User talk:CzechOut/Archive 13

Bot action
I may need you to run the bot for to help me with me current job. I am currently wading through all our 'TV crew stubs' and removing the ones that aren't actually stubs. At the same time, I am tidying up the pages and this is where the bot could help:


 * Putting 'External links' into sentence case. It a frequent problem I have found, and is quite annoying. I know it doesn't show up on the heading, but it does if there is a contents page. Is it not the case headings should be in sentence case?


 * The additional space that was added by Users between article texts and 'External links'.


 * The changing of 'story' or 'television serial/episode' to 'television story'.

At the moment, I am about to going through the 'D's and have managed to cut the 'A's, 'B's and 'C's down by three quarters. Once I have done with the TV crew, I plan to go through them and try and fill them in as much as I can to 'unstub' them. Once that is done, it should be on the TV cast stubs. MM/ Want to talk? 20:05, November 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * That may be a fault on my behalf. What I meant was 'television episode' or 'television serial'. There is a small handful or things that are used:
 * Television story - which is what I am changing everything else to.
 * Television episode
 * Television serial
 * Serial
 * Story
 * Episode
 * TV


 * I think that 'television story' (or stories in some cases) is better, than those above and should be changed so they are all the same. MM/ Want to talk? 20:10, November 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, cool. I just went through the TV crew stubs and found five. Carolyn Mawdsley, Rochelle Selwyn, Ruth Mayorcas, Gary Sheppard and James Scott. MM/ Want to talk? 20:18, November 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've only encountered on TV crew member pages (not to sure about actor pages, will have to check). The majority, if not all of them are Bob's handiwork - which will mean that it will be on real world pages - especially actor and crew member pages.


 * Half the stubs, maybe even two thirds of the pages are because people (Bob again, mainly) can't be bothered to removed the stub tag.


 * Cheers for moving the category to template, should make the job a lot easier. Just so you know, I only have the Hs, Ms, Ps, Rs, Ts, Ss and Ws to do. All other letters are done. The list has now been hugely cut. MM/ Want to talk? 22:10, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I can't help but notice I'm unblocked here, but I can't find who Unblocked me as its not showing up in my Block Log, did you Unblock me, I can't assume you did, but I edited before and you edited after did you notice or am I allowed to edit or am I still blocked (not like I want to be blocked like but) .  CharmeRuler .  Talk •  Contribs . 19:11, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew Wiki linked
So... Do I get to say "Mission Accomplished"?

In all seriousness I am glad that it's all worked out in the end with the Hebrew Wiki, and I am sorry that my contributions to the wiki were so headache-inducing. I've worked with numerous wikis since we've last spoken and have used my experiences here as a reminder to be a bit more cautious. Elecbullet ☎  01:09, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

New forums
The new forums kinda look like, well, what people associate with a forum / message board sort of thing. I think management wise it might be better, though the ability to delete posts is still an issue for me. Also not sure about the kudos feature. The forum thread history and the diff presentation seems to be implemented kinda oddly.

Also what are we to do with the active threads on the forums at the moment? Or will they just be wrapped up or continued in the new forums?

Thought you were going to kick back and just create pages about cricket or food eaten at cricket matches or something? Instead of messing around with the seemingly never ending tech issues/interesting stuff we have here. --Tangerineduel / talk 08:40, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

The forum thread about not signing posts
On your post about not signing forum posts, in the exceptions you say the only exceptions are pages with "talk" in the name. However, I also think it's worth mentioning in the exceptions that signatures should be required on the Howling still as it doesn't use the new forum format. Unless we aren't meant to sign there either, in which case I would like to know why since it doesn't use the new forum format. Thanks for your time. Imamadmad ☎  03:43, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Cyber-edit-wars
I think it would be a good idea to lock down Cyberman to anon-users. There have been quite a few edit wars started there of a person or persons who doesn't have an account and thinks that the "Mondasian Cybermen are all dead" or something. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:10, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia and their TOU
I did see it and wondered what it was and was going to try clicking 'start discussion' to see what happened. I assumed it was something to do with the new forum rollout or something.

As you've explained it, it seems that it's another case of Wikia deciding to roll something out without much care of how it works, the old 'hey this is cool, we'll implement it everywhere' mentality Wikia seems to have. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:56, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Advice - Retraction request
You've rambled around more wikis and Wikipedia than I have, on my talk page I've been asked to retract my opinion on Forum:Inclusion debate:Señor 105. It's entirely possible that the unsigned user is the author in question. I haven't been able to find any statement by Paul Leonard/Hinder. Searching for information about it the forum discussion does turn up, which I'd assume is how the author (or someone pretending to be the author) found the forum discussion. Any advice would be great thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:38, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Videos
I've dabed Cotton to Cotton (The Mutants), but I realise that's left the dab page Cotton still having videos relating to the Mutants character. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:13, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that works for non-admins. Even if it didn't, I certainly wouldn't have figured that out. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:12, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Background Change
Hey, I noticed that you guys have changed the background again; I like it, naturally, but I've always wondered: how did you all come to the decision of using Christopher Eccleston's Doctor for the previous background? I'm not complaining, of course (Doctor Nine is severely underrated), but I'm still curious about why you chose him.

Oh, and thank you for warning me about not getting my hopes up for "Asylum." Dr. Anonymous1 ☎  20:36, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad that you made that choice. And honestly, I am actually kind of glad to see Amy and Rory go; I mean, I liked them, but their story was long since over by the time they were unnecessarily forced into "Asylum", and they had pretty much worn out their welcome.

And actually, I REALLY wouldn't mind if Moffat himself passed on the baton as well; I mean, he wrote some pretty good stories (the Empty Child), as a showrunner he made some totally unnecessary and not very good "changes" to the show (will they change the title sequence already?!). Besides, he REALLY screwed the pooch big-time on Parody... I mean, ASYLUM of the Daleks. I mean, he promised three things to us viewers: 1. a horde of insane, demented Daleks 2. A revisit of every Dalek model in the show's history, which would make it a must-watch for any Dalek aficionado 3. The Daleks becoming scary again.

Here's what he churned out: 1. A horde of Daleks whose greatest affliction is an easily-fixed speech impediment

2. One or two of the old Daleks, which are only seen two or three times in the background for five seconds, making trying to spot them akin to playing a monochromatic game of "Where's Waldo?"

3. A bunch of Dalek-insulting concepts that would have been better suited for "Curse of Fatal Death", such as the Doctor opening a Dalek's dome like a wastebasket (?!!!), the idea that the notoriously authoritarian Dalek Empire has developed a Parliament (which, by the way, is entirely unnecessary and contradictory to pretty much everything previously established about them), and a bunch of Daleks yelling "Doctor Who" over and over again. What great ideas, Moffat.

There. Rant over. I'm sorry, I'm just really ticked by how badly Moffat failed to fulfill his promises in that episode. As far as I'm concerned, the only really good thing that "Asylum" contributed to Dalek lore was the restoration of the bronze models as the standard model. And thank God for that.

But I really think that, next time they make a Dalek episode, they hire a writer who can actually show the Daleks some respect... Like Nick Briggs! He made them terrifying in his audio stories.

All in all, I just REALLY don't like the direction Moffat's taken the series. I mean, say what you like about RTD (believe me, I have), but overall he was a MUCH better showrunner. If someone else could take over, and undo (or redo) the changes to the show that Moffat's made, I really wouldn't mind.

Anyway, now that my cathartic rant is out of the way... What else is new around here? Dr. Anonymous1 ☎  23:55, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Cyberman
I'm aware of that, but,as I stated on the apge, we should discuss the issue before changing it. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:39, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

Peri Brown
Thank you for locking the edits on the page for Peri Brown - I was the user who saw the original post when one of the other users started adding fanfiction to the page, so I undid the edit, but from then on I kept getting emails letting me know that that user was editing the page to put the fanfiction back on, so I kept undoing it. The version which is locked on there right now actually has the beginning of the fanfiction entry at the very bottom of the page - a section called Alternate Timeline stating Peri and the Fifth Doctor had a daughter named Melanie Cranleigh (which, according to the profile, is the name of user:Michikojichoi, who made the edit originally). Would it be possible to have this removed as the page is edit locked? Thank you for all the hard work you put into this site, it's great! TARDIStraveler ☎  00:02, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating a common term
Now, it's a given that the word "cotton" appears in the DWU (If you're still not sure, I'm partway through Exodus Code, and the word's used on pages 36 and 64). Does that mean the location of the disambiguation page I recently created should be Cotton (disambiguation) and the material the "primary term" on "just Cotton"? -- Tybort (talk page) 13:02, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Edit to valid sources
There's a section on Tardis:Valid sources which mentions "an" TV audiobook from AudioGO. It's clear that before a massive bot run to simplify the prefixes, that that was an SJA audiobook. Could that be fixed?

Also, there's a typo which calls Faction Paradox, Faction Parodox and uses of prefixes in an unusual way in the #What doesn't count section. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:45, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Webcast prefixes
Is what I've heard you say a few times about webcasts basically being television a shut case, or is there still an unresolved discussion of how to approach webcasts and websites' prefixes (and if websites that still exist like UNIT "count")? I noticed nothing Internet-related is on Tardis:Prefixes' in-universe sources. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:02, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am new here. I just wanted to be sure I am doing this correctly. Can someone tell me how to post blogs? Forgive me if I do not do this correct. I am learning as I go. Thanks. Hotshot70 ☎  05:00, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

oh, sorry. I saw the "Rani Chandra..." badge that mentions "writing on a blog post". I guess I misunderstood. Thanks for the reply. Hoping to contribute to the site more. Hotshot70 ☎  05:40, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

I am this close to inform the police that you are logging into my Facebook account illegally.We detected a login into your account from an unrecognized device on Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 12:09am. Operating System: WinVista Browser: Firefox Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US (IP=98.202.3.159) Note: Location is based on internet service provider information. If this was you, please disregard this email. If this wasn't you, please secure your account, as someone else may be accessing it. Thanks, The Facebook Security Team I just posted a message on the main forum and have saved all record of your illegal login. This will be used in court when I sue you.

Talkback
Wasn't sure the talk page etiquette here, so just letting you know I left a reply to you on my talk page--Acer4666 (Talk) 01:57, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Tablets, TOU, Forums
I will keep an eye out for the Wikia Mobile App, whenever it appears next year. I've found Wikipedia's mobile app to be terrible quicker to just search in safari than use the app. Hopefully Wikia's offering will be better. But from reading the post it'll be reading only not editing. I think I've mentioned before that the site looks fine on the iPad on any of the browsers that you can use on the iPad. Some render things a little differently to others and depending on which mobile browser you use the side stub tags etc appear or don't appear. I can take some screenshots if you're interested.

I'm surprised about the TOU and that guy's avatar not running afoul of it. Wikia's strange some of the time. They'll let that through but not let us get rid of a button or hide an ugly bit of formatting. Though it does seem now that his avatar has been removed.

A question about the (new) forums, is there any way to increase the amount of threads shown per page to more than 10? I had a look on the Community Central boards and their limit appears to be 10 as well, so I'm guessing it's a technical limitation? Just thought I'd ask as I'm not sure if everyone will look beyond the first page of threads.

Also, relating to Acer4666's post about the big box of nothing obscuring when viewing the source of locked pages, it's not just here as I saw it happening over on Wookipedia. I just put it down to the many bugs of Wikia and didn't think much more of it. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:43, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Images
Hey :). It's not a problem. I will get round to either tonight or at some point tomorrow. MM/ Want to talk? 21:53, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Took much less time than I thought it would. I went through his entire image history and even found a couple from April. All have been reverted and images that violated other policies have been deleted. MM/ Want to talk? 22:41, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

El Señor
Hello CzechOut,

I'm Blair Bidmead, the author of 'By The Time I Get To Venus' I've already been in touch with one of your other contributers, Tangerineduel.

This 'controversy' about my novella was brought to my attention by my editor. Like I said to Tangerineduel; I am less interested in Señor 105's inclusion in the Wiki (although. personally, I don't see why the character shouldn't be) than I am about the doubts being cast as to Paul Hinder (aka, Paul Leonard) granting his permission to use his concepts.

He is acknowledged in the ebook itself and on the publisher's website. I am not sure what else I can do to convince you. If I supply contact details for Paul, you're only going to doubt their validity, because I would be supplying them.

Paul Hinder has (we hope, temporarily) retired from writing, but is contactable. The Doctor Who writer; Jim Mortimore is a friend of his. Indeed, Jim supplied me with visual reference of the Venusians when I was writing the book at Paul's suggestion.

Further verification is out there, if you need it. I am certain you don't mean to paint me as a plagiarist, but the implication is there, on this site and it makes me a little uncomfortable.

Review copies of 'By The Time I Get To Venus' are available if anyone is interested.

All the best

BBX

blairbidmead@hotmail.com If you think that we're accusing you of plagiarism, or even implying the same, then you badly misunderstand the point of our discussion. So let me attempt to clarify:


 * 'Your word isn't good enough. Your word isn't even relevant.  As the author of the work in question, your self-published'' words have no influence on our discussion whatsoever.

It's as simple as that.

You may not be interested in the matter of whether this e-novella is inlcuded on this site, but that's the only discussion of relevance to us. If we don't allow a page to be created for the book, then the "controversy", such as it is, simply melts away. Put very coldly, you only matter to us inasmuch as you're the author of a book we cover. That's why everything we've been saying in this discussion has been geared towards figuring out whether Paul Leonard gave his permission — and whether, in the presence of such permission, the novella is close enough to the DWU to be covered here.

It is a very long-held convention of wiki-editing that self-published sources are usually unreliable. stresses the need to avoid the situation we have with you. To my eye, what seems to be happening is this:


 * '''Someone we don't personally know, and whose identity we can't absolutely verify, has claimed to be the author of something they don't fully, legally own. They're claiming that they have permission from the third party who owns the content to legally publish works that contain those copyrighted elements.

Now, don't mistake what's being said here. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm simply saying that Tangerineduel has looked for material that independently confirms the claims of your blog, and he hasn't found any. (And no one has even hinted that you were a plagiarist, in the common sense definition of the word. At no point has anyone suggested that you copied anyone's work.)

Put another way, the material discovered so far falls foul of. You are making an important (and ) claim that is not backed up by any mainstream (or even "mainstream for DW fans") sources. The reason it's such an extraordinary claim is that the entire justification for including these Señor 105 e-novellas on our site at all depends upon Paul Leonard's permission. If he didn't give permission, then we flatly don't cover the e-novellas. Period. Without question.

Your material wasn't covered by Doctor Who Magazine, as far as we've been able to tell, nor by any literary review magazine, nor even by a random site that conducted an interview with Paul Leonard. No independent Doctor Who site of which we are aware, and which we consider valid by our own local policies, has mentioned your work at all — or, more crucially, Leonard's permission for your work. (Again, so far as we are currently aware.)

And that's our conundrum. Neither I nor Tangerineduel are saying you're other than that which you have represented yourself to be. What we're saying, simply, is that you are not Paul Leonard. You therefore cannot make assertions about him in material that you have yourself published that we can use. Now, if you were interviewed somewhere by a reputable source, we could quote that source as to the opinion you offered. But you can't just say, "Oh, my blog site, or my Twitter feed or my Tumblr says I've got Leonard's permission, so it's all cool." Remember, we're talking about his reputation as much as we are yours.

Surely you can see the administrative nightmare that would be caused by allowing in these e-novellas based on your word alone. If we did it for you, we'd have to do it for anyone. And, quite obviously, people — not you, but "people" — do like to exaggerate their connections to those who make their favourite fiction. In this age of self-publication, we must be extra-cautious about claims that one person is making of another living person. Even if that means that the occasional truth does not get published on our site.

Obviously, if you have material that you think would not fall foul of the above-mentioned Wikipedia policies, we'll be happy to review it. Actually, if you have anything else besides your blog, we'll be happy to review it. This discussion started from a position of total ignorance about your work, and that condition hasn't really changed. So any further light you can shed on it will be most welcome. 16:52: Tue 18 Dec 2012

Vandal
User:93.202.175.96 appears to be a vandal. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:13, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Secondary source question
Hi! I came across the page for Temus, an in-universe article which has only one citation, The Gallifrey Chronicles (illustrated guide). The page for The Gallifrey Chronicles says it can only be used as a secondary source, that is, only for behind-the-scenes or real-world pages. Is there any way to fix this? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  05:49, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the info. I will take care of that later this evening when I have time for some editing. Shambala108 ☎  16:25, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Mergers
As you know I'm often here editing fairly late into the night and I've found when I'm doing mergers I need to be a little more engaged to do them as there's a few more steps involved. So I basically slap the merge tags on various articles so they're all categorised and then do them as a batch when I've got my mind in the right gear. Don't worry, they will get done and they will get done before the Christmas story. I've stuck a post-it on my desk and will hopefully get them done by the weekend. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:03, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Más del Señor
Hi CzechOut,

'By The Time I Get To Venus' was not 'self-published'. It was published by 'Manleigh Books' which is the e-book offshoot of 'Obverse Books'. I was approached by the editor of the Señor 105 series (Cody Quijano-Schell) to pitch. I was commissioned and paid for my work.

As I have already said that I understand your reasoning for not being able to take *my* word for it. My last message to you was to point out that any doubts about my claims are easily verifiable with a cursory amount of effort.

I think I'll leave it there.

Me; Barack Obama. You; Donald Trump :)

Peace out!

BBX
 * We've never claimed that your story was self-published. All we've said is that your blog — which is the only source you've shown us — is self-published. We are actively looking for sources that we can use.  If you would please provide these sources, we will be more than happy to look at them.  In Tangerineduel's experience, it has not been discoverable with "a cursory amount of effort", so we do actively want your help.   15:32: Wed 19 Dec 2012

Hi,

Oh, OK. I was going to leave it there, but you've pointed out my misunderstanding your comment about 'self-publishing' - My bad. Apologies.

Just to reiterate; I get that you feel you need further verification. I understand your thinking completely.

Like I said previously, Jim Mortimore is easy enough to contact via the 'net (He's on facebook for a start). As well as being an author himself, he did the illustration on the cover of 'Venusian Lullaby'. Jim could put you in touch with Paul Hinder, if Jim's confirmation isn't verification enough.

All the best!

BBX


 * For the time being, we've deleted the forum page, the talk page and the page about Señor 105 himself. Hopefully this will mean that the pages fall off Google's radar, and you won't feel that you are being quite so publicly questioned.


 * I didn't know until today that those three pages were the top 3 hits on Google for the term "senor 105".


 * I went ahead and decided to delete the article on Señor 105 himself because it appears as though it was created and materially edited by Cody Quijano-Schell. As the character's creator, that's an inappropriate . This deletion doesn't mean the article can't be recreated; it just means that it needs to be written by someone unconnected with the series. Objectivity, and all that jazz.  16:46: Wed 19 Dec 2012

Images and licences
I just though I tell you that I contacted Wikia on Monday telling them about the problem we sometimes encounter with Users not putting licences on their images. I also asked/suggested they make it impossible to upload an image without a licence. Their reply was:

Hello,

Thanks for contacting Wikia. This is something we are definitely looking for ways to improve. I don't know if we would take the drastic step of disallowing it completely, but there may be intermediate approaches that go further to discourage it. I will add your suggestion to our internal conversation about this topic.

Thanks for the input,

__ Sean McGilvray Wikia Community Support

To me this suggests they will not be stopping images being uploaded without a licence, but will try and prevent it from happening. I don't know what use this has, if any, but I thought I would inform you of what is happening regarding this. I'll keep you updated if I hear anything else. MM/ Want to talk? 23:40, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

My draw-dropping impatience
Hey Czech, just wanted to ask if you saw my message at Talk:P.S. (webcast). I've been waiting half a day and I had presumed that you hadn't seen it. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:21, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * K, sorry, my bad. I just felt that what I had left there was rather important, and such. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:12, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Banned from chat
Yeah... a bug...

Nah, I got banned from chat for my own stupidity and forgetfulness. I opened it up one day to see what it was about, then forgot about it and left it open while continuing about my day which included opening and shutting my computer a lot, logging me on and off and annoying some people who were trying to chat, and I seem to remember one of them being an admin. Anyway, I don't have much use for the feature. I don't often find things on this site which I can add to (outside the forums that is). I find I can be much more helpful over on DW Answers. Which brings me to your second point. I see User:Master of Spiders has reblocked you for some past errors. He wrote a message on your talk page over there. I can talk to him about it if you want. Imamadmad ☎  19:39, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Seems Master of Spiders has changed his mind about the whole ban issue. Just to be clear, the main reason I didn't immediately remove the ban was because we're all new at the whole admin thing over there and I didn't want to get on anyones bad side so soon. Also haven't used the block thing before personally. I admit I probably should have left a message on Spiders' talk page immediately about the issue, but you have now been unblocked regardless. I've seen your work over here and it is all really good and you obviously have what's best for the wiki in mind. I would love your input and expertise over there. Yet again, I'm sorry I didn't do anything immediately.

Also, thanks for the chat unblock and the advice on the categories. It's much apreciated. Imamadmad ☎  07:39, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

That's weird both your block log and your name at the top last I checked before I left that last message both said you were unblocked. I'll see what I can do. Imamadmad ☎  13:20, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Just looked again. From my end, you look completely unblocked. I can't see any other way to make you any more unblocked! I'm honestly not trying I be difficult here, I just can't see what I can do. Maybe it takes a while to process the request or something. If you still can't edit by tomorrow, I'll file a bug report or something. But there is nothing more that I am aware of that I can do! Imamadmad ☎  13:30, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked the auto lock from the block log that was made because of your block. Try now. Imamadmad ☎  13:48, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think that was what I just did. Can you check to see if you're able to edit? Imamadmad ☎  13:53, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Stuff I'd like to do
Hey Czech.

I've noticed our pages on Tardisodes have no images, so I'm gonna use my personnel collection to add some.

This reminded me that I have all of the Totally Doctor Who episodes in my collection as well.

I's like to start a larger covering them, but I was wondering where I could start that? I'd like to have pages for each story as well as other things, so where's the best process for such a thing? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 23:42, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Error on your Infobox Story Templates
Hello, I'm not a veteran on this Wikia (obviously), but I have noticed a constant problem with your infobox story templates. If you look at any multi-doctor story, such as The Three Doctors or The Four Doctors, you'll see in the infobox it says " doctor::This Doctor, That Doctor". This is because its Template has it set so you don't have to type the brackets when typing it out for a new story page. While this is understandable, it unfortunately only works on stories with single Doctors. Stories that have multiple Doctors are forced to have that problem you see above. I would fix the template for you, except the page is locked so I cannot touch it, so I'll have to tell you how to fix it.

In the template editing page, use CTRL+F to find "doctor" in there. It should look like this:

I recommend you erase "doctor::" and "" so the line looks like this:

This should make each multi-doctor story template look correct. If it doesn't look good right away, sometimes it takes a minute. Unfortunately, this also means all single-doctor stories no longer have the link that goes to their respective Doctor's page like they do currently. This means you'll need to add the links to each page. This is the only way to make the multi-doctor pages look right, so I recommend you do it to make the Wikia as attractive and maneuverable as possible. You are the first administrator I found, so if this coding thing isn't up your alley, send my message to an admin who is.

Thank you. Uknownada ☎  00:08, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me how to start a blog post? Thank you.

Hi, could you tell me how to write a blog post? I can't find it.

Mobile browsers, details, etc
With the welcome message, I'm sure that feature has been added and removed more than once. The link to contributions is probably the best way to do it.

I very occasionally look at the site on the mobile Safari and have had a look at it on; Opera, iSwifter, Mercury, Atomic and Sleipnir all for iOS. They all handle the site well, though some handle the stub tags etc and other templates better than others.

I've checked Thread:117925 in all of the above browsers (Safari logged in the rest not because I can't be arsed logging into 5 different browers at the moment). None of them have any problems, Opera is the only one that has some issues but it's only with stuff like the menu at the top of the page.

GusF's application. I've kept an eye on it.

And Happy Boxing Day to you too! I think there's still some of it left. I stayed away from the site until I'd seen The Snowmen lest I be spoiled. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:46, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Relating to Totally Doctor Who...
Sarah Jane's Alien Files' episodes also need revising per Tardis:Parts of a series without clear individual titles. Would it make sense to leave page moves to admins and bots, or is it okay to do it myself?

...actually, given that there seems to be webcasts as well as TV episodes, I'm not even sure the best way of numbering the episodes. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:38, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Shada
When I said "I have never gone there before" it was an exageration on the fact that Forum:Are deleted scenes canon? really was not the forum discussion on Shada's inclusion. I had previously visited the page.

I still stand by the fact that the title of the forum was tricky at best. It stated "Are deleted scenes canon?" a title which would attract few editors. The people in that forum then went on to argue Shada as non-valid and to go on do so with other sources. That would be like if I started a forum discussion called Forum:You know, I really do enjoy the Colbert Report and then used that forum to argue that Dimensions in Time was canon and that New Earth wasn't.

Now on to the discussion Forum:Versions of Shada (again). One, I was a horrible discusser back then I realise looking back at this, 2) The fact is, whether you think that the forum was finished by the 15th of June, it wasn't. Basically all that had happend by then was you saying "Here's how we should sort this..." and another person saying "How do you spell 'Swordfish'?" or something and then that was it. The real discussion didn't start until afterwards. When it came down to it, the discussion ended with a discussion starting on Shada's validness, which ended on the "valid" switch. Because Bob had a very good long paragraph noting that Shada should be valid because there's no reason it shouldn't. "Shada isn't even on my radar and it shouldn't be on anyone's radar when people don't even understand what the word "plot" means. So let's kill this debate. I'm sure that in another six months another debate will ensue as to why we must exclude Shada for some new, overwhelmingly important, specious reason."

And no one had no rebuttal. A wise man once said "While it is not true that in every case the person who gets "the last word" wins the argument, it can be true that a "no-response" effectively means that the opposing side has capitulated."

Basically the debate ended on a loose consensus. Depending on how you interpret, either side won. Thus I believe that we should do another discussion, one less isolated from the rest of the wiki like the first, and nay, even the second was. I think we should also consider changing policy. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 14:58, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, first off, Josiah's responce was more of a "Okay, I could care less. I was just asking a quick question" then a "Get out of my forum!"


 * And, alright. I'll agree to drop Shada for now. But one day I would like to revisit it in forum.


 * Also, you can get paid to edit?


 * How do I sign up? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:05, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Error with the move to Theory
As seen at the top of Special:Wantedpages, the links to the old panopticon, and reference desk archives and the archive index for some reason have been changed to Theory:, even though the old Forum namespace is still used for the old forums. -- Tybort (talk page) 23:05, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

T:SPOIL FORUM
T:SPOIL FORUM needs to be updated, it makes reference to the Forum namespace - because of the new forums, it should now refer to the Board and Thread namespaces. Help:Namespace needs a similar tweak.

Real world information when not negated
If a location is appearing as itself, then its information is real.

OK, that was a clumsy sentence; excuse me. Let me try another wording. Take, for example, the Drayton Court. Now, were it posing as a different place, had its name concealed, or such, or a character referred to it as a different place, then it would not be the Drayton Court in-universe, just as the Temple of Peace in Cardiff is not the Temple of Peace in-universe when used as a location for a Berlin restaurant, the viewing platform for the destruction of the Earth, a forum in Pompeii, or any of its other myriad appearances. Conversely, if something is appearing as itself, then it is what it is, whether that is something as inconsequential as a small hotel, or as well known as Trafalgar Square and Whitehall. Ealing Broadway and the High Street appeared in quite wide angles in "Spearhead from Space", prominently featuring the signage of Marks & Spencers and the other large retailer across the street. They are what they are. They are quite clearly landmarked as themselves. It is not like the stores in Cardiff that are used as locations set in London. There is nothing in Spearhead from Space to suggest or imply that the location shown is anywhere other downtown Ealing.

We know that Ian and Barbara landed their Dalek vehicle in Hammersmith because they looked across the street and saw the White City tube station. We accept that, unless stated otherwise, the White City tube station is located in-universe right where it's located in the real-world, in Hammersmith. It they had said, something like, "Hey, we're back in [some place not near Hammersmith]], then they would have been where-ever they said they were. Barring such negating language, however, we can and should accept what we are given. The Victorian-era portion of "Attack of the Graske" was shot on the same Welsh street there in front of where the Doctor's invisible staircase was in "The Snowmen". But we know that both locations were set in London, though they were not necessarily depicting the same spot. Leading into the scene in "Attack of the Graske" was a satellite view zooming into High Holborn, with prominent landmarks clearly visible.  It is thus reasonable to say that the scene was set on High Holborn. The same filming location in "The Snowmen" however, we only know is set somewhere in a reasonably affluent London neighbourhood, in fairly close proximity to Vastra's house, as Jenny happened to be wandering by on-foot.

Back to train stations. "The Temptation of Sara Jane Smith" has Rani and Clyde at the Greenford station - with a big, prominent Greenford Underground sign. Shot in a Cardiff shopping centre (normal timeline) and a Welsh quarry (alternate timeline), the sign provides a landmark to show the viewer that the duo are in their home-town of Ealing. The props and set decoration folks could have just as easily made a sign for a fictional station (Hobbs End, for classic example) as for a real station, but they set the scenes at a real-world station that exists in Ealing. The scenes are set in Ealing, at the Greenford station.

Speaking of train stations and "Spearhead from Space": at the start of episode 1, Liz was chauffeured through St. Pancras, and into what was quite obviously St. Pancras Station, with wide vistas showing exactly where they were, and a guard dressed in a civilian uniform not drawing attention to himself. We can thus say that UNIT HQ was located at that time within St. Pancras Station. There need not be any exposition on the order of "Well, Captain Yates, this secret location in St. Pancras Station seems to be keeping us hidden; wouldn't you agree?" If, however, a part of the station was used, without looking down the street at all of the rest of the buildings, and/or was approached from a road that is located somewhere completely differently, or dialogue placed it somewhere other than St. Pancras, then the station would just be a filming location and not an in-universe location.

When landmarks are provided, and not controverted, they are logically to be used. Nothing was said in "The God Complex" to place Amy & Rory's new house. It was logical at that time to assume that they were still supposed to be in Leadworth. Even had there not been the momentary flash of a London location on the divorce documents which Amy signed in the cold-open of "Asylum of the Daleks", we would still have learned two episodes later that the house was depicting a location within Greater London -- because of the depiction of prominent landmarks. Rory's hospital was shown on the screen in Kate's UNIT base in the Tower of London, using satellite view of Hammersmith (a bit of an in-joke, as the hospital building and most of the neighbouring ones were built by the BBC, and also made a nice homage to Ian & Barbara, as it was next to the White City tube station); additionally, their home was close enough to the Tower that Kate and her troops showed up almost immediately after they detected the TARDIS' energy waves, and later sent a car to bring Amy and the Doctor to the Tower.

Similarly, we know that Amy's and Rory's graves are in Queens. Never in dialogue was the borough mentioned, but the digitally added skyline was a view from Queens. The only way the buildings line up in that way is from Queens -- just like we know that the National Museum where little Amelia freed her adult self from the Pandorica was in Southwark, because the landmark buildings were arranged such that the view had to be from Southwark.

Speaking of Southwark, the Doctor and Amy gaze upon the Southwark skyline in "The Power of Three". How do we know it's Southwark? Both because they are supposed to be overlooking the Thames from the Tower of London (although they were filmed in Cardiff in front of a green screen because the preparations for the Olympics would have made location shooting in London at that time a logistical nightmare), and Southwark is what's on the other side in real life, and because the buildings they are looking at exist in real life in that location in Southwark (City Hall, the Shard, et cet.) Now, had there been something to negate that (dialogue, for example, saying that they were looking elsewhere, non-existent buildings digitally added, real buildings digitally altered to suggest somewhere else), then we would not defer to the real world. But when the real world is not negated, then it is to be taken as reality.

When two neighbourhoods are in close proximity, then it is reasonable to assume that they are easily traversed in-universe. Again, the Drayton Court. Perivale is located within the Borough of Ealing. Indeed, all of the actual in-Perivale locations (i.e., set in Perivale, and filmed in Perivale) from that story, such as Medway Parade, show up in a Google map search as Ealing. That the Drayton Court is outside of Perivale-proper in real-life does not imply that it is even further away in-universe than it actually is. Now, were a scene filmed far away, then, yes, that would negate its presence in its real-world location even if its name and other appearance were left unchanged. For example, the exterior location shooting in Whitehall and whatever Cardiff building served as the filming location for the interior of 10 Downing Street are very far indeed from each other in reality but are accepted as being right around the corner in-universe.

The reverse is also true; if a location is depicted as far away (such as by the characters boarding a vehicle to take them there), then the fact that two locations are in the same building is negated, whether they are in a studio or in the Temple of Peace like all of the Berlin locations in "Let's Kill Hitler".

Let's also look at another example, from "The Invasion". A conflict occurs on a rather non-descript street and in the sewer below. It was filmed in the City, but the address was not stated in dialogue. Meanwhile, the PC who dashes down into the sewer is wearing a City custodian helmet, not a Met one (very prominent plate on the face with the City arms instead of a Brunswick star; and a comb-ridge rather than the 'nipple top', et cet), consistent with where the scene was shot. The scene is where it is: in the City.

Simply put, when reality and the depiction contradict, the depiction rules. But when reality is not challenged by the depiction, reality is reality.

In addition to the negated timeline section about the Trickster's World, showing the Greenford station sign, you also inexplicitly removed from the Ealing page two screenshots that are quite decidedly set in-universe on Ealing's ficitional "Bannerman Road", which were filmed near Cardiff.

Back to the Ealing page, barring dialogue or other on-screen facts to the contrary, Ealing Broadway and High Street are just as established in "Spearhead from Space" as Trafalgar Square or the Albert Memorial are in "The Daleks' Invasion of Earth". No one has to say in dialogue that "Hey, Marks & Spencers' shop dummies just came to life and are killing people on Ealing Broadway," because that was exactly what was shown.

resent prior message that I just realised that I had forgotten to sign

 * RESENT WHEN I REALISED THAT I HAD FORGOTTEN TO SIGN. OTHERWISE VERBATIM ***

REAL WORLD INFORMATION WHEN NOT NEGATED edit If a location is appearing as itself, then its information is real.

OK, that was a clumsy sentence; excuse me. Let me try another wording. Take, for example, the Drayton Court. Now, were it posing as a different place, had its name concealed, or such, or a character referred to it as a different place, then it would not be the Drayton Court in-universe, just as the Temple of Peace in Cardiff is not the Temple of Peace in-universe when used as a location for a Berlin restaurant, the viewing platform for the destruction of the Earth, a forum in Pompeii, or any of its other myriad appearances. Conversely, if something is appearing as itself, then it is what it is, whether that is something as inconsequential as a small hotel, or as well known as Trafalgar Square and Whitehall. Ealing Broadway and the High Street appeared in quite wide angles in "Spearhead from Space", prominently featuring the signage of Marks & Spencers and the other large retailer across the street. They are what they are. They are quite clearly landmarked as themselves. It is not like the stores in Cardiff that are used as locations set in London. There is nothing in Spearhead from Space to suggest or imply that the location shown is anywhere other downtown Ealing.

We know that Ian and Barbara landed their Dalek vehicle in Hammersmith because they looked across the street and saw the White City tube station. We accept that, unless stated otherwise, the White City tube station is located in-universe right where it's located in the real-world, in Hammersmith. It they had said, something like, "Hey, we're back in [some place not near Hammersmith]], then they would have been where-ever they said they were. Barring such negating language, however, we can and should accept what we are given. The Victorian-era portion of "Attack of the Graske" was shot on the same Welsh street there in front of where the Doctor's invisible staircase was in "The Snowmen". But we know that both locations were set in London, though they were not necessarily depicting the same spot. Leading into the scene in "Attack of the Graske" was a satellite view zooming into High Holborn, with prominent landmarks clearly visible. It is thus reasonable to say that the scene was set on High Holborn. The same filming location in "The Snowmen" however, we only know is set somewhere in a reasonably affluent London neighbourhood, in fairly close proximity to Vastra's house, as Jenny happened to be wandering by on-foot.

Back to train stations. "The Temptation of Sara Jane Smith" has Rani and Clyde at the Greenford station - with a big, prominent Greenford Underground sign. Shot in a Cardiff shopping centre (normal timeline) and a Welsh quarry (alternate timeline), the sign provides a landmark to show the viewer that the duo are in their home-town of Ealing. The props and set decoration folks could have just as easily made a sign for a fictional station (Hobbs End, for classic example) as for a real station, but they set the scenes at a real-world station that exists in Ealing. The scenes are set in Ealing, at the Greenford station.

Speaking of train stations and "Spearhead from Space": at the start of episode 1, Liz was chauffeured through St. Pancras, and into what was quite obviously St. Pancras Station, with wide vistas showing exactly where they were, and a guard dressed in a civilian uniform not drawing attention to himself. We can thus say that UNIT HQ was located at that time within St. Pancras Station. There need not be any exposition on the order of "Well, Captain Yates, this secret location in St. Pancras Station seems to be keeping us hidden; wouldn't you agree?" If, however, a part of the station was used, without looking down the street at all of the rest of the buildings, and/or was approached from a road that is located somewhere completely differently, or dialogue placed it somewhere other than St. Pancras, then the station would just be a filming location and not an in-universe location.

When landmarks are provided, and not controverted, they are logically to be used. Nothing was said in "The God Complex" to place Amy & Rory's new house. It was logical at that time to assume that they were still supposed to be in Leadworth. Even had there not been the momentary flash of a London location on the divorce documents which Amy signed in the cold-open of "Asylum of the Daleks", we would still have learned two episodes later that the house was depicting a location within Greater London -- because of the depiction of prominent landmarks. Rory's hospital was shown on the screen in Kate's UNIT base in the Tower of London, using satellite view of Hammersmith (a bit of an in-joke, as the hospital building and most of the neighbouring ones were built by the BBC, and also made a nice homage to Ian & Barbara, as it was next to the White City tube station); additionally, their home was close enough to the Tower that Kate and her troops showed up almost immediately after they detected the TARDIS' energy waves, and later sent a car to bring Amy and the Doctor to the Tower.

Similarly, we know that Amy's and Rory's graves are in Queens. Never in dialogue was the borough mentioned, but the digitally added skyline was a view from Queens. The only way the buildings line up in that way is from Queens -- just like we know that the National Museum where little Amelia freed her adult self from the Pandorica was in Southwark, because the landmark buildings were arranged such that the view had to be from Southwark.

Speaking of Southwark, the Doctor and Amy gaze upon the Southwark skyline in "The Power of Three". How do we know it's Southwark? Both because they are supposed to be overlooking the Thames from the Tower of London (although they were filmed in Cardiff in front of a green screen because the preparations for the Olympics would have made location shooting in London at that time a logistical nightmare), and Southwark is what's on the other side in real life, and because the buildings they are looking at exist in real life in that location in Southwark (City Hall, the Shard, et cet.) Now, had there been something to negate that (dialogue, for example, saying that they were looking elsewhere, non-existent buildings digitally added, real buildings digitally altered to suggest somewhere else), then we would not defer to the real world. But when the real world is not negated, then it is to be taken as reality.

When two neighbourhoods are in close proximity, then it is reasonable to assume that they are easily traversed in-universe. Again, the Drayton Court. Perivale is located within the Borough of Ealing. Indeed, all of the actual in-Perivale locations (i.e., set in Perivale, and filmed in Perivale) from that story, such as Medway Parade, show up in a Google map search as Ealing. That the Drayton Court is outside of Perivale-proper in real-life does not imply that it is even further away in-universe than it actually is. Now, were a scene filmed far away, then, yes, that would negate its presence in its real-world location even if its name and other appearance were left unchanged. For example, the exterior location shooting in Whitehall and whatever Cardiff building served as the filming location for the interior of 10 Downing Street are very far indeed from each other in reality but are accepted as being right around the corner in-universe.

The reverse is also true; if a location is depicted as far away (such as by the characters boarding a vehicle to take them there), then the fact that two locations are in the same building is negated, whether they are in a studio or in the Temple of Peace like all of the Berlin locations in "Let's Kill Hitler".

Let's also look at another example, from "The Invasion". A conflict occurs on a rather non-descript street and in the sewer below. It was filmed in the City, but the address was not stated in dialogue. Meanwhile, the PC who dashes down into the sewer is wearing a City custodian helmet, not a Met one (very prominent plate on the face with the City arms instead of a Brunswick star; and a comb-ridge rather than the 'nipple top', et cet), consistent with where the scene was shot. The scene is where it is: in the City.

Simply put, when reality and the depiction contradict, the depiction rules. But when reality is not challenged by the depiction, reality is reality.

In addition to the negated timeline section about the Trickster's World, showing the Greenford station sign, you also inexplicitly removed from the Ealing page two screenshots that are quite decidedly set in-universe on Ealing's ficitional "Bannerman Road", which were filmed near Cardiff.

Back to the Ealing page, barring dialogue or other on-screen facts to the contrary, Ealing Broadway and High Street are just as established in "Spearhead from Space" as Trafalgar Square or the Albert Memorial are in "The Daleks' Invasion of Earth". No one has to say in dialogue that "Hey, Marks & Spencers' shop dummies just came to life and are killing people on Ealing Broadway," because that was exactly what was shown.

OverAnalyser ☎  02:54, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I would now like some clarification on one issue, and a follow-up on something to which you did not respond.

Let us set aside the issue of the Drayton Court. Given its proximity to Perivale, you know on which side of the issue I would err, but good men can disagree. I understand your explanation and I defer to your interpretation.

As for some of my earlier real-world information when I see now that I had a tendency to stray way out of bounds: yes, I already understood my error (not when writing them at the time, but well before today). I had ignored the first few hypercubes -- not the content of the messages; the entire notice that I even had a message -- because, being new, I mistakenly thought that "hypercubes" were just automated nonsense like the notices about the "badges" earned, rather than being actual messages. I was not ignoring your admonishments, per se; I was erroneously ignoring the cubes themselves, and thus not even reading what you had to say at all.

Moving on...

You appear to agree -- in general terms anyway -- with my understanding that landmarks are landmarks, so long as not contradicted in the story. Please correct me if any of these examples are inconsistent with your understanding:
 * When we see Big Ben, or Nelson's Column, or the Cenotaph, we accept the setting is in Westminster. We acknowledge those landmarks as what they are and where they are, without anyone having to say in dialogue, "We're in Westminster".  Correct?
 * When the newly-regenerated Eleventh Doctor clung for dear life over from the TARDIS' door sash, and flew over the O2 Arena and the Canada Tower, those were the O2 Arena [or, depending upon the precise temporal setting, the "Millennium Dome" or "North Greenwich Olympic Arena"] and the Torchwood One Tower (as it is known in-universe). Yes?
 * When the view from the Williams' graves was that one would necessarily see from Queens, the cemetery was in Queens. Right? It was not me who determined it to be Queens, but it appears to be accepted here.
 * When actress Caroline John was driven through St. Pancras, with multiple camera consistently showing St. Pancras streets and buildings, and into St. Pancras Station, the character Liz Shaw can be said to have entered St. Pancras Station. Yes?
 * Have we any doubt that the big, ornate monument the Daleks patrolling in "The Dalek Invasion of Earth", which was filmed at the Albert Memorial was, in fact, supposed to be the Albert Memorial, even though it wasn't identified in signage nor dialogue?

Alright. So, where do you draw the line?

Why did you take issue with the Ealing scenes in "Spearhead From Space"? They weren't close-ups of a store where the location was not clear and open, they weren't shots of just one little grocery or pub. The shots looked way down the High Street, the shots featured the actual store signs, with their prominent, famous names. The shots were also consistently in the same location -- as opposed to the usual example of a character being in one place and turning the corner (or entering/exiting a building) to a view filmed somewhere totally different. There was also no indication or implication that they were supposed to take place at a different location. Those scenes were clearly and contently in Ealing. Yes?

If a character were to be shown kicking pigeons in Trafalgar Square and trotting up and into the big long building to the north, and is then shown looking at art, we would say that he is in the National Gallery (unless there is something in the dialogue or signage to say he's somewhere else or that the gallery has a different name in-universe) -- even if the location used for the interior doesn't actually look like the National Gallery's interior, because the National Gallery is clearly where the setting is, right?

Now, the part unanswered in your earlier response:

I asked you to explain why you saw the two images of Ealing's fictional "Bannerman Road" as inappropriate for the Ealing page. Do you dispute that the setting of the "Bannerman Road" scenes were firmly established as taking place in Ealing, through on-screen captions, dialogue, inter alia, both on The Sarah Jane Adventures and in "Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End"?

Likewise, why did you deem the alternate timeline section you removed from the Ealing page? Do you disagree that the characters from Ealing, standing next to a prominently displayed sign manufactured by the props department to match the signage of a station of that same name in Ealing, are not in Ealing? If so, please help me to understand the analysis so that I can avoid the same mistake in the future. Let us change it to a different example in order to fully show the analysis: If Kate Stewart were to be depicted walking out of her Tower of London UNIT base and, in relatively short order, was depicted at a rail station with a big sign in the standard London Underground style, reading "Tower Hill", "Aldgate", "Monument", or "Bank", would we be able to accept that she was at a tube station in the City?

In both cases, was it simply matter of making a wide, indiscriminate clearing off all of my edits, thus throwing away the proverbial baby with the bathwater?

OverAnalyser ☎  07:17, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of my accidental inclusion of the erroneous "Third Doctor images" category on that image. I was not adequately paying attention and copied the one too many categories from a prior post.

That brings up a question. I have searched for, but been unable to find, instructions for removing an erroneous category from a page. How the hell does one do that? Thank you. OverAnalyser ☎  05:53, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

If and when I stumble upon relevant actor photographs from the real world, I'll try to make a point of capturing and uploading them.

In the absence of a real-life photo of a given actor already on the server, I presume that it is better to use a recognisable screen-capture (i.e., without prosthetic make-up or obtrusive headgear) that is already on the server than it is to just leave the actor's page blank. Please correct me if I am mistaken. OverAnalyser ☎  06:00, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Map and Real world locations
What's the thinking behind the ? It just seems an odd addition to an in-universe page. Isn't a link off to Wikipedia enough? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:15, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

UMD licence
Hi. I was going to add some pictures of UMDs but, I realised that there wasn't a licence for BBC UMDs. I would be grateful if you could add a licence for BBC UMDs & VCDs, as I assume that I am not able to. Lego Whovian ☎  21:14, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Reply about the monobook sidebar
Ages ago, I asked for your help with the sidebar. By the time you had replied, I'd managed to sort it out. However I now have a problem: How do I get Recent Changes to appear in the toolbox? If you want to check out my javascript file, it is here. http://images.wikia.com/central/images/a/ac/Lachlan5963.png   12:41, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Other issues
I don't think we have pages on Torchwood Declassified either. How do we handle those? Exactly like Doctor Who Confidential I'm guessing.

(Don't worry about me making those ahead of time, I don't give a rat's ass about Torchwood. I will get stills from DECLA. Though.) OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:43, January 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was basically asking you if you had any. (Concerns, that is) OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 23:05, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, been trying to figure out "Canon"'s spelling in my head for months.

Also, I've created a page for the comic series "The Sleeze Brothers (comic series)". It's a Doctor Who comic spinoff, but not really. Thus I have added the Notdwu tag under the same logic as Faction Paradox (series). Is this a fair assumption? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:24, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

New Master
Is it possible for you too add an image of the master from UNIT Dominion to the Master's slideshow? If no, just say so. I don't need any reason. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:23, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I edited Neve McIntosh's article based on the fact that she said the previously assumed date of 1 January was incorrect. Now, if we assume she's lying about her birthdate, then it's only fair to assume everyone else is lying about theirs as well. In that case, we should remove all birthdates from real world articles.

As for Susannah York, if you had looked closely enough, you would've seen I added the category "Actors who appeared in Casualty" because she did at one point appear on the show. I don't see why that fact absolutely must be mentioned in the text of the article when the category alone should suffice. I mean, why have the "Connections to other media franchises" categories at all if they aren't used? Slughorn42 ☎  18:52, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Versions of Shada (And explicitly that)
I thought we agreed at some point that while Shada (TV story) was not "Valid" that "Shada (novelisation)" was. That is what I was doing in that edit. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:49, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Categories of episode length
Mainly for the reason that the SMW isn't very well known. It seems to me that the casual user would more likely find it in a category. Cult Of Skaro ☎  06:15, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. It's mainly as a planning device for myself and others. On different days, I might have time to watch different serial lengths. So say, one day, I only have a short time to watch DW, so I want to find all 2 episode serials. Then from there I can find the one that seems most interesting. Cult Of Skaro ☎  06:28, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Full names revealed in valid but tangential sources
Hi, Czechout. Quick policy question for you: what do we do when a novelisation or other valid source gives a full name for a character who's known only by a surname in their primary appearance? Obviously the character's page should contain the full name, but should we move the page to the full name? The examples I've just found are Evans (The Web of Fear) and Arnold (The Web of Fear), both of whom get full names in Downtime (novelisation). I felt like the issue had been discussed before in the old Panopticon, but I couldn't find it. —Josiah Rowe ☎  03:10, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Check out Thread:117925.  03:15: Wed 16 Jan 2013
 * Thanks. So if I'm reading that (and the example of Bruce (Doctor Who)) correctly, the "Web of Fear" articles should stay at their current names. I suppose creating redirects isn't particularly helpful, as nobody is likely to search for Gwyn Ivor Evans. (They might search for Driver Evans, as that's how he's credited in The Web of Fear, but that's another matter.)
 * The only other question is whether the edits I made to those pages, putting the full name in the top and the infobox, with a "behind-the-scenes" note about its source, is OK, or whether it's better to leave the surname only in the top and add the full name only in the BTS note, as is done at Bruce (Doctor Who). I can see arguments for either one. —Josiah Rowe ☎  03:29, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm in bug chasing mode so maybe I didn't read you correctly the first time. Are you saying that Evans is only fully named in Downtime (novelisation) and not Downtime itself?  03:41: Wed 16 Jan 2013  (I forgot, you like things all in one place.)
 * Okay, sorry, my mind is totally in code at the moment. Lemme clear the brain and answer you properly.
 * Redirection and searching has significantly changed since your last major round of editing here. Now, if you type in a valid redirect, the canonical page name (in the computing sense of that dreadful term) will come up.  Test it by typing in "Bell of Doom" into the search bar. So redirects are a good deal more helpful now than in the past.  So feel free to make redirects however you think helpful, so long as the redirects don't introduce blatant spelling, capitalisation or punctuation errors. Nothing wrong with the Gwyn Ivor Evans or Driver Evans redirects of your suggestion.


 * I think it's best if the variable in infoboxen is the same as the PAGENAME, or at least the same as PAGENAME minus the dab term.  The infobox is not the place to make a point about the "real" or "full" name of the character — that's what the lead sentence is for.  This is why infoboxen titles default to the PAGENAME if the  variable is deleted.  It's confusing if the page title and  are at variance since they're so close to each other on the page and both utilise larger, bolder type. Cutting to the quick of it: full name only in lead sentence (and a BTS note of explanation if the source is a novelisation).


 * The point of the "is it Downtime or the novelisation of Downtime question" is because only Downtime (novelisation) is a secondary source. If the full name is present in Downtime itself, then that becomes the actual PAGENAME of the article without question.  Under our theory that all primary narratives are equal, without regard to medium, a non-televised source can change the name of an article, as it has with Polly Wright.   Novelisations cannot change PAGENAMEs quite so certainly.  As explained in the thread to which I referred you, if a character is named with only one name in a narrative then T:ONE NAME is the relevant rule.  If there's no name at all, like Nurse (Whatever), then the novelisation can be used to change the PAGENAME, but the credited occupational name (Nurse (Whatever)) must be retained as a redirect.  04:06: Wed 16 Jan 2013


 * That's right; Driver Evans and Sergeant Arnold aren't even mentioned in the video of Downtime, but a passing reference in the novelisation gives them full names (which they never had in The Web of Fear).


 * Downtime, like Shakedown, is a particularly thorny case, because although the video is a valid source for our purposes (as I believe all the characters and the Great Intelligence were licensed from their respective creators), an argument could be made that the novelisation is in a sense more valid, because it was part of the Missing Adventures line and therefore was also licensed as Doctor Who. (Or, to put it another way: the video wasn't allowed to use the Doctor or the Doctor Who logo, but the book bore the logo and has a cameo from the Third Doctor.)


 * I'm not necessarily making that argument, mind you; I'm just pointing out that the situation with the novelisations of Downtime and Shakedown is a bit more complex than with your bog-standard Target novelisation.


 * Anyway, I'll return the infoboxen to their prior state. Thanks for the clarification. —Josiah Rowe ☎  04:40, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Careful
Sorry sorry. Just trying to help. I mean, if someone can't obtain certain episodes through retailers or official websites (such as BBC iPlayer or foreign equivalents), websites such as those I mentioned are very helpful. Anyway, I didn't think it would be such a big deal as Doctor Who is broadcast on a free to air channel without ads and even puts copies of its episodes online sometimes themselves on their official site without ads and without the need to pay. Sorry again, I wont re-offend. Imamadmad ☎  19:44, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Question about infobox
I notice Infobox Individual mentions not using bullets in appearance lists. Do the il stuff count, or is it preferred to just use commas?

Also, is there specific limits on when to use infoboxes for minor characters? -- Tybort (talk page) 21:42, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Edit problem
Hi! I've got a problem with a page that I created, Shalin. I published it, but couldn't get back in to edit it, or any other page, due to wiki issues. Now when I try to edit the page, the editing page is blank even though the page is not blank, and it shows an edit conflict, even though no one else is editing it. It also has some weird characteristics. It's a blue-link on the The People's Temple page, but a red-link on the Coyn page. It shows up on auto-suggest and has a history, but does not show up on my edit history. It seems like the problem was caused by the fact that I created it while the wiki was having issues. Should I delete it and re-create it, or do you have another solution? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  04:16, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! um...could you do the same for Saffen? The same thing happened tonight. I was attempting to add the "Human Slaves" category to the page. Shambala108 ☎  04:43, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Hopefully it won't happen again, but at least now I know what to do. Shambala108 ☎  05:03, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Spider's Shadow
I wasn't aware either, but I found this cover and thought I might complete the collection of images that you have on Big Finish Productions as much as I could. I didn't realise that I needed to license the image though. If you want, I can search the website where I found it. Cyruptsaram ☎  07:25, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The image is from "tardisart.blogspot", whether that's an executive site for your license requirement, I'm not sure. If you believe it to be violating the rules of this wiki, then I'll understand if you remove it from the files. I apologise for any problems caused. Cyruptsaram ☎  15:16, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that this was a violation, but the image could also have been added to the "blogspot" by someone who found it on an executive website. So, until it has been found on one of these websites, it is probably best to remove it from this wiki. Thank you for directing me to the rules applied. I will refrain from adding a file again until I have properly researched into its whereabouts. Thank you. Cyruptsaram ☎  15:31, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Helping out at the forums
Sorry. I just like being helpful. I'll refrain from, in your words, "offering myself up as a "wiki helper."" I know I've only been here for a few weeks, and I understand that I'm still constantly learning about procedures. Sometimes I almost forget that, I'll grant you. I don't really see where you're deriving from what I said that I was giving the impression that it doesn't matter whether or not you're registered. It didn't even occur to me that I was even accidentally addressing that issue. Anyways, now I learned something new and I'll know not to make the same mistakes again. I just wanted to start on the right foot. Thank you for telling me what I did wrong. SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  03:28, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect dab term
Through Time and Space, which has been move-locked, is mistakening dab-ed as a comic story, when it's actually a trade paperback, or a graphic novel. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:40, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who in Other Media
in the ben 10 franchise they have a homeage to the doctor called professor paradox. he is a supporting character and his personallity and appearance is based on the tenth doctor. in his most current appearance, he has stated to currently be participating in a time war, just like how the doctor participated in one. what is the best way to go about posting this info on this wiki?DalekSupreme13 ☎  14:16, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

Your recent Buffy edit
Your removal of the file pic at the Buffy article page was in error, as the original file had been replaced by DANTHEMAN123. It was that change that should have been fixed, not the link to the file at the article. I tried fixing it myself, but was unable to do so; your help would be appreciated. Doug86 ☎  19:36, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

Sitenotice attribution
I hate to point it out, but this looks suspiciously like my idea. Cåm 12:36, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Image uploading
I generally add a photo while I'm in edit mode, so I use the 'Add features and media' thing on the side. Cult Of Skaro Here. I/WE WILL EXTERMINATE YOU! COMMUNICATE! 19:21, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Apology
No problem, I know you've been super busy lately. Shambala108 ☎  01:33, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Signature
As soon as I'm off a mobile device, I'll fix that. Cult Of Skaro Here. I/WE WILL EXTERMINATE YOU! COMMUNICATE! 03:25, January 24, 2013 (UTC)