:31, May 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * New evidence. Turns out, their American spelling was wrong anyways. 'Cos this is a French town and (according to some French speakers, whom I will not name but thank nonetheless), it should have been spelled St-Michel, which is easy to . So it was decided by two admins that, since Titan do not respect correct French spelling, in this one case, we do not have to respect their American spelling and should default to our British one. Sorry it took me time and persuasion to arrive at your original point of view, but I'm there now and the page is going to be moved right about now. Amorkuz ☎  21:32, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Actor/Actress
Actually, the OED on "actors" is more relevant here:. Actor stands for both males and females. I'm not sure what Iris Wildthyme has to do with acting. But Marlene Dietrich was certainly much more than just "a glamorous individual". For the record, I consulted with a current university professor teaching English. That's what is being taught now: to use "actor" independent of gender. Amorkuz ☎  18:59, May 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, the in-universe articles should follow the usage of the story, of course. It is the BTS sections or real-world articles that I've been talking about. Amorkuz ☎  19:01, May 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's not really worth it. I'll be using "actor" myself. But I'm not gonna force everyone else to do it. 'Cos both you and OncomingStorm12th are right that this is not yet a rule that is set in stone. We're getting there but not there yet. However, when somebody changes a perfectly valid "actor" into "actress", I consider such an edit completely baseless and useless. I simply changed it back. Don't worry. I'm not planning a revolution, not the type. Amorkuz ☎  19:43, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Hanging Chads
Deleted as requested. :) 01:35: Thu 25 May 2017

Thank you for your kind message regarding the Cyber Wars page. I've thought the same for a while and love solving misconceptions regarding in-universe continuity. Have a lovely day. :) Conscious Obsession

Ace Attorney
So about this page. Sorry that I deleted it despite your request. The reason was that somebody else deleted your request first and left the page with only one alleged DWU quote that simply does not exist. Given that by now the page has been created twice based on a non-existent quote, I'm afraid I must exercise caution. I have protected the page creation from novice users. Although you should still be able to create it, if you choose to do so, as a matter of due diligence, I would appreciate it if you first verified the exact quote from Silhouette. Thank you in advance. Amorkuz ☎  10:20, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Superhero images and T:GTI
Hey, thanks for your message. T:GTI asks us to make sure images work at thumbnail level, and are high contrast. Users should not have to fiddle with their displays just to see the odd image. Since the creation of these articles entirely depends upon being able to see these images, page creation for all of them isn't really possible.

I've given OS12 an alternative suggestion about how to include this information on the wiki -- and one that, frankly, would probably be a more interesting read than a whole bunch of tiny articles that say practically nothing. If all of the superheroes in Grant's room were explored on a single article, OS12 could give more context in a BTS section where he could point out that "this image is especially hard to see, but it's to the right of the window" or "this comes from a fleeting image of a stack of comic books", or "this is on his front door".

Again, I'm not against the addition of the information to the wiki, but I think it needs to be presented in a way that doesn't require our readers to adjust their displays and doesn't needlessly add a number of images that are very clearly below our standards of contrast and clarity. 04:41: Sat 24 Jun 2017

Thanks
Gratitude for adding the picture to Gregorian Compact. Keep up the good work, and all hail the Grandfather. I'm off to make an offering to the Unkindnesses. :)  Ebyabe   (talk)  17:02, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

Lethbridge-Stewart
You are absolutely right that the temporary terms I put are not intended as the final solution. And cleanup tags are certainly a good idea. Problem is that OttselSpy25 put up such a tag about 4 months ago with zero reaction from the LS editors. Given that the bad content on the pages has shown the predilection to stay, clean-up tags notwithstanding, I had a choice as an admin: I could keep the license/copyright violating content that was there until recently (one short story was even categorised as a Second Doctor short story) or remove the violations risking some red links that are not the best they could have been but nothing that a move would not fix even if a page is created. The choice was clear, especially given that most links remain red. In fact, forgive me for saying this, but I have achieved my goal: an experienced responsible editor coming to fix things. (I wasn't targeting you personally.) After the publisher's little stint with stealing BBC promotional material and after the way the pages were set up until recently, a do-over was clearly necessary. Your sense of duty compelled you to step up to the challenge. I can only say I'm glad it is you. Amorkuz ☎  19:26, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Haven-ly help
The link moving was much appreciated. It took some effort to find another space station named Haven in AUDIO: The Cannibalists (not that there is a page for it), but the Haven (The Swords of Kali) is finally created and will be expanded upon. Thanks again. Amorkuz ☎  17:48, September 21, 2017 (UTC)

Shades of Grey
You're absolutely right. I mixed Shades of Gray (audio story) with Echoes of Grey (audio story). Amorkuz ☎  21:13, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Dorian Gray
The lead to the page Dorian Gray currently states: "similar to the character in Oscar Wilde's notorious novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray," clearly separating the two. If you think the lead is wrong, please feel free to open a discussion on Talk:Dorian Gray. I would be interested in how Dorian Gray explains that he is the same person as the fictional character. In particular, whether he claims that The Picture of Dorian Gray is a work of fiction or his biography.

The wider point of the separation is that stories like Echoes of Grey have nothing to do with Vlahos' Gray. They explicitly refer to the character created by Oscar Wilde. Even assuming that Wilde based his character on Vlahos' Dorian Gray, they are still two separate entities. Zoe Heriot refers to the character described in the novel as written by Wilde and not to the creation of Big Finish.

As for actors playing Dorian Gray elsewhere, once again, unless they play the character created by Big Finish (perhaps, modified), this info has nothing to do with him. (I'm not sure this info is useful on the wiki in principle, but I'm not gonna press this point.) It may be argued that the info might be interesting for the real-world page Alexander Vlahos as both played versions of Dorian Gray. But on an in-universe page, the connection is almost absent. You wouldn't put all actors who played Frankenstein on the page of the Eighth Doctor because in one story he was Dr Frankenstein. For the same reason, actors who played the RW Dorian Gray do not belong on the page of the DWU version of Dorian Gray. Amorkuz ☎  23:14, October 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to say that is a strong quote. I did not expect such an explicit statement to be present. Before asking for more information, it should be mentioned that the fact of being based on the same source is not by itself sufficient to put things on the same page. The question when to do it is neither vacuous nor trivial. We have Geb (Curse of Anubis) and Geb (Ozymandias) who are both based on the Egyptian god Geb and both bear certain features connecting them to Egyptian pantheon. But they should be on separate pages. We have Alice Liddell and Alice Liddell (Land of Fiction) because the character of the book was never intended to represent the real person faithfully. On the other hand, Kali is perfectly okay representing both the Hindu goddess and the Kaliratha alien because the story is very clear that the myth of the goddess was instigated by and based on the alien. So, as I say, it can go both ways. And your quote suggests that the page I created might really be unnecessary. Here is what I'd still like to understand before deleting it. What is the exact connection between the book and this "real person" Dorian? How is it explained in the stories? Is it similar to Kali? Wilde, being a friend of Dorian, wrote a book basically about him (presumably with some modifications such as the death at the end of the book, which might or might not be commented on in a DWU source)? Or is the explanation somewhat different? What I am searching for is the mechanics of them being almost the same explained in the story, not just a statement. This would separate this situation from, say, the Master calling himself the Doctor. In other words, a character claiming a certain identity should preferably be confirmed/explained in the story. If this situation falls into "place on the same page" category, then the page needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that it is a literary character closely based on the person. The reason I created a new page was because I could not reasonably link to the page as it was. The text of the page just did not support the link at the time. Amorkuz ☎  18:33, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Faction Paradox (series)
Hey there, I was just wondering if you had any input on whether the information I just added to Faction Paradox (series) would be best represented in a designated "History" section, or distributed across the relevant categories like you can see in my Sandbox here. The only downside I could imagine to splitting it up is that it would require the "Audio" section to be lifted above the "Prose" section, which might misrepresent how prose-focused the series is and has always been. – N8 ☎ 21:30, February 24, 2018 (UTC)


 * Good thoughts! Thank you for the input. I'll probably gonna throw in the Faction Paradox 20th anniversary pic, once I remember how uploading works. Hope you're well! – N8 ☎ 05:38, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

RE: Quotes
First of all, let us separate concerns. The post-regenerative quotes and quotes at the top of articles have been recently promulgated by several mostly new users. This derives from other wikis, where it is often customary to start a page with a quote, and is in direct violation of the policy "Quotations are not encyclopedic in and of themselves and therefore should not be used at the top of articles or sections within articles."

- Tardis policy on the use of quotes

After all, "post-regenerative" means that it would be placed at the beginning of the section describing the aftermath of the regeneration (see, e.g., Special:Diff/2498618).

The only recommended use of in Tardis:Tardis Manual in in-universe articles is in behind-the-scenes sections, i.e., to avoid potential misinterpretations of what was said by people involved in making Doctor Who (or to give an exact quote from the policy as I did above). As such, the main part of the current quotation policy is "don't overuse this template. It's best used when a quotation is especially important to the article, and when you need a bit of graphical element on the page."

Which bring us back to the quote on the page The Doctor. While being at the end of a section is not expressly prohibited, unlike quotes at the beginning of the section, graphically the result is almost identical, minus the context provided by the section heading. But a more important question is: is this quotation on its own important to the article or to the "Influence" section thereof? If the quote is reinstated, it would be the only emphasised part of the whole article. Would it be comprehensible to a non-fan reader? I removed it because I did not think it would be. This is Moffat speaking to hard-core fans. Imagine that you do not know much about the Doctor. What does "coming in" mean: helping to make the universe into a fairy tale or exploiting it not being a fairy tale? Is making the universe into a fairy tale really the main influence of the Doctor? Why does this quote focus on the First and Twelfth Doctors at the expense of all the others? Does "we" stand for only the two of them or for all incarnations? Does this quote apply to all incarnations, including the Emperor who "controlled time and space travel with a ruthless secret police force [and] crushed any rebellion before it even began"? Based on these questions I did not think the quote fit. Maybe you disagree (disagreements about which quote is best suited was one of the reasons for the current policy's prohibitions). If you think this particular quote does represent well this particular section (Influence) of this particular article (the Doctor), I do not mind it being reinstated. What the current policy asks is to subject each quote to such a scrutiny. If you still think it fits, go ahead and bring it back. Amorkuz ☎  07:30, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Thirteen's time's a charm
Thank you for changing that. It's just what was needed: bringing the page to the shape it should be without causing a suspicion of bias. It also shows the importance of having experts on hand for all parts of DWU: I was simply not aware of the pre-release release. So thanks for stepping in and fixing it.

Separate thanks for the apology. It is really very kind of you and certainly merits a reciprocation. On my part, I apologise for things I said in the heat of the moment, some of which were in fact proved wrong by you. As much as they went against some of my arguments, facts are what ultimately matters. I generally believe that no one can be blamed for honourably defending what they think is right. And I hope that a little more trust that we're all doing exactly that (rather than forcing an agenda), trust by all of us, including me, would help resolving such disputes in a more amicable fashion in the future.

My own thinking certainly evolved from a year ago. Not that I changed my position completely, but I would really like for an official compromise to emerge. With that being the optimal solution, I do not want to do anything to jeopardise the hopes for it.

At any rate, it is always sad to see experienced editors go (I heard recently that OttselSpy25 stated that he had moved on from the wiki, which is a pity). I thought his latest suggestion on separating independent Doctor Who continuities was rather well thought through and could potentially help nip many of future heated inclusion debates in the bud and to untie some of convoluted knots currently present. Well, radical ideas sometimes need time to stew even when they're good. Conversely, it is always good to see balance restored and people feeling free to edit. Here's to the time when I do not have to think twice before editing CJB pages and other editors feel equally uninhibited in editing to their heart's desire. Amorkuz ☎  07:17, September 10, 2018 (UTC)