User talk:NateBumber

Romana III and Trey Merge
Hi I've noticed you've but a merge tag on Romana III and Trey. It was decided that they were to remain different pages in this thread, please can you read it. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 20:04, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Faction Paradox
I like things at least somewhat chronological, so having comics all the way at the bottom is quite the turn-off. You wrote a fascinating explanation of the series' development which is wonderful as is and would be diminished by being fragmented. Once Faction gets into the hands of Obverse, the novels and anthologies are equally important, but you can only group the Obverse write-up with one section. Also, some of the tables on the page are rather big, so I think it's better to group them together into a somewhat continous list than integrate them with other stuff. The only change I'd make would be adding an image or two to the history section. CoT    ?  21:55, February 24, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, I don’t have time at the moment to start dealing with it in earnest. Also I don’t want it to be misinterpreted as a hostile act. So I would be very happy if you spearheaded the clarification efforts. The latest FP anthology somehow seems to use Victoria Waterfield (Philology: The Real Professional Bag of Tricks (short story)) and even the Thirteenth Doctor (Special:Diff/2477299). The copyright status of this is unclear to me. But I would dearly love to avoid any protracted heated arguments. So if you could figure out what it is before the inclusion debate (or even initiate the debate yourself), it would be great. Amorkuz ☎  06:32, March 22, 2018 (UTC)

Tumblr
Hi, please note that discussions between two users that are relevant to wiki policy should take place on the wiki, for similar reasons as explained at Tardis:Chat policy. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  12:39, March 22, 2018 (UTC)

DotD novelisation
I don't mean to intrude, but I can't find a copy of The Day of the Doctor book in my local W H Smith or Waterstone's, and I wanted to ask how the regeneration of the War Doctor is handled before I make a long trip to find it in the W H Smith in town. More specifically, I wanted to know if we finally get the know the Ninth Doctor's first words after the regeneration?BananaClownMan ☎  15:47, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Guess I'll wait 'til my birthday to get the book if I don't see in a shop soon. True, it is a little disappointing that the Ninth Doctor's first words still allude us, especially since this might just be the only time we can find them out, unless Big Finish hire Pete Walsh or make "Warrior No More" canon, but you're right, at least now the "could have been worse" line can now make sense. "When one door closes, another must open" indeed.BananaClownMan ☎  20:32, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Carveggio rename
Hi! The reason I changed the speedy rename to a rename has to do with the reasoning User:GusF put on the rename tag: "Unless there is an in-universe source which spells his name 'Carvaggio', the page should use the real world spelling of 'Caravaggio'." We should allow at least some amount of time for someone to verify whether such a spelling exists in prose. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  23:02, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

First Law of Time
Well, I personally like to have information displayed this way. I believe having just a summary on the Laws of Time good, because if people are interest in it, they can click in the link and "dive" in more information. Anyway, as you were the one adding the information, I'll leave it up to you, really :) OncomingStorm12th ☎  02:29, June 5, 2018 (UTC)

Tumblr template
Hey! I've previously just used the template, which allows you to. I'm absolutely not opposed, of course. Just let me know what you want the output to be, and I'll make the template for you. "Official Tumblr blog"? 18:20, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, I just went ahead and made it: . Let me know if you want changes to the wording, or anything else. 18:33, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

PS: If you want to use it to link to Tumblr accounts for non-individuals (such as BBC Doctor Who), you can use the second variable to define that: 18:33, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

Chapterhouse rename
Hi!

A few months back (I'm a master procrastinator) I posted something in the Discussions section about renaming the page "Chapterhouse" and it was recommended to me that I get in contact with you.

Here's a link to the post I made: https://tardis.wikia.com/d/p/3100000000000164043

Thank you for your time, ARDT19

Ze Martians and zeir tripods
Hi, long time no see. Since you're one of the most 'verse-tile editors, I was hoping you have some good memories of Wild thymes and of the Martians invading in 1890s. I vaguely remember something of the sort popping up and Iris is mentioned as a source at Martian tripod. The date is more definite there, but I suspect that this event has just been referenced in the latest Torchwood story Goodbye Piccadilly. I thought you might be interested. I also hoped you might write something based on the knowledge of both stories, which is more than I can boast of. Amorkuz ☎  21:55, July 5, 2018 (UTC)

Cats and mouse
Renaming categories is a real pain. If you manage to enlist a bot operator, consider yourself lucky. Let me state, for the record, that on the matter of this rename I would have to stay neutral for the reason of almost complete ignorance. You are much more an expert on this. And, at any rate, War in Heaven seems a more specific title. If you'd like a second opinion, maybe User:Revanvolatrelundar is a better fit in this case. Funnily enough though, unlike moving pages which requires an admin intervention, moving categories doesn't. For the simple reason that you can't, and I can't. Moving a category means, in practice, that you go to every member of the category and change the category for it manually. After the new category is populated and the old one is empty, you slap a delete tag on the old one, and one of the admin eventually deletes it. (You can ping me if "eventually" seems like a long time.) Good luck. PS Sorry I was planning to transcribe the relevant part of Goodbye Piccadilly for you and AdricLovesNyssa but BF releases stories now faster than I can listen to them, let alone relisten. Amorkuz ☎  16:32, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Parentheticals
Hey! So here's a little thing. There's no problem with naming a page with multiple parentheticals. You can have a dozen if you want. The only technical limitation it brings is in doing pipe tricks. Generally speaking, we save time by typing: Castrovalva (TV story) which then magicks away the (TV story). A number of our templates, particularly infoboxes, have built-in pipe tricks, so they, too, are expecting a single parenthetical at the end of the title.

A title with multiple parentheticals will remove everything after the first opening parentheses. So: A Bloody (And Public) Domaine (short story) would become A Bloody. It properly links, as you can see, but it doesn't display correctly. So that means you have to remember to manually do the truncation by typing A Bloody (And Public) Domaine to get A Bloody (And Public) Domaine.

And you have to remember to override auto-naming of the infobox by adding |name = ''A Bloody (And Public) Domaine If you don't, the name atop the infobox won't be quite right. (Closing the italics is optional, in a sense, because styling doesn't pass from one variable to another.)

Also, the "prev" and "next" fields on infoboxes won't like a name like this. But it's easily fixed. We just keep the original version — A Bloody And Public Domaine (short story) — around as a redirect. And you don't have to change anything on the previous or next stories.

I should point out that none of this is a limitation of the MediaWiki software, though. It's just something that's not worth coding for locally at Tardis since it's such a rare thing. 15:28: Mon 23 Jul 2018

Dabooks
I'm still in a place with Internet once a day. I'll think of it and get back to you, say, within a couple of days. (Also I prefer the term dab enthusiast, or simply senior dabber, but thanks for noticing my efforts :) Amorkuz ☎  15:21, August 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * Enjoy is a strong word :). Okay, here is what I think. I ventured to some other wikis recently and realised that, compared to many others, we are dabbing relatively often. This is mostly due to the agreement to dab all stories, which, in turn, was a result of many story titles representing in-universe things and many not representing them. The main reason to dab all stories was to save editors the time for researching when a dab term is warranted. In my perusal of anthology titles, I eventually descended on the following understanding: if the title could be a title of a story, then it might as well be dabbed for the same reason as story titles always are (even though the policy does not require it). On the other hand, anthology titles that are not likely to have an in-universe analogue, especially titles that clearly mark themselves as collections, chronicles, volumes, series, etc.---such anthology titles require no dab. There are several benefits of not dabbing them: one does need a pipe-trick while linking to them, the screen real estate on mobile devices is saved by avoiding the second line of the title. At the same time, searchability is not affected because search suggestions react to the prefix, not suffix of the title.


 * So at first sight, it seems like dabbing these two pages is unnecessary. For instance:


 * Dark Eyes (audio series) is dabbed because of the anthology of the same name, Dark Eyes (audio anthology),
 * The Churchill Years (audio series) is dabbed because the same name with a volume number is used for individual releases, e.g., The Churchill Years: Volume One
 * on the other hand, Doctor Who: The Twelfth Doctor is not dabbed due to the lack of conflicts (hmm, now there is one with Doctor Who: The Twelfth Doctor Complete Year One, but it appeared later and here the primary topic might apply)


 * This is my default position, without knowing your reasons it would be useful to dab them. I'm happy to listen to what you think. Amorkuz ☎  22:23, August 12, 2018 (UTC)

DeRequin
Hi, I don't think you understand why I moved De Requin back from where User:Nahald moved it. There was an unnecessary redirect left behind, and none of the links had been moved before the rename. It was much easier to move it back so the correct procedure could be used. There's no ulterior motive or denial of the correct move on my part. Shambala108 ☎  03:01, September 14, 2018 (UTC)

Forum edit
Hi, the user in question has a bad habit of asking, sometimes demanding, that forum threads be closed, but only when they appear to be going in his favor; and of complaining when posts languish. Instead of removing his entire post, I just removed his complaint about the post not being closed. In this case, it was directly related to the user's previous behaviors, as he has been warned before about making these kinds of comments. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  04:19, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

Forum posts
Hi, please refrain from calling for closure of open forum posts. That is an admin's job to decide. Also please familiarize yourself with Tardis:Discussion policy (not posting off-topic in discussions/forums) and Tardis:No personal attacks (which I take pretty strictly when they appear in the forums). Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  14:20, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Anything You Can Do

 * You're welcome. I did that notice the end of the entry was a bit weird, so I checked the reddit source to check it. OncomingStorm12th ☎  14:12, November 30, 2018 (UTC)

War in Heaven
Glad to hear it! Sorry I couldn't be of more help with my bot; it's still temporarily out of commission. 22:18, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Interviews
You're welcome for all the inteviews from BBC.co.uk, Doc Oho, Outpost Gallifrey, and elsewhere! I saw many production background notes for the TV stories like on Shannon Sullivan's website, but not really anything for the 1991-2005 books so I decided to dig for them and it was rather interesting.Crazyface201 ☎  04:13, February 17, 2019 (UTC)

A Farewell to Arms
Hi Nate. I'm just dropping by to say that I've just read A Farewell to Arms and I was completely blown away by it. Wow. The story was unbelievably good, the characters were brilliant, and the whole concept of the memory-stealing creature was so imaginative.

I did also notice how your concept of the "Greater Key" appears to have stemmed from a discussion we had a few months back over "the Weapon" and "the Moment" being the same thing. Little continuity nods like that can make a story for me, and served to be the cream on top for yours.

Bringing this back to the actual wiki rather than just me giving you a review (which you more than deserve), I was wondering why, given that you have linked the "Greater Key" into the articles for "the Weapon" and "the Moment", why other developments made by newer Faction stories haven't been added to certain pages?

On the page for the man with the rosette I added the reference to him from The Story So Far... a few months ago, to no objection from other users. The reference does seem sound to me, and so do these new links between the Magistrate and the War King. While merging the pages at the minute might be slightly premature (or not, which is why I ask your opinion), I do feel that some mention on both pages of the information contained within the new stories should be added.

I'm taking this to you first because, quite frankly, your knowledge on Faction Paradox far surpasses my own, and in the past you have shown to grasp obscure and oblique references much better than I (the stuff in The Eyeless, to name one).

I look forward to hearing back from you, and again, fantastic work on the short stories, I'll be sure to read the others in the near future. :) --Revan\Talk 18:14, February 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you, in my official capacity as an admin, for your discretion in editing (or rather non-editing) pages with your own stories. We have just recently re-discussed it among admin, and reaffirmed this policy. I feel I should, perhaps, also re-explain why we believe authors should not edit their own pages. Apart from the obvious possibility for abuse, which is of course not expected in this case, it's just the matter of perspective.


 * The writer simply knows too much about the story. Having multiple publications under my name in my professional life (though not in fiction), I experience it firsthand. There are usually multiple iterations until the thing is published. The last version, the version of record, is the only one known to readers and the only one to be used for in-universe pages. But I often find it hard to separate this last version from all the preceding iterations, mentally remove all the deleted parts, etc. For fiction, I imagine, a well-thought-through but not (yet) published backstory or some hooks for future stories can easily inadvertently creep up into an edit.


 * Secondly, I often read in interviews with authors that characters took a life of there own, including in reader's perception. It might be that an intended meaning did not come across or an unintended meaning took flight. The author knows how things "really" are, but that may not be how readers understand it.


 * To summarise, the author's perspective is fascinating to learn but dangerous to be used on in-universe pages. And that is, in a nutshell, why even for respected and trusted editors, who would not go editing in Marvel style, or adding too much stuff purely for self-glorification, or removing all information contradicting their work, even for such trusted author-editors, it is wise and proper to step aside and let others wikify their creations. Once again, we really appreciate your understanding in this matter. It's hard to send your children into the wide world, leaving them to the mercy of others. But if we don't, they will never have a life of their own. Amorkuz ☎  09:26, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

Re: dab term
Nah, twas my mistake not dabbing the thing to disambiguate it from the general concept of holes (which is linked to on Jumper). All good in the end, cuz I wouldn't have otherwise gotten into the groove of making pages for the rest of the troupe (well, good in a sense, as all I'm doing now by spending time on the wiki is procrastinating on you-know-what). CoT    ?  17:49, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Obverse expertise sought
Hey, N8! I was wondering if you might have access to Iris Wildthyme of Mars and, if so, whether you would not lend a fellow author a hand by fleshing out a page with her story. An author pleaded with admin to help her do that. I would have done it myself, but do not have this particular collection. Sorry for bothering you otherwise. Amorkuz ☎  14:44, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Images
Hi, I will answer the question you asked User:Jack "BtR" Saxon. Yes it is a rule that we only want/allow at most one image per section (short sections probably shouldn't have any images, especially if that causes weird formatting). The purpose of this rule is to keep the number of images low in order to reduce load time for pages. For instance, yesterday I removed dozens of images from Eleventh Doctor, because it had over 120 images. Apparently a lot of people visit the site on cell phones and other mobile devices, and the load time for those can be especially long (in addition for people like me who just don't have superfast connection speeds). I don't believe that the rule is actually spelled out on the many policy pages discussing image use, but User:CzechOut has frequently stated this rule in multiple places on the wiki. Thanks for your question, Shambala108 ☎  00:03, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go, a direct quote from User:CzechOut on User talk:Forgetful 10th doctor fan:
 * "Just because we allow one picture per section doesn't mean that a picture a section is a required. In fact, it's often a bad idea to use one pic a section, if the sections are relatively brief. You need to stand back and look at the article as a whole. Pictures shouldn't flood the frame, but instead have plenty of room to breathe. It's for this reason that both of your Seventh Doctor images will now be removed from the article. Do not replace them."
 * If I find more I'll post it here. Shambala108 ☎  00:20, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

One image per section
Hey. Yeah, according to Shambala108, it is. I actually disagree with it and think it would be worth bringing up with the admins that it's a completely unnecessary rule that should only apply to particularly long pages. -- Saxon 00:39, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Image policy
I'm trying to get an image policy finalized, and would like to invite you to discuss it on Thread:247941.

Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  22:24, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox
It's going to be a list of all credited Doctor Who cast members. I thought it would be interesting to see the spread of guest stars and regulars and compare the numbers as well as how many characters each actor played. It's mostly for myself but I guess I could see it being converted into an article in the relatively far future. I'm glad to see someone has taken an interest in my editing habits! --Borisashton ☎  17:21, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Responding to your question regarding another admin's closure of a thread
Let me start by saying that I do not appreciate your attempt to get me to say something undermining another admin's closure. If you have questions about this closure, you should first talk to Shambala108, not me. If you think she has misinterpreted my words, please, in the future, suggest this to her first. If she deems it necessary to check with me, I would be happy to respond.

However, as it happens, she did not misinterpret my words, which were very clear. When I said, "This wiki does not grant validity simply for including a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story," I meant that simply including a character is not sufficient for the validity. It's really hard to read it any other way. So I'm not sure what your inquiry could possibly achieve. There are multiple cases when stories were granted validity. There were cases where stories were not granted validity based on a DWU-originated character. We all cite Vienna because that is an example of a whole spin-off centred around a DWU-originated character, spin-off produced within a well-established DWU-centred ecosystem, and still it was not sufficient. The case of the vulture, who plays a tangential role (if any role at all) and was not in any way featured in a DWU-centred ecosystem is much weaker. Since you provide a quote from T:VS, let me respond in kind: "Most stories are trying to be narratively continuous at the time they're produced, even though they may be superseded by later stories."

- Clarification of the fourth rule

This is the reason why most stories with DWU-based characters are valid: their authors intend them to be attached to an established franchise as this brings in audience and sales. Big Finish went the other route with Vienna precisely because they were counting on Chase Masterson's fan base from another franchise, Star Trek. To attract them, they decided not to weigh the Vienna series with the heavy baggage of DWU continuity. There is zero reason to expect Marvel UK productions to be trying to rely on Doctor Who for sales in their other comics. The Body in Question is not narratively continuous with DWU. None of the Marvel universes featured there (5555, 8410, and Styrakos) has the slightest resemblance to DWU. One could try to argue that there is a common multiverse or megaverse, and that is sufficient relationship to guarantee validity. But nobody did. I spent these past months trying to understand how the creators thought about the inter-dimensional relationships at the time, and how it was eventually resolved in the Marvel universe numbering system. I was very disappointed that I was basically the only one searching for additional information. Even the fact that the Doctor was even mentioned was only discovered due to my insistence on proper prior research.

Finally, to put an end to the protestations about Vienna being somehow an improper example, here is another one. Sleeze Brothers were created for DWM but then were given a (short-lived) spin-off in an imprint of Marvel. Its validity was discussed and rather quickly shot down at Thread:210741. To quote from CzechOut's closing argument there: "And one of the common sense questions we might ask here is whether the authors of the comic series genuinely meant their work to take place in the DWU. And they surely didn't."

- Argument why Sleeze Brothers comic series is invalid

However, it does not stop there. Chronotis was created for Shada and then reused by Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently stories. One of the later comic stories (not by him anymore) happens to feature both Chronotis and a Dalek. If having a DWU-originated character were enough for validity (and replacing a visual of a Dalek for one mention of the Doctor), then this comic story would have to be valid. However, in Thread:209691 exactly such an idea was called "an insane proposition" by OttselSpy25 and "frivolous" by CzechOut in the closing argument.

To be clear, I do not say/mean/hint that the Body in Question debate was "insane" or "frivolous". I simply take the idea that having a character (even if the character actually plays some role in the plot) and not having an explicit quote from the author stating that this is not DWU--- that this is not and should not be sufficient for validity, lest "insane" validity ideas become reality. Amorkuz ☎  20:00, June 15, 2019 (UTC)


 * If I misinterpreted your question, apologies. However, the confusion was quite natural given the circumstances. You explicitly stated that your inquiry was "related to Scrooge MacDuck's recent post on User talk:Shambala108". As it happens, that post did not mention my closure of the prior thread. Instead, it stated a disagreement with the decision of Shambala108, who cited my closure in hers. Given that
 * Scrooge MacDuck has been recently engaged in a very Pluto2-like behaviour: namely, discussing validity of multiple stories in quite a short period of time, some of which stories had absolutely no business being valid,
 * that he voiced his disagreement regarding the closure based, in part, on whether a character's appearance is sufficient for validity,
 * and shortly after you asked me about the same thing explicitly tying it to his post,
 * given all that, I could hardly come to any conclusion other than you also disagreeing with the closure for the same reason. Incidentally, the fact that your message was posted in the middle of my talk page without a heading, forcing me to search for it upon clicking on the "hypercube" notification and prompting you to acknowledge a less-than-standard mode of communication, did not help either.


 * Once again, if this is all a big misunderstanding, I'd be happy and regret the confusion. In this case, to avoid the repetition of such situations in the future, perhaps, it would be better not to motivate your message as related to somebody's disagreement with a thread closure. You might have been inspired by one part of Scrooge MacDuck's message, but you anchored yourself to all of it, disagreement and attitude included. Amorkuz ☎  23:23, June 16, 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the part of the good faith policy both User:Scrooge MacDuck and you are searching for is the following:

"Of course, some users act in bad faith, we trust admins to use their judgement and their tools to deal with them appropriately."


 * It is true that some of the admin practice the storied principle of turning another cheek (or rather page) to users who commit vandalism and/or openly rebel against the wiki and its policies. However, no user should expect good faith from all admin if evidence of such actions has come to light. A user acting in good faith does not consistently push against admin instructions in order to weaken protections against personal attacks or to fictionalise a disabled child. A user acting in good faith does not say one thing only to turn around and do a complete opposite. A user acting in good faith who disagrees with a policy initiates a debate to improve the wiki's policies.
 * In order to protect the wiki from vandalism and other subversive behaviour and to ensure that our protective measures are just and measured, admin have to do a lot of research on- and offsite. While this may not be immediately apparent and while extensive discussions among admin of the appropriate action is not and should not be public, all this does inform our preventive measures and may in some cases negate the assumption of good faith.
 * At the same time, I'm not entirely sure how this all applies to you and what your complaint is. Whatever I thought of your motivations, I answered your question in some detail providing additional examples that required time and effort on my part. If you deem my answer unsatisfactory, please let me know what remains unclear to you. Your question to me was public anyways, and bringing it to Shambala108's attention was a matter of professional ethics. You have not suffered any punitive measures from Shambala108, me or any other admin. Are you complaining about my misunderstanding you? Are you accusing me of misunderstanding you on purpose? Are you, in a point of fact, accusing me of acting in bad faith?
 * To avoid future drama for both of us, I would appreciate it if you either make specific accusations or bring this matter to a conclusion. Amorkuz ☎  22:18, June 19, 2019 (UTC)

Gender-neutrality of "Lord President"
Hi! Just saw on your user-page your suggestion for the renaming of of Lord President. While President of the High Council might be a better title for the reasons you cite (consistency with President of Earth and so on), I don't know if Lord President can in fact be considered a gendered form: one thing the BBC has been very steadfast in pointing out since the Thirteenth Doctor was unveiled is that in a Gallifreyan context, "Lord" does not necessarily refer to a man; Whittaker's character can still call herself a Time Lord, just as well as a Time Lady. So by the same reasoning, Romana could well call herself Lord President. Just a random thought that popped into my head that I thought you'd be interested in; it's hardly anything conclusive, of course. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:11, June 25, 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. I wasn't suggesting that "Lady President" and "Time Lady" were inaccurate, simply stressing that "Lord" has seen some usage as the gender-neutral form, not just the male form.


 * Thanks for the thanks! --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:49, June 26, 2019 (UTC)