User talk:OncomingStorm12th

Prose fiction overviews
I know that the category is not clearly explained, but category:Prose fiction overviews should only contain pages which are themselves overviews. So series/range pages, anything like "First Doctor novels" or "Target novelisations" or "Decide Your Destiny".

The category Short Trips, however, contains pages which are not prose fiction overviews, and so not overview pages at all. I think such subcategories should not be included in Prose fiction overviews. The same would naturally apply to Audio overviews: individual overview pages should be directly in the category, and the subcats should be altogether removed. How do you feel on the subject? 22:06, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is, you're basically saying at that point that Paul McGann is an audio overview. Big Finish audio spin-off series is fine as a metacategory. Would you like there to be an Audio stories by range or series category?


 * Take a look at the category description found at Overview pages. At conception, the idea was to have this metacat very much divorced from the categories, for these ranges, containing the stories and actors and books themselves. Take a look at Television overviews: this is the purpose of such a category. Pages for the series themselves, or overviews of stories belonging to this medium; not the entirety of Torchwood (TV series) lumped into it.


 * What does need to be thought about is where a category such as The Third Doctor Adventures can be placed. It is not a Big Finish audio spin-off series (as made explicitly clear in the description there), and our current category structure has no "Big Finish ranges" for series which do contain the Doctor.


 * Perhaps we should divorce this structure which places together cast, crew and stories, and simply have Doom Coalition (audio series) (the page) in Audio overviews, Doom Coalition audio stories in category:Big Finish Doctor Who audio stories, any potential "Doom Coalition voice actors" under category:Big Finish Doctor Who voice actors. Different branches, remaining separate as originally intended. And the leads to these categories can link to the relevant cats for voice actors/stories/etc. 23:00, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * Big Finish Doctor Who audio series is a good idea! A reasonable counterpart to Big Finish audio spin-off series.


 * On closer examination, "Audio stories by range or series" will not be necessary. Big Finish audio stories fills this function on its own, for Big Finish stories, and Audio stories by company gives the broad view into BBC Audio audio stories, etc, which do the same. The structure already in place is all we need.


 * The switchover, as no doubt you have noted, includes ensuring that the individual pages, ie. BBC Torchwood audio stories, are added back to the relevant overview category; in this case, Audio overviews. 02:02, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

Textless covers
Hey, I was wondering since i cna't upload the textless covers, maybe you can please? User:Jantoshipper 00:00 18, March 2018

Nth Doctor audio stories
I did notice that inconsistency with the subheadings. The Churchill Years would be far less clear (even bordering on unreadable?), with one-column tables, two subheadings and a main template. The best way forward, I think, is maybe not to split by volume/season. Otherwise, we're getting into "X Doctor needs at least X number of stories per volume", or "X Doctor must be the primary Doctor in the range to be split up".

Also, the tables should have a consistent table width, or rather at least min-width, for easy reading. In other words, Destiny of the Doctor (314px) should be as wide as The Churchill Years (around 450px), which perhaps ought to be as wide as BBC New Series Adventures (around 500px). 01:22, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looking at Eighth Doctor audio stories, I can see why you split some series up. The Eighth Doctor Adventures benefits hugely from being split into individual series. I'm going to play with merging the other series' tables on that page, one moment. 01:25, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
 * Done that now. As you can see, in its current form that doesn't work out too great. In the Dark Eyes iteration, that is. Check out what I did with Doom Coalition, instead. What do you think? And should we continue separating sections as long as there's more than 4 stories with X Doctor per volume or series?


 * I probably don't have to say this, but adding prose content (paragraphs with information) should also be a priority. For instance, the Eighth Doctor page should explain, in the lead or in the relevant story sections, that they stopped making Main Range stories featuring this Doctor, and used him exclusively in his own range, and then moved on to long multi-volume serialised stories, on the success of Dark Eyes. 01:42, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay in communication. I think this is the right way about it. Feel free to make these changes more widespread. 05:17, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Spoilery audio overviews
Interesting point of view. In principle, I surely don't mind. If series pages are more useful with less information but no spoiler tag, then so be it. I can only explain why I thought these might be useful. It is true that the information about BF audios is all present on one website, which we know only too well. (By the way, I did not forget about your request for a fix to the main range links, but the term "Main range" is a bit contentious. So, instead of discussing it risking disagreements, I really want to let it rest until it is replaced and then do the discussion/modification. Sorry. The reason I mention this is that I was reminded that my knowledge of the BF website does not mean everyone can easily find things there.) But what if a user, who is not a die-hard fan, wants to find out quickly the scope of this or that series. In other words, imagine a user who decided that the Tardis wiki is the simplest way of getting this information. I had a chance to do exactly the same thing with MCU wiki recently and I have to say I was very frustrated by how hard it was to find out even info on already released stories of a particular type. So my thinking was that a reader may want to quickly check things out, for which the newly created pages like First Doctor novels or Eighth Doctor audio stories are extremely helpful. In fact, after this almost fruitless MCU search, I think now this is an important service from us, the fan community to the non-fans or occasional/TV-only fans. Having said that, what I needed was mostly things already released. I can still imagine listings of future releases useful for people trying to determine the commitment they would enter were they to start a particular series. But, as I said, I don't claim to have a complete understanding of how readers think. I don't know if it makes sense to ask on the talk page for other opinions because I doubt novice readers would even know about the talk page. At any rate, I have too much RL stuff (aka work) going on to oversee that now. I'll let you decide. Amorkuz ☎  22:40, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Unbound Doctor face image
Hey where did you get the Unbound Doctor's inner case image? User:Jantoshipper ☎  14:20, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

BF voice actors
If I understand you correctly, you will add a more specific category to each page, and when you are finished, very page directly in the parent cat will also be in one of the children, and you want "Big Finish Doctor Who voice actors" removed from them all.

In which case: I could absolutely run SV7 on all the pages directly in that category, or alternatively on all the pages contained in the subcategories. In general, unless I tell my bot to also include the contents of SUBcategories, it'll stick to the contents of that main category. In this case, there would be no issue at all. 04:23, April 11, 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll run it as soon as I get to sit down with my laptop. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Have you looked into category:Audio writers, incidentally? That’s been on my to-do list for quite a while. 16:29, May 1, 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure I agree with Special Releases being its own independent range. It’s in line with The Collected Tenth Doctor—a marketing category, isn’t it? I’ll look more into it. 16:33, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I don't have time for an extended answer right now. Thanks for the warning. I trust the situation is momentarily diffused. I'll post on the talk page of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, hopefully tonight. Amorkuz ☎  17:20, April 16, 2018 (UTC)

Owen's death date
That's true, but A Day in the Death takes place in January 2009 and the two stories clearly take place afterwards, with Owen as a proper member of the team again, not being under observation and Martha Jones isn't around. -- Saxon 23:45, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

Time Lords with unknown names
Yes, I saw the definition after I had added all the categories but was busy. I added them because that category was on the main Doctor page so I thought to add their individual incarnations. I'll sort it all out in the next day or two when I have the time if somebody else doesn't beat me to it. --Borisashton ☎  20:21, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

The Heavenly Paradigm
Hi, was just wondering what the formatting was for referencing the Behind the Scenes from the set, which is where I got the info.

Also how direct does the referencing have to be? For example in Earthshock (TV story), the notes contain a working title, however the source is not marked and is instead in one of the external links at the bottom. 0003c9fe ☎  03:16, April 30, 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Event
I think (perhaps) the best way about this would be to combine with your proposed new infobox. In other words, Infobox Conflict would redirect to Infobox Event. Do you have a proposal for what to call "Infobox Event or Exhibition", assuming "Infobox Event" comes to mean an in-universe event? 00:29, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Target not met
I'm still thinking... Don't want to take a rash but somewhat arbitrary position. Amorkuz ☎  23:13, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

First Law of Time page
Do you think I should move information from Laws of Time to First Law of Time so Laws of Time is just a summary? I could go ahead and do the copyright attribution and everything. – N8 ☎ 02:06, June 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers :) – N8 ☎ 02:47, June 5, 2018 (UTC)

Daleks Appearances
Hello, I see why you keep removing the Night of the Doctor of the dalek list of appearances as they are only mentioned but what i fail to see is why you removed The End of Time and The Beast Below off the list. As like other appearances on this list at least 1 dalek is seen in each episode respectively in The End of Time part 2 there is one on Gallifrey during the opening scene and in The Beast Below a dalek was seen at the end of the episode. I'm just saying that if the list is just going by appearances then The Movie from 1996 should not be on the list as they were only heard and not seen. Also your contributions to wiki is outstanding. :)

Reprints in infobox
Hey hey :) I've changed the infobox to get rid of the dab term on reprints. I'm not sure how necessary it was to do this, but I went ahead and did it anyway. See, the reason the template never got rid of dab terms is that  variables typically only take individual comic issues, and these should all be abbreviations: DWM 23, DWCC 5, DWMS Summer 1994.

That's also why they don't italicise — DWM 2 is preferred over DWM 2 — and DWM 2.

For the page The Lost Dimension (comic story), the better solution is really to put The Lost Dimension Book One and Book Two into the variable, because those books are trade paperbacks. By current design this is a free-form, non-linking variable. See The Tides of Time (comic story) for an example of how trades are distinguished from reprints.

As far as trades go, this is a bit of an unusual case, in that it's atypical for a single story to be split amongst multiple trades. But it might be that the variable needs to be made more like the  one, in that it'd be more automatic. Can you think of other examples of this kinda thing happening? Are there cases you know of where the trade itself has been reprinted? I know that happened with Star Wars comics, when Marvel reprinted almost every Dark Horse comic under a Marvel banner. Refresh my memory: did Titan reprint any IDW stuff? 16:53: Tue 26 Jun 2018

BBC Torchwood Novels
Hey, I saw that on May 12th you made a huge update to the BBC Torchwood novels page. The update you did to the list of novels looks great, but you accidentally made a mistake on The Twilight Streets. I just noticed it, so I have fixed it, but I thought I'd mention it to you because I know you're a huge contributor around here, so I was certain it was an accident that you hadn't noticed, rather than someone messing around.

Anyway, have a good day. :)

Trwtrwtrwtrwtrwtrwtrw ☎  14:54, June 27, 2018 (UTC)

Of 'verses, cabbages and kings
Should work now. Amorkuz ☎  21:38, July 5, 2018 (UTC)

Made short work of it
Seems to work now. Amorkuz ☎  22:36, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Series pages
It recently crossed my mind that you might wonder why I am changing pages that you spent a lot of effort on, the series dab pages. So to avoid any hard feelings, let me explain my reasoning. First of all, I appreciate the work you put into them. It makes it much easier for me. Initial research is always difficult (not to mention creating all these pages). The main purpose of my changes is to try and make these pages as informative as possible. Here were my main two considerations:
 * 1) When I looked at the pipeline-tricked page names, all looking like "nth series", I thought that this actually provides no additional information, given that the dab page itself is called "Series n". So showing how the page is actually called gives an idea of the naming scheme employed for this range. There is no uniformity there, so any little information helps, methinks.
 * 2) Secondly, it seemed that giving the page name and range name is not enough, so I started adding years, the way they were used for the TV shows. It might not be overly useful, but it is something beyond the bare bones.
 * 3) I did not want to overload the page with any other information. After all, the dab page is not for info, it is purely a transfer point. Amorkuz  ☎  23:08, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

BSSR
Quick note: BSSR is a designated abbreviation for single releases of Bernice Summerfield. Please do not change it. Amorkuz ☎  18:36, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's my fault, really: I never wrote the documentation for the template. The point is this: this line produces the name of the range at the top of infobox, which is followed by the numbers, (number of series).number within series. After single releases were replaced by box sets, the numbering of box sets began anew. Thus, there are two stories that can be described as #1.1 within the Bernice Summerfield (series): Oh No It Isn't! (audio story) and The Kraken's Lament (audio story). To resolve this ambiguity, this BSSR stuff was invented. For Benny box sets, there is abbreviation BSBS. BFT is to be used for Torchwood audios, BFTSR for Torchwood special releases, and MR should be used for Main Range to make its renaming easier in the future. Sorry for not explaining all this before. If you could change it back, I would appreciate this. And, while I thought it a good idea to add the Benny box sets as pseudo-series 12, 13, etc. to the dab pages, I do not believe describing them as #12 in the infobox would help many readers. To the best of my knowledge, they were not marketed as such, were they? Amorkuz ☎  18:57, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Deal. Yes, indeed, my only lament is that with all this data lying around I never seem to have time to use it. However it may be, if you need some info from The Big Finish Companion: Volume 1 or 2 and if you do not have them, then just poke me. They also contain a trove of information and are not as easily accessible. Amorkuz ☎  19:14, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Then I think the best strategy is to use BSBS (number of box set).number within box set. Amorkuz ☎  19:36, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Spoiler policy
To answer your question succinctly: yes. :)

The fact is that the policy was written to accommodate a reality that used to exist on the site. I can't quite remember when this got phased out, but there used to be a module in the right rail that showed you what images were recently uploaded. And that was on every page. So image uploads were immediate spoilers. That's not been the case for ages, though, so that language needed to be excised.

That said, one of the truisms of wiki life is that you can never write a rule that covers every situation. So I would imagine we're still gonna exercise some amount of editorial discretion. It's possible that someone might upload an image that we consider too spoilery. And we might axe it. But there's no real way to define for you the exact conditions under which such removal might occur. I can give you an example, though. If the year were 2007, and it were the week of the broadcast of Daleks in Manhattan, I would personally excise — even on a series page — an image of the Human-Dalek hybrid that came from the cover of Radio Times. That properly spoiled even casual viewers.

Videos are of course a lot less problematic because a) they require admin approval anyway and b) they require the user to actually choose to play them. 02:38: Fri 20 Jul 2018

Vortex manipulator
Sorry about the minor edit conflict at vortex manipulator. And thanks for correcting the notion about that cleanup tag. I was remembering the one that been placed there back in 2010, as referred to on the talk page. Obviously it's fine to continue with it if it's a new one. :) I would ask though that not be re-employed unless there's actually an article at the end of it. Remember, on mobile, there are no red links, so that just creates a confusing situation for mobile users. It simply suggests they go somewhere that they can't click on at all. Thanks!  01:12: Sun 22 Jul 2018

T:NAMING
Well, I've rewritten T:NAMING to be more strictly accurate. But I'm not a super-big fan of the rewrite. The point of a Manual of Style page like that is really to give a general overview, and I think I've made it so long now that it's of less help to the starting editor. Most people don't encounter these situations in years of editing, so it's probably a bad idea to have it so dominated by exceptional cases. The finer details should probably go on a separate page altogether.

Anyway, to answer your question directly, no, multiple colons and hyphens aren't "okay". They should generally be avoided, and there are indeed cases where using colons can result in "impossible" titles. Certainly, multiple colons result in the same problems with pipe tricking that multiple parentheticals do.

Hyphens, likewise, aren't "okay", but there aren't as many technical cases where they cause a problem. The broader problem is that people often assume a hyphen exists when it actually doesn't. They'll just use it as a separator. 17:43: Mon 23 Jul 2018

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate the tips and will remember to keep conventions the same going forward.

Cheers for editing that for me, couldn't find the correct word.