User talk:SOTO

To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO. Also, please sign your messages. Thanks.

× SmallerOnTheOutside  (☎/ ✍ / ↯ ) If you've come here to request a simple, uncontroversial page move, please consider using instead. This puts all rename requests into a neat little chart that all admin can see and work on.

Audio!!
Would you tell me why you dab the story Revenge of the Nestene as a short story? It's clearly an audio. --DCLM ☎  21:44, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could you please do something about User:Connorguy and User:DoneNothingWrong. They continuously insert false information based on speculation and they are consistently edit warring as a result. I have tried multiple times now to warn them, but they continue the tirade. The "speculation" was originally inserted by User:Cynical Classicist. --DCLM ☎  22:38, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not originally post the information. Someone else did, and once you removed it another user added it back. I, a third user, believed that the information was valid enough to be on the page (and since then a fourth user has also contributed). This puts you at odds with several members - if you felt that the information was wrong / false you should have started a discussion on the talk page (like I suggested). However, you continued to repeatedly remove the information despite being asked to stop. Connorguy ☎  22:43, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The only 3 users who consistently inserted it were all new members unfamiliar with a large portion of how this wiki works; that's you, DoneNothingWrong and Cynical Classicist. The only other user, who apparently don't realize this is pure speculation (and therefore not allowed), was User:NateBumber, who also simply expanded upon this. Also you apparently didn't read my comment above, which even said who the original "creator" of the content was. I'm not the one supposed to start up a discussion on whether this shouldn't be there. It's you people who need to start a discussion on whether it SHOULD be there. -DCLM ☎  22:50, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a new member. Unfortunately I have lost the credentials to my original account, although I haven't been interested in the show until the recent Russel T. Davies material was released - so recreated today. I am familiar with "a large portion of how this wiki works". There's a big difference between "speculation" and heavy "implication". Connorguy ☎  22:53, March 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to comment, but since Danniesen has name-dropped me above, I feel obligated to add that I very strongly dispute his characterisation of Special:Diff/2865071 as "false information based on speculation". The edit had two halves: a short but serviceable summary of the story (which I was particularly happy to see, since so many of our pages lack summaries); and a "Behind the scenes" note about the connection to Boris Johnson. While Boris' name is not explicitly given in text (hence why Cynical Classicist correctly placed it in a real-world "Behind the scenes" section rather than an in-universe section like "References", where discussion of prominent off-site speculation is absolutely allowed), with how the story is written, Russell T Davies' intention is very clear, especially considering his previous comments concerning Johnson as a political figure. This has been noticed by countless commentators on Twitter, GallifreyBase, Reddit, and every other Doctor Who community the sun touches, so it would be completely negligent of our wiki to not at least mention it.


 * When Danniesen reverted Classical Cynicist's edit and dismissed it as "false info" -- and then when he did the same thing another 3 times -- he removed not just the bit about Boris but also the very valuable, and by no means "false", story summary. This was done so repeatedly and so quickly that no one even noticed MystExplorer dodging in and adding the same content in the "Notes" section! I have since tried to do my part in diffusing the edit war by re-adding the summary and combining the two explanations of the Boris link, complete with a source from the RadioTimes; but I completely sympathize with the frustration of Connorguy and DoneNothingWrong in this scenario. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 00:07, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * Funny how some speculative content is allowed while other speculative content isn't. (by the way, nothing wrong with the story summary, that was fine). Just saying. --DCLM ☎  09:04, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * If there was nothing wrong with the story summary, why did you remove it four times and describe the edit (in this section header) as vandalism? I think how the wiki treats speculation makes perfect sense: for an illustrative example, see The Woman (The End of Time). We do not speculate on her identity in the in-universe portion of the page, but in the real-world “behind the scenes” section, we freely discuss potential identities. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:07, March 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't see the summary. I only saw the speculation. Also, if speculation is allowed in BTS sections, please tell me why speculation in BTS sections have consistently been removed in the past. This is exactly like sticking out some rules that everyone must follow, then someone else comes along and go against these rules, and everyone praises that, leaving the one actually following said rules feeling immensely dumb. --DCLM ☎  13:14, March 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said, there's a difference between speculation and heavy implication. If only one user was speculating something, with no real evidence to back it up, then of course it would not be allowed. However, in this instance the wording is specific enough to be universally agreed as to who it was referencing (just look at the comments on the audio version of the story on YouTube - half the comments are about Boris Johnson) then it should be. Xx-connor-xX ☎  13:18, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding past removals, maybe it’s because of the lack of a source/citation for the speculation? Idk, give me some examples of what you’re talking about. I’m not an admin but I’ll go to bat for you if something was improperly removed. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:21, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Time War volumes
I've just moved the The Eighth Doctor: Time War volumes to their new titles, but upon checking Special:WhatLinksHere, I've... decided that maybe it's best to ask SV7 a bit of help - I'm sure they'll have more fun moving the links than I would :p So, when you have the time, could you run the bot to change: (and, as I said in Talk:The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three I'm on the opinion that only volumes 1 and 2 should keep the old names as redirects; I've only kept the volume 3 as a redirect for now until we get the links done) - thought do let me know if you disagree. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 23:11, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume One to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume One
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Two to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Two
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three
 * Oh I didn't realise that hadn't "ripple-effected" yet; usually the links change fairly quickly. Yeah, the changing on the marketing was unusual, but everyone I saw assumed they did it to match the Gallifrey: Time War releases (after all, they incorporated its logo) - and now we get all 8TW sets with the Whittaker-era logo, so that's two wins. But anyway, thanks for doing the changes (and thank SV7 as well). OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:01, April 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do the Time War again: Category:The Eighth Doctor: The Time War and it's subcategories were never changed from  to   (sans the The) - so if SV7 still has some spare batteries... OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:07, April 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if you (and SV7 as well) would allow me, I think I found another task for them. There's quite a few pages that are categorised [directly] as Category:Audio cast stubs, but don't use . If they could remove the category and add the template, it'd be amazing. :) OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:52, April 10, 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Vansell page
Can you please block this IP user for vandalizing the Vansell article? Thanks! -- Jamie248 [  T  •  C  •  E  • 📝 ] 21:38, April 10, 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Answers closed
Doctor Who Answers has been closed. The new website will go up at http://www.doctorwhoanswers.com/, but right now it's not quite ready because they've not had enough spare time to sink into it. Doctor 25 ☎  20:12, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Pollard
I began to make a category for Charlotte Pollard short stories, since there's already one for her audio stories, but I began to wonder if it's really necessary. That category was deleted in 2018, and she's only had two boxsets of her own series. Do you think I should create Category:Charlotte Pollard short stories, or should Category:Charlotte Pollard stories be deleted? Danochy ☎  06:44, April 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with you there. If Charley were to get her own category, then so would the likes of Donna, Rose, and Liv with their recent solo series, and it could start to get a bit much. I'll pop a deletion tag on it now. Danochy ☎  06:58, April 13, 2020 (UTC)

Meta-fictional Doctor Who
Hi there. As you're the one who originally created Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) and formally moved it from its old title of TV series (Remembrance of the Daleks) I'd like to request that it be moved back to that original title.

The reason for this is that when I was still very new to the wiki I modified it to include all references to the Doctor existing in fiction. In doing so, I drew many speculative connections between all the sources that I can now say probably constituted a violation of policy. The Doctor in popular culture and mythology now exists to serve this purpose without speculation and in effect, the Remembrance page has been replaced by Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood) which also serves its purpose without speculation. I have already moved all the links to the most appropriate destination page.

If you could also move Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks), Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) cast, Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) crew and Category:Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) stories so that they all instead contain The Thief of Sherwood as a dab term that would be excellent. If it would be easier to just delete the categories and then change them on the individual pages please drop me a message. I'd be more than happy to do the work by hand to correct this mistake.

Thanks for your time, --Borisashton ☎  22:12, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Since posting the above request it has come to my attention that Doctor Who also appeared in COMIC: The (Final) Doctor Who History Tour. To avoid the abominable title of "Doctor Who (The (Final) Doctor Who History Tour)" renaming Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood) to have the dab term "N-Space" seems like the best option. As well as avoiding the aforementioned name, readers will also immediately realise the scope of the article, that is the programme of Doctor Who as it exists within N-Space.


 * As such, the categories should be moved to Category:Doctor Who (N-Space) et cetera while the move of Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) to TV series (Remembrance of the Daleks) remains unaffected. Thanks for your help in this matter, --Borisashton ☎  21:13, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

Check on
Hello, User:SOTO. I just wanted to stop by and check how you were doing in these trying times of self-isolation?BananaClownMan ☎  09:50, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Annuals, non-fiction, non-DWU
While you are obviously correct in saying that Men Who Made History and its ilk should be in the category Category:Doctor Who Annual non-fiction, I think you were hasty in telling User:ToyStoryFan123 that "puzzles and features" go there. There are features in Annuals which are also fiction, though they are not narrative (The Dalek Dictionary, for example) and thus go in Category:Non-DWU features, and there are wholly narrative puzzles and games; something like this or this may not be valid due to fourth-wall-breaking and/or branching story elements, but it's hardly "non-fiction". Cheers!--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:04, April 18, 2020 (UTC)