Talk:The Tsuranga Conundrum (TV story)

Futurama connections?
So whilst watching this episode I noticed a couple of references towards futurama, but wanted to check here before adding them to the main page. The biggest one being the similarity of the creature to Nibbler, in that they are both small creatures with vast appitites that can (and will) eat anything. In addition to this, Nibbler was also the pet of 'Turanaga' Leela so I am also assuming the naming of Tsuranga is no coincidence either, but obviously there is no actual on-screen evidence to back this up. Thoughts? MadeIndescribable ☎  20:57, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * Turanga and Tsuranga may be a bit far-fetched. I doubt they were thinking of Futurama while scripting this. But I definitely think that there could be mentioned a similarity between the Pting and Nibbler. --DCLM ☎  21:05, November 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * Similarities to other works are not references. They must either be mentioned in story, in which case they would go in the References section, or they can be mentioned by the production team, in which case they would go in Story Notes with the source. Shambala108 ☎  21:12, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * What I meant was obviously in story notes, just to be clear. --DCLM ☎  21:23, November 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * Normally I wouldn't make the T(s)uranga connection, but with Nibbler/Pting being so similar it does make me think it was a deliberate choice. But without any confirmation I won't add anything to the page. Thanks for the replies.MadeIndescribable ☎  21:40, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

Plot
If you're going to add plot, please ensure you have all the details you need to write at least a mostly fleshed out plot, and not leave blank spaces. Especially not if you're only going to write a few sentences. I propose that the current plot should be removed until a properly written plot section can be added. Masterpwn (Do you hear the bones too?) 18:59, November 5, 2018 (UTC)


 * The point of a wiki is that everyone edits; it's a gradual process to add things to articles. Then, editors come along and proofread/expand etc. on previously added work. Every article is a work in progress - why remove content when that just creates more work when you can expand bit by bit until it is finally complete? Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   19:06, November 5, 2018 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if Masterpwn could cease telling other editors how they are to perform their edits. This is not the first time. Please make it the last. There are different editing philosophies and techniques, different rhythms and workflows. The absolute majority of them are not in any way deficient or disruptive. They are simply a matter of personal preference. And you should not impose your own personal preferences on others. If somebody else's style interferes with your own editing, you may politely explain this and request to find a suitable compromise. When the matter concerns wiki-related things, such as plots, I would ask Masterpwn to kindly leave the matter for the Tardis:Administrators to sort out. If you find a case too egregious to let stand, please refer it to one of us, rather than issuing directives yourself. Please keep in mind that you have no authority to do so and, as already pointed out to you by another admin, some of your demands have no basis in the wiki policies either. Amorkuz ☎  22:05, November 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * Literally putting in 3 sentences with actual blanks seems more of a waste of time than useful, especially when its a poorly written 3 sentences that would confuse any reader. I'm all for adding a plot outline then beefing it up, or just a small portion of the plot then adding to it, but when you don't even actually know enough to write 3 sentences? Just let it be. Masterpwn (Do you hear the bones too?) 18:05, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

I guess, I was not clear enough. Editors who berate edits of others instead of improving them, who insist on their superiority over others lose editing rights. If Masterpwn considered the plot to be in such a bad shape, no one was stopping her from making it better, correcting and completing it. That would have been helpful for the wiki and the community. Her complaints on this talk page, which were sliding into personal attacks, on the other hand, helped no one. She is blocked for a week. After that she is welcome to start improving the plot if she wants to. I, for one, do not feel I have the right to direct how she is to spend her editing time, apart from upholding the policies. Amorkuz ☎  19:28, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

Longest ever gap between broadcast and plot write-up?
We're almost at the six-month mark now, and there's still no plot. Not complaining, editors are of course allowed to contribute to whatever articles they wish, but is this the longest gap between the broadcast of the post-2005 episode and its writeup in recent times, and if so is that itself worth noting in the article? I remember someone on Twitter saying that the current record-holder might actually be a Series 2 episode, maybe Love & Monsters. Cridiot ☎  19:26, April 24, 2019 (UTC)


 * So? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of comic, audio and prose stories missing plot summaries that have much longer gaps between page creation and now. Most users don't want to write plot summaries. As someone who has written over 400 plot summaries, I know it's a pain. If you don't want to write it yourself, all you can do is wait for someone else to come along who actually wants to do it. Shambala108 ☎  02:43, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia attribution
So it looks like whoever completed the synopsis recently (and hey, great job to whoever took that initiative!) mostly copy-pasted the synopsis from the Wikipedia article for the article. This is, of course, perfectly fine, however per Wikipedia's Creative Commons License the wiki is obligated to attribute that. I don't know if there's a template for that or something, but it might be worth including it on the page somewhere (or otherwise citing the source for this text). BenPaddon ☎  22:45, August 23, 2019 (UTC)
 * As an admin, let me make something perfectly clear: while User:BenPaddon is correct about the legality of copying from wikipedia, on this site we do not allow copy/paste from wikipedia because we want original material. Shambala108 ☎  23:06, August 23, 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the outcome I was expecting, but certainly a fascinating development in the ongoing history of this page. BenPaddon ☎  23:50, September 3, 2019 (UTC)