User talk:Cult Of Skaro

Colourised images forbidden
Please do not upload colour images of things that were originally broadcast or published in monochrome. This is a specific violation of T:ICC. 04:28: Tue 05 Mar 2013
 * Please don't split hairs. Obviously, Marco Polo was in black-and-white.  A colour image is not from the episode, but must logically be an out-of-universe image taken of the actors from the side of the set.  The image you uploaded was never an angle seen in the original.  To make crystal clear: colour images from black and white episodes may not be uploaded here.  05:17: Tue 05 Mar 2013

Redlink
A redlink implies that a page should be created. It technically shouldn't until Saturday (although I do admittedly have a text file with the article prepared for the occasion :D). It's not really that much of a big deal if it's redlinked, but, preferably, it shouldn't be linked until broadcast. --SOTO ☎ 01:59, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Color images of B/W eps
No. 18:03: Mon 25 Mar 2013
 * Because colour images from the B/W era violate T:IUI. All colour images are not from the episode, but rather from rehearsals or a different angle than the videocamera would have employed.  They are thus not in-universe pictures. I refer you also to forum:Images Policy where the specific case of the Marco Polo pics was taken up and roundly defeated.  (I should say that the discussion perhaps uses ''colorised" incorrectly—and indeed in quotation marks—but it's very clear the discussion is talking about precisely the images you're talking about.)  18:13: Mon 25 Mar 2013

Thane
Sorry to have to keep deleting the same pic, but your subsequent efforts still come short of our basic rules. As is made clear on upload screens, please follow these simple rules and your pic will probably be allowed to stand Also, could you please clarify the source of your pic? 21:52: Mon 15 Apr 2013

Categories
Please remember when creating a page to add a category (unless it's a redirect). For your recent Big Finish Doctor Who audio actor pages the category for them is Big Finish Doctor Who voice actors. See Jonathan Forbes‎ which you recently created, I've added the category and the which sits above the category and ensures the page is correctly sorted when it's in the category. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:56, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Actor pages
Hi :) Thanks for adding so many new actor pages. However, please go back and add  to the top of all these.  Also, please make an effort at including an imdb link, as is standard practice on these pages.  All you do is add

External link
If they don't have an imdb page, please indicate that in a non-printing remark, like this: Thanks! 17:46: Wed 17 Apr 2013
 * Yes, I quite like making actor articles, too. On the ones where the Imdb isn't clear, do this little trick, if you would.  Take your best guess at the Imdb number. I mean, pick the person who seems like they would have most likely been active in the UK during the time that the audio was released, and, if need be, who seems to have a body of work that might be compatible with doing BF audios.  Then, add this category: Articles with questionable IMDb links.  Then, leave a non-printing remark about the difficulty you encountered.  That way, we'll know to go back and investigate it further.  18:23: Wed 17 Apr 2013
 * Nope, strike that. Forgot there was a template.  (Heh, and I made the damned thing.)  Don't worry about the non-printing remark.  Just add the link, and right next to it add .  See Alison Bingeman for an example.  18:25: Wed 17 Apr 2013

Answers

 * Documentary titles are italicised.
 * If a character appears only on audio then you use the variable.   is, as the instructions at  now say with greater clarity, only for televisual actors.  I'm pretty sure the reword there should answer your questions; let me know if you're still confused.   16:11: Thu 18 Apr 2013

John Banks
In a sense, it doesn't matter that the user adding the information to the page might be John Banks himself. T:NO SELF REF disallows the add if it is John Banks, so we'd have to remove it anyway. And if it's not him, we need to have objective, verifiable proof. So what we're essentially left with, unless you have every single one of these CD liner notes, is the Big Finish website's search engine, and specifically this search: http://www.bigfinish.com/search_results?txtSearch=%22John+Banks%22&x=0&y=0 So, if you can, could you check the results there against the list we have, allowing only those things on this list to be on our list? We're looking to exactly match the Big Finish-generated list — no more, no less.

Will this mean that we might lose some of the info that this IP user has added? Probably. But them's the breaks. Neutrally verifiable sources is what we have to base our work on, not the possibility that an actor might drop by and be perfectly accurate about his or her resumé. Remember, actors routinely include on their c.v. parts that didn't make it into the final cut of a production. That's a completely fair and legitimate thing to do, because, hey, they got paid for the job, so it is something that they did. But it doesn't suit our purposes, unless we clearly know, through other sources, that they were paid not to appear. We don't really know all that much about the behind-the-scenes machinations at Big Finish, so it's hard to know what's going on when we get a claim about a part that isn't credited. Tempting as it is to use information from someone who might have actually been in the recording booth, we need to stick with what we can verify. 19:35: Thu 25 Apr 2013
 * As I said, you can just click here and verify our page against the resulting search results. I figured since you'd already done work on the page, you might want to handle the verification.  But if you need me to put it on my to-do list, please let me know.  It'd be best if we can get this done before Monday, just to put the issue to rest swiftly.   20:25: Thu 25 Apr 2013
 * So is it your contention that the article as it is now fully represents what's on the BF website?  20:30: Thu 25 Apr 2013

David Warner Doctor image
Weird, I came across the page because of another process I was doing, and hadn't even noticed your message. Because I didn't investigate your issue prior to deleting the image because of what I was doing, I don't know specifically what went wrong with your upload. Sounds like the typical "Wikia caching issue", though. When you upload a new version of a file, sometimes — not always, but sometimes — it can take days for the cache to catch up and start displaying the new version. Looks like you only left it active for a few minutes before revering to the original, so it had no time to adjust. Next time, just leave it alone and it'll eventually catch up. 18:55: Sat 27 Apr 2013

Image
Sorry about you image, but it was on the cusp of being 250px. It was also 4:3 instead of widescreen, and images should generally be widescreen - so not only was it at 250px, but the aspect ratio was wrong. I changed the deletion rational to reflect this. Thanks. MM/ Want to talk? 14:02, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Zygon talk page
Hi. I have to take issue with your response to the unregistered user at Talk:Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough. You basically answered his question by telling him to look it up. Two problems with this approach: one, you didn't really read the question, because he wasn't looking for what a Zygon is, rather he was looking for why we cover the particular story; two, your response was unwelcoming and, frankly, rude to a new user. You don't have to answer a question unless you have something helpful to offer. Please be more careful with your tone, especially to new users. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  22:58, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, somehow I missed your response the other day. Thanks for the apology. Also, I retract my first statement above, because, although I took his "Zygons" to be a reference to the story, I can see how someone else might think he meant the species. Shambala108 ☎  04:37, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Lists of appearances
Hi! I passed your request on to Czechout, because it would take me forever to manually un-protect all the Lists of appearances pages, and I wouldn't be able to get to it right away. Thanks for your patience! Shambala108 ☎  21:41, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Multi-Doctor?
A multi-Doctor story is not merely a story which reuses footage or audio loops from the past. We don't call Day of the Daleks or Earthshock or even Nightmare in Silver a multi-Doctor story. Why on Earth should this story be any different? 23:35: Sat 18 May 2013

Pic
Actually, it is better to have nothing than something poor. But in this case, we already have something better. The image from Time & Time Again depicts the same moment, and does so more clearly. Remember, we're an all-media site. When seen in terms of the totality of the illustrations at First Doctor, it's better to depict this moment through a comic, anyway. 00:51: Sun 19 May 2013

Hurt
Wow. You're just objecting to everything I've done around here lately, aren't you? Please see User Talk:Wasoha. And please consider — just consider — that there might be a reason I'm an admin around here. 17:05: Sun 19 May 2013
 * The very narrative point of Amy's Choice is that the Dream Lord is the Doctor. That's explicit in the narrative. What's explicit in the narrative of Name is that Hurt is not the Doctor.  I am not ruling out Hurt from  forever, but obviously we have to wait until 23 November to figure out how he fits into that lineup.  I'm quivering in my boots right now that he's actually a proper, numbered incarnation and we're gonna have to undo tons on the wiki to accommodate him. I got a bad feeling that 11 doesn't mean 11 anymore.  17:25: Sun 19 May 2013

Bernice
What do you mean "did she really have sex with Eight enough"? She had sex with him. That makes her, as far as we know, the only companion to do so. So it is a noteworthy thing about her character. 14:20: Mon 20 May 2013

Culshaw
Sure, if you really wanna put him in, feel free. 02:24: Fri 31 May 2013

Tomorrow's news
Well that's a fine pickle isn't it? I guess I'll just have to lock everything that links from series 7 and hope for the best. 21:38: Sat 01 Jun 2013

Renames
Lot going on right now. Please add all simple, uncontroversial renames to the T:SPEEDY list through the template. Thanks. :) That will ensure the request is visible to the maximum number of admin, and put it into a general queue.   06:07: Wed 05 Jun 2013

Skype
Well this gets curiouser and curiouser. I didn't know you actually knew Revan enough to be in on a Skype convo with him and whoever this "mystery offendee" is. This isn't a safe-for work wiki, and I really don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of that sentence in context that we're insulting the BBC. It's merely a comparison between an unreliable source and the (supposedly) most iron-clad source imaginative. Contextually, it's a superlative not an insult (literally, "the best damned source imaginable"). But whatever. It doesn't hurt the meaning of the sentence to remove the word if it offends, so it's been edited out. 02:47: Sun 09 Jun 2013

Missing episodes and spoilers
To answer a question you asked in chat, SmallerOnTheOutside was essentially correct. Screenshots from genuine missing episodes can't ever be spoilers; footage from an animated redux of a missing episode is a spoiler, if uploaded prior to the date of first global release. The former already happened; the latter is a new interpretation of something previously released. It was possible, for instance, to spoil The Stones of Blood (audio story), for instance, because it was wholly different to the previously extant Doctor Who and the Stones of Blood and even the TV story.

Of course, they still might get deleted, even though they don't offend T:SPOIL or any other written rule.

See, we have a duty of care about whether it hurts the BBC's commercial interests to allow long-missing footage on our site. If you got a legitimate preview copy legally sent to you from BBC Worldwide a few weeks before release, I don't think I'd have too much of a problem with a few screenshots appearing on the site. But if you obtained it unethically months and months in advance, I might very well temporarily delete those pics.

Alternately, if you got your hands on the raw, unrestored footage, we might very well delete, citing a violation of T:ICC, which tells us to prefer the best quality possible.

But let's assume that somehow you got your hands on the final DVD-quality release. It'd really be a judgment call as to whether we'd allow screenshots from it, and I don't think a rule could possibly be written to cover it.

See, it's not that we've never considered the possibility as SOTO alleged. It's that recovery of missing episodes has happened exactly once (albeit with two episodes simultaneously) during the time the wiki has been active. It's pointless to make up a rule about something so unlikely. Moreover, since any deletion would be predicated on the notion that the BBC's interests would be negatively impacted, we'd have to wait and see how those interests were impacted. If they released footage before the official DVD release, it wouldn't be damaging their interests to screenshot that portion. But it might be damaging if we took screenshots of other footage. If they completely embargoed one returned missing episode, but not another — I can imagine them doing that with The Power of the Daleks episode 1 versus The Space Pirates 6 — then that would be a different scenario as well.

Given the rarity of finding lost episodes, and the uncertainty over how exactly the BBC will handle their re-discoveries, it's pretty clear what'll happen. People will upload the pics, and then we'll make an individual determination of whether to keep those pics. 15:19: Sat 13 Jul 2013