Talk:Steven Moffat

Removed phrase
I've removed one contention of the article, which is archived here. Speaking of the themes of Moffat's Who, this curious statement came up:
 * no one has died onscreen except as a result of old age or illness

This might have been written before Silence in the Library, cause clearly all but one of the guest cast dies there. They might've been saved as routines in a computer program, but they're all dead in any corporeal sense. And that's not counting the crewmates of the SS Madame de Pompadour, who were harvested for their internal organs.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Steven Moffat really likes fish.
"prisoner zero = fish

star whale = fish

saturniayns = fish

old people in the dream = fish like

sirulians = reptiles yeah but kinda fish like too?

basically﻿ steven moffat loves fish. the man loves fish."

Quote from a comment on the youtube vid of the Christmas special preview. I didn't notice it until I read the comment, but now it seems so obvious.

perhaps include something about this in the "Monsters" section? 173.180.24.7 07:14, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

That's a REALLY good point, I didn't notice that..... It's kinda creepy if you think about it...............Fish............... Ech............... TheTARDIScontroller 08:53, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

how are multiforms,ecknodines,homo reptilia and star whales fish -Please Sign your post-

The multiform is eel-like. An eel is a type of fish.

A whale is a type of sea creature which resembles a fish in it basic body shape. a star whale also resembles a fish in this way. I won't defend the silurian reference from the original quote, although I think that reptiles and fish do resemble each other in that they both have scales.

But now I've realised Steven has a thing for aquatic-ish stuff in general (i.e. the names River Song and Amy Pond) not just fish-like stuff.

(I am 173.180.24.7 but changed address) 173.180.191.120 05:29, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a more unbiased way to moderate?
Hi guys, so I've had a post removed twice now (removed now NOT hidden so no record of the post will no longer exist except on my profile history) by moderator Shambala108. I have requested both a second opinion by a different moderator and an acceptable explanation from Shambala108 her/himself and neither has been provided, if this wasss to be provided im sure I could re-word my post so it no longer breaches the rules. I'm curious if we can come up with a more unbiased way of reviewing posts etc that's not based on a solitary opinion of in individual user who could in all fairness be just 12-18!!!? we should have at least two mods concur on a decision before being able to affect someone elses postings which in turn wont be publicized until reviewed!!

Anyone who agreed private mail me. You will note no spoilers or comments which contravene the wiki rules here so there should be no reason to pull this one down.


 * Trying to address all of your various points:
 * * I don't know what age has to do with anything, but if it makes you feel any better, I'm 49.
 * * You failed to mention in the above post that I addressed your original spoilery post on your User talk:TheDoctor69.
 * * Your original posts are not completely wiped out, but exist in the edit history of this page, which includes the part in which you violate Tardis:No personal attacks.
 * * My removal of your spoilery edit has nothing to do with personal opinion. I have read the wiki's spoiler policy enough to know what is and isn't a spoiler. When I suggested you take a look at the policy to understand why I removed your spoiler, you chose to take offense.
 * * You also forgot to mention that your original post was replied to by User:Tybort, who also warned you that your post was a spoiler. He included a suggestion that you take your post to Howling:The Howling, which is not only the only place where you can place this kind of information, but also a place where you can get a lot of discussion about your topic.
 * * Lastly, your original post violated two specific policies: Tardis:Discussion policy and Tardis:Spoiler policy. Your subsequent post violated Tardis:No personal attacks. In light of your complaint about my biased moderating, I won't block you for those offenses but will let another moderator make that choice.
 * Shambala108 ☎  20:50, August 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * As Shambala108 has said your comments and addition to the page have violated a great many of our policies.


 * Shambala108's age does not matter. To use any wiki you must be 13+ years (Wikia Terms of Use). Shambala108 is an admin on this wiki and was nominated and approved to this position by longstanding editors of this wiki. Admin on this wiki are moderators, Shambala108 has applied our policies to your post and has not acted in anyway against those.


 * Looking at your addition to the Steven Moffat page and the supporting link source it appears to be a fan theory, the link is to a Facebook page which contains almost no information and was created 2 months ago. It also doesn't support the information originally added to the Moffat page. Tybort's original reply suggesting you post your theory in Howling:The Howling was the correct suggestion.


 * Any further violations of any of this wiki's policy will result in you being blocked from editing on this wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:03, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

Add information to the page
Can an admin add this information to the "Opinions of the original series" section, following on from the paragraph talking about The Ark in Space? -- Tybort (talk page) 20:06, May 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * In a 2016 interview, he also praised the scriptwriting and criticised the production quality of the Graham Williams era, referring to the scripts of those years as "meticulously scripted and tightly constructed". He specifically singled out the "hugely well-put-together" and "genuinely superb" script for Nightmare of Eden, a serial he had rewatched the previous night, which he found had ended up being "very poorly made" television. (DWM 500)