User talk:LegoK9

'''Welcome to the 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. Tangerineduel ☎  19:59, June 19, 2016 (UTC)

Page moves
I'll keep this brief. Only admin are really allowed to move/rename pages, as non-admins do not have the power to do so fully and properly. Instead, you should always use or, and wait for an admin to carry it out. Even if you're impatient for this result, it's still best to wait it out.

When you moved Golgalith to Golgauth, for example, as a non-admin you were unable to choose not to leave behind a redirect, so I had to, after the fact, delete the old redirect, at the very much incorrect name. You also failed to move any of the links to that page, to the new name. If I were to carry out that speedy rename, I would know that this needs to be done first, and in fact I have SV7, my bot, to really do all that manual work for me.

So please, leave page moves to the admins. is your friend. 02:37, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi! Please note that the edit summary you left at Series 10 (Doctor Who) (that is, "The Sun is not a reputable source ya dingus") could be construed as a personal attack. Please read both Tardis:No personal attacks and Tardis:Edit summary. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  00:37, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Google doc
Fyi, the Google Doc you linked in Thread:225793 is view-only. – N8 ☎ 17:33, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks.

Block
Given that you've been warned before, you are blocked for a month for violating Tardis:No personal attacks on the edit summary at Alice Zhang. Shambala108 ☎  18:35, June 10, 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that was a personal attack. I reversed an edit on a page I've put work into and said a funny quote from The Avengers. LegoK9  ☎  19:50, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history for Alice Zhang, you can see User:OncomingStorm12th's comment:
 * "Highly unusual to do galleries on artist pages. A simple bulleted list is was more usual for these."

followed by your comment:
 * "'I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.'"

Yes I know the source of the quote and normally I would give bonus points for a quote from The Avengers, but not in this case. To the average person, it looks like a deliberate attempt to ignore the rules, especially for anyone not familiar with the quote. To the average admin, it looks like an attempt to subvert Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.

One thing you have to understand is that in this medium it is nearly impossible to recognize someone's mood or intent just by their text. We have no facial or vocal cues to let us know what someone means. Therefore, the typed words have to stand for themselves. If you type something calling someone a name, even as a joke, or suggest that the rules don't apply to you, even as a joke, it isn't always obvious to those reading that you are joking.

One thing I failed to address earlier: your actual edit. OncomingStorm12th suggested that we don't usually use galleries for artist pages. Since that is true, but you disagreed with it, your next step would be to address the issue on the article's talk page, instead of reverting the previous edit. That leads to edit wars, which is something the admins in general try to avoid and is one of the main things I watch out for.

Please keep in mind that your block is a month because I've already had to caution you against personal attacks in edit summaries. During your block I suggest you read Tardis:Edit summary and Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  03:40, June 11, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification of other guidelines of this wiki. While I understand the quote was unprofessional, I did think I was unfair for it to be seen as a personal attack as it was directed at the edit itself and not the individual who made the edit, in contrast to my previous infraction a year ago. LegoK9 ☎  18:24, June 11, 2018 (UTC)

Leaks and discussions
I am sorry to have to remind you but encouraging others to watch leaked material is not acceptable on this wiki, including in the Discussions. Please do not repeat that mistake. I deleted the offending comment. Amorkuz ☎  05:43, July 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Point taken and I will avoid discussing leaks in any further discussions. But if I recall correctly, I asked "Have you seen the leaked clip?" Asking if someone has seen it does not strike me as encouraging someone to watch said clip. If simply mentioning the existence of specific leaked material is against the rules because it could make some seek it out, I will follow that. But it seems like that rule would contradict itself as it mentions leaked material, so some clarification would be appreciated. LegoK9 ☎  16:27, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

Rename tag
Hi please note that only admins are permitted to remove a rename tag. A rename tag means the name is up for discussion. You can start a post on the talk page arguing against the rename. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  02:19, February 2, 2019 (UTC)

Non-prejudicially buzzing off buzzards
Right. So first off, I'm sorry that I had to close the thread started by you. It was not personal and without prejudice. Crossovers are difficult in general and, even without them, I'm sure you remember when several editors got overexcited about opening inclusion debates, which led to rather unpleasant consequences. In those cases, the branching continuities were mostly much much smaller than Marvel UK. I hope you agree that we should not cover all of it. The purpose of my closure---and by the way, I did not participate in that thread: I wrote a closing post and closed it---the purpose was to establish a sufficiently high quality standard for starting inclusion debates involving Marvel UK. The criterion of having one character in common is way too low and would spread through Marvel UK like a wildfire. This cannot be allowed to happen. And having dozens of inclusion debates without hopes of succeeding only causes confrontation and is a drag on admin time. Plus, the question of whether a character originates in DWU is somewhat sensitive to chain inclusion, wouldn't you say? So a knee-jerk reaction to a character originating from a DWU story to open an inclusion debate every time such a character is used in any other story---that is also too low a standard. This wiki is devoted to stories intended to be set in DWU. A mere presence of a character does not demonstrate such an intent, especially within a publishing juggernaut such as Marvel, UK or otherwise.

And let's face it. Keepsake's vulture is much less than a character. It's a non-sentient animal that has exactly zero significance to every single story I've seen it in. In fact, it is not unfair to describe it as having only cameos and no plot-related appearances.

To summarise, if you can make a case for Death's Head: The Body in Question based on the four little rules and including a justification regarding being intended to be set in the DWU, sure, start a discussion. Amorkuz ☎  22:51, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Images
Hi, can you reupload the images you provided on Thread:246276 (whilst following the wiki's policies)? I feel they would be helpful in making an informed decision. Thanks in advance. --Borisashton ☎  07:01, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

Opening multiple inclusion debates
I'm afraid that your behaviour starts resembling the time when multiple inclusion debates have been opened at the same time, by the same editor, without properly vetting material. Other editors then enthusiastically voiced their approval, again without properly studying the stories. The debates were long, unpleasant and the wounds inflicted by them on our editing community have not been completely healed even now.

I did not prevent you from reopening a debate that you had started based on incorrect arguments. Your reaction was to open a second debate without reading stories. This cannot be condoned and has to be curtailed.

Thus, you are not to open new inclusion debates in the nearest 3 months. If you absolutely have to participate in inclusion debates, you can use the time to properly research material for the still open debate that you've started. For instance, I'm sure it would be very interesting to learn the opinion of Simon Furman about the relationship between Death's Head and Doctor Who Universe. That has a bearing on the 4th rule, of course. Thus, you can demonstrate your serious attitude to inclusion debates by making sure Furman never stated anything against the idea that Death's Head lives in DWU. Amorkuz ☎  01:41, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

Editing before validity is decided
On a separate but related note, it has come to my attention that you have on occasion implemented the projected results of a validity debate weeks before even starting the actual debate, for instance, at Special:Diff/2605116. Please refrain from this in the future. There are enough valid stories to work on, without violating Tardis:Valid sources. Amorkuz ☎  02:18, February 19, 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really sure about this. Isn't that edit for a page that explicitly includes all spin-offs, regardless of whether or not this wiki's admins think they're set in the Doctor Who universe? – N8 ☎ 02:38, February 19, 2019 (UTC)


 * Section for non-DWU spin-offs is at the bottom and without a redlink, which presupposes that a page needs to be created. Amorkuz ☎  05:41, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

Validity
Yes, irony indeed. Once again, sadly, allowing an editor to open an inclusion debate based basically on appearance lists, say, on w:c:marvel would open the door to dozens of them, which does not improve the chances of any one of them being valid but rather the opposite since the quality of these debates cannot be high. It is much preferable to concentrate on one debate at a time, to fully research it, provide all information and collect opinions of interested editors. That still takes time, months in the best case scenario. But having several debates on obscure, hard to find stories is a recipe for having them open for years without any significant input.

As for validity, the situation is roughly as follows. Stories with the Doctor, stories labelled "from the worlds of Doctor Who" are usually considered valid unless someone questions them. (I say "usually" because there is also Festive Thirteenth Doctor Yule Log, eventually ruled invalid.) Some spin-offs of DWU characters indeed received validity without a hitch, including multiple Bernice Summerfield spin-offs.

But the more obscure a character, the lesser its footprint in the DWU, the less expectation there is that its spin-off would somehow be in the DWU. For Vienna Salvatori- and Graceless-focused spin-offs, the question had to be asked. As they were produced by a rather DW-centric company, they still had common expectations to be in the DWU. After all their stories sell because Doctor Who fans buy them. One of these series did not make it but still has a devout following who hope one day to make it valid. And the reason it did not make it was because it was marketed differently, based on Star Trek fame of Chase Masterson rather than Doctor Who fan base.

Things get even less hopeful when it is a spin-off based on an obscure character produced by a company that is only tangentially connected to DW, like Marvel UK. There is absolutely no reason to expect them to want to, care about or even think about stories in terms of them being DWU or non-DWU. Truth be told, our whole wiki is small potatoes for them.

In doing research on The Body in Question I found a whole podcast series devoted to Doctor Who comics, called Doctor Who: Panel to Panel. While I cannot yet vouch for its quality, one of the episodes contains an interview with Simon Furman, where he describes how The Crossroads of Time came to be. He thinks purely in terms of copyright properties and available characters. He needed a vehicle to move Death's Head from the Transformer series to Dragon's Claws, which was the first original US-type comic series created by Marvel UK. He thought that the Doctor fit the bill. And the Doctor was available at the time. Lo and behold, they make a transitional story. Oh, and they need to shrink Death's Head from Transformer to human size. So they find some vaguely Doctor-related gimmick that could do it. That's it. Furman called it a "cynical" approach. In the whole interview, I did not spot any in-universe considerations, continuity concerns. It's business, and nothing personal. And the boundaries are drawn by comic series, not by fictional realities. Death's Head was moving from Transformers to its own series with several "guest appearances", to quote Simon Furman. Never mind that he's visited Earth in 1987 and 1989, meeting Bumblebee in the former and Fantastic Four in the latter case. Who cares that about compatibility when they are great characters to toy with while Marvel UK had the licence?

But even this attitude aside, the only natural assumption to make about a Marvel UK story is that it was intended to be in Marvel (UK) multiverse. It is completely unreasonable to assume that the Marvelous juggernaut stopped to wish itself a Doctorless Doctor Who story. As a consequence, a Doctorless Marvel UK comic story should always be considered invalid until proved otherwise. Sometimes, an exception is made for a standalone story dispatching a character who was introduced in an imperviously DWU story, like Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling!. But a Marvel UK spin-off is almost by definition non-DWU, as they have no commercial incentive to develop intellectual property of another company, like BBC. Amorkuz ☎  00:40, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Party landscape
The solution is not to post the whole panel. With very few exceptions, illustrating in-universe material is possible in landscape mode. Yes, it makes life harder. Choosing an image for a character may require skimming through many panels to choose a suitable one. Just crop some part of the image out. For demonstrating the mutitude of guests a the party, you do not need all of them. Amorkuz ☎  05:50, February 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I took another crack at it and was able to get it technically in landscape. LegoK9 ☎  06:42, February 22, 2019 (UTC)

Party Animals
Hi I have a question about the pages created for the various Marvel characters that supposedly attended the party in Party Animals. Which of these characters were actually named in the story (Party Animals), and which ones were identified based solely on their appearance and knowledge from outside this wiki? Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  21:54, March 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently I need to correct your misconceptions about the admins on this wiki. We are not paid staff, and no one pays for DW books, audios, etc for us all to read. If we want to purchase a story, we have to use our own money. On this wiki there is no requirement for admins to have to read every DWU story. There are probably dozens if not hundreds of stories on this wiki that no admins have read.


 * If we decided to abide by your criteria that admin can't act on situations regarding stories they haven't read, that would hamstring us to such a degree that the best alternative would be to declare any story invalid that none of our admins have read. And I can guarantee that wouldn't fly among the rest of the wiki's users. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  23:06, March 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * The following forum thread regarding another crossover seems relevant to the topic:

"[Our] own lack of knowledge about the STU [Star Trek Universe] doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to create articles on things which are clearly depicted, but unnamed by dialogue. After all, we have many articles that are based solely on visual inspection — like Volkswagen Beetle, HMS Teazer, London Borough of Barnet, real world people who appeared in archive footage, Doctor Who actors who played themselves — or aural examination, like practically the entire contents of category:Songs from the real world. It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species."

- CzechOut on naming pages for unnamed Star Trek persons and concepts.


 * To add my own two cents, this scheme of using STU/Marvel names for things unnamed in DWU serves two related purposes, IMHO: 1) readers would be able to find the page easily via a search engine; 2) were information about the character to appear in a later story, editors would easily make the connection via the existing link. Having said that, I advise extreme caution in identifying by sight. It is easy to misidentify one of thousands comic characters. Equally crucial is to provide extensive "behind-the-scenes" notes explaining what is and is not known in-universe. Perhaps, we have a reasonable precedent in The Return of Doctor Mysterio, which was chockfull of comic illustrations in-universe, and many of them have pages with reasonably uncontroversial identifiable names. Amorkuz ☎  01:42, March 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is my exact point. I've already deleted the page Cyclops (Party Animals), which had the following deletion rationale: "Captain Britain (1970s costume) was incorrectly identified as Cyclops." Care needs to be taken for character pages that aren't named in story. Shambala108 ☎  02:59, March 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, another person of interest for me was Namor. I once spent quite some time looking at pictures of various versions of w:c:marvel:Namor trying to figure out why we think this DWU face is Namor. My best guess is that it is because of the pin "Save the whale". While I cannot be a judge of how definitely this pins down Namor (for lack of Marvel-ous expertise), the more general concern is to make the connection clear to other non-comic-experts like me. It all falls under "extensive behind-the-scenes explanations", of course, but underscores why it is needed. And there is no shame in leaving some faces as "unidentified". Even people at Marvel Database do this. Better incomplete than incorrect, yes? Amorkuz ☎  11:45, March 3, 2019 (UTC)