User talk:Spreee

Canon
Hi, just in response to your canon comment in the Myths section of The Mysterious Planet, our Tardis:Canon policy is clear on this issue. The TARDIS Index File Wiki is quite inclusive of most spinoff media and doesn't have the caveat statements that wikipedia chucks on everything. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuity & Discontinuity
In articles continuity is about establishing relationships between the stories see Format for Television Story Entries but there shouldn't be discussion entered into in these sections.

Even in the discontinuity section there shouldn't be any statements based in supposition "probably, maybe, may, perhaps" any statements like that shouldn't be in there, only provable information that can contradict the discontinuity, plothole or explain the error should be in here. (Other wise we'd end up with a million theories from everyone, we need supportable facts). Thanks. --Tangerineduel 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just taking on a note about Discontinuity, why are you indenting your explainations for the Discontinuity, it doesnt like right either? Bigshowbower 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Helps to differenitiate between disparate ideas.

The user talk page
You probably didn't know this, but technically your user talk page is not yours. It's a public space used by other editors to leave you messages. When you wipe messages, you make it harder for other editors to see whether you've been contacted as to a certain point. Because conversations are at least two-sided, you also make it impossible for people to follow a conversation that they may have encountered on another person's talk page which involves you. For this reason, please do not simply "blank" this talk page in an effort to keep it "clean". If you want to archive the messages to another page, and leave behind a link to that archive on this page, that's fine. But just destroying the information is considered disrespectful to the people whose messages you're "blanking", and unhelpful to others who may be trying to learn something from the discussion that only in part occurs here.

Accordingly, I have restored earlier messages that once appeared here.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  17:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Moffat's intent versus reality
I notice you are continuing to revert my usage of the language "the xth episode of the yth season of the 1963 version of DW". On The Masque of Mandragora, you have given the rationale that Moffat seems inclined to treat the whole thing as one series. Well the problem with that rationale is that Moffat's irrelevant. We all know that there are two series, under two completely different production regimes. There's no doubt in the minds of BBC Worldwide that there are two different series, one that began in 1963 and one that began in 2005. IMdB believes there are two series. Amazon believes there are two series. My bookcase believes there are two series, because it's realeased one of them as "Series 1-4", but not the other. And we learn today that this first Matt Smith series is being released on DVD as "Series 5", irrespective of what you might have inferred from Moffat's comments. Therefore, there is a reason to cite an episode as "the xth episode of the yth season of the 1963 version of DW", because there are eight series' of episodes already where it's important to designate which of the two versions of Doctor Who is meant. Yes, as DW fans we're not confused at all. But the casual fan and inexperienced user of this site must be considered. It is important to say that Planet of Giants is a serial from the second season of the 1963 version of Doctor Who, whereas Tooth and Claw is an episode from the second series of the BBC Wales version of Doctor Who.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  17:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Solar system
I know you don't mean disrespect, and neither do I by the way. In colloquial use I agree it is not a production error as that is what most people call stellar systems. However, when it is a scientific machine which is supposed to give accurate results and it calls it a solar system, I'd consider it incorrect. It's the same as calling the Doctor "Doctor Who". Many people do it, but it isn't factually correct (that we know of) as his name is "the Doctor". The Thirteenth Doctor 23:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)