User talk:OttselSpy25

Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time
Just a quick question: after looking through some old forum replies written by yourself, I'd like to ask for rationale behind getting Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time made invalid. Seeing as the Doctor Who TV series unambiguously exists in-universe, I can't seem to see much reason as to why this story is invalid. 📯 📂 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: TVC
Hm. Honestly not sure. If it were licensed I'd have no objection: it is now well-understood that A) you can have very short narratives, and B) that invalid sources do deserve pages in all cases. However… in that old deletion rationale from five years ago, User:CzechOut also expressed doubts that a license was sought from the Nation Estate. Nothing has changed about the importance of our standards in that area.

You might argue that we should give TV Comic the benefit of the doubt, as established publishers of licensed DWU works, but unless you have inarguable evidence, such suggestions could only be the object of a forum thread; not something which can reverse an admin's long-standing decision overnight.

In the meantime, though, you could and should include a paragraph about the story in the relevant section of Doctor Who parodies. -Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh — I didn't check the dates and I'd assumed the strip must have been from one of the periods where TVC were not otherwise publishing regular Dalek comics. If there are other Dalek comics in the selfsame issue I agree it's pretty far-fetched to propose they are not licensed, and I'll indeed recreate the page.


 * Incidentally, though, this is some pretty appalling news about The Gay Daleks being actually a fully-licensed parody, because in that case, I really can't see a way round covering it on the Wiki as much as we do Hallo My Dalek or Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet?… Scrooge MacDuck  ☎  00:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * After having let it simmer a little while, I've recreated the page. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who in "Colony in Space"
Back in April 2017, you added to Colony in Space (TV story) that the story had been adapted into a comic called Doctor Who in "Colony in Space". I'm tentatively interested in turning this into a non-redlink, but due to the name I'm having a hard time tracking down any information on it. Would you happen to remember where I might learn more? Hope you're well btw! – n8 (☎) 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I definitely never would have found that without your help! And what a neat comic it is. Thanks a bunch! – n8 (☎) 01:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For(u)m Letter
Hey there, I hope your Halloween was decent. As you might know, we've not had forums for over two years at this point. A few of the regular editors have been having a discussion on this topic at Forum talk:Index and we'd like the input of other prominent editors if you have the inclination. Cheers. Najawin ☎  08:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas, User:OttselSpy25, and have a Happy New Year. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  11:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Forum thread proposal
I saw your forum thread proposal about Rule 4 and the DWU, etc. I wanted to let you know that my own discussion about valid sources intends to address this. I'm not asking you to remove your proposal, because I don't know how the discussion will actually play out, nor am I asking for support of mine, since you already have! I just wanted to tell you that your idea is one of a few aspects that I intend to examine in the discussion I have proposed. Chubby Potato ☎  23:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor appearances
Welcome back, and thank you for joining in on this monumental effort! Since it's been a while, I'll also say congrats on your non-wiki-related success – the other day I was startled to walk into my friends' apartment and find them halfway through one of yours. The Ninth Doctor is a wise one to start with, number-of-appearances-wise; I'm working on Donna Noble - list of appearances right now, but I'll hop over and join you on your sandbox when I'm finished. – n8 (☎) 14:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Image policy OP
Hey! Is User:OttselSpy25/Guide to Images Sandbox ready for publication, or just a work-in-progress? If the former, remember to sign it! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent — but again, could you sign it? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Multipath
So I'm somewhat hesitant in how this is going to be implemented, and have complicated feelings about procedural issues here. But since you're writing up an OP, there's a bit of discussion at Talk:You are the Absurd Hero (short story) you might find interesting. Nothing too major, but some stuff. Najawin ☎  03:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Dermot and the Doctor
Go right ahead. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: The Pilot Episode
Yes, you can merge my proposal in. --Pluto2 ☎ 22:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedround
Hey, your forum speedround is great. Something you may want to add to the bootstrap section is Introduction to the Night. Invalid due to the fourth wall breaking nature. Some may argue due to its meta fictional nature it’s not set in the DWU. My feeling is. If it’s got the Doctor in it it’s set in some DWU. Either way. It was since mentioned in TARDIS Cam feature as one of the Doctor’s many adventures so it may be a rule 4 by proxy thing. 81.106.187.1talk to me 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Who? Question help
That seems reasonable, ✅ Bongo50   ☎  23:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Invalid continuity
Not off hand, haven't gotten that far in my archeology yet. Gimme a bit, I'll go looking. Najawin ☎  06:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bit of a weird one. Nothing specific, moreso a few different T:BOUND issues that evolved over time, it looks like. I could be missing a talk page discussion, since I'm not up to the relevant time period and this is a very cursory glance, but I don't think so.


 * So it looks like that while invalid stories (well, non canon at the time) did have continuity sections, they were largely based around the idea that continuity = canon, and so it said something to the effect of "this story isn't canon". There are exceptions, (eg) but this is the rule of thumb, and they often either only said that, or said (eg) that in addition to also saying other things (1, 2). I'm not seeing any specific discussion to remove these, it looks like Mini-Mitch just woke up one day and decided to do so. Which isn't the most unreasonable thing in the world given how they were understood at the time, and I looked at his edits back until January of that year, he spent a fair bit of time in continuity sections, he clearly gave it a reasonable amount of thought. But I'm not seeing a specific forum discussion that preceded it, no. When DCtT was officially ruled NC its continuity section was removed, and Shambala removed the Pilot Episode's continuity section in 2015. So it looks like invalid = no continuity section is just a T:BOUND issue, not deriving from a specific thread. (Again, I'm not certain about this. There might have been a discussion made in the years prior or after this, but immediately surrounding these changes there's nothing.)


 * As for the idea that continuity = canon, see Forum:DWU, Canon, Continuity and References - rename them, just to pin down the thought process of people at the time.
 * Doctor Who universe (DWU), Canon and Continuity are three terms that are used fairly broadly throughout the wiki, and they all mean vaguely the similar things.
 * This seems to be why the continuity section was removed. Recall that this is around the time when T:VS first started up, so it's still really messy as to how people are thinking about things and doesn't map quite right onto how we treat concepts on the wiki these days. Najawin ☎  07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Btw, re: User:OttselSpy25/Multipath Sandbox, if you want to steal from the research I've done at Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1, go right ahead. In addition, the "Flip Flop" exception has never really been litigated. Scrooge put it in after Epsilon noted that he was going to bring up branching path stories based on Flip Flop as precedent in the earliest version of The List. It's in the rules, but it was put in the rules specifically because Epsilon pointed it out, and nobody really knows how far it extends because we've never discussed it. The maximalist interpretation is that any nonlinear story that has an IU reason for being nonlinear is valid, but this isn't necessarily something that's been discussed. So it's a weird state of flux. (See Talk:You are the Absurd Hero (short story) for a little bit more of this discussion, though not a ton.) Najawin ☎  07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, one of the reasons to engage on the project I'm doing is that sometimes I find little gems like Talk:Music of the Spheres (TV story)/Archive 1. Have fun with that. Najawin ☎  06:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's up to you if you want to consider them, but there's also Mix Her Own Adventure, You are the Absurd Hero. Can't comment on Mix, but Absurd Hero does present a slightly unique problem because one of the "markers" can't be reached by progressing through the story normally. If you're flipping around the book you're just never going to run into it - it's "causally disjoint" from the rest of the story. Najawin ☎  05:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ice Cream
https://millenniumeffect.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/WOTV-TB-StreetsIceCreamRe.jpg

link to a better quality screenshot of the ice cream ad 81.108.82.15talk to me 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: LEGO conjecture
Hmm, well I suppose if that's the precedent, it works. Really, I'd want LEGO Dimensions to be valid for these names, but if I'm able to use them regardless, I suppose that works. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  21:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Legacies
Hey, since you started the discussion, do you remember why you commented at Talk:Legacies (short story)/Archive 1? It was a few months before anyone else, so I'm curious as to your motivation and how it relates to the rest of the discussion and others' motivations. Najawin ☎  02:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ty ty. I'm not thrilled with Hellscape either, but I do think that horrific talk page discussion needs some real closure, so I'm working on that. Najawin ☎  03:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion Debate Speedround
Hey just wondering if it's fair game to add any other topics to the inclusion debate. You wanted ten topics and there are ten topics, so don't want to overstep if it's not cool with your intention with the thread. Thanks!

StevieGLiverpool ☎  19:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Blue Peter
I do be an expert in the field of Doctor Who on screen curios, but the Blue Peter 2005 sketch is very obscure.

I located this page that may be of use. 81.108.82.15talk to me 23:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20060408061842/https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/bluepeter/content/articles/makes/2005/12/05/dalekcompost_make.shtml

Re: New stub image
Hi, thanks for your designs of a "tab style" image for. I think they work well and so I will implement them, creating in the process. Bongo50  ☎  18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Re:Re:Speed Round
Hey thanks for getting back to me about the speedround. My focuses would probably be the VR games (The Runaway, The Edge of Time, The Edge of Reality). I'm not sure I can write as well as the others but the general points for me are how the gameplay is completely linear in those. I understand we still haven't reached the temp forum for branching gameplay (which is why I haven't included The Lonely Assassins just yet) but for here there really isn't a problem. If the reason it isn't valid is simply because the player is the character then... what's the difference between that and Don't Blink and the player being the character under Human (Don't Blink)?

On top of this I think validating the games under Infinity is pretty easy to do riding on the coattails of Legacy validity as it's WAY more straight forward than that - simply narrative cutscenes in between gameplay.

Thanks again for reaching out, would love to see these become valid! StevieGLiverpool ☎  12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just found the time to finish reading it and I'm very impressed by the case studies you've put forward here. Labelling some non-valid sources as infinitely more complex than others is a really good point and how compiling them all under one umbrella kinda makes no sense. I'm bias obviously so I would've loved to see how the VR games are... not diverging paths at all, because that seems silly. And also how the invalidity status of The Lonely Assassins is only there because of different dialogue options that change nothing about the plot and the secret ending not actually contradicting the original ending meaning it barely applies. But other than that, this is a really good read and I hope a lot comes out of it!


 * StevieGLiverpool ☎  10:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)