User talk:Amorkuz/Archive 2

RE: Comics

 * I think it will be fine (I'll be travelling the next week or so, so no edit conflicts should happen).


 * I'm not 100% sure on that, but I believe the reason we use the Publisher's summary rather than writting our own is because they actually exist for comics. For TV stories, only synopsis are availlble, and they're rather inconsistent. Thus, every (well, unless the publisher decides to change it at some point of publication) comic book will present the same summary, but not every synopsis for TV stories will be the same. This way, by choosing a synopsis to be used as our summary, we would essencially be plagiarising one of the many synopsis, whereas, with the comics' summary, we would simply be presenting what the publisher tells us. (You might want to contact User:Shambala108 or User:SOTO for checking on that, though).


 * As for posting only the summary of the first issue on multi-issues stories: I always though myself this was an error, and all the summaries should be posted on the page, but that's probably a topic for a future thread.


 * Concerning the character "blurb introductions": I don't personally pay much atention to them, but I know they make a board description of the character. Keeping in mind that most (or all) relevant information presented there will already be at the character's page at some point, I ,personally, don't think they would be of great interest to any pages.


 * Anyway, don't worry about breaking my "well-established methodology". I guarantee you no such thing exists (at least, I try not to have any, since this is a community, and I'm only one of the contributors; my edits for sure don't overweight your's, on anyone else's). OncomingStorm12th ☎  00:49, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll put my little Canadian dime in here. If a summary is taken from the comic, it should say "publisher's summary", I would think. Otherwise, it would seem to violate Tardis:Plagiarism. As for multiple publisher's summary, my gut feeling is that they should all be included, but there should probably be a discussion on that, as it might get long, even repetitive in some cases.
 * TV stories don't have publisher's summaries, of course. You can't flip them over and read what it says on the back. So we write original content for those, which I suppose ideally should be the standard for all forms of content (ha, forms of content). I always write original summaries for short stories, but for some reason a lot of those just have a "summary" section, rather than both summary and plot. There are some inconsistencies to perhaps be discussed. 01:21, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

RE: plagiarism by anonymous user(s)
That is definitely an issue. Thank you for informing me. Regardless of whether IMDb is a valid source (which it isn't), Tardis:Plagiarism makes it quite clear that plagiarism from anywhere is against the rules. As they're not registered, there's not much of a real point in leaving them a message. And it would make an easier cleanup if it was all under the same IP. How long have these edits been going on? 15:18, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh jeezus. 4 months worth of IP user plagiarism. RecentChanges only seems to go as far back as 1 December. Perhaps the only way to really deal with all of it is to somehow get a complete list of the IP addresses involved. 22:13, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * I've brought the issue up with some other admins including CzechOut. I hope we can find a good way to fix this problem. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention. 22:31, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * It would definitely be very helpful if you could help compile a list of IPs, if you're feeling up to it and do in fact choose to do it. 23:19, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I'll keep you updated. 23:26, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Hector
Hector is currently considered a primary topic, much like Victoria, and not for his real-world-liness. We reserve that for those who can be considered, well, "the original, you might say". Those like Victoria Waterfield can be considered named after Queen Victoria, in one way or another, directly or indirectly. In effect, this means that Hector does not take a dab term, and the disambiguation should be at Hector (disambiguation).

You can contest this, of course. But keep in mind that this doesn't take away from readers' ease of use at all. If they go first to Hector, they simply need to click on the link to Hector (disambig) in the template. 17:51, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

UNIT Dominion
Honestly can't remember. If you think it should be changed then start a discussion and we can set things rolling. --Revan\Talk 14:39, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

Guard of the train
Ha. Guard of the train. Yeah, that is a new one. So... Guard of the train (Revolutions of Terror). Subway conductor (Revolutions of Terror). Train guard (Revolutions of Terror)?

I suppose we don't want to let real world creep muddy our view of what happened in the story (but let me tell you, Nick Abadzis did not do his research). Maybe it would be best to stick to what we're actually told, and assume there is someone called a train guard or guard of the train in the DWU New York subway system. After all, Gabby is a local, and our only source on the matter.

Does train guard seem reasonable? I can change all the links when I move the page (soon/later today). 22:59, January 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I expect more of the Doctor! I would love to be able to say subway conductor is a better title, but it seems unsubstantiated by the comic itself. Still, at least the Doctor has enough in him not to call the guy "guard of the train". So we're going with train guard? 05:40, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Legacy Wiki Interlinking
Well I just shot first and asked questions later! User:CzechOut obviously thinks that no policies are broken by inter-wiki linking and agrees that it is beneficial and I can't think of a higher authority here than him. Therefore, I created Template:Dwlx and added it to every major character that has a corresponding page at DWL wiki, except for the regular titan companions. Basically, all you need to do is add to the bottom of a page and you've got a link to DWL wiki. Cheers CoT     ?  04:30, January 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Responses to your points:
 * I definitely agree that BHS is unnecessary if all we can say is that "X appears in NOTVALID: Legacy".
 * I'd say that whether or not there's new artwork should be the deciding point. "Me" as an enemy looks different than "Me" as a companion, but Hawthorne looks the same no matter what side he's on. Although that idea probably comes from the fact that I think the artwork is the best part of the game. (River Song's World Amy is the same person as the normal Amy, as shown when regular Amy remembers being Agent Amy at the end of the Wedding of River Song.)
 * 100% agree
 * I don't think you should worry about people getting mad at a fleshed-out BHS. The point of the BHS is to give information like this! At this point, I would recommend you bring your ideas to someone who is a frequent editor both here and at the DWL wiki. CoT     ?  01:28, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Re: apologies
No worries, you did the right thing. 21:27, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

New York, New York
You've pretty much established yourself as the resident Titan Comics editor. Would you be interested in doing New York City or should I? CoT     ?  01:28, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me
...about the vandalism. Those three users have been blocked. Technically, non-admins should never edit the user page of another. To quote from T:USER OTHER:
 * "If you notice that someone else's user page has been vandalised, please do not revert on your own initiative. Instead, please alert an admin. Admin have greater powers to notice editing patterns, and so are in a better position to identify the seriousness of the vandalism."

That said, thank you for informing me, and I very highly doubt P&P minds vandalism getting undone on her page. But for the future, try to heed to the above statement. (Not a problem that you didn't this time) 01:42, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I once got shit as a non-admin for swiftly removing an extreme violation of T:SPOIL on a user talk page (edit). I understand what it's like when there's no admin around, but like Shambala told me, we don't want an experienced user giving new ones the wrong idea. 22:10, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think such a page will be necessary. In fact, it would only serve to encourage such behaviour. I wouldn't say it's ever so urgent (or wasn't in this case) that it absolutely would need to be reverted right now.
 * You don't need to contact every admin who might be on; I myself, for example, drop by at least once a day, when I'm not at w:c:snicket. CzechOut, of the admins, is definitely the most around, even if he's not active on this wiki in particular. I'd say if it's urgent, contacting Czech is your best bet. 00:34, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to contact every admin who might be on; I myself, for example, drop by at least once a day, when I'm not at w:c:snicket. CzechOut, of the admins, is definitely the most around, even if he's not active on this wiki in particular. I'd say if it's urgent, contacting Czech is your best bet. 00:34, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Interwiki linking to DWL
Hello Amorkuz. I saw the beggining of yours and CoT's project. As a regular editor on both wikis, I'm really happy with it. Answering your points:
 * BHS section
 * Agreed. Only for characters like "Me", Adiposes et al need any explanation on BHS.


 * One link per character, unless they are different substantially
 * Seems pretty reasonable. Also, writting small descriptions seems awesome.


 * Ally adipose page
 * This is the only one you seemed to make a confusion (which I myself and other users have made in the past): yes, the Adipose (and, for that matter, the Silence, Ood and Zygon) pages are tabulated, but there isn't a trully leftmost tab.
 * If you go to w:c:dwlegacy:Adipose (Black), the character "Adipose (Black)" will be on the leftmost tab. If you simply click on the other tabs, "Adipose (BlacK)" will still be on leftmost tab.
 * However, if you go to the "search" bar and search for "Adipose (Green)", "Adipose (Black)" will no longer be the leftmost tab.
 * What I mean is: the leftmost tab depends on which page you "landed" first. For this reason, I believe the best option is to link to the dab page itself in this cases (if you come across a case where you think there should be a dab page, but one doesn't exist, feel free to come here, so we can discuss the best way to handle it. If it is indeed a dab page, we can create it.)


 * Location pages on the DWL wiki
 * I don't think there will ever be pages for locations on there. The game itself gives us very few info about the locations, and, when they do, it's info we already know from other sources. The only exception is, I believe, Estragil, but I don't think one exception'd be enough for us to make pages for all locations there. Also, some locations are only visited very few times.

Overall, everything looks very nice. If you want/need help with anything, give me a heads up. OncomingStorm12th ☎  15:29, January 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, regarding the links from "11th Doctor Flesh Clone" to "Ganger" and vice versa: it really seems that the only options are "For" and "For 3". This seems to be the only case where 4 links will be needed, so I simply added a new template on the page. So, if you want to remove one of the links from Eleventh Doctor (Ganger), it'll be fine. OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:57, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

Torchwood NY
Hi. I haven't heard of an American Torchwood in New York, but I haven't read or heard every Torchwood story by any means. It's worth mentioning though that one of the new Big Finish audios has a base set over the pond in Los Angeles. From memory the news post in their website implies that it's the only US branch of Torchwood. Hope that answers your question. --Revan\Talk 12:05, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Violation of T:POINT
Changing the Infobox for Lolita violates T:POINT. Don't do it. --Pluto2 (talk) 20:06, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Sutekh
Thanks for the heads up! Sutekh does indeed play a major role in the Faction Paradox audios; I've added his appearances to Sutekh - list of appearances. You're right that I'm not familiar with the Doctor Who comics, but I'm very open to spoilers.

Some things might just be inconsistent, but since the Faction Paradox audios are a direct (and consistent) prequel to Pyramids of Mars, if the comics take place after PoM, I think they can coexist quite well. In the audios, Anubis is portrayed as a scientist with an interest in biology and the resurrection of the dead, which miiiight possibly pass as consistent with the comics? As for time travel, I believe the audios specify that the Osirans have their own version of time which flows differently from the much of the rest of the universe, which could be used to explain all the Osiran's apparent time-hopping in the audios while preserving some sort of distaste for actual time travel.

Unlike the Faction Paradox Protocols, I don't have the scripts for the True History of Faction Paradox series (which is where Sutekh and the Osirans appear), so it's gonna be a lot harder for me to make accurate pages concerning True History (especially considering that they're sitting on CDs in my garage at home, and I'm at college without a CD drive). Ordinarily I'd recommend Fwhiffahder, but the admins seem to be ignoring all apologies and appeals to shorten his sentence, so he might be staying on the Faction Paradox Wiki for good. When I get my hands back on the disks, I'll definitely add some more to the relevant pages. NateBumber ☎  20:07, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! I'm glad that all fits together so well. Thank you for checking! I think those six audios are the only FP stories that feature the Osirans, but I'll double- and triple-check against my ebooks and make any appropriate changes. Also, for the record, your summary "Just this once, nobody conflicts" made me laugh for a long time, so thank you for that! :) NateBumber ☎  22:03, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Vince Cosmos
Such a shame that all these fun, whimsical stories have been tainted for you. I can assure you that the people that are proposing these stories genuinely want to improve this wiki just as much as you. I'm sure these debates won't go on for too much longer. Best of luck. CoT    ?  18:25, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

Comic strips
I will be glad to perform such a bot run for you. Does the same apply to Free Comic Book Day stories, or are those truthfully comic strips, unlike the others? 00:06, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * My bot is running the relay race as we speak. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. 15:33, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * All instances of "comic strip" have now been changed to "comic story" in those relevant pages, coming to 104 pages changed. 15:38, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Rokhandi image
Well, at first look it indeed seems very crowded. However, once you put the image at a 350px width, (I believe this is the thumb size of files for infoboxes, more or less) the ballons are not that intrusive. Also, it shows us how the planet was, and what it became. Seems good enough for me. OncomingStorm12th ☎  16:59, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Merge request
I think I'm fine with finding out 11D plot details; by the time I have the chance to buy all the collected editions and actually read them, I'll probably have a lot spoiled anyway. It was a bit upsetting to have a Class finale surprise spoiled, mind you. Anyway, that's my (non-paying) job, and it's an occupational hazard.

Anyway, I would be more than willing to perform the actual technical merge for you, with the understanding that you'll handle the content issue. If it makes you feel better, you don't have to explain the actual plot connection; just send me the links, and I'll do the merge and dump all the text on one page, in sections. Just be sure to tell me our destination for the merge. 01:07, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * God, that does sound complicated. Speaking as someone who has not of course read the story, the merge does seem appropriate. I'll trust your judgment. If you want me to take care of the merge today, I'll try to do so when I get home this afternoon/evening. 15:27, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * I did the technical merge for you. All text and categories now at Talent Scout. I also added an tag for your benefit. Let me know if you need anything else. 23:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Merges are not at all difficult—Tardis:How to merge articles. I wish you luck with what sounds like a very confusing topic. 02:25, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Entity
Hey, it's been a while since I read these 11D stories, so I don't remember the plot very well. I'll give a second read on them, but I 100% trust your judgment on the matter, as per your recent (awesome, btw) work on the Titan comics. As for the comic: you're welcome; always feel free to come to me if you want a second opnion on these. If I remember, I'll tell you what I think; if I don't, I'll give it a search to try and remember. Also, I don't think there's a rule agains two-pages images, as long as it is one panel only (which I myself consider that image to be). Again: great job on all the Titan stuff. OncomingStorm12th ☎  01:13, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Target Happy
Oh, it's fine. The new one really looks better. I only replaced the other because I planned on adding an infobox, so, the wider it was, the better. However, your new image is not only even wider, but also depicts the Target Happy even better. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:17, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Lists of appearances
I noticed those edits as well, and briefly looking into them, I didn't think much of it. It's generally not worthwhile to try to contact IP users, as they don't actually get notifications for it.

Oh man, though. . Italics are great, and lacking in appearance lists (though not sure about novel ranges: I've been consistently not italicizing them, myself, but there isn't any sort of solid consensus), but there's a reason it's Doctor Who Magazine special issues. For some of these things, if given a list, I could easily fix back by bot. But not if information in the title is straight up removed. 00:57, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, they're definitely acting in good faith. But there's a discussion to be had about some of the mass changes, and some things were titled better in the first place. Again, if I have a concrete list, I can definitely run a few bots.
 * [pause]
 * Oh, they're removing the Titan h3 on top of renaming the h4s and moving them up a level. Okay, that might be a bit more difficult to fix, but I have a plan in mind that might work: add the superheading for the earliest possible series, then add for the next if superheading is not already on the page, etc. That might not work if the sections are not always in the same order, though. Get back to me with specifically what needs changing, or what needs discussion, and I'll see what I can do. 01:02, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree that is the main issue here. 17:01, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP user replied on my talk page. To make things easier for the three of us, let's carry on this discussion entirely there. 03:54, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Killers vs. murderers
To be perfectly honest, I'm beginning to doubt the usefulness of that distinction. In theory, since killers is the supercategory, it's those whose actions bring about the death of another, without actually committing murder. It would be unreasonable to say you murdered someone by hitting them accidentally with a car, or if someone else who was controlling you entirely made you do it. Murder requires some degree of (premeditation and) actual intention.

But frankly, in practice, I don't think that distinction is so clear, so it might actually be best to do away with category:Killers altogether, at least as a viable category for individual articles. Category:Executioners, and maybe category:Assassins, I guess still need to be there. But since you wanted to understand, that's about the current difference between those two categories. 07:43, February 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose T:CAT NAME does call for some change in this regard. It might well be that the names of the categories are not clear enough. And we don't want to have any debatable cases--"No, that's not murder; that's manslaughter" is not the kind of thing we want to have to get into. Maybe the best solution is to keep all individual pages in one of the subcategories? In that case, any outliers (like Matt (Father's Day)) will simply be removed from the category entirely. 07:47, February 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * Delayed? Ha! No worries. I haven't been around as much lately, either.
 * So it seems we are in agreement that there's something wrong here (even as creator of the categories barely more than a year ago).
 * But I do think it's important to keep the Assassins and Executioner lines running. So either we keep the Killer cats, but enforce that no individual pages should go in them directly, or we put those two in Murderers. Not sure if a (fully objective) standpoint can necessarily put executioners under murderers, though. In this case, perhaps we should get rid of Killers, put Murderers directly in Criminals and Murder and homicide, with only Assassins as a subcategory, and put simply Executioners directly under Murder and homicide as well. Actually, looking at the categories, it should maybe just go under Death sentence, where right now it can't even be found. 04:33, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I am somewhat biased in having a historical context. Category:Killers, in fact, did not use to exist (god, English is weird). So in the past, no one chose Murderers over Killers; rather, Murderers was the available category (under Criminals only), and Killers was created later on for broader categorisation, with the creation of other, similar deathly cats. But now we find ourselves at a bit of an impasse. You make a compelling argument about murder being difficult to define broadly and objectively at the same time.
 * But I do think it's important to keep the Assassins and Executioner lines running. So either we keep the Killer cats, but enforce that no individual pages should go in them directly, or we put those two in Murderers. Not sure if a (fully objective) standpoint can necessarily put executioners under murderers, though. In this case, perhaps we should get rid of Killers, put Murderers directly in Criminals and Murder and homicide, with only Assassins as a subcategory, and put simply Executioners directly under Murder and homicide as well. Actually, looking at the categories, it should maybe just go under Death sentence, where right now it can't even be found. 04:33, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I am somewhat biased in having a historical context. Category:Killers, in fact, did not use to exist (god, English is weird). So in the past, no one chose Murderers over Killers; rather, Murderers was the available category (under Criminals only), and Killers was created later on for broader categorisation, with the creation of other, similar deathly cats. But now we find ourselves at a bit of an impasse. You make a compelling argument about murder being difficult to define broadly and objectively at the same time.


 * I think that even if moved to Killers, the parent category "Criminals" should be retained, as for the most part, it does apply. Man, I don't know. "Convicted murderers" is a compelling idea, and would allow for the retention of Murderers from the real world.


 * That said, I think murder as a premeditated crime, tried or otherwise, is something which could hold. Right? Am I way off base here? If someone under the control of another kills someone, they are not a murderer. But if they've taken up arms with intent to kill, or prepared a poison, or killed as part of a larger attack (whether strategically or just to show strength, à la Family of Blood), then they have committed murder, with regards to this category.


 * Gwen Cooper did not murder Ed Morgan in Ghost Machine, whereas Ed Morgan did murder poor Lizzie Lewis, in that same episode. Heck, Suzie Costello murdered Jack Harkness right in episode one, and did not even kill him long-term.


 * Anyway, you make an interesting point about Soldiers. Of course, not all soldiers have killed, even if that is part of their function. Wilfred Mott "never killed a man", bless him. Soldiers definitely belong within the larger category:Murder and homicide tree, perhaps directly there, or perhaps under Killers as you say; as a side note, remember that they are 4 levels in already, through category:War. If Soldiers does not go under Killers, then that raises the question of adding Killers to all pages where they have killed, and then brings up the Killer/Murderer debate once again. I suppose killing under orders wouldn't qualify as a premeditated action? Gah! I can see why you want them merged.


 * In any case, if we keep them both, the distinction must be in the definition, not in any sort of case-by-case morality survey. Remember T:CAT NAME. Murder isn't when it's "wrong" or not justified. If Murderers continues, those are the people who committed that premeditated act of killing someone. But maybe, if some cases are clearer than others, that would be too difficult to maintain. I don't know why I feel so compelled to keep Murderers in some form. Sorry for the lengthy reply. There's a lot to think about here. I'll end with a little list as a reminder of all the categories we're dealing with:
 * Category:Killers
 * Category:Murderers
 * Category:Assassins
 * Category:Executioners
 * Category:Cannibals (currently under Murderers)
 * Category:Soldiers (currently nowhere in there)
 * Well to be clear, it reaches Violence through Combat. I guess if you take your example of an assassin who's never killed, if they are a "killer" in the categories because of their job description, rather than their necessary actions, then perhaps "soldiers" would work by the same comparison. Remember, not all military personnel, but soldiers. They're kinda hired killers by the military, unless, again, I'm way off with that broad oversimplification.
 * Well to be clear, it reaches Violence through Combat. I guess if you take your example of an assassin who's never killed, if they are a "killer" in the categories because of their job description, rather than their necessary actions, then perhaps "soldiers" would work by the same comparison. Remember, not all military personnel, but soldiers. They're kinda hired killers by the military, unless, again, I'm way off with that broad oversimplification.


 * Convicted murderers is, I guess, a clear category name, but we don't have the resources to properly fill it, as we haven't read/heard/viewed every DWU story.


 * Murderers may yet be savable, though. Remember that narratives are often pretty clear on the situation which led to the killing. In fact, they're often pretty clear on when it's murder. When the Master kills indiscriminately, we're meant to think of it as murder, as something a bit further than, perhaps, other instances of killing. 17:54, February 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * The Doctor calls the Brig out for murder in Doctor Who and the Silurians. I think there's no higher source than the Doctor, in-story, calling something murder. Carys Fletcher absolutely shouldn't be in that category now there's Killers. It seems that Brett killed Daxtar. I wonder what you'd make of Ambrose Northover.


 * What did people do before the (non-feline) Killers cat? Well, it seems they added Murderers, by default, to anyone at all who's killed. I disrupted this seven years later. What I had in mind was that people like Etoine or Matt (Father's Day), who didn't actually mean to kill someone, and did so either by accident or under someone's influence, should not go in Murderers. Martin Jackson is an interesting case that's been added more recently, which I think is justified (thanks, Shambala...oh, I added that category...). I didn't necessarily think of broader questions, like if there's intent to kill, but it's under orders. Thinking about it now, I suppose if it's someone else's decision it's not technically murder; in the way we're using the category, that is.


 * Of course, my intentions are not necessarily so important now the category's out in the open, and exists in the connection that's perpetually strengthened and modified by the additions of others. :P Hence T:CAT NAME.


 * Even if we have a definition of the categories that's perfectly internally consistent, we need to make sure it's evident enough in the names and category descriptions that future users will apply the categories correctly. "Above all else, category names must not be open to multiple interpretation, and must be free of any bias or value judgements."


 * How can we best achieve this, while still maximising accuracy in categorisation? Do we have enough of a problem in our hands to justify moving completely away from the historical "Murderers" structure? If that is our plan, perhaps we should be bringing this up in the Panopticon (in the next few weeks; it will get most attention later as we approach the new series). 02:45, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Just seen your message
The heading comic implies that they are comics, such as we don't put BBCtv. As the heading already tells us that.

Also, I remember a year old thread which an admin said that variables such as (cameo) and (flashback) weren't allowed as brackets aren't.

I'll re-add the "Doctor Who:" segment when I get chance as I didn't catch that piece of the request. 82.3.146.201talk to me 14:17, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

BHS
This is not important at all, but I am curious: do you call it BHS for "BeHind the Scenes"? Are you just shying away from referring to that section as BS? I consistently call Behind the scenes BTS, personally.

Yep, that's all. Bye. 02:18, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything ringing any bells? ;) 00:38, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack and Rump Parliament
You are correct in many ways - I've acknowledged that the statement was in violation of T:NPA, I've recanted the offensive phrase, and I've asked Shambala to make the policy more clear in this regard (since "confused" and "naysayer" aren't insults in my book). But as it happens, your understanding of the comment is wrong and unsupported by the actual text; I did not, in fact, have you in mind when I wrote it, and if you reread it, you weren't "named as one of the 'confused naysayers'" as you claim. I personally don't think you're confused at all, actually (though if you think you are, that has nothing to do with me). In any case, I agree that we should stay civil and edit well etc etc.

In regards to the Rump Parliament, I think the consensus on the talk page seems pretty sensible; unfortunately, I too have not read any FP stories involving the Rump Parliament. If and when I read the relevant story, I'll definitely add material to that page. NateBumber ☎  19:56, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed some grammar in the above and changed around some words for clarity. A ninja edit, if you will. Although, while I'm here, I'd like to say that I don't really take kindly to you implying I tried to "push" Magrs via inclusion debates, or implying that I helped to "shove Magrs down [the wiki's] collective throat". At least, I'm pretty certain you meant to include me in your supposed cabal of "three people, all known for their love of (currently) invalid stuff"? NateBumber ☎  20:06, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

Wanted pages
Oh man, believe me, I've tried. This should have fixed the problem (edit), but it didn't. Turns out, as I'm seeing now, January last year, Bold Clone made the bold move of bringing the talk page link back. This leaves us with two options:
 * 1) I can make a little template to just put at the top of all those talk pages, so they're no longer redlinks.
 * 2) We can revert the template to 2013 (last edit before Bold Clone's), so there's no link to the template talk pages at all.


 * What would the message say? 22:14, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * Or we could just remove the redlink from the template entirely, and all those wanted pages items will be gone. If you think leaving the link and creating the talk pages is the better option, I'll think up what it should say, and implement that in the near future. 04:29, March 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the discussion link at Template:Navbar, and I've fully protected the article so it stays that way (until further discussion). Thank you for bringing this issue back to me. 02:29, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Re:ssilon
No problem! OS25 (Talk) 20:45, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

Bovril
From what I remember, Year of the Pig has quite a bit of beef in it. I'm sure Bovril is explained in the story. Do you want me to have a listen for it? CoT    ?  00:44, March 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've probably gone to sleep, so regardless of whether you want me to or not, I'm making bovril. CoT     ?  00:51, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Bovril
I would need a relisten to the Audio but checking the page all the information I would have is already on there. But to answer your question Bovril is a British Drink that is often drunk before bed. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 09:23, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

non existent categories
Hi! I removed the category in question because it didn't exist. It's not enough to just add the category, you have to make sure it exists and if it doesn't, you must create it. I sometimes go through Special:Wantedcategories and delete non-existent categories, and that's what happened in this case. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  14:15, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Message
Hi there,

I appreciate you dropping by. It's important for everyone (including admins reading this) to understand that very little phases me. A comment made by a random person on a Wiki doesn't make the slightest difference in my life. That's why the comment made regarding "time limits" also didn't bother me. What bothered me what how the user in question then (twice) adopted the "I'm offended" routine by deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying. It almost seemed that this user was doing it on purpose as a form of bizarre defense. I wasn't getting angry because I don't get angry. I'm as cool as a cucumber in nine out of ten cases. I just thought was this user was doing was strange and not in any way becoming an admin.

Put it this way: an admin shouldn't have to use underhand methods like that. Instead of being angry, I was highly surprised at what the user in question was doing. This is why I took it upon myself to remind them that "being offended" is not the same as "being right", and thus I wasn't phased by her being offended. If this person is going to continue in her role- and I genuinely wish her all the success in the world- then she will need to focus on what makes an admin an admin. And that is: separating yourself from the offended fad that seems to be making its rounds on the internet and "assuming good faith", which is a core rule and value at this Wiki, which should be upheld at all times and demonstrated by its admins. I felt at no point that this value was being used.

Returning to your other point about her original comment not being meant that way- I can see why the comment was left. Don't misunderstand me, I can understand that new editors could easily wander into the conversation and see "that guy's using time restrictions, I take it that's how they do things here. I'll adopt that method myself." I can understand it. It's just there are much smoother ways of going about things. And instantly jumping on experienced (and voluntary) editors here without gaining context is certainly not a lesson that should be passed on to our younger and more inexperienced editors. A simple "just a reminder that..." would have easily sufficed.

Anyways, that's out of my system. No doubt, the user is question is reading this, and everything I've said here (even the nice bits), I genuinely mean. I wish them all the best in their career here at the Wiki but as we go through life, we are all on learning curves. Maybe there is something for all of us to take away here. "Assuming good faith" is a good rule to go back and reread. I would also suggest that when people see a piece of text, they should never say they know what is meant by it. Because, let's face it- it's text without a face. I can take any line and make it "offensive" by putting a twist on it. Another thing to reflect on is not jumping to conclusions. Always convince yourself that this long-time editor has obviously said this comment in a good way, and that any negative connotations I get from this response thus isn't correct.

Good on you for acting as mediator. That's normally my job. But like I said, I'd forgotten about that falling out as soon as it was over. Hopefully, other people can learn from it and move on too. As I see it, there is no issue. No grudges, no regrets. We'll continue doing what we do best, and that's making this Wiki awesome.

The Farty  Doctor   Talk  01:18, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

J&L Revival
Oh yeah, I did this. Forgot to mention. The Jago & Litefoot Revival (audio story). Let me know if there are any related changes I somehow missed. 02:19, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Peter Cartwright
Service within the day, how about that? Was not a problem at all. Pages are now at Peter Cartwright and Peter Cartwright (actor), as requested, and as indeed they should be. The mess is over now; you can come out of hiding. Don't shy away from questions and favours: you're not at all a bother. :) 03:30, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

Susan
I have several notes about why we shouldn't over-complicate the Susan thing.

For one, there are more than one accounts on the Doctor's last visits to see Susan. The audios have it set-up a certain way, yes. But then there's PROSE: Legacy of the Daleks. In that, Susan has no kids and she flees the planet with all of her loved ones dead. Also, there's COMIC: The Forgotten, where the Doctor clearly says that he never went back for Susan. Peter Capaldi, who would have been the one to insist on the inclusion of Susan, also believes that the Doctor never went back. Now, you may notice that this is a really long and complex paragraph. If we were to link to the audios, we would have to explain all of this one the page, and in this case there's no need to. The continuity of that section is just saying "Susan was a person that existed." Thus, "An Unearthly Child--The Dalek Invasion of Earth" is just fine. OS25 (Talk) 00:32, April 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's meet in the middle then. How about for both River and Susan we do (first, last et. al). I am not counting The Five Doctors in this case, just as to not confuse readers. OS25 (Talk) 06:25, April 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. OS25 (Talk) 06:32, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Heather
Ooh, I see. Now let's wait Shambala to come round and confirm if that's indeed the case. Anyway, thanks for giving me the enlightenment. OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:47, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Object
Fixed! Thanks for the heads up! 20:59: Thu 20 Apr 2017

Britbox
I'm getting "We're sorry, BritBox is not available in your country" from the official website. I am indeed in Canada. Is this available in the US? 00:22, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Dab page positioning
Top of page elements like, stubs, and pic links are currently in positional flux. A few things like these will need to be redone in the Tardis CSS as we respond locally to a number of changes happening at the Fandom level. 03:49: Mon 24 Apr 2017
 * Not sure what you mean by "worse than you had expected" or waiting out the underlying "rendering engine". If we're still talking about the  stuff, it's just a temporary thing that happens.  Every now and again, Fandom/Wikia will make some changes to their CSS that might slightly misalign things about our own CSS. It'll get fixed :) Don't worry :)  23:08: Mon 24 Apr 2017

Your admin powers are needed
Ooooh, this'll be a first for you! All the other active admin have contributed to Thread:169815, but you haven't. Therefore, you're the one whose best suited to impartially close it down. I'd greatly appreciate if this thing could finally get closed down. CoT    ?  18:44, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Crossover Madness
Thanks for clearing that up. I just wasn't sure on the specifics of the matter. Sorry, I didn't respond sooner. I didn't get a notification and therefore did not see your message.

Btw, the thread can be closed now, based on the reasoning you have given involving crossovers. --Borisashton ☎  15:10, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

SR
Thanks for the info! I had known that we were meant to do that in the past, but I figured that when it was gone from the template it was no longer needed. I was actually wondering earlier today if that was still a thing that we were supposed to do. Duly noted. OS25 (Talk) 21:21, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

RE:Unbound Doctor appearances
Hey. Indeed, the differences between the two pages are very subtle, but the reason I said that The Doctor (Unbound Universe) - list of appearances has the best content is because its headings don't have links on them (which is better, according to some policy whose name I can't remember now) and it has more history revisions than the other one. But thinking about it, it's not something that I can't change mannualy if you move the links. Anyway, either will work. OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:57, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory
Hi. I'm not sure you understood my reasoning for creating Thread:215775. The thread was not a question of if the story was valid or invalid. It was a question on whether or not the story should get a separate page or not as currently it only gets a brief mention at Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe. Thanks. --Borisashton ☎  19:12, May 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for responding. --Borisashton ☎  11:25, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
Other Doctor Who stories have established that she reigned in the 20th and early 21st centuries so she seems like the most likely candidate. --GusF ☎  19:46, May 7, 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's just say that we were both guilty of speculation! --GusF ☎  20:09, May 7, 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I've fallen behind on all Doctor Who media outside of the television series in recent months but I don't remember it so much as being mentioned before. --GusF ☎  20:14, May 7, 2017 (UTC)