User talk:TheChampionOfTime

Leamington Spa Lifeboat Museum
Sorry, for taking a while to respond, but "was heavily implied" is not a citation. Especially as we have an entire category of alien artefact collections and collectors of alien artefacts in the Doctor Who universe filled people and groups other than Torchwood. And I don't think we allow tie-in websites as citations, due to them failing rule one of the four little rules (although it's may possible we include the games on them with a degree of story, seeing as no-one's deleted citations to Security Bot that I'm aware of.) -- Tybort (talk page) 20:53, November 29, 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, sorry for the bother. -- TheChampionOfTime (talk page) 21:42, November 29, 2015 (UTC)

The Ultimate Adventure
Is there any indication that The Ultimate Adventure et al. happen in any kind of alternative timeline?Fwhiffahder ☎  01:57, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * The BBC seem to think so as Face Value (short story) is clearly stated to be a sidestep. TheChampionOfTime ☎  02:33, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with two Big Finish releases? Is there any narrative evidence that it isn't the normal Sixth Doctor? Would you put Instruments of Darkness in an "alternate timeline" too?Fwhiffahder ☎  02:37, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with the Big Finish releases, but if the sixth Doctor in Face Value is not our sixth Doctor what makes him a sidestep? The only answer I can see would be his companions. As for Instruments of Darkness, I would put it in an alternate timeline no sooner than I would put The Wrong Doctors in an alternate timeline for contradicting Millenial Rites, I'm not really sure why it was brought up. TheChampionOfTime ☎  03:00, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * "and then step sideways into other universes — worlds full of song and dance" The only story involving songs and dance in this anthology is Face Value. TheChampionOfTime ☎  03:03, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * But you're only speculating that it's because of his companions. There's no narrative reason to categorize either Big Finish release as alternate universe, is there? Even if Face Value was intended to be place in the NOTVALID universe of the stage play, the two audios are valid sources.Fwhiffahder ☎  03:07, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I suppose that makes sense. The short story is in the Stageplay universe meaning the 2 audios are in the regular one. I fix my mistake right now!   (Although afterwards I checking to see if anyone has said something behind the scenes) TheChampionOfTime  ☎  03:21, January 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd still put the short story in with the others. Yes, at the time it was written it didn't fit into the regular timeline. But Big Finish has essentially transplanted it by making its source material valid. Fwhiffahder ☎  03:24, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Dominic Glynn theme
Hi! There's nothing intrinsically wrong with your category, it's simply that all the stories the articles I reverted your revision on pertain to don't use it. Most of BF's output post-Jubilee uses the Howell theme for 6/Peri stories, as suits the period they are set within, so excluding Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories and Year of the Pig, they don't use the Glynn theme. RogerAckroydLives ☎  02:09, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Voice from the Vortex reply
Well, it contradicted established events and characterisations, even the 2005 releases, plus no one seemed to want to talk about it, myself not knowing about it 'til recently despite it being up since the New Series launched. Just seemed like an invalid source that went unnoticed.BananaClownMan ☎  22:07, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Damaged Goods
This wiki's policy is that adaptations and novelisations are supplementary to their originals. The novel and audio of Damaged Goods are considered the same story, and the Torchwood reference can only be considered valid if also applied to the novel. Fwhiffahder ☎  23:02, February 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * If I could butt in, this wiki does not not have any such policy as you refer to with regard to adaptations. Novelisations, yes, but adaptations, no. RogerAckroydLives ☎  01:39, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Comic images
Hi! Thanks for the Titan comic images you uploaded. I've tweaked a couple of them to better fit with our image rules. Specifically, all images should be under 100 kilobytes. This can usually be achieved with a width of around 600 pixels. Second, aspect ratio should be close to widescreen. Third, images should be tightly focused on their subject, so they work at thumbnail size.

For example, take File:Claremont.jpg. In the first version, the image is really tall, and the extra height distracts from the subject of the image, Claremont. The second version is just focused on his face, which is what we want in an infobox image.

If you want to create the best possible images, especially from comic sources, read through Tardis:Guide to images, it's very helpful. 17:49, February 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * The Houdini image is too tall, and doesn't meet the minimum width requirement of 250px. I looked through that comic, and the best image I could find for Houdini was this. It's not ideal, but I think it's better than the current infobox image.


 * As for the other image, I'm guessing from the filename that you're trying to illustrate the reporter. Are you using scans of the comic, or the digital version? Because I have the digital version, and it's possible to get a closer crop without the helicopter or speech bubbles. 20:30, February 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it looks fine. Good file size, good image size, good aspect ratio. 20:51, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who Reviews Wiki
Hello TheChampionOfTime, please go and check out the Doctor Who Reviews Wiki. Where you can review Doctor Who Stories! Go to: http://doctor-who-reviews.wikia.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Reviews_Wikia

Thank You! (Sorry if this is annoying)
 * This unsigned comment was left by Allonsy potter at 16:28, February 28, 2016‎

Thank you!
 * This unsigned comment was left by Allonsy potter at 16:40, February 28, 2016‎

Robots, Gramm puppets and hierarchies
When I created the category Category:Gramm puppets, I put it into a parent category Category:Individual androids, whose parent categories are Category:Individual robots and Category:Androids. I was 100% sure that "individual robots" are also "robots". I checked just now. It is not the case. I am shocked.

So yes, your edits of my puppets correct an error. But it feels like this error is more systemic and would be better corrected at the root. I propose to add the category Category:Robots as a parent category to "Individual robots" rather than adding it to every entity that can be traced up to this category. Amorkuz ☎  06:15, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler image
Thanks for the quick heads up, and for taking the spoiler policy seriously. The offending image has been deleted.

By the way, your signature is missing the link to your talk page. 20:59, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

The Silver Doctor
I know you're working on your template for the Doctor. Unfortunately, after a discussion with SOTO and Dench-and-Palmer I forgot to remove the "Look-alike" category. If you read the talk page of the Silver Doctor, you'll understand my point that the appearance of the Silver Doctor was never described. So it is a sound-alike at best. I'll leave it to you whether you keep it in your template. But my guess is that it looked more like a Cyberman than the Doctor. Amorkuz ☎  22:32, April 23, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to tell you that I do not believe the Silver Doctor was "modelled" on the Doctor in any real sense. As the story is really convoluted, and I had to relisten to it a gazillion times to get it together, let me just give you all the facts and you'll decide if this fits your definition.


 * So first of all there is zero information about how the Silver Doctor looks. He only appears in the last minutes (literally) of the play and says a couple of phrases. Apart form the voice of Paul McGann and the name including "Doctor", there is nothing to go by.


 * It is important not to mix the Silver Doctor with the Eighth Doctor (puppet) (which I will create soon and which you should probably add to your template instead of the Silver Doctor). That one was made by the Cyberman Gramm. The Doctor himself comments on their likeness. This puppet was first broken by the puppet of Mary Shelley and then the Doctor himself burned all remnants of Cyber-Technology. For Gramm puppets, it has been commented multiple times that they bore an uncanny likeness to the originals, including having the original's eyes in some cases (but not in the Doctor's case as he kept his in his head).


 * But the Silver Doctor could only be created by Alfred Stahlbaum. He couldn't have used the puppet because it had been destroyed by the Doctor. Unlike Drossel and Gramm, Stahlbaum was not working with wood. He was seemingly a talented mechanic, judging by multiple mechanical toys in his room. His previous protege was the Silver Turk, a Cyberman who was wearing a mask for performances. "Silver" clearly referred to his metal body. While we can only guess, my strong belief is that "Silver" in the Silver Doctor indicates it was also made of metal. There is no precedence in the story for metal men resembling actual people. The announced skills of the Silver Doctor are also closer to those of the Silver Turk than those of the Eighth Doctor. Apart from the voice, there is really no connection.


 * The whole business with the Silver Doctor looks a little gimmicky to me. To scare the audience with Cyber-Technology still on the loose in 19th century Vienna. And, being a gimmick, not much substance is given to it. Amorkuz ☎  00:49, April 24, 2016 (UTC)

Re: template
Seriously?! You're getting on my case after three days? There are messages I've left on talk pages that still haven't been answered for months or even years. I think you don't understand the difference between making quick cleanup edits (such as undoing, deleting, and minor corrections) and making a response that requires some time to research and compose an answer.

To address some of your specific comments:
 * "And not only did SOTO have no problem with the navbox" Well, his response was, "I can't say such an extensive infobox will be implemented." and he gave you various reasons why. To me that sounds like "No".
 * "I also asked P&P if there were any problems with it, and again was not told that it was an issue." I can't find her response to that question anywhere on your talk page. Please direct me to that response.
 * "Even you had a chance to stop me when you closed the thread." Closing that thread WAS my response. I closed it because SOTO's answer seemed to clearly state that we will not be using such a template.

If you have any further questions about this template, or the reasons SOTO gave you, please take them up with him on User talk:SOTO, as this is mostly his issue. I was merely the one who closed the thread. Shambala108 ☎  02:52, May 4, 2016 (UTC)