User talk:NateBumber

Welcome to my Talk Page! To save time, you can call me N8.

Please remember to sign with ~ so I can see who you are.

– N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ )

Re: thinly-veiled characters
I found another character to add to your "thinly-veiled characters" section in your sandbox: an unnamed companion in PROSE: The Blue Angel fits the description of Cedric from NOTVALID: Search Out Space. 📯 📂 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for your list of "valid references to invalid stories", you might not be aware of the two references to Griffoth (from NOTVALID: Attack of the Graske) in TV: SJAF 1 and Journey's End. 📯 📂 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Another for this list would be that in TV: The Christmas Invasion, the Tenth Doctor refers to man he had once met called Arthur Dent; this encounter was first mentioned on the Who is Doctor Who website, when Arthur Dent mentions the Ninth Doctor, who lay in front of a bulldozer in front on Dent's home. 📯 📂 11:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In PROSE: Big Bang Generation, the Doctor mentions Time Squids and Crinis from NOTVALID: The Twelfth Doctor Interactive Story. 📯 📂 23:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Another is Magister1971. 📯 📂 13:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Although there have been many references to NOTVALID: Dr. Who and the Daleks in valid sources, one that hasn't had much attention is in PROSE: Bafflement and Devotion, where it is evident that the version of TV: The Daleks that Iris lived through was actually a version of Dr. Who and the Daleks. 📯 📂 13:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Important news
Oi! Would appreciate you showing up on Discord when you can, I have several pieces of Who-related news of some great import which I'd like to discuss with you, and which cannot be discussed on-Wiki for various reasons (such as T:SPOIL). Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

BotW
Why did you remove the plot section of The Book of the War? It won't be an easy one to write, but it can and should have one — probably following the order of events given in the Timeline and building from there. Also, if you'll slide over to Discord once more, I have related things to discuss with you which T:SPOIL still bans from these parts… Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Probably it would be better for someone without any COI at all to have a look at the situation. You've written for FP, of course, and as for myself, I do have a vague connection to PROBE — we're very close to my Oath here, so I don't feel comfortable making any administrative decision, even if I think I can have valuable things to say as an editor among equals. Also, if you could give me a reply on the above;? (And show up on Discord whenever convenient…) Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. It's really a pity Najawin vanished just as so much new FP stuff was bubbling to light… Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, waiting for you over on Discord. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

RE: Comments on your Sandboxes
Thank you so much for your support. I've still got a fair bit of work to do before I'd feel happy seeing the template implemented (currently the template will only work well for prose stories) but I'm going to be adding support for other forms of story soon. Hopefully other editors will also like the template when I propose it upon the return of the forums! Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re:Infobox Phenomenon and Conflict
Hey, I was away from the wiki for a while, so could not respond sooner. Regarding the infobox, yeah, it's been in a sandbox for a long while, mostly because I and other people with whom I discussed it couldn't find a 100% suitable name (because the more generic "Infobox Event" already existed as a redirect to.

That said, your suggestion of "Infobox Phenomenon or Conflict" had come across my mind once and, honestly, is probably as good as we'll ever get for it. I'll proceed to publish it and work on a documentation of the three types of "events" they can be used on: conflicts, which is already done by, sport matches, and other, more general events. Feel free to use it on whichever pages suit them. OncomingStorm12th ☎  14:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight update: I decided to leave the final name as because describing 2012 Olympics or Fourth Doctor-K9 chess match (The Androids of Tara) as a "phenomenom" didn't seem quite... as fitting (though  still exists as a redirect). OncomingStorm12th  ☎  15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Renames
I've just done Minor (star), and somebody else did Maxie Masters, so you can cross those off your list!

Also, waiting for you over on Discord with some fun FP discoveries whose implications I'd like to discuss with you… Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosette
Hey! Please do see my second reply at Talk:Man with the Rosette. I really didn't think I was doing anything out of the ordinary here — nor meant to imply that you had done anything especially wrong. You yourself cited T:EDIT WARS — well, at the end of the day, there was one reversion from you and one counterreversion from me, which is still well within accepted practice on both ends. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Third opinion
Thank you very much for the ping today, it served the dual purpose of reminding me about your message last week (sorry for forgetting about it).

Coming onto that, I'd probably go with "Notably, several of BBV's decisions were decried by Lawrence Miles" over "This was notably decried by Lawrence Miles". This is because he lists two releases in particular as reason for feeling the way he does so the "several" just helps future-proof the statement (assuming Miles won't complain about literally everything they do with the license moving forward). As you say though, the distinction is very minor and the link to the tweets is there for those seeking clarification either way. Borisashton ☎  23:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: messages
'Ey! Been awaiting your feedback on a handful of things over on Discord, one of which has a fortunate connection to one of your latest posts over on Tumblr and Wiki implications… Scrooge MacDuck ☎  12:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: appearances tab
Yes, this seems well within the precedent of things like the "soft testing" of the new 'Infobox Event' on a select few pages in the main namespace before its wider implementation. You can go ahead — but do make a note on the talk page(s) clarifying the special nature of these changes, and that other users shouldn't begin converting Thirteenth Doctor - list of appearances to the new format out of the blue! Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RE: Your message on my talk page
You're absolutely right I neglected to sign a few messages, but really, is that the main worry? I... made a string of very bizarre edits. Utterly misreading the contents of a page on a trailer, telling users to "get owned", ending inquiries with "TELL ME NOW NOW NOW!", and removing a use of the phrase "BTS" meaning "Behind the Scenes" because of the Kpop group of the same name. I was... well... not in an entirely lucid state of mind at the time. Yeah, I probably shouldn't try editing in...that... anymore. NightmareofEden ☎  17:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Page moves
Hey, I've seen you attempted to move The First Men in the Moon (comic story) from your sandbox into the (main) NameSpace. I appreciate your eagerness to improve the coverage, but, in the future, please only move sandbox pages if you're moving them to another sandbox title.

This is because non-admins automatically leave redirects behind when moving pages, which is fine on a sandbox NameSpace, but that's not desirable for the main NameSpace. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Tree limitations
Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this project! I think your way of representing Orson Pink is very good. I also like your Doctor family tree. I feel it would be nice to try and include family members such as Granny Five, although this probably isn't practically possible.

I also like your series relationships diagrams; I feel they are much better then mine. I'm going to have a look at re-making some of mine with individual stories rather then whole series. With regard to missing intersections, I've been meaning to have a look at how practical it is to add more tiles. There are some cases in some of my diagrams where different tiles to the ones given would have been useful.

Additionally, now that there's 3 people (me, you and RadMatter) taking an interest in trees, I feel that it's important to consider the fact that, with Fandom's current implementation of the mobile skin, trees will not work on mobile as this will be a major hurdle on getting this used on the wiki at large. I have a few ideas, non of them great, on how this could be overcome, but I thought that I would mention this as something to consider. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  15:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I prefer the prefix version as it is, as you said, more flexible. I can't see the harm in resurrecting the old prefixes in just this scenario where it does add a lot of clarity. To be honest, the majority of casual users with whom these prefixes would be confusing are going to be on mobile and so won't be able to see the trees properly anyway. The only case where I could see prefixes being an issue is if a story isn't part of any series, such as Glam Rock Detective. An idea that has just occurred to me is that my extra citation template could be used, although this is not yet finished and may not make it through the forums anyway. The benefit of this would be that author is shown (something that I feel could be particularly useful when dealing with Paul Magrs and that side of the DWU, as well as release date and other information that could add some context to otherwise confusing looking placements. It would also help with the seriesless story scenario.


 * Another concern I have is that using individual stories isn't always as practical or effective as using series. For example, in this tree showing the way TV spin-offs connect together, pinpointing a particular story doesn't always work. Moreover, it's probably more helpful for the new fan that this is intended to help if series are used as they likely wouldn't have knowledge of every story name. Therefore, I feel that both versions of the tree should be used with a key always present (perhaps in a collapsible) to make sure it is clear which format is in use. The different keys could be set as templates, or even just one template that takes an argument and changes what key is shown based on that argument.


 * I do not believe that it is possible to make the tree (which is simply a table with a lot of formatting at its core) not display on mobile, at least not in a practical sense (in theory, the entirety of the tree could be placed on the page by CSS or JavaScript which then wouldn't be rendered on mobile. In practise, this would make easily editing the tree basically impossible). It is definitely possible to add a message warning mobile users that the tree won't render properly, and it should be possible to make this message only render for mobile users. I have been considering [ providing a link to let mobile users view the tree with the desktop skin], although this of course isn't perfect, especially if they are using the Fandom app. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  18:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have worked out how to add extra tiles to the template. The extra ones that I've added are on the bottom row of the tree on my 14th numbered sandbox. Are there any others that you feel it would be particularly useful to have? As  is protected, I would like to make all of the extra tiles that will be needed before asking an admin to add it to the template. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500)  ☎  11:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be hard to do at all. I'll add it tomorrow. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Are these the tiles that you want added?
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  10:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  10:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  10:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  10:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Are these good?
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. I'll be asking an admin to add the new tiles to in the near future. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500)  ☎  13:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * has been unprotected and I've added my changes from User:bongolium500/tree to the template, including editing the documentation page. Therefore, you should be able to replace all uses of User:bongolium500/tree with in  your sandbox. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500)  ☎  17:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The reason I thought it would be good to make a thread is that trees do not work on mobile and I believe (although have not confirmed) that some things (such as the use of tabs) have been disallowed due to not working on mobile. There isn't really a way around this (unless the trees are created in a sandbox and screenshotted with the images being inserted into the page, although this wouldn't work properly with light and dark theme and would make editing the trees a massive hassle). What I'm currently thinking is to exploit the fact that CSS does not load on mobile to create a message that replaces the tree on mobile telling people that the trees do not work on mobile view with a link to view the page on desktop view. This could be implemented straight into and  but the templates are protected meaning I'll need to bother some admins to get them unprotected again. I'll also need to add a bit to CSS. This means it's not something I could get implemented today. Do you have any other ideas? Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500)  ☎  19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Twitter
Hi Nate, how are you? I just saw your addition to the Twitter page and was unsure if the reference to The Crooked World does actually belong there, or if the birds in question should have their own separate page. I see your point about the Crooked World having manifestations of memes and whatnot, but the novel was released four years before Twitter was even founded, so I'm not sure if this was one. I mean, in-universe it works magnificently and makes me think that Steve Lyons may be psychic, and I don't mind at all if it stays on the page, I just wanted to check to see if the release date/authorial intent was a problem? LauraBatham ☎  04:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Scanlon = Monk?
Hello! I'm sorry to report that I have some heavy doubts on the legitimacy of the John Scanlon/Time Meddler connection; more details in the Tumblr post I linked. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: Novelisation page names
Thanks for the heads up; at the suggestion of User:Shambala108 I've queried User:SOTO about what the current policy is just for clarification's sake, though I don't expect a speedy answer or solution - I posited the name change 7 years ago and a grand total of nothing has occurred since then. To answer your question, I can't think of any other pages this particular situation might apply to off the top of my head - I only pushed for the Lavel page's change because I was gifted the Battlefield novel and noted the added information. If I find or think of another page that could benefit from the same name change, I'll come back and add to this. Pbandfluff ☎  22:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: The Merge of Morbius
Hello! I likewise hope you're well… Despite the (I assume?) continued unavailability of your Discord, remember that we can also communicate through Twitter! I believe I left some messages for you there several days ago.

As concerns this Morbius business: hmmm. I don't know. "The Ship" relies on a very direct licensed connection — she is "the timeship which converted Compassion into the first humanoid timeship", with Compassion appearing under license; that's thus a licensable 'aspect' of the Doctor's TARDIS and we acknowledge the appearance. Likewise "the Homeworld" we can acknowledge as Gallifrey because it's "the home planet of the Great Houses", with the Houses appearing under license.

I'm not sure I see an equally straightforward reasoning with Morbius and the Imperator. "The first President of the Great Houses to have advocated for more interventionist policies, been deposed, and executed"? Perhaps — but that is, I think you'll agree, a step further removed, even if the logic holds.

The thing is, I can't really justify to myself the idea of accepting that reasoning for 'Imperator Morbius', but remaining blind to the War King's former identity as the Master, which is easily argued on a similar basis of "the most infamous criminal the Great Houses produced, whose timeship left the Homeworld on the same day as 'the Ship'" (that is, you could argue this even if we set aside the matter of whether we should acknowledge that the Lord President in The Taking of Planet 5 was a licensed appearance the Master from the word go — which is another pathway to potential acknowldgement of War King=Master).

Plus, there are concerns about where extending the Homeworld Principle this far might take us. Auteur is "the metafictionally-minded early member of the Great Houses who charted the meridians of time", so is he really Astrolabus by the Homeworld Principle? Etc., etc. It is not that I would necessarily be against a proposal for the Wiki to acknowledge "implied characters" across the board (as per the proposal on your user-page's bulleted list); but I am leery of doing so "through the backdoor" by extending the Homeworld Principle further and further. The way I see it, the Homeworld Principle is its own standard, which is not quite the same standard that would let us accept things like Imperator Morbius or Auteur/Astrolabus; and we should stay true to the spirit of the current law.

All this being said, perhaps there is some angle I'm missing about the specific Imperator/Morbius matter.

Actually, I think there's a somewhat speculative angle we may have all missed: The Brain of Morbius was cowritten by Robert Holmes. It is known that the Robert Holmes estate gave The Book of the War the right to use the Sontaran, though Miles decided it was best not to include any named TV Who concepts in the book. Is it not conceivable that Holmes owned Morbius (or at least, some portions of the character; perhaps not the name), and authorised his use? How sure are we that The Book of the War did not have the license to Morbius, anyway? I don't have any certainty in this area but perhaps the matter is worth investigating. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi, do you have plans for the redirects left behind after your recent page moves thanks Shambala108 ☎  18:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)