User talk:Amorkuz

Royal template
I have no objections to tweaking it a little. In fact it was User:LegoK9 that created it last year. I had the idea to create a similar template so searched up "Template:Monarchs" in case such a thing already existed and found their template. I saw that it hadn't been implemented so I added it to the relevant pages.

I also thought about adding Scottish monarchs and spouses of monarchs to the template but didn't have the time. --Borisashton ☎  15:15, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor
Hi, I've been advised to ask you directly the rationale for this undo at Sixth Doctor - apologies for the hasty revert, but considering there was no explanation given I couldn't understand how this could have been done in good faith. I've looked over the edit again and I don't see how it's in any way controversial - in particular, the section over Six's regeneration was a total mess when I came across it (and is now back in that state), with references from directly contradictory accounts (that the section's entire purpose is to outline) mixed throughout. It's not fit for purpose as is, so if you do have a particular objections to the edits I made could we work together to find a workable solution? As for the notion of Sylvester McCoy playing the Sixth Doctor, it's quite frankly hair-splitting of the highest degree that doesn't belong anywhere, based on nothing more than the use of a wig during the regeneration sequence. Is there really a consensus to include that? TheOtherJenny ☎  07:23, August 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Regarding Sylvester, I strongly disagree (particularly that it's in any way analogous to the Curator), but if there's a consensus there I'll defer to it.
 * With my edits to the "death" section, however, they seem to have been misunderstood. The purpose of this section is to outline the three contradictory accounts of the Sixth Doctor's regeneration. The version I encountered (and as it currently exists) is the version that attempts frutlessly to stitch together a single narrative from these irreconcilable accounts, which is why I edited it. With the specific Spiral Scratch example you point out, the element of the sentence that causes an issue is not that but the following clause, attributed to Head Games. Head Games is the basis of the first account (suicide), so sourcing it in the second account is incorrect: it's a different account, and does not in any way concern the Doctor's chronal energy drain as currently implied. (The Spiral Scratch information remains in my edit, although the citation would indeed be better placed at the end of the paragraph - easily fixed.) The brief introduction I added to the top of the death section mentions the commonalities, i.e. the link to Time and the Rani (which is far better placed here than at the end of each sub-section, where it currently implies that the TV episode/novel supports particular accounts where it doesn't) and hitting his head on the TARDIS console (which can be appropriately sourced to Head Games there). I retained all sources, and in fact added one to novel The Room with No Doors, but rearranged instances where the prose switched between accounts (in one case even mid-sentence) - as the entire function of the three sub-sections is to outline one account each. The only detail I didn't retain is that of Mel seeing the Doctor attempt to activate the HADS (from the Time and the Rani novel), which I wouldn't object to being worked into the top section.
 * I'll say again that the current version is simply impossible to understand, entirely obscuring which account comes from which source due to a tangle of cross-references. Hopefully we can find a good way to move forward with it now. TheOtherJenny ☎  07:47, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Just to flag that I'm happy to continue discussing this, whenever your time allows :) TheOtherJenny ☎  02:24, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Chancellery Guard template
Hello, I had an idea for a template, but thought I'd run it by an admin first. It's essentially a template which lists all known Chancellery Guard members who have a page on the wiki, like the High Council template. It'd have Castellan, Commander, Captain and so categories.

If you don't think it's necessary, that's fine, I thought to check to see what an admin would make of it.

Thanks Ben Moore512 ☎  20:29, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Visiting Vehicles
Hi, you reverted my edit at The Eye Above because "Locations visited by X" categories aren't applied to vehicles. Whilst I can understand this rationale for things like Bessie one can actually go inside a spacecraft, hence visiting it. Indeed, all the random pages I visited just now in Category:Individual spacecraft possess the "Locations visited by X" category if applicable. Could you explain this for me since it seems like it was well-established that the category was applicable to spacecraft? --Borisashton ☎  23:23, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * In short, I think a separate vehicles category is an excellent idea. I look forward to hopefully help implement it. --Borisashton ☎  22:58, November 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Vehicles entered by the Doctor perhaps? --Borisashton ☎  11:53, November 23, 2018 (UTC)

Tabs?
Hei Amorkuz, I feel it would be very helpful to add more organization to the Doctor pages (like tabs, for example). When I am looking for a special scene or an episode I can't recall the title of I have to scroll down miles of text. Am I the only person who feels this could be much easier? Greetings, Ivy Adrews ☎  22:53, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

I noted that you didn't reply my last message about the Historical Stories article, so I'll leave it here. Hope you can answer: I was starting to write the sandbox, when I thought of something: Shouldn't it be better for the Historical stories to be inside the Fan Terminology category? I checked and the articles in it don't seem to have strong sources or references. I could write an article with an explanation based on sources like the Handbooks and other sources, and, instead of creating a category for these stories, make a list with the usually accepted historical and pseudo-historical stories (by usually accepted I mean based on the fandom, since it's fan terminology, or a source if I can find one), just like in the TARDIS team article, which states something not from official sources but from common knowledge. I might add both. I'll start making the article in the sandbox (with the list), from a fan terminology perspectivew. If this Wiki doesn't agree, I'll go back to the original plan.Dr Von Wer ☎  13:11, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

The Happiness Patrol Novelisation
Hello.

You were the first admin listed, so i apologise if you are not rhe right person to ask. I also apologise if this is not the right place to ask a question, as I am new to editing; I have been a passive lurker up until this point.

I was wondering if there is a specific mandate against information from the novelisation of The Happiness Patrol? I have noticed that additions from novelisations, such as character names and backstories, are included on the appropriate pages, for the most part, and are considered to have canonical value. However, very little information from the novelisation of The Happiness Patrol seems to have been assimilated into their relevance pages.

Trivia above Terra Omega introduced in the novel does seem to have been taken and added to the wiki, however significant backstory in regards to Terra Alpha, Helen A, Gilbert M and the Kandyman appear to be entirety absent, with no references made to the novelisation whatsoever.

Similarly, the page for the novelisation of The Happiness Patrol appears to be somewhat sparse, particularly the "differences from televised version" section, which only lists two small differences and again excises (or fails to include) the expansive new information the novel provides.

I apologise again if you are not the person to ask this question, or if this is not the place, but I felt a degree of curiosity and minor injustice. I will admit that my judgement could be clouded by the fact that The Happiness Patrol is possibly my favourite serial, however I do still see the absence of so much canonical information as mysterious and strange.

GrepellioShush ☎  14:23, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Author Page Edits
Hi Amorkuz. You helped loads when I set up my author page, and I'm hoping you can help me again!

I'll be publishing the first book in my post-Brexit YA dystopia on July 25th, and I'm hoping you can add a hyperlink to the reference on the author page. Link from 'YA series', or as appropriate, to amazon.tallerbooks.com. This links to a holding page, but it will forward automatically when the book is published.

I'm also hoping you can add my official Amazon page to the list of External links: https://www.amazon.co.uk/l/B07PKBP87V

Please get in touch if there are problems with any of this, or if you need any more information. I don't want to tread on any more toes!

THANK YOU!

Rachel Churcher ☎  15:33, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks mate

 * Thanks for help with my troll, he'll be back so be on your toes.--AKR619  ☎  07:34, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

Fandom's official Discord server
Hi! I’m here to share the news that Fandom has an official Discord server now. Feel free to check this blog post from Community Central, which includes more details and, of course, the server invite link. Editors from many different communities and staff members are there chatting already - you (and other editors!) are invited to join as well. Cheers! Playsonic2 ☎  07:46, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

New Analytics Dashboard
Heya! I hope all is well - I come bearing Fandom news again. There is now a new tool, an Analytics Admin Dashboard that has just been introduced. This gives you and your fellow admins access to insightful wiki data. You can now have a better understanding of how the wiki is faring and may plan certain things/make decisions based on what you can see there.

Visit Special:Analytics to check it out!

The page Help:Analytics dashboard was also made available should you have any questions about the feature. But please ask me any further questions you have - I’m in direct contact with staff and would be able to find out from them.

Feel free to spread the word with the other admins, I hope this is useful. (Some of the data reveals odd facts - for instance the file FiveAndKalid.jpg being one of the most seen, despite only showing in one article. I can't really tell why, but users love it :P) Playsonic2 ☎  14:54, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

T:NOT
I see you’ve deleted a host of articles with the reason T:NOT. Could you elaborate? – N8 ☎ 21:34, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I see you’ve continued, let me clarify: I don’t see how the 10,000 Dawns stories on this wiki fell afoul of any section of T:NOT. I look forward to your explanation. – N8 ☎ 21:44, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * 🎼amorkuz🎵please reply to meeee🎶i know i’m annoying but you’re still going and i think there’s a misunderstanding about this scenariooooo🎵 – N8 ☎ 21:58, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

I have to say this does certainly not look as black-and-white as you might think and I should think it would deserve some level of community discussion before a mass deletion takes place. --Borisashton ☎  22:33, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * My attempt to provoke some kind of discussion before everything was purged has obviously failed. I will also look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. --Borisashton ☎  23:13, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

James Wylder is an actual publisher (Arcbeatle Press) who publishes Who works online and in print, with permission and/or licensing from the characters' originators. His works featuring characters/concepts from Faction Paradox, the EDAs etc. should be included on the wiki. Nikisketches ☎  08:11, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

This should have been discussed in the "inclusion debates" from before any changes were made. I'll set up one now. Please discuss your reasoning there so a community debate can be made. --Revan\Talk 12:28, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Re: inclusion debate
No problem, but when I said no one who has posted more than two times is allowed to post, I didn't mean the three admins that deleted the material originally. In fact, that's what I'm waiting on, is more details about why it was deleted. I know you did give a summary, but I think the folks posting on that thread are going to need a bit more before they understand your (plural) points of view.

And when User:Revanvolatrelundar restored the pages you deleted, I put an invalid tag on them so there's no hurry to resolve this. Like you, I think this situation has a lot of ramifications for the wiki, and we need to get this right. Shambala108 ☎  23:10, September 1, 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just wanting to chime in here to clarify why I reverted the deletions to the 10,000 Dawns related articles. Yes, an inclusion debate should have been carried out before the articles were added, but unfortunately one was not. The articles were already established at the start of the debate, therefore should not have been deleted until the debate was concluded. When we discussed the inclusion of Faction Paradox and Iris Wildthyme in the past, those pages were not deleted during the discussion. This is no different.


 * I appreciate you not wanting to start an edit war. This comment has been made to clear the air. --Revan\Talk 09:28, September 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate a list since I'm not familiar with most of that material. Shambala108 ☎  13:37, September 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok I think I got everything you mentioned. Shambala108 ☎  01:04, September 4, 2019 (UTC)

request for clarification
Dear Amorkuz,

I am pursuing this line of inquiry here, following formal advice given by Shambala108. The following is a verbatim reproduction of the former post #62 on Thread:255536; it has been moved here because it is considered to have a more far-reaching scope than the original thread itself:

"Amorkuz, can you please clarify: so did you delete these articles as “a random man on the Internet,” or as an admin of this Wiki? Because as NateBumber’s post above has just pointed out, this thread is going to be a prioritised Google search result presented to members of the public, and thus your actions in this incident are liable to be seen as representative of the Wiki's administration as a whole (well, more than is to be expected for the conduct of an administrator, anyway)."

I would very much appreciate a clarification be given on the point raised above, for the reasons raised above. Thank you very much for your time.

Regards,

AthenodoraKitten ☎  15:04, September 7, 2019 (UTC)