User talk:Epsilon the Eternal/Archive 2

Archiving talk page
Hey, I see you tried to archive your talk page, but indeed it did not work properly. The first time I tried doing it, it also didn't work, and so I'll paraphrase the advice SOTO gave me: just copy all the content from your talk page and paste it into User_talk:Epsilon the Eternal/Archive_NUMBER (also adding a on both pages). That way, it's guaranteed to work. Hope this helps ;p OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:30, October 16, 2020 (UTC)

Link
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the link for the website on Salt Publishing didn't lead to their website, but instead, an error page. I took it out for now, since I don't know how to make it work. (I copy/pasted from the site link on Wikipedia, but it took me to the same place) Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  01:59, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, it fixed it! Thank you! Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  02:09, October 17, 2020 (UTC)

Inuse with no content
Just a heads up because you might have forgotten, Christmas Hotel has been inuse for ~5 days and has no content on it. Najawin ☎  19:28, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

Sanbox Nine [sic]
Steven Moffat (Afterword) was definitely stated to be involved with the in universe series, he just wasn't stated to be involved in the TV section of it. No real difference from Paul Magrs (Bafflement and Devotion). He was involved in writing a book about the Doctor as a fictional character. Najawin ☎  20:39, November 11, 2020 (UTC)

Obscured Props
That seems like we can just bring it up in Thread:272817 whenever we get back to that thread. Like, the only instance otherwise is at Tudor, but the entire point of the thread in question was about these sorts of meta jokes. Najawin ☎  03:38, November 12, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thinly-veiled Doctors
Well-noted, thank you! Could you tell me what story Paul Bowman comes from? I fear I've forgotten. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 20:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course! How silly of me to have forgotten, especially since I'm the one who wrote that Behind the Scenes section on Claudia (Father Time). Thank you for the recap! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, spectacular catch! I've added that reference to two separate lists on my Sandbox page. – n8 (☎) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hey. Just so you know, only admins are supposed to move pages, so you should've put a Speedy Rename on the Jones webcast page rather than moving it yourself. -- Saxon (✉️) 12:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Iris Wildthyme Timeline
Hi Epsilon,

I think that it is your burden to start a discussion if you think that "there's likely an reason" that something is the way it is.

The change I made was to the order of a certain collection of stories - this same incorrect order had also appeared on the anthology page and therefore it is most likely, in my opinion, that the incorrect material was simply transferred from the anthology page rather than the order having any specific meaning of its own.

From what I have been able to work out the incorrect order matches the copyright list at the start of Lady Stardust. I think that someone incorrectly identified this as an accurate order of the stories in the anthology. RadMatter ☎  22:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Signature stuff
Hey, I was admiring your signature on Talk:Iris Wildthyme and, since I'm nosy, wanted to ask: did you copy it from a template somewhere? I noticed it links to your contributions via doctorwho:Special:COntributions/ rather than calling Special:Contributions/ directly, which I find interesting. I've been thinking about creating a signature template for myself in my userpage space, as mentioned at T:SIG LOOK, since I don't have much experience with template design and it seems like a fun exercise! – n8 (☎) 07:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit on LauraBatham's talk page
Hey! No offence, but I reverted your edit to User talk:LauraBatham's talk page because it could potentially be construed to be doxxing, of the same good-faith-sleuthing-going-a-bit-too-far variety you might recall from the 10,000 Dawns drama. I think you may well have been correct on the facts, but unless the person under discussion more explicitly signals their identity, you should not make such conclusions and put them on the Wiki. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Epsilon, I fear you do not understand. This is not a factual question. Whether you are right in your deduction is immaterial. Even if it is true (especially if it is true), you must not equate the user and the public person on this Wiki unless the public person gives their consent to the equation being made. Accordingly I have also reverted your edit on my talk page. Please stop using these two names next to each other on the Wiki, at least until the situation changes off-Wiki. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Hello, there. I just wanted to stop by and wish you the merriest of Christmases, and a Happy New Year. Hopefully you'll make Admin next year. I know I'd vote for you! BananaClownMan ☎  14:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmassy Tales
Hey Epsilon,

Have you read all of the stories in Christmassy Tales? I've heard mention that the Hoover from The Christmas Hoover is intended to be Servo-furnishing and I wondered if you would be able to clarify whether this was the case. Also, I wonder if the appearance of "Fenella Frimbly" gives more credibility to Baker's End as a whole being validated. RadMatter ☎  13:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hey! User:66 Seconds informs me on my talk page that you have allegedly been undoing other people's works in the process of adding more conjectural characters to the existing navboxes. I have yet to take a closer look at the issue itself, but I'd appreciate you (and others) holding off from editing these things until you've talked things out elsewhere than in edit summaries, lest this devolve into edit war. Please let's have you two summarise the facts of the case on some suitable talk page (that of the Scooby Doo navbox, say), and I'll try to act as a moderator to bring this to a consensual resolution.

Also, while I have in the past been guilty of a similar thing, 66 Seconds is right in the message I linked you to chastise you for that all-caps editing summary; there's no need to, as it were, "raise one's voice". Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I've just seen your post on 66's talk page. Well, I now better understand the facts of the case, but I must admit 66 is right to raise the constitutional issue, even though I am agnostic on which type of navbox would be better in theory. There is not enough explicit, clear-cut precedent here for you to be able to make choices, as an individual editor, about "overwriting other users' contributions slightly for the best of the Wiki", or implementing a change of style across dozens of pages. Such decisions require consensus. As I said, please talk this out on a talk page. (Ideally we'd want a forum thread, but, of course…) Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes on fiction pages
Hi Epsilon. As I requested earlier in the notes from my edit on the Scooby Doo template, please could you raise a discussion prior to changing all navboxes of this type. They have been set up by multiple users, including myself, User:LegoK9 and User:MrThermomanPreacher over a series of months. I also don't appreciate being spoken down to. There is no need to use block capitals in discussions. The conjectural notices at the bottom of each the navboxes read "Some categorisation may be based upon conjecture" - I know because I edited these notices into the template. Adding real world information, such as the full name "Scooby Scoobert Doo" is not required for categorisation of disambiguation purposes, as we already have the name Scooby Doo from an in-universe source. This is therefore a case of real world information being added into the navbox. Please desist from altering the navboxes until a proper discussion has been raised and a conclsuion reached, or until a decision has been made by a moderator. 66 Seconds ☎  03:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just seen your message on my talk page and accept your apology. I understand the pros and cons of each type of navbox, and have indeed made both types myself, but personally find the short navboxes useful for information related to authors and artists, where users can easily see the works of such people at the top of the page and quickly navigate between them. I didn't originally come up with the format, looking at the early templates I believe that was User:LegoK9. Considering these are the work of multiple users, I would just appreciate that this be talked out first rather than be changed by one user. Also please understand that, by our own understanding, we are all doing what is best for the Wiki. Again, thanks for your apology and hopefully this can be resolved in due course in the best interests of the Wiki and its users. Thanks for your prompt response and understanding. 66 Seconds ☎  03:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Umpty Ums
"Thirteenth Doctor (The Terror of the Umpty Ums)" seems like it would be fine with a conjecture tag, yeah. I guess my concern wasn't NO RW, I just wasn't sure how to phrase it short enough to be in an edit summary. The story explicitly says that it's the Doctor speaking, not the actress playing her (though, of course, it's really the child's mental illness, which is a completely different level to the whole thing). And while it does acknowledge the metafictional conceit of the issue, I'm just not convinced that there's any acknowledgement of the actress at all, as opposed to the character (even if the story understands the latter to be fictional). Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we're justified in making that leap, those are two different things in my mind. Najawin ☎  05:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, one of my suggestions on the page is that we can rename it and remove all Umpty Um content (No issue with the Zygon Isolation stuff, that clearly does seem to be an actress based on what we know of Doctor Who (N-Space) - though, I guess we could quibble over the show being CGI or actually filming the Doctor's adventures or something, but I think that's a far larger discussion to have over how we treat the show, and not one that this issue in particular runs afoul of, and, also, to be frank, not really needed unless someone really overreaches). The story doesn't technically establish that the show in question isn't animated, or that you don't have a man playing a female character (rare, but it happens, animation tends to go for the opposite), or that it's not animated + old school silent picture and he's not imagining what the voice sounds like. There's literally no mention of an actress, just that the character is both fictional and female. Now, she uses the term "fam", and we can pretty clearly determine that it's meant to be Whittaker as 13 as metafiction if we just think about it for all of two seconds, but the text itself doesn't get us there. We're inferring the existence of a person who probably exists but isn't actually stated to exist. Najawin ☎  06:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

First names from novelisations
Whilst I don't agree with it, Thread:231243 found that first names from novelisations should not be used for page names, hence why I reverted your edit at The Novel of the Film. (For proof, check the history of the page Bates (Attack of the Cybermen)) -- Saxon (✉️) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to a page proper is preferable to arbitrary redirects. -- Saxon (✉️) 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pipeswitching like this - Shelly Curtis - is fine and I've seen it commonly. But you've done Curtis, which is the opposite. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

While you're here
There's a discussion at Talk:The Master you might want to read/chime in on. Najawin ☎  02:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix Court Iris / Edith Sitwell Iris
Hey Epsilon,

I have recently (as of today!) read Bafflement and Devotion for the first time. However, I still have not read any of the Phoenix Court stories - and, as my current to read list is way too long, I do not plan to for quite some time. Are you able to help explain which part of Bafflement implies that the Edith Sitwell / Phoenix Court Irises are one and the same? Thanks. RadMatter ☎  02:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you happen to have the quote from Marked for Life handy?


 * The Edith Sitwell incarnation is often described as being "regal" or "a grande-dame", which fits with Edith Sitwell from the real world as she was known for being eccentric. However, the "lesbian novelist" from Hospitality is described as wearing an "army greatcoat" and the others indicate that she is either boring or a "crap guest" - neither of these things seem to fit with the Edith Sitwell incarnation. Also, I can find no evidence of Edith Sitwell being lesbian in real life - I do not believe that Magrs would force sexuality onto someone in his books. RadMatter ☎  14:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a difference between developing a character's sexuality (in Enter Wildthyme Simon has only just come to terms with his sexuality) to directly using a real-life person's name in order to tie them to a sexuilty that they didn't identify with.


 * I look forward to seeing the quote when you obtain it, as I am interested to see how similar the pair are presented. But, currently the only similarities that I see are that they are two older women who write books (same could be said of Katy Manning's incarnation). RadMatter ☎  15:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: A Groatsworth of Wit
When Robert Greene is looking for copies of his own work in the modern day bookshop, you can see in the panel when he first enters the shop a shop assistant organising some sort of postcard display just to the right of the Harry Potter poster. Immediately below the postcard display is a a display of Doctor Who annuals. NightmareofEden ☎  16:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't possess any means to scan pages, I'm afraid,and I can't find it posted officially to anywhere online either, so all I could do is take a physical photo of the page itself, and I'm not sure the admins would be cool with that. NightmareofEden ☎  19:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Karlotte at the Colette-Willy
To answer your question, Karlotte at the Colette-Willy only names Miss Baumgarten (also known as "Ma Baumgarten") and Karlotte. The narrator is unnamed, but is identified as being an author. A letter that Karlotte writes to the narrator starts "Dear Boys", so it can be assumed that the narrator was intended to be Magrs himself.

What Now, My Love? features Little Nanna and her husband. RadMatter ☎  02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem!


 * Have you read the Christmassy Tales The Christmas Trilobite. That features the fictionalised version of Paul Magrs, and also Mrs Claus (Magrs' version who appeared throughout the Iris Wildthyme and Brenda and Effie series. RadMatter ☎  02:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
As an aside, editing other people's formatting on talk pages is usually a job left for admins :) – n8 (☎) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Enter Wildthyme
You information was not removed, just shorted with extra information added. Your outline provided great help for me when fixing the plot... nothing was removed which impacts the story. RadMatter ☎  15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The hours you put in are appreciated, but the fact is that I summed up what you said in thirty-three paragraphs in six short ones without leaving out any significant information (and actually adding several seriously important plot points). Not that I want to be too hard on your work, and I understand that it was your first ever plot summary, but the three paragraphs I have focused on (and sent to User:Shambala108) are riddled with inaccuracies;


 * Simon and Kelly attended a poetry reading not a poetry class.
 * Simon acknowledges the Celestial Omnibus but does not show displeasure.
 * "As the congregation of people begins clear at around midnight".
 * Iris Wildthyme is present at the afterparty for a lot longer and doesn't arrive after Midnight.
 * Marvelle and Kelly do not get intimate.
 * It is not confirmed whether it was Iris or Panda driving the bus.


 * Again, I do not wish to be harsh and appreciate your work. But the summary is far too long and riddled with both grammatical errors and speculation / personal interpretations which I removed in my simplification.


 * There was no necessary plot points which I left out. RadMatter ☎  00:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Epsilon!


 * I don't feel comfortable at the minute contributing to the page anymore after my edits were called counter productive. But, hopefully seeing what Shambala says things will progress.


 * On another note are you making pages for The Lora Trilogy? Scrooge said that they are allowed valid pages of their own, but I didn't want to go ahead and create them incase someone like yourself was already working on them or had a sandbox prepared. RadMatter ☎  01:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

FP metafiction
While dab term concerns drive me to general opposition toward the proliferation of metafictional material on the wiki, I have a fact which may tempt you:

Essentially, the contributor biography sections of Burning with Optimism's Flames and More Tales of the City are written from an in-universe perspective and therefore provide in-universe citations for Doctor Who, Faction Paradox, Iris Wildthyme, Bernice Summerfield, Senor 105 (although I suppose it's ambiguous as to whether having "written for Senor 105" refers to a book series or the character himself), Of the City of the Saved (both with and without ellipsis), The Breakspeare Voyage (and like a billion other Simon Bucher-Jones books), Erasing Sherlock, Tales of the City, Walking in Eternity (!), and of course the Obverse MegaText Conglomerate. Knowing your interests, I think you should definitely check it out. – n8 (☎) 14:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not notability, but about meta references
As for the first, as I said on the talk page, if you're talking about things that also have real world pages and are merely referenced, current policy is to list them on the real world pages in short sections. We can disagree, but that's policy. It's not an issue of notability, but of how things are currently done.

As for the second, my major objection was that the person linked to a page that already existed and it was the wrong page, ie, one for a dating app, but if you're going to create a link to a page something that's minor in a story, more power to you, but make the page yourself. If it's not prominent enough for other people to make the page, don't leave a red link hanging around. Najawin ☎  19:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: vandalism
Hi when you see vandalism on the wiki, please let an admin know (or wait for one to take care of it). Please do not delete information from a vandalized page as it makes it harder for an admin to figure out what needs fixing thanks Shambala108 ☎  05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Sandbox infobox
Thanks Epsilon, that's helped to put the right title but for some reason the infobox isn't showing. RadMatter ☎  18:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Fangs
Well, my rationale can logically be found in the forums, but I think at the time I was just trying to find a consistent logic to our rules, where consistency is often not really present. In my opinion, since we cover at least three alternate-universe stories where Doctor Who is a TV show, we should also cover this story. I also think trying to find a universal judgement on exactly how much meta is allowed in a story is very hard and shouldn't even be attempted. But my opinion doesn't really mean much, you see.

I think there's a whole lot that needs to get fixed whenever we get the forums properly back. OS25🤙☎️ 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Master discussion
Hey there :) I wanted to just let you know that I've delete your new discsussion about the Master over at Discussions. This wasn't to silent you, but just to stop further discussion on that platform, as it's not well suited to having heavy, wiki-altetring discussions. As you know, you can't use wiki-text there, which we'll need to have a heavy discussion like that.  Rest assured, though, that your sentiments are well-taken and that we'll of course be returning to this matter in the near future! See my comments at user talk:Scrooge MacDuck for more!  21:14: Sat 27 Feb 2021
 * Sorry, I honestly didn't expect anyone to take me literally. As I explained to Scrooge, I was just trying to give some historical context. I wasn't expecting anyone to take me quite so literally, quite so fast. Please hold on to your ideas for a little while longer, as the Discussions area is totally the wrong place to be talking about major changes to the wiki.  That platform was always intended by Fandom to be just for light discussions and announcements, and certainly this wiki has always practiced a hard division between Forums and Discussions. We'll be badk to regular use of Forums soon!  Thanks!  21:25: Sat 27 Feb 2021

Re Category:Individual ghostsedit source
That information comes from Mystery Lady. See Cornelia Lively for more information. RadMatter ☎  01:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The main character of Cassandra, who is a ghost, mentions that she knows that Cornelia's claims are fraudulent and the real spirts aren't happy. RadMatter ☎  01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Books of Mayhem
It is my understanding that the rename discussion was concluded?

The original tag was added proposing that the page be renamed from 'Book of Mayhem' to 'Books of Mayhem', which happened. Then the subsequent tag opened up a discussion as to whether this series was 'The Books of Mayhem' or 'Books of Mayhem'.

After this rename tag was added the user SOTO renamed Books of Terror to The Books of Terror. However, the last post on Books of Mayhem's talkpage was me stating that, to my knowledge, both the Books of Mayhem and Books of Terror series are only ever mentioned with lowercase "the" such as "the Books of Mayhem" and "the Books of Terror". The comment that I made then saw SOTO change The Books of Terror back to Books of Terror.

I saw this as a ruling on both parts, and thus Books of Mayhem and Books of Terror are the correct titles.

But thank you, I didn't notice that I also removed the other tag. RadMatter ☎  01:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Moves
Hi please don't move any kind of pages including images. Only admins are permitted to move pages on this wiki thanks Shambala108 ☎  22:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Antonio Amaral
Hey! Considering a complaint about it was officially brought to my talk page with evidence to back it up, I do feel I have to highlight that you did infringe on our edit-warring policies with your last few reversions at Antonio Amaral.

Of course, the object-level issue has now been resolved and the problem is behind us, so with all your productive editing otherwise, I'm inclined to be lenient and not jump to a ban. However, please don't do this again and pay more attention to the letter of the law in these matters, even when you're very very sure that you're in the right as to the policy/ruling that you are trying to enforce. Enforcing policy isn't your job; it's an admin's. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Blanking pages
Hey! I think you probably know this and merely overlooked it, but concerning your recent deletion template at Paul Magrs' flatmate, please remember not to blank a page when putting it up for deletion. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

An Unearthly Child
Hi. I saw your edit on the Time Lord page and I just wanted to ask where in An Unearthly Child it is suggested that the Doctor and Susan are human? It's been a while since I've watched it, but I do remember the Doctor saying that he and Susan are cut off from their own planet, so I would have thought that that would suggest the opposite. LauraBatham ☎  13:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I'm not sure I would say it is "clear" (at least not in that episode alone), but the video does make some interesting points that I hadn't considered before. LauraBatham ☎  14:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Short block
Hey. I'm really sorry to have to do this, but you did already receive a warning less than a month ago for the same offence… In light of your having once again exceeded the number of permitted reversions by T:EDIT WAR at Poppy Munday, I am going to have to impose a block on you. The usual conditions apply.

Please, please, please take the edit-warring policies seriously.

It doesn't matter whether the other guy is materially in the wrong about the underlying policy! The argument you had in the edit history should have been brought to the talk page at once, not three reversions later. And if you find yourself unable to get through to another user who you are sure is wrong about the policy… ask an admin to step in. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that you were wrong when you said this wiki doesn't care about licensing except for whether something has a DWU license (your quote was "The Wiki does not care if most things are licensed - the Wiki only cares if it's a DWU element that is unlicensed"). That is very untrue. Images without licenses get removed immediately, and images with the incorrect license get removed as well if an admin can determine the license is wrong. We take copyright and licensing rules very seriously on this wiki. Please refrain in the future from any kind of suggestion that copyright and licensing is not important to the wiki. And it is outright wrong to state that if something is legally in doubt, it should be kept until it's been proven illegal; the reverse should pretty much always be true. Shambala108 ☎  01:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah — as I said at Talk:Poppy Munday, you seem to have confused the licensing rules that apply to what we cover (where yes, true if a story's licensed to use the Doctor, we don't care if it has an unlicensed cameo by Superman or whatever) with our policies on the licenses that must be given for the images we actually, materially put on the Wiki in their entirety. There is a world of difference between the legality of writing about something, and uploading it wholesale.


 * So those are two, almost completely unrelated uses of the word "license" on this Wiki, for which slightly different (though equally hard) policies apply. And yes, you might say that's a bit confusing, but frankly, you've been on this Wiki for long enough to know better. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. LGBTQ+ and PoC categories
Thank you for the heads-up regarding the non-heterosexual and non-cisgender categories for in-universe characters. Makes for a handy resource, and means one less thing to worry about when we get back to the forum discussions. Infact, knowing that we have already them in place for in-universe characters makes for a helpful point for when it will come to arguing in favour of having them for production individuals. JDPManjoume ☎  13:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Who
Hi,

I don't agree with the change from "First Doctor" to "Dr. Who" on all the TV Comics. You are correct that he isn't referred to as the "First Doctor" in those stories, but being honest, the term "First Doctor" is hardly ever used, in any stories. By the same logic we should be changing all the TV, audio and prose appearances of the First Doctor to "The Doctor" (or "Dr. Who" as the case may be), as that is what's being used to refer to him.

In addition, several Doctors are referred to as "Dr. Who" with variable frequency. We use "First" "Second" Third" etc. instead of "The Doctor" not as retcons, but for the sake of clarity. The same applies to the use of "Dr. Who".

If you're wanting peace of mind, might I suggest an alternative way of framing what "First Doctor" means? One which is actually in pretty common use? That is, that it is short for "First Dr. Who"!

Cheers, Danochy ☎  11:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (Please see my own thoughts on Danochy's talk page.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎  11:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think you should stop with the changes while this is still under discussion. If you look above your response on my talk page, Scrooge and I seem to be in agreement that "First Doctor" should be used in infoboxes while "Dr. Who" should be used throughout the article.


 * If you're wanting to go down the contradictory accounts road, we have plenty of precedent for continuing to refer to a Doctor by the fan agreed number after later evidence suggested the number was false. Do we stop referring to Doctors by number in stories contemporary to Lungbarrow or The Timeless Children? Does the existence of the War Doctor affect the way we number our Doctors from 9 onwards? Danochy ☎  12:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If I have to spell it out for you, yes, this is under discussion. There was a disagreement and you continued to make edits before a consensus was made on how to preceed. It's basic wiki etiquette. Danochy ☎  12:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was also going to ask about these changes but it seems somebody has beaten me to it. I also agree that this needs a proper discussion, as, to me at least, it seems needlessly pedantic and possibly confusing depending on how it is implemented. LauraBatham ☎  12:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Danochy, it's more than basic wiki etiquette: it's T:BOUND. "While a discussion is ongoing about how to change a particular rule, you are bound by the rule as it currently exists." – n8 (☎) 21:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Derek Jacobi
Lol, I realized my mistake just as you edited to correct me. My bad! I look forward to your responses on the talk pages. – n8 (☎) 21:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)