User talk:Scrooge MacDuck

When you have time.
Obviously the preferred state of affairs is an inclusion debate, but could you make a preliminary ruling on Doctor Who Comes to MINECRAFT! (webcast) being valid or invalid? There seems to be some disagreement whether we should prima facie regard this as a trailer or not. Najawin ☎  20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox
So the charity stuff was going to more be directed at validity, since, as you stated, we do cover some BBC charity work. But to my knowledge Adventures in Lockdown has some of the first valid charity works, if not the first. As for Time, fair play if there's upcoming stuff there, but my concern was more that there are other personifications of time that occasionally use the name Time that aren't merged with that page. Hence by that standard we should either be splitting the page or merging it with, say, Father of Time. Obviously that's subject to change if new details manifest, and given that we're one month shy of two years without forums, I'm sure that it'll be resolved before we get the forums back. Najawin ☎  16:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, when you have the time, I'd appreciate input at Talk:You Are The Absurd Hero (short story), since I assume you've read it. Najawin ☎  03:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, Socrates, you. I'm not sure it does, it says "the likes of AUDIO: Flip-Flop", and specifically references the "choose your own adventure" style. That's not the only nonlinear style of storytelling though. And this is why I think a thread is needed, because the limits of this were never really hashed out, this happened when the forums were down. Najawin ☎  18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another sandbox thing, when you have the time and inclination, we all sort of read T:BOUND as saying "don't make large changes to multiple pages/the wiki as a whole without talking about it - tacit approval/active editing from editors/admins itself constitutes some degree of policy" (see, for instance, User talk:Shambala108 and Talk:Hugh Grant). I've listed this as something that I might want to start a thread on, but, honestly, I'm not sure a thread is needed, it might be something that could just be written into T:BOUND without any discussion, since it does seem to be how everyone seems to interpret that rule afaik. Obviously you'd know best, but I figured I'd bring the issue up. Cheers. Najawin ☎  08:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Spiral Politic Database
So, fun topic here, The Spiral Politic Database has some subsections here that are redlinked. I'm more than willing to write up treatments of them, but I have a question or two. Crimes Against History and A Tour of the Capital have details on publishing dates and authors. I, uh, can't find that for the redlinked stories. (Well, I don't even think the stories in question are particularly narrative, but I digress.) (Also, I guess the page for TSPD would imply that they were all uploaded on 14 September 2002, but this doesn't help with the authors, and it's also not sourced. The Wayback machine isn't fine-grained enough to prove this.) I asked Nate if he knew, and if someone can scrounge up an answer that's great, but, in all honesty, given the nature of this, (a web article from 20 years ago that probably a few hundred people max even read at the time) I'm skeptical. Given that, should I make the pages sans publication dates/author fields? That's, uh, interesting precedent if it's the first time we've done that. Najawin ☎  06:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

BBV scripts
Honestly, I'm thinking about breaking down and making an AO3 or something. But I don't plan on doing the BBV stuff until after User:Najawin/Sandbox 2 is dealt with, so don't worry about it for now. Najawin ☎  22:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Subpages proposal
Hi Scrooge, I've recently put the finishing coat of polish on User:NateBumber/Sandbox/1, T:SUBPAGE for short. It's, uhh, it's not short, but it's thorough, and I've also spelled out why I think it could be accomplished without waiting for the forums. If you get the chance to look it over and let me know what you think, I'd really appreciate it! – n8 (☎) 17:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Some small issues when you're free
Hey. User:Shambala108's been less active recently, so I figured I'd reach out to you about an issue I left on her talk page. Could you read through Talk:Origins (comic story) when you have the chance and comment as to the precedent? There's some disagreement between a newer user with Epsilon and myself. Similarly, if you could talk to User:Sum41Champ at some point about their edits that would be lovely. I honestly don't know how to handle this whole situation, I don't think someone actively trying to engage should be blocked, but they constantly do things that Shambala has told them not to do (and that Nate and I have advised them are a bad idea), leading me to basically just read all of their edits to make sure they're not breaking anything. Najawin ☎  06:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Crikeytown
You've read The Crikeytown Cancellations, right? Would you say that the minor instances in panels 60 and 61 constitute additions to Obverse Books? This is a really weird story to deal with as far as wiki policy is concerned. Najawin ☎  06:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just the whole varying levels of fiction thing is something the wiki has never had super duper clear policies on. Thanks, I'll make a note. Najawin ☎  08:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So I'm unaware of the An Ordinary Man situation, and it seems that this is in the archived forums. Can't comment on that. As for Legacies... Well... That's a messy issue. Regardless, you're probably right that
 * They say that UK copyright law does not consider references in fiction to someone else's IP to be a breach of copyright.
 * does establish the precedent, though it seems from some quick googling that UK copyright law seems to think this because UK copyright law for fictional characters is largely unwritten. So it may be that this will change in the future. But looks like you're right for now. Najawin ☎  07:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, minor detail. For Paddy Whack and Bossy Boots, I'd prefer to give them the Dunfunnin individuals category, rather than the Crikeytown individuals one. Not a huge deal, can change if need be. The issue is that to do so, rule of 3 says I need three things to make a category, and I'd rather not make a page for Gunga Din 2000. Just a bad look. So would you suggest I ignore the rule of 3 or just stick them in the Crikeytown individuals category? Najawin ☎  03:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)