User talk:OttselSpy25

Prisoners of Time
Hey, as one of the editors who contributed the most for the Prisoners of Time page, I believe your input at this thread: would be very useful. Thanks OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:42, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :)
Hey man :) Thanks for your kind words. All of us on the admin team are desperately trying to work through the avalanche of new forum threads, and I had a little pocket of after-work time when I could help out.

On the subject of the Shalka thread, I am a material participant to the discussion, having already made several posts there. Consequently, I am wary of closing it. However, if eventually all active admin also participate, I may have to revisit this stance. 17:09: Thu 26 Jan 2017

Sleeze Brothers
Hey, OS25. I'm a little confused as to your purpose in opening up a side conversation with me, as you gave a Kudos to my closing argument at the Sleeze Brothers thread.

In any case, as you pointed out in a different thread, I'm kinda busy, so I'd much appreciate it if you'd please accept this as the final word on the subject. We've been absolutely inundated with the reopening of old inclusion matters, and it's putting a genuine strain on the whole administrative staff. So, please: don't, on the one hand, argue for quicker closure -- as you've done in at least one thread -- and, on the other, say this was too quick. Neither speed is offered in "bad faith", but is rather "what we have time to do, when we have the time to do it". All of us on the admin staff are volunteers -- even me!

It is relatively easy to see that there is no financial inducement to the creators of Sleaze to maintain any connection to the DWU. Even Marvel UK didn't avail themselves of an opportunity to make that connection, despite running both DWM and the Epic imprint at the time. They could have easily said, "ripped from the pages of Doctor Who Magazine". But they didn't -- likely because they didn't want to give the BBC any possible line of legal attack.

Indeed, this was the very reason behind what they did with Death's Head. They published a one-sheet called "High Noon" in several of their publications before putting Death's Head in The Transformers, specifically because they didn't want the owners of Transformers to claim the character. The lack of specific connection to the previous DW appearance of the Sleeze Brothers is clearly reminiscent of the earlier case -- even more so when you understand that Marvel UK, in their final years, were completely interested in finding their own properties.

Moreover, Fandom gives adequate coverage to the brothers, both in the now-linked Marvel Database article, and at w:c:britishcomics:Sleeze Brothers.

For the average reader of our wiki, there's just no reason to push some kind of connection between the DWU and these cats.

Some of our users here at Tardis have been trying for a month or two to make some kind of rule that "if a character is in a DWU property, then prior or subsequent appearances are also in the DWU".

But there is no such rule in T:VS. And, in fact, there's precedence to suggest otherwise, as with Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Jar Jar Binks, and a whole host of others. Moreover, the other intellectual properties you mentioned aren't strictly relevant to this case, because the best analogue for this case is found within Marvel UK comics. 15:56: Wed 01 Feb 2017 15:56, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

LEGO Batman
I don't have much of anything to contribute to that particular topic, and I plan to stay in retirement from the inclusion debate scene, but I've really enjoyed seeing how eloquently and specifically you've defended your points. Kudos! NateBumber ☎  14:12, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my earlier use of a certain phrase was offending to anyone; I've edited it out of the above message. NateBumber ☎  15:41, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

thanks for Rassilon
I tried to revert it when my Safari decided to die on me. Amorkuz ☎  20:44, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

personal attack
Hi! Please note that your edit summary at Cyberman (Mondas), "Who in their right mind would include a detail that stupid in an opening paragraph?", falls under the definition of a personal attack. Please review Tardis:No personal attacks and Tardis:Edit summary. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  00:48, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

Doctor incarnations
Don't worry, I'm definitely not fed up with you. I brought it up with some other admins, and I was getting the sense that maybe all "non-main" Doctors should be removed from the template. Else, so many things could be argued for addition in and we'll be adding more suggestions, like those at Template talk:Doctors. In truth, at that point the template ceases to be useful.

I definitely do sympathise with your more aesthetic argument, by the way. From a practical standpoint, though, it might be best to restrict further instead. Better to stick to main incarnations only (1-12), or at least shorten the current list more. 02:19, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Without, of course, going against what I said above, the reason I'd put Meta-crisis well above Dream Lord in terms of relevance is not because of some sort of fan consciousness, but rather because Ten actually used up one of his regenerations to make him. Some other "incarnations" are manifestations, or future Doctors, or unnumbered/alternate incarnations, but Meta-crisis is kinda the only one to contribute to the regeneration count thus far, in a way. I know, I know, Ten would have used up his regeneration even if his hand didn't come to life, but it's around the same thing. The Watcher is a strange sort of almost-similar case, where he's important to the transition between "main Doctors". But the Dream Lord? He's a representation of the Doctor in a dream he once had. So what? What's he doing there? 04:26, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Death's Head reply
You brought this to me just a few days ago, and you can see I haven't been very active for the last little while. I won't say that I have no interest either way, but I also can't say Death's Head is my own area of expertise, so I won't state an opinion of my own on the matter. Remember that we are not paid for our work here, so service won't always be so speedy. When Czech has the time, he will have a much more complete answer for you. In the meantime, do not make any pages for now; Death's Head has been a subject of contention, so some form of discussion is certainly necessary, even just one between you and our 'expert' admin, CzechOut.

And I do want to emphasize once more that you cannot expect speedy replies, all the time, from our admin team. I have my own life as well, and especially if you're seeing a lack of edits on my part, it's a safe bet that I don't have much time to spend on Tardis at the moment. Notice how there are other users I still haven't got back to, either. Complaining I'm ignoring your messages, I think, is not cool; threatening to go ahead and make the page because I haven't given you an answer within the same work week is getting into T:POINT territory. I'll let you know if I have anything further to add, on the topic of inquiry itself. 04:22, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Destiny of the Doctors
Hello. On a recent edit summary of Destiny of the Doctors (video game), you added that "I think our rules on infobox images are pretty clear about this." (when replacing a in-universe image for the game's cover). Would you be able to point me which? I tried finding it, but could not find any; also, seems weird to me that we'd use covers for video games, when in every other media we go, when possible, with in-universe screenshots/illustrations. (ok, except audio and novels, but we don't really have much to do in this case). The only thing I could find was in Tardis:Guide to images, that said "the longer the infobox is, the further down it pushes the first image in the body of the article. So we do want to try as much as possible to use widescreen pictures for infoboxes". Anyway, if you could point this one out, it'd be very helpfull. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:38, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Susan
Firstly, we don't have to explain anything. Listing the stories is sufficient, and by that I mean listing all the stories that you mentioned too. Secondly, if the stories were listed as TV: An Unearthly Child et al., I could have agreed with you: it would say here is the character introduced in An Unearthly Child and present in many other stories. Instead, we have a bracket: from An Unearthly Child to TV: The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Excluding all the non-TV stories this way is simply against the policy I quoted, sorry. On top of it, it is misleading the readers, plain and simple about the sources one should check to learn about Susan's life and about our knowledge about it. Why not TV: The Five Doctors? Why not AUDIO: The Beginning? Why not AUDIO: Lungbarrow? We are an encyclopaedia. It's not our business to simplify things to make it more palatable for new viewers: that's Moffat's job. Our job is to provide all the connections. If you've noted, I did not add all the stories with Susan: that would overcomplicate things. But the pivotal stories: when the Doctor returns (all accounts) and when the Doctor sees her for the last time (all accounts) are to be mentioned. Amorkuz ☎  06:23, April 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * In principle, I would say it is sufficient to give "first appearance" at al. This is non-controversial, simple, and gives the idea that they were important character with a lot of backstory. I don't know how to determine one "last" with either of them. River has appeared very recently in both comics and audio. On audio, these appearances are after TV: The Husbands of River Song, which itself is, in her personal timeline, before the library, which is before TV: The Name of the Doctor. They are both complex time and space events, so giving the first appearance is completely fine. Amorkuz ☎  06:31, April 17, 2017 (UTC)