User talk:Jack "BtR" Saxon

Re: Edit war
Hm. Have you tried to talk to User:DrWHOCorrieFan about this on their talk page directly? How did they respond? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mh. Well, I would recommend that you leave a more elaborate message on their talk page first. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

May be worth mentioning, but VisualEditor does weird stuff to code. If @DrWHOCorrieFan is using it, that would likely explain the addition of extra spaces.

I know that when I used to use it, when I added images to Wiki pages, for example, it would add code that sized the image, which is actually against a policy on the Wiki. 📯 📂 13:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt Epsilon, but no these edits were done intentionally as the spaces have been proven to encourage uniformity on other sites. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  13:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have seen and nowhere does it state that the infobox has to be precisely mimicked, unless I am missing a vital bit of text. The edits I have been making are in the effort of encouraging uniformity and combating users leaving the infoboxes untidy. A lot of the infoboxes that I have been correcting have been in pretty substandard shape. DrWHOCorrieFan  ☎  13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I doubt that any editor copies and pastes the infobox information from that page, certainly none of the infoboxes that I have tried to tidy have been copied from there. Most copy from an existing page's infobox. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of infoboxes are also untidy and do not follow the strict uniformity of the template, so your point is lost on me. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

R.E.: Sergeant vs Sargeant
Ah, thanks for pointing it out — I always forget if it's an e or a, and I often default to the phonetic spelling. Any instance of "Sargeant" is a typo, and I've already corrected myself many times. 📯 📂 11:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Renames
Hi Jack, just wanted to run something by you. I see that you've prepped a few pages for rename due to typos, and they've been sitting with for a few months now. Just so you know, it was recently realized that due to T:LOCAL RULES and the situation with the forums, there's no actual rule against non-admins moving pages, since "Most pages can be moved by any user."

- T:MOVE LOCK

As a result, it would actually be 100% legal for you to take care of those renames yourself, if you're interested. Hope you're well! – n8 (☎) 17:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Re:Recent edits
As much as I appreciate you policing my every move on this site, it makes me feel incredibly welcome - really, but I do not appreciate the accusation that I have purposefully chosen to "ignore" any discussion. I have been adding those spaces for years, it is not as simply as me just stopping. It is a habit that I have found myself in that I've even found myself subconsciously doing it. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not policing my edits? Your recent edits of several pages from days ago suggest that you are going through my contribution history. I do feel like you were accusatory, and I also feel harassed by your approach. Please in future contact an admin if you have a further issue with me. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is their job to act as a "go between" when a user feels harassed by another.


 * You have made several quite frankly nasty statements about me recently, you have continuously stalked through my edits, you have repeatedly been accusatory and left a message on User:NateBumber's about having not had chance to have replied to them because you have been busy reverting "vandalism" while the only reverts you've made in the past week are mine. Please do not contact me in future, an admin should be present in any further discussions between us. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You have performed 29 edits since April 27, out of those edits 16 of those are edits I have recently added and 4 of those are talkpage edits in discussion with me. I do not want this conversation to continue and do not require a reply, but please can we stop our interaction. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are the facts;


 * On 30th April NateBumber posted to your talkpage, you didn't reply until 4th May stating "sorry for taking so long to respond. I haven't had the time to do any editing but reverting vandalism for a while". However, out of the 50 edits you made prior to posting this statement (which went back as far as April 26th) 31 were reverting/changing my edits and 12 were posts to talkpages regarding/relating to me. That only leaves 7 other edits (none of which were reverting vandalism). I asked you to justify this and you backed up the accusation of vandalism against me by claiming "you will see that I have done nothing but revert vandalism since 27 April" but again... you only performed 29 edits between April 27th and making that comment most of which were edits reverting/changing mine.


 * It was a clear accusation of vandalism against me and I do not appreciate it. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Re:The Spaces
Again, please contact an admin if you have a problem with my edits. I feel harassed by you. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.
Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.Stop vandalizing my page you giraffe. You giraffy giraffe, cannibal giraffe. stop. stop giraffe vandalism.

Re: Unregistered contributor
Oh holy smokes, I had no idea it had been going on for six months. No wonder you just reverted it! Hopefully OS12 can say something to them, and in the meantime, I can take over the job of patrolling their edits. You've deserved a break! – Nate "Cannibal Giraffe" Bumber 22:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take advantage of the heading created by N8 to chime in. So..... yeah, it's quite unfortunate that it's been going on for so long and so prolifically. I had seen the odd edit here and there, but wasn't aware of how many we'd gotten. If only they'd be willing to... make an account; that'd make it much easier to communicate and guide them.
 * Aaaargh, anyway. I feel quite bad giving someone with good intentions a block (however lengthy) and it usually doesn't even matter because IPs change over time, but it does look like this one's sticking, which gives us a unique chance to reach them out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. OncomingStorm12th ☎  15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Image captions
You are not an admin, it is not your place to hound me for a potential rulebreak. And I have read Help:Image cheat card and fail to see where it says that a caption is required. Regardless, the images without captions are only temporary before I get round to making infoboxes. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The section you have quoted categorically does not state that a caption is required. It states that if a caption is added a source is required. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And as an admin has told me I will try my best to include one - but as I have already explained these captionless-images are only temporary before I get round to making infoboxes. You should have gone to an admin in the first place to ask them to have a word instead of taking it upon yourself, especially as the comment you made to me about Help:Image cheat card stating a source was required is incorrect. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you seemingly don't understand how moral decency works, I have asked you in the past to limit your interaction with me after you made false claims about me edit warring, etc. I am glad you're not interested in arguing any further and I'm happy to leave this here, until the next time you engage with me. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly listen to users when they tell you that they feel harassed by you. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You should not be reaching out and engaging with a user that has expressed that they do not want to interact with you. And again, that "rule" is not even stated to be a rule - so you should have absolutely gone to an admin otherwise I'd have to take a non-admin's word for it. The page in question should be edited to reflect that rule, however, I believe such a rule would actually be against Wikipedia's stance as a whole; "Because Wikipedia is completely voluntary, under no circumstances are editors obliged or expected to make any edits". DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

BBC DVD covers
Hi, I've been gathering every BBC DVD cover image on the wiki into one of my sandboxes, in order to see where there are any missing covers or duplicates.

Pop over and have a look, and feel free to upload any of the missing covers.

User:Doc77can/sandbox12

P.S. I'm messaging several users so check the upload log first.

Doc77can ☎  20:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

About png images
Now, I know you said I shouldn't upload png files. The problem is the logos I've been uploading recently don't seem to support any other file type in their present form. The only way I could change the files to jpg is if I screenshotted the logo and uploaded that, which would remove the transparency. WaltK ☎  11:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * …would also like to apologise profusely for all the extra work I left you with with replacing all those images. Yikes. WaltK ☎  11:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Petronella Osgood's... relative
Hiya @Jack "BtR" Saxon, you seem to be creating/updating a good bunch of pages of Osgood's family, and I was wondering if you are going to make Petronella Osgood's relative, detailing the hints that've been made to Osgood being related to Petronella? I think such a page would hold merit, but I haven't read/listened to any of the stories that make such hints, so I'm not the best suited for the job. 15:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

DrWHOCorrieFan
Hello — I've just received a rather strongly-worded complaint from User:DrWHOCorrieFan claiming a T:NPA violation from your talking about him "willfully ignoring" the rules. Although I would characterise that as more of an "assuming good faith" breach than a personal attack, I would agree that your message was wrongly accusatory — I think in context it's clear that DrWHOCorrieFan was saying he intended to ignore "messages from you" on principle, not that he intended to ignore policy.

Also, while your efforts to remind users of policy are in themselves praiseworthy, do remember that you aren't an admin and shouldn't behave in ways that might give people the wrong impression on that point. I notice that the wording of some of your latest messages have a sort official, intimidating tone to them. If someone is doing things that could result in them being blocked, and you want to advise them on how to proceed, please phrase it in terms of a fellow user giving advice, rather than someone making a vicarious threat of blocking on behalf of the admins.

So, all in all, consider this an admin-hat-on request to cool down, and apologise to DrWHOCorrieFan and exercise more good faith in the future. I debated at length whether to give you a (short) block over this; I think for now I'd better not, so that you can post the apology and we can hopefully deescalate this situation, but please understand that it is a close thing and that further intimidation of this type directed at DrWHOCorrieFan will result in such a disciplinary block being enacted.

(All this being said, if it weren't clear from my message to him, this does not constitute me unilaterally taking DrWHOCorrieFan's side in the object-level quarrel — you made multiple good points. The point, however, is in how to express them.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming that you had tried to present yourself as an admin, and certainly not to DrWHOCorrieFan himself; I was referring to wrongfully giving that impression to other, newer editors who might stumble upon the conversation. I was told off on the same grounds in my own pre-admin days, as you may recall, so it's a concern to which I've remained fairly sensitive.


 * With regards to the "vicarious threat" stuff — perhaps I let DrWHOCorrieFan's extreme reaction to it overstate its importance, but I was referring to: "Please start following the rules or I'll have to inform the admins that you're willfully ignoring them", which, although it does not explicitly mention any punishments, certainly constitutes a threat-to-tell-on-you-to-the-authorities-with-the-power-to-punish sort of thing. That is the sort of vibe I'd like everyone to avoid. Nobody should be threatening to "tell" on anybody to us admins. Either report something or don't, but threatening it brings a bad vibe to a conversation, is a de facto attempt to vicariously trade on admin authority that one doesn't possess oneself, and is, in any way, something of a non-start because the odds are that an admin will see the conversation anyway. (Case in point.)


 * As regards the image rule itself… look, I'm in an awkward spot here. I have good hope that once we have the Forums back, we shall update the rule to make the file-size limit much higher than it is now. Obviously T:BOUND applies as far as new people purposefully ignoring the size limit goes, of course, (and DrWHOCorrieFan's image use has other issues besides,) but by way of explanation for the prevalence of the "problem"… I would confess that I have not been overzealous in going through uploads in batches to shrink any errant oversized files, because in the back of my mind is a fairly strong hunch that in two months' time we'll have cause to switch them back again, and would thus be creating busywork for our future selves.


 * This doesn't make your work to downsize them incorrect, of course; you are welcome to continue it. It's just an explanation of why this is "something that doesn't seem to be policed". It's not not policed, but there is an unspoken decision on the part of many to only do the minimum in enforcing it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Liv Chenka/Ninth Doctor
Stop deleting my additions about Liv Chenka's meeting with the Ninth Doctor. If there's something wrong with it, then correct it, don't delete good additions just because you're too lazy.


 * Firstly, T:NPA. Secondly, we write things in past tense here. You'll notice that everything else on Liv's page is written in the past tense. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Then correct it.


 * It's not anybody else's job to make up for you ignoring the rules. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, guess what? I don't know the rules. You do. Do your job.


 * I've said that it needs to be in the past tense. It's nobody's job to clear up after you. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Jack. For their violations of edit warring, repeatedly ignoring your advice on how articles must be in past tense and specially over personal attacks on this very talk page, the IP has been blocked. IP blocks are not as effective as the ones applied to logged-in editors, but let's hope that, if they choose to return editing, that it's in a more amicable behavior. OncomingStorm12th ☎  16:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've said my piece, my changes got made, I'm done. Though I do think it's worrying how unwilling two volunteer moderators are to actually moderate. I don't spend much time making edits to the Wiki, whereas you've made a choice to spend your time this way. So surely editing other people's work comes with the territory. If you expect everyone making contributions to have familiarized themselves with all your rules, why not lock the whole thing off and just write it yourselves?


 * I'm not a moderator and I told you the rules. You chose not to listen. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo.

Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas, Jack "BtR" Saxon, and have a Happy New Year. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  11:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Peri Profile Image changes
Hello, I've tried to update some of the profile images on the page for Peri Brown, but I noticed you had changed them back. Just wanted to check what the specific problem was with this so I can avoid any other changes that will prove unwanted.TARDIS91 ☎  22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Naomi and Harry Nemesis 1.jpg
Hi, I see that you added the tag to file:Naomi and Harry Nemesis 1.jpg with the reason being that its duplicate. Do you remember which image this one is a duplicate of? Bongo50  ☎  23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, so it is. Thanks! Bongo50   ☎  23:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jack
My name is JamesMaster75

Why the hell did you suggest the page on the planet Djinn be deleted?
Why did you suggest the page about the planet Djinn should be deleted? Why? Please can you tell me what was wrong with it?

"The Mysterious Planet" not a story??
What the devils do you mean, "we don't consider The Mysterious Planet to be a story"? Yes we do. It's right there in the dab term. We have since forever. Perhaps you think we should consider Trial one long serial, but we demonstrably don't; we treat it as a season containing interconnected, but still individually-covered, serials. Unless I missed something, please don't make edits in the main namespace implying otherwise until such a time as that proposal of yours in the Temp Forums gets somewhere — T:BOUND and all that. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that The Power of the Doctor was advertised as the 300th Doctor Who TV story, and your current edits are ruining that count (and will be a pain to undo). Scrooge's comment above called the episodes of season 23 "serials", not "stories". They should be numbered like the parts of Flux, namely 143a/b/c, as they had been previously. – n8 (☎) 16:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously I read the same comment as you did, and as I said, he didn't say that; you're reading too much into it. I agree there's a frustrating inconsistency with how we treat multi-part stories (either they're parts of a single serial or totally separate stories, with no room for nuance between the two), but editing hundreds of pages to prove a point is bad practice. We should be making our coverage more nuanced, not less. – n8 (☎) 16:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He said "We consider The Mysterious Planet to be a story", not that it should be counted as a separate story from the other parts of season 23. The latter doesn't follow from the former. – n8 (☎) 16:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Temporary forums validity debates
Hey — this may be unorthodox, so apologies, but — I notice that you supported several proposed validity debates in the Tardis:Temporary forums. Via my now-live "Rule 4 by proxy" proposal, I hope to cut through the need for individual threads on multiple such candidates including Shalka and the Cushing movies. If my proposal seems viable to you, I think it would be productive of you not only to add your signature to that proposal, but to withdraw it from the individual inclusion debate proposals, to ensure that my wider proposal is discussed first. (If it fails, of course, you can re-add your signature to the individual inclusion debates so that they can be had independently after all.) It's up to you, though, of course. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Judgment
Gah, instant correction from The Creation of Camelot edit summary: American English does also use "judgment" without an E. Nevertheless, it is also considered correct in British English as an alternative form, particularly in legal contexts. Please don't delete variant forms unless they are actively incorrect in British English (e.g. "thru", "color"). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point — but in the plot summary of The Creation of Camelot, the Master is in fact being asked to await legal "judgment" for high treason! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Other Jack
Hey — saw you moved Jack McSpringheel to Jack (The Kraken's Lament). I'm very, very not sure about that move; we should be very leery of having characters recurring enough to have lists of appearances at dabbed pagenames… I know there was a rename tag, but could you please avoid implementing renames of major characters' pages if there hasn't been a discussion yet? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Albeit on the lower end of the scale, they're still recurring characters — as your having put Ruth at a primary-topic Ruth, rather than a dabbed form, demonstrates in itself. As such, I just think it's weird to have Jack at a dabbed name when he's a major enough character to have his own LOA. Sure, "McSpringheel" isn't technically his "real" name, but we're no strangers to sticking with assumed names that are used reliably and in credits: see the recent decision to put Susan back at Susan Foreman. Certainly I'd say if the choice was between "Susan Foreman" and "Susan (An Unearthly Child)", "Susan Foreman" would be used! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Ruth Leonidas" is incorrect? On what grounds? – n8 (☎) 19:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have to dig up my full collection to check more thoroughly, but off the top of my head she's also called "Miss Leonidas" in The Weather on Versimmon. – n8 (☎) 01:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually suggested the move to Susan on T:NPOV grounds, since some stories call her "Susan English" instead. You have a good point about how she's credited on the audios – but even then, it would probably have to be Ruth (The Kraken's Lament); and as you may have seen in recent Master incarnation discussions, it's generally thought preferable to find non-speculative alternatives to dab terms like that, even if they're only temporarily adopted. I suppose as it stands, there's no harm in giving Ruth a primary topic. Jack McSpringheel bothers me more on that front, given the preponderance of other prominent Jacks in the DWU. – n8 (☎) 13:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Much as I would rather endure that confusion than dab Ruth, I'll wager that most people who search for "Tardis Wiki Ruth" or "Doctor Who Ruth" will be after Ruth Clayton/the Fugitive Doctor, just as surely as Jack-seekers will be looking for the Time Agent! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Benny NAs
You're right that we don't have separate pages for the Doctor Who and Benny NAs anymore, but that doesn't mean we can't distinguish between them entirely, does it? They're not entirely different ranges, but based on comments in Bernice Summerfield: The Inside Story and elsewhere at the time, they're clearly not exactly the same thing, either. Almost like "season 1" and "season 2" of the same range. – n8 (☎) 20:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Is Oh No It Isn't! really "before the rebrand"? Which rebrand do you mean? Its cover is the first appearance of that garish "NA" logo, which wasn't on The Dying Days; more importantly, its back cover explicitly says it's "the first book in a new series of The New Adventures" – not a new series called "The New Adventures", as I used to interpret it, but a new series of "The New Adventures", in the same way that Series 3 (BFBS) is a new series of Big Finish's Bernice Summerfield. Additionally, the letter at the back of The Dying Days says that it's "the last" of its series.


 * I'm not going to start a forum thread, since there was already a forum thread about this at Thread:235670, which itself continued the already-extensive conversation at Talk:Virgin New Adventures – a discussion which I initiated, led, and ultimately implemented. The conclusion was that it's important not to overstate the discontinuity between the Who and non-Who VNAs, so we should merge the pages, but it's just as important not to understate the very real discontinuity that does exist.


 * Obviously I'm not really talking about Christine Summerfield/Appearances anymore. As thrilled as I've been to see another editor working through the Benny series and fleshing out the related pages (it's easily one of my top 5 favorite corners of the DWU, and I'm glad that you seem to be enjoying it!), this is why I've been uncomfortable with your numbering-related edits. When The Dying Days explicitly calls itself "the last", and Oh No It Isn't! explicitly calls itself "the first", it's wrong to just flat-out call them 61 and 62. – n8 (☎) 21:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)