User talk:Amorkuz

Martian's in Iris Wildthyme
Amorkus,

Just seen your message on User:NateBumber's talk page about the Martian's in Iris Wildthyme particulary their invasion of the alternate paris in 1894. I've just finished reading Enter Wildthyme the novel in which this happens, so if you want more information then ask. I have listened to Goodbye Piccadilly so won't be able to add any information from that one.

Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 08:19, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Story update
Hi. I was adding the new parameters of in Short Trips (series) pages, and noticed that (series) doesn't get dabbed like (audio series) does, making the information display a bit weird. When you have the time, I'd appreciate if you could update it. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:27, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Series pages
Oh, believe, there are no hard feelings at all. Most of my edits to these pages were following in the footsteps of what was already there, but I wasn't quite happy with the way the info was presented as well. As you said, there was hardly any uniformity.

In fact, you can see that my edits to these pages were mostly creating redlinks to "Series n" pages, when we started making them. So the fact that you're taking the time to finetune their content makes me quite happy. ;) OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:18, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

The Undertaking of Planet 4
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Your memories prove correct; the Wellsian Martians and their invasion played a role in several, as you say, wild thymes. I recall that Fwhiffahder was planning to rewrite Martian back in the day, but that never materialised, and frankly I think there's a whole collection of pages centered around the Martian tripods that could use major updates. Perhaps I'll start on it this Martes? Either way, I'll make sure to check out Goodbye Piccadilly posthaste!

Hope you've been well :) – N8 ☎ 03:38, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

BSSR
Oops, sorry. Just for checking then: these apply all the way to Dead Man's Switch then, right? If so, I'll go back and switch it. OncomingStorm12th ☎  18:45, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll start changing them to BSSR from where you stopped. As with the box-set being marketed as #12, #13 etc, I'm not sure. Will look research it at the site and the Vortex (I really love that we have such a rich magazine for researching stuff for BF). When/if I find something, I'll come back here. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:01, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the references to Bernice Summerfield Box Sets on Vortex I managed to find were:


 * VOR 36 - Bernice Summerfield Box Set 2: Road Trip / Bernice Summerfield Box Set 3: Legion (on "Forthcoming Releases")
 * VOR 43 - no reference to numbernig on article "Brax to Basics", but refered to as Bernice Summerfield Box Set 3: Leigon on "Forthcoming Releases". Also Bernice Summerfield: New Frontiers Box Set is present on "Forthcoming Releases"
 * VOR 50 - Bernice Summerfield: New Frontiers Box Set / Bernice Summerfield: Missing Persons Box Set (on "Forthcoming Releases")
 * Anyway, it seems like they were truly marketed as #1, #2, etc. rather than continuing the previous numbering. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:33, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As you've mentioned these prefixes for Torchwood releases: Big Finish Torchwood series has been bothering me for a while. It was perfect when Big Finish began releasing them back in 2015, but they've grown and expanded. So I've been thinking in a way to better cover them. However, I believe this will be better made in a few months. The reason for this message is to see if you find a broader name for releases for post-series 4 releases such as Aliens Among Us. Until then, I'll keep thinking/trying to find one as well. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:43, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Removing categories off pictures
Hello, I just uploaded a picture of the Time Lord Hedigar to use on his page. Only, I used the wrong category and I don't know how to remove it. If you could remove it or tell me how to, that'd be great, thanks. The picture is Hedigar.jpg. Ben Moore512 ☎  20:00, July 13, 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, just realised I didn't say what was the wrong category. It's The Day of the Doctor TV story images. Thanks again. Ben Moore512 ☎  20:03, July 13, 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that User:Danochy has removed all the content from their talk page for a second time, in the process also removing messages from admins. The first time I reverted it and stated in the edit summary that it was vandalism but since it has happened again I thought the best course of action would be to contact you before it became something more. Hope your well, Borisashton ☎  09:31, July 15, 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, you've sorted it now. --Borisashton ☎  09:34, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Series 4 incorrect dating
Hello. I'm just leaving this here so as to bring it to your attention. I noticed not that long ago that there is something wrong with pages affiliated with some Series 4 episode pages. Some episodes, such as 'Partners in Crime', 'The Sontaran Experiment', etc, all have it on their Main Setting sections of the infobox that the year the episodes are set in is 2009. Because of the events of 'Last of the Time Lords', all the episodes set in the present day, broadcast after that one, are based in years synonymous with the year of broadcast. Added to that, a line of dialogue in 'The Fires of Pompeii' confirmed that the present day for series 4 is in 2008. This also affects the 2008 and 2009 in-universe pages. A lot of the event during series 4 in the 2009 article should be in the 2008. I recommend that the information be exchanged where it needs to be while relation to 'The Year That Never Was' should be made a separate linked template at the top of both the 2008 and 2009 pages. I felt as if I should notify you about this before I did anything about it. Thank you. BelcherMorganJames ☎  22:13, July 16, 2018 (UTC)

Categorical Imperative
(Not my strongest title, I know ...) For a long while now I've been planning for the rename of The War to War in Heaven (as suggested on the talk page) and I'm wondering what the procedure would be for dealing with the twelve categories that refer to The War in their names. Is there a way to rename categories? Or will someone have to enlist a bot to manually removed the old and add the new? – N8 ☎ 16:20, July 17, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and the advice! And don't worry about transcribing Goodbye Piccadilly; I'm no stranger to the difficulties of keeping up with BF's output. I'm planning on listening to it within the week, and then I'll share the relevant section with AdricLovesNyssa. Cheers! – N8 ☎ 18:59, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Now We Are Six Hundred thread
Hi, the inclusion debate for the anthology, Now We Are Six Hundred has been open since December and hasn't seen any action since February. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at it when you have time in regard to its closure. Obviously its up to the admins when it is time to close a thread but it has been dead for a while now. Thanks for your time. --Borisashton ☎  12:16, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

Royal template
I have no objections to tweaking it a little. In fact it was User:LegoK9 that created it last year. I had the idea to create a similar template so searched up "Template:Monarchs" in case such a thing already existed and found their template. I saw that it hadn't been implemented so I added it to the relevant pages.

I also thought about adding Scottish monarchs and spouses of monarchs to the template but didn't have the time. --Borisashton ☎  15:15, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

Re: SJA narrative trailers
Hey, sorry for the late response, I don't get notifications any more. I put the invalid template on the other two trailer pages for now, per existing policy, pending any resolution from Thread:224324. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  23:23, July 27, 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack
Hi, a user personally attacked me in | this edit. Just thought I'd let you know so you can take the necessary action since it offended me. Thanks in advance. --Borisashton ☎  00:08, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

Missing episodes
All the stories in Season 4 have missing episodes so I put Category:Stories with missing episodes in Category:Season 4 stories and removed the now redundant categories from the individual pages. --Borisashton ☎  15:25, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. I did think briefly about new episodes being found. I'll stick the category back on the individual categories soon. Presumably you're alright with me doing a similar thing with Category:Third Doctor television stories etc. since that sort of thing will never change and it helps highlighting one-off appearances in later series? --Borisashton ☎  15:43, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor
Hi, I've been advised to ask you directly the rationale for this undo at Sixth Doctor - apologies for the hasty revert, but considering there was no explanation given I couldn't understand how this could have been done in good faith. I've looked over the edit again and I don't see how it's in any way controversial - in particular, the section over Six's regeneration was a total mess when I came across it (and is now back in that state), with references from directly contradictory accounts (that the section's entire purpose is to outline) mixed throughout. It's not fit for purpose as is, so if you do have a particular objections to the edits I made could we work together to find a workable solution? As for the notion of Sylvester McCoy playing the Sixth Doctor, it's quite frankly hair-splitting of the highest degree that doesn't belong anywhere, based on nothing more than the use of a wig during the regeneration sequence. Is there really a consensus to include that? TheOtherJenny ☎  07:23, August 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Regarding Sylvester, I strongly disagree (particularly that it's in any way analogous to the Curator), but if there's a consensus there I'll defer to it.
 * With my edits to the "death" section, however, they seem to have been misunderstood. The purpose of this section is to outline the three contradictory accounts of the Sixth Doctor's regeneration. The version I encountered (and as it currently exists) is the version that attempts frutlessly to stitch together a single narrative from these irreconcilable accounts, which is why I edited it. With the specific Spiral Scratch example you point out, the element of the sentence that causes an issue is not that but the following clause, attributed to Head Games. Head Games is the basis of the first account (suicide), so sourcing it in the second account is incorrect: it's a different account, and does not in any way concern the Doctor's chronal energy drain as currently implied. (The Spiral Scratch information remains in my edit, although the citation would indeed be better placed at the end of the paragraph - easily fixed.) The brief introduction I added to the top of the death section mentions the commonalities, i.e. the link to Time and the Rani (which is far better placed here than at the end of each sub-section, where it currently implies that the TV episode/novel supports particular accounts where it doesn't) and hitting his head on the TARDIS console (which can be appropriately sourced to Head Games there). I retained all sources, and in fact added one to novel The Room with No Doors, but rearranged instances where the prose switched between accounts (in one case even mid-sentence) - as the entire function of the three sub-sections is to outline one account each. The only detail I didn't retain is that of Mel seeing the Doctor attempt to activate the HADS (from the Time and the Rani novel), which I wouldn't object to being worked into the top section.
 * I'll say again that the current version is simply impossible to understand, entirely obscuring which account comes from which source due to a tangle of cross-references. Hopefully we can find a good way to move forward with it now. TheOtherJenny ☎  07:47, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Just to flag that I'm happy to continue discussing this, whenever your time allows :) TheOtherJenny ☎  02:24, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Hit the Dab
For a while now I've had the idea of making a Panopticon thread about starting to use a (novel series) dab term on pages like Virgin New Adventures and BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures. Since you're the local king of the dab term around here, I figured I'd run the idea past you first to see if there are any obvious objections before I make the thread. So, any thoughts? – N8 ☎ 14:10, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
 * No rush! Enjoy your internet inaccessibility :) – N8 ☎ 02:14, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful explanation! The point about anthology titles vs story titles in particular was really insightful. I think I have a better understanding now of your dabbing vision (and may I say that I find it quite quite amenable).

Under these rules, my hastily-worded proposition is obviously senseless; it was careless of me to not be more clear. I want us not to just slap (novel series) or (prose series) at the end of each article title, but to shoot straight for New Adventures (prose series) and Eighth Doctor Adventures (prose series)! My main reason for this is that the format of putting the publisher in front of the series title (like on the recently-renamed Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series) has fallen out of style, and rightfully so: in the example of the recently-renamed Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series, to italicise properly, you need to manually correct it to Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series – and then lord help the poor soul who clicks on "Big Finish" expecting Big Finish !

From where I stand, something something T:NPOV, the same logic applies for Virgin New Adventures versus New Adventures (prose series) ; in practice, many articles just pipe away the word "Virgin" anyway! Hopefully that makes more sense. – N8 ☎ 05:58, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas II
On Tsar Nicholas II there which I edited his page on this wiki which you undid is that there is an historical inaccuracy that he was overthrown and killed during the October Revolution in 1917. In the real world he was overthrown during the February Revolution and his rule was replaced by a provisional government which was overthrown during the October Revolution by the Bolsheviks led by Lenin in 1917. Nicholas II alongside his family were placed under house arrest and moved several times until being moved to the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In July 1918 he was murdered alongside his family and several servants by their guards. Unless "The Wages of Sins" (which I haven't read) specifically mentions that he was overthrown and killed during the October Revolution then I feel that it's okay to edit the article. Also I typed that Nicholas II is the great-grandson of Nicholas I which I checked several times so I feel that's okay.

Chancellery Guard template
Hello, I had an idea for a template, but thought I'd run it by an admin first. It's essentially a template which lists all known Chancellery Guard members who have a page on the wiki, like the High Council template. It'd have Castellan, Commander, Captain and so categories.

If you don't think it's necessary, that's fine, I thought to check to see what an admin would make of it.

Thanks Ben Moore512 ☎  20:29, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Question about appearances
May I ask, why aren't the appearances I added counted as appearances? I ask this since you're one of two admins who remove my edits. Just want to know why.

Re: discussions
Thanks for the info. Shambala108 ☎  00:16, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Thirteenth Doctor
Hi, sorry if I stepped out of line there by just changing the page, but I think it's utterly uncontroversial that "Avatars" was officially released after Christmas 2017. And also, well, sorry about some of the things I did about exactly a year ago now. Completely agree that even if Avatars was officially released before TUaT it would be more than a bit wrong to have it as the first appearance. CoT    ?  03:34, September 9, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Reaching Out
Hiya. Right, weird one this. So I'll give my opinion of what I think we should do rather than stick rigidly to the rules. My personal view is that the Thirteenth Doctor first appeared in Twice Upon A Time. Technically, yeah, it is in the Lucy Wilson book, but really its just a cheeky cameo rather than a fully-fledged first appearance.

My stance on CJB is that they're a part of the DWU, even if they only hold the rights to a few of the characters in it. It's nice seeing Thirteen and others obliquely showing up in their stories, but in the intrests of common sense the line has to be towed somewhere. So yeah, as its clearly intended to be by the BBC, I'd say that Twice Upon A Time is the one we should use. I don't know where you stand on the subject, but I've no intention of starting any explosive edit wars over such a trivial issue. I'm open to any opinions on the subject, so fire away with what you're thinking. :) --Revan\Talk 11:47, September 10, 2018 (UTC)