User talk:SOTO

To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO. No need for my full name. Thanks.

The Doctor Detective Arch Architectural Bishop Baker Intern Inspector

Edit summary?
You posted this in an edit summary for LaMort:
 * "I don't really think the infobox (no, not individual, spell check) is needed in this instance."

What does the part in parentheses mean? Shambala108 ☎  05:53, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Overheard/read/whatever-you-call-it-on-the-net. You have so much to teach your phone spell check. I know the feeling. ;) Of course, now, mine knows how to correctly spell "Bwahahaha"... --ComicBookGoddess ☎  06:22, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Huh?
I'm unable to see your problem with the "leave message" button. It's right there. At the top of the page. Where it always is. 05:30: Sat 23 Mar 2013

Redlink to The Bells of Saint John
I linked to it now so that once we have a page it'll already be all nicely linked. 01:56, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Changing/Messages in the forums
I left a message concerning your creation of a sub-page to the main page rather than as Bold Clone had done a sub-page of their user page as I was curious why you did it that way. I removed and rewrote my message as I felt a clearer note concerning the specifics of the merger process was better for the conversation. Sorry for any confusion I caused you. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:03, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack
I'm not offended at you calling me arrogant in Clara: How many articles does one girl need? because you don't know me, but I suggest you re-read Tardis:No personal attacks. You can't call someone a name just because they disagree with you; it won't look good for the new users we will be getting in the next few weeks to see someone who edits so much getting away with personal attacks. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  19:17, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "ignorant", I said "arrogant". You said in your thread after mine: "...arrogantly carrying out your opinion." Whether you were talking to me or someone else, it can still be construed, especially by a new user, as an attack. Shambala108 ☎  19:30, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok glad we got that sorted out. Like I said, I wasn't offended, I've been called much worse here. It just shows that we need to be careful communicating in a place where there are no visual or auditory clues to a person's intent. Shambala108 ☎  23:20, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Clara and move locks
Any moves/mergers will have to wait 15 hours or so as I'm away from a desktop comp. and currently only have an iPad to edit on, which makes doing moves and other edits like that a little tricky. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:04, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Conjecture
Enhanced guidelines on proper usage of have been posted to that template's documentation page. Since the expansion came because of your usage at CPR, you might want to give them a gander. Basically, the deal is that and  should never be used simultaneously; it's too confusing for readers. is a permanent state of being, like. indicates a call for action. Most of the time, if you have a suggestion, you're saying that, actually, there is a non-conjectural name, therefore the two tags are usually incompatible. And even if you're suggesting a new, better conjectural name, the two tags create a sense of confusion when used simultaneously. 01:42: Thu 04 Apr 2013

Relax, already :)
I just happened to be posting in the same section as you at user:Tangerineduel and noticed your comments. Please do me a favour and chill. It is really not cool to go to an admin and say, "if you don't move this thing now, then I'll do it myself".

I'll say this again: you are not an admin. You do not have the power to complete a page merge. Full stop. It is not one of the gifts that your account enjoys. So please stop threatening to do what you cannot do. Progress will happen, but remember that we all have different commitments both at and away from the wiki. Nobody dies if we move Clara in a few days. A lot of fruitful discussion has occurred in the time since 29 March, so in that sense it's good that TD didn't perform the merge according to your time table.

Relatedly, I have to tell you that I've fielded some mild frustration with respect to your overeagerness in discussions. In the off=season there aren't as many people here, so there's a sense in which those of us who are here year round tend to kinda dominate discussions. But once Doctor Who comes back, our editorship tends to explode. We want to give all our returning editors a welcome. Since this is the first season where we've had the new forums, it's important to really see how it changes the dynamic of discussion.

So please try to take a step back and let discussion and flow. Make your points about the topic of the thread and then leave the thread alone for a few days. Try really hard to just comment on the substance of the question in the thread, and then step back and see how the thread develops. Believe me, I know that's hard, and I'm gonna have to take a lot of this advice myself.

A good person to try to emulate in discussions is Shambala. She's active in the forums, but never, ever over the top. Look at how she rolls. It's a masterclass in forum discussion.

Having said all that, I do want to say that I very much appreciate the way that you've tried to make amends to the people you might have offended. That goes a long way in my book, and means that you're not really in any kinda trouble around here. Text-based communication is just hard, yanno? All we can do is just keep trying to improve our skills. 02:08: Thu 04 Apr 2013

Clara cleanup
If people want to manually change over links to the new, unitary page, let 'em, please. A link to the unitary page will always be correct. Maybe not as specific as it could be, if these turn out to be different Claras. But it's still correct. The opposite, however, isn't true. If this turns out to be one character, or at least that there's no easy way to split the different versions up, I'll be burning the old redirects anyway. So you're kinda just wasting your time to defend the last vestiges of the old order. 07:21: Sat 06 Apr 2013

Once again, you're not an admin
Hey, can you do me a favour and avoid explaining policy in the Panopticon? I again remind you that you're not an admin. You do not have to respond to every single post that gets made in Special:Forum. When another user is directly asking for an explanation of policy, that's more or less what we admin are here for. 01:11: Thu 11 Apr 2013
 * I'm not suggesting that you stay off the forums. Nor are you at risk of being blocked or anything silly.  I fully recognise that you are editing in complete good faith.  I'm only saying that when someone asks for an explanation of policy, that should be left to the people that actually have to administer that policy.  And you can be assured that between all admin, one of us is going to get to just about any post within 48 hours.  Compared to how the forums operated this time last year, that's plenty fast. It's certainly the timeframe established by Wikia themselves in their support channels.  The norms in the past were that posts would go completely unanswered or that it would take multiple days. So we're providing a fine, fast service to the community.


 * But if you find you absolutely can't find anything else to do on this wiki, and you're explaining policy on the forums, please make sure that you use the words, "in my opinion", "in my experience", "I'm not entirely sure, but i think the policy is trying to say", "I'm no admin, but I think that", or similar. That little bit of doubt in your writing means that I or other admin have to work less.  It means that we can come into the thread and render an opinion on your opinion.  We can just say, "I'd agree with SOTO's opinion on this" and go on to something else.  Or we can say "SOTO's got it basically right, but he's a little fuzzy on this one point over here."  The tone of your stuff is so flatly declarative sometimes that if it's wrong, I feel I have to delete it under the provisions of T:FORUM so as not confuse other people. But if it's very clearly your opinion, I can more often leave it intact.  Make sense?   02:35: Thu 11 Apr 2013

Technicalities of page moves
Hey, I notice you're making a lot of page moves lately. Don't forget that the bot is here to assist you. Are you remembering to change all the links, based upon the Special:Whatlinkshere report? I haven't actually looked at the precise details of your moves, so I'm genuinely asking. If not, you can always put a request on my page. Tybort does this, and I'd encourage you to do it as well. Just leave a brief note saying, "Please move OldPageName &rarr; NewPageName." Easy. I might not take care of it immediately, but it serves as a useful "to do" list. Also, in most cases, we don't really want the original page names around anymore. So as we move, we want to suppress the redirect, not create one, at the OldPageName. Since you don't have the power to suppress redirects, it's usually better that admin take care of page moves. One possibly bad side effect of not suppressing the redirect is that editors might, subsequent to your page move, start re-linkng to the OldPageName, thereby undoing your work! If it's all taken care of at once — link moves by the bot, page move, and suppression of the redirect — there's a higher chance that the page move will completely succeed. 21:18: Tue 16 Apr 2013
 * When you put on a page, that opens up a discussion period.  I go to the rename category weekly, but I pick and choose what to do there based upon the fact that, nominally, we're still in a discussion period on those articles.  The kind of moves that you've been doing are ones that are what I would call "non-controversial".  You're just upholding T:DAB.  These can just go straight to an admin's inbox, without the need for.


 * If there are fewer than 10 links, go ahead and move them manually, then request an admin to do the move.


 * You know what I'm suddenly thinking? Maybe we need another template to make this easier for all parties.  Maybe we need something like  which will then populate a list at Tardis:Requests for speedy page moves, and therefore it won't just be on my talk page but centralised.  Then, if the list hasn't moved in a while, you can poke an admin and say, hey, check out T:SPEEDY MOVE, please?  Does that sound more efficient?  22:00: Tue 16 Apr 2013

Continuity
Hey. I removed the section because of the fact that it wasn't linking much to anything concrete in the story. On top of the fact that the episode has only just started as I'm writing this, we don't know if the enemies are actually ghosts, or if the Doctor actually refers to the events of the stories you linked to in the episode. Also the "likely" comment needed to go anywhere, as it delved into the realms of speculation, which we've spent a great deal of time to remove from this wikia. I hope that clears things up. --Revan\Talk 17:48, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Speedy rename
Don't see the problem with Sunday. It's showing up at T:SPEEDY. (However, it's not really a candidate for speedy rename since it involves thinking about whether there should be a third page — in this case a dab page. Any kind of name change that would impact upon a third page is not really speedy.)

Also, I need explicit variable names in order to create the list generated by, so I can't do implied numeric variables (i.e., so-called "lazy variables") you've suggested. 21:51: Sun 21 Apr 2013
 * Eh, Sunday's not at all clear, because the un-dabbed term would remain behind in some way. You can't dab everything and then have nothing at Sunday.  More pages derive from the planet Sunday (Sunday City, Sundayan 'gator, Sundayan fish, Sundayan otter, etc.) than the day Sunday.  So although the other days of the week don't have dab terms (to the extent that those pages are even written), does it actually make more sense to treat Sunday as the planet or the day?  It's not really clear because we haven't established a good sense of what the days of the week articles should be about.


 * I don't think you should have too much difficulty remembering "user", "new" and "links", should you? I mean, you seem to be okay with using infoboxes, and those all have named variables. Besides, as I said, there's no real option.  In order to make sure that the table is populated correctly, a variable name needs to be assigned.  If you're going to be making templates with us now, you should realise that there are actually very few cases where "lazy variables" should be employed.  Not assigning variables leads to all sorts of undesirable conditions, not the least of which is that your users simply enter the variables in the incorrect order.  Lazy variables can only be used in one order, which is often problematic.  Plus, lazy variables offer less flexibility for using the collected data than just biting the bullet and assigning a true variable name.


 * As for why I use, well, the point of the list is to offer a centralised "to-do" list for all admin. I don't have to do all the renames around here.  Sometimes, it's just as well that I mark them for someone else to take care of.   23:37: Sun 21 Apr 2013

Take care when creating redirects
Please remember that the whole reason we dab story names is to allow the undab-bed terms to link to an in-universe page, where possible. Thus, ordinary nouns, like hide, should definitely not be automatically redirected to stories having that title. Doing so will allow a lot of links to spring up that will have to be undone later. Obviously hides appeared in the very first serial, and have appeared at various points in the eeries history, perhaps most notably when the Second Doctor took to wearing a fur coat. 01:52: Mon 22 Apr 2013

Links to videos disallowed
You have almost certainly unintentionally violated T:VID LINK at Gethin Woods. Please don't link to videos. If videos are compliant with T:VID, please ask an admin to upload them. If they aren't, then we don't want anything to do with them. Either way, just linking to a video is disallowed. 00:27: Tue 23 Apr 2013
 * Oh, I'm not implying, I'm saying. :)  If the video is allowed by T:VID (i.e., it's on the official channel of whoever made it and had a right to make it, and it's not fanfic or fanfact or fanopinion) then we want to host it here.  So since the BTS Hide video is now up on the site, just pop it over to Gethin Woods with an appropriate caption explaining why it's relevant to that article.  Might be helpful for the caption to give a time code of where the Gethin Wood discussion begins.


 * Note that there are all kinds of eligible video that we'd be interested in adding to the site. Obviously, we want official trailers and other video content from the BBC.  But we also have, for example, news coverage where relevant, like at George Entwistle.  We also take videos from news outlets not normally associated with Doctor Who, like the New Yorker's video at Doctor Who (pinball machine).  We also have some professional reviews, particularly where they involve people associated with the making of Doctor Who, like IGN's reviews of series 7 that include Oli Smith on the panel.  (However, these videos were really uploaded to illustrated Oli Smith, not necessarily the episodes under review.)


 * The key thing is that we take only from official channels of people/organisations who have the right to publish the content and are doing so in the performance of their professional duties.  01:12: Tue 23 Apr 2013

Mobile issues
Sorry, are you saying that the delete key doesn't work on your particular iPhone or that it doesn't work in iOS in general? Are you looking for a fix to a bug or a workaround to your particular situation? 20:28: Thu 25 Apr 2013
 * Okay I fired up the iOS simulator to see what you're talking about. Looks like one can't do too much with the category module in iOS.  So what you're going to want to do as a workaround is to go to Special:Preferences/Editing and then go to the section called "starting an edit".  Here, you'll want to check "Disable Category module".  This will force all the cats to be in their true location on the page, which is typically the very bottom.   20:46: Thu 25 Apr 2013
 * Hmmm /Editing isn't a subpage anymore, so you'll have to take the additional step of actually clicking on the tab called Editing. Well, that's going to make giving instructions to people harder.  Thanks, Wikia, for screwing up Special:Preferences with your new-fangled tabs!  20:50: Thu 25 Apr 2013
 * In answer to your last question, no. Not realistically, no.  The most I'll probably do is maybe turn them completely off in wikiamobile.  But other than that, Wikia, Inc. don't give much in the way of options for editing the wikiamobile skin.  It's really not like Monobook or Wikia.  There is no Wikiamobile.css in the same way that there's a Monobook.css and Wikia.css.  It more or less is what it is.  Which is why it's pretty unpopular and ignored by most editors.  I do try to pay attention to Wikiamobile, but honestly the stub tags look so great in Wikia and Monobook that it's a small sacrifice to me that they don't look so hot in Wikiamobile. Wikia's Mobile team is constantly improving Wikiamobile, though, so there's every chance that they may do something to make templates work better in the Wikiamobile skin.  Until then, all I can really do is take the time to report the way things look in that skin, and then deal with whether they indicate the skin might be improved to accept my local code or not. At the present time, the links on the tags work, and they're pretty clear in Wikiamobile, so I'm calling it "okay".  Just okay, but okay nonetheless.  21:02: Thu 25 Apr 2013

Block
You're summarily blocked for starting an article about a television episode prior to the conclusion of its UK broadcast. Your block will last a little less than an hour now. Please don't start these articles until the show has completely aired in the country of its premiere, as per T:OFF REL. You may use the hour to edit this page in protest, if you choose. 17:55: Sat 27 Apr 2013
 * Actually, I think you'll find that I have not in fact gone against T:OFF REL. I am well-versed in the policy, and it very clearly states that:
 * "the time at which you can start editing articles about those episodes is deemed to be the top or bottom of the hour closest to the time at which the end credits roll on the global premiere broadcaster's initial showing of the episode, on their primary broadcasting channel."

- T:OFF REL


 * It is currently the bottom of the hour at which the end credits will roll. The programme will be fully broadcast in about 20 minutes. According to the actual policy, I was correct in creating the page at that time. --SOTO ☎ 17:59, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the schedule. It's still on air.   18:06: Sat 27 Apr 2013
 * Put more fully, since it ends at about 18:15, the "bottom of the hour closest to the time at which the end credits roll" is 18:30 UTC. There are examples at T:OFF REL that make this abundantly clear. 18:08: Sat 27 Apr 2013
 * Since it's possible I'm using an Americanism not common in Canada, I direct you to bottom of the hour. I'd be interested to know if that is not a common definition on both sides of the border, so that I can adjust the language of T:OFF REL more helpfully.  18:13: Sat 27 Apr 2013
 * Thanks for the Wiktionary link. No, at least around here, the "bottom of the hour closest to the time at which the end credits roll" would most definitely be translated as the "start of the hour during which the end credits will roll" (as in, 7:00 if the episode ceases broadcast at 7:30). I would suggest you reword that bit of the policy, because that is not at all what I read the sentence. --SOTO ☎ 18:19, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've never heard that expression before. Interesting... It's entirely American, from what I've read. Anyone who doesn't know the expression would automatically assume what I did: the beginning of the hour of the end of broadcast. It actually took me a few minutes to figure out what it meant from the Wiktionary definition. Well, I'll... um... wait an hour. --SOTO ☎ 18:35, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't think of another expression, so I'll leave it in, but link to wiktionary. I've added some more language to T:OFF REL that should make things absolutely, crystal clear. Thanks for pointing out that the expression may not be common to all English speakers!


 * Still, you and I both know that you were in full violation of T:OFF REL, and all this talk about the meaning of bottom of the hour is just a little smokescreen you were trying to throw up. If you had just been a few minutes early, I'd probably never have withdrawn your editing rights.  But it wasn't like that, was it?  Page history clearly shows that 17:11 UTC is when you started an article for a story that began broadcast at 17:30 UTC.  And your edit summaries demonstrate that you knew you were starting the article before transmission began.  There's no reading of the original text of T:OFF REL that would allow that kinda activity.  It's unbelievably ballsy for you to contend with a straight face that you were "correct in starting the article" 20 minutes before the beginning of transmission.  I know you've had a rough week with your computer, but, c'mon: stop trying to sell a dead guy life insurance.


 * You're forcing me to put on my grumpy hat.




 * 'Please don't ever do anything close to this again. And when you're called out for violating perhaps the most sacred rule of the entire wiki, never ever'' pretend that you were in the right.  You do great work around here, and that's solely what's allowing you to remain unblocked at this time.  But I'm unbelievably freakin' serious about not spoiling things for our users.




 * The rules are very simple. They must be inviolate for the benefit of all our users.   22:44: Sat 27 Apr 2013
 * I honestly thought that I was acting within the parameters of policy. I've been starting episode articles at the beginning of the hour of broadcast (my understanding of the current wording) since Bells. Now I know what the policy's supposed to say, so I won't make the same mistake again. But, just so you don't view me in the wrong light, I never "pretended" not to have violated the rule — I was going according to the rule exactly as I read it. --SOTO ☎ 00:02, April 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Since July 2011, the policy has stressed that the key point of time is "when the end credits roll". If you had started the article at 18:00, then maybe I could see it as a reasonable confusion over the "or" in "top or bottom of the hour".  But you were starting in the hour of the beginning credits, not the end ones. You thus committed a kind of spoil that's the worst kind possible.  Essentially, you were like the cinema employee who spoils the movie as she's selling you the popcorn.


 * The policy has never, ever said that you could "start articles at the beginning of the hour of broadcast". Why would this wiki possibly be so anal about protecting our users from spoilers only to allow spoilers at the last second? There's just no way that's a reasonable read of the policy, either as it existed when your violation was noticed, or now.


 * In any event — and the real reason that I'm bothering to respond to a week-old message of yours — is that a) I just noticed it and b) you say that the policy doesn't say what it's "supposed" to say. I'd ask you to please return to T:OFF REL and tell me whether you think it is at all vague in the section about television stories.  I need your input on this, as you're not the only one to make this sorta "goal line fumble".


 * (As an aside, series 7b has been a bit of an experiment in seeing how well the policies have sunk in. Previously, we'd strictly protected article creation until just the moment that policy allowed, but that's a pain in the ass for admin.  Not because it's hard, but because it means that we have to spoil ourselves on the episode titles in order to be able to protect others against spoiling.  So this time, we've not protected anything to see what might happen.)   00:11: Wed 08 May 2013
 * First of all, I got kinda scared when I saw an edit on a 'block' section — though I somehow did something wrong. Secondly, it's much clearer now, what with "after" and the Wiktionary link. Also, just so you understand, I sort of assumed that we might want people to be editing and expanding while watching, so I've been creating the pages to let people do that, in correspondence with what I previously believed the policy said. I will admit that I got a little impatient with that last one that you blocked me for, but I did it at the beginning of the hour of broadcast (starts and ends during same hour) with every other episode. Anyway, once again, I think it's very clear now, and I can't see anyone making the same mistake as I did. Just to clarify — if the next episode starts at 7:00, I can open the page only at 8:30? If that is correct, then the rule is well understood. --SOTO ☎ 00:24, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, somehow I'm still not getting the point across, but i really don't know how to make it clearer. Most episodes are under an hour in length. So if the episode starts at 7, the article could be started at 8, since the end credits will likely roll at 7:45-ish.   00:32: Wed 08 May 2013
 * Okay, now I get it! :D --SOTO ☎ 00:43, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Picture
As compared with the original image on the page Alydon, your image totally appears to be stretched widescreen. You can't see the original picture, because it, too, as been deleted, but your picture definitely looks like it's a 4:3 image put into a 16:9-sized hole. Which i what I said in the deletion rationale. 01:10: Mon 29 Apr 2013
 * I left a rationale when I deleted. I re-iterated that rationale, above.  And you're still asking for my rationale?  I literally don't have the words to add any clarity.  Pictures are deleted for any number of reasons.  Just because yours was deleted for apparent aspect ratio problems doesn't mean that another one had that same problem.  Just take a new screenshot, crop widescreen (without forcing an aspect ratio change; just cut a 16:9-ish hole out of the 4:3 one, and upload that image.  It should be fine.   01:29: Mon 29 Apr 2013

Wordmark five
You know what? I'm going with the cricket ball. Even if people don't get what it is, it's still clean and crisp. And frankly, I'm gonna be selfish and go with what I love the Fifth Doctor for: cricket. The only thing is that it doesn't quite work on the light background, as with. So I was wondering, since you have the ball on a layer of its own, could you please just put a 2px #012c57 stroke around the ball? It washes out without a stroke/border. Thanks :) Until then, I'll just leave up the version you posted to the thread. When ya get the new version, just throw it on my talk page; no need to go back to the forum page with such a minor revision.  Thanks for all your work on this particular design; I know it was a bitch.  01:00: Wed 01 May 2013

Malcolm Taylor moves
Although I agree with your suggestion to move Malcolm Taylor to Malcolm Taylor (actor), there's every likelihood that some, if not most, of the current Malcolm Taylor links are actually for the POTD character. But that's something a bot can't determine. Thus, I need for you to click on Special:WhatLinksHere/Malcolm Taylor and figure out which are meant for the character, and which for the actor.
 * Anything that is meant for the character needs to be temporarily moved to Malcolm Taylor (Planet of the Dead) so that I can perform a simple, one-step move.
 * Anything for the actor should be left at Malcolm Taylor

In other words, you need to make the situation completely wrong so that it can swiftly be made completely right.

The whole idea behind is, well, speed. This one's not ready for a move. Please don't present T:SPEEDY requests that aren't completely straightforward. There are 17 links here that still have to be manually checked out before this move can proceed. 17:59: Fri 03 May 2013

April 6
I can delete 6 April (real world), but did you want to keep the links to it? There are only two: 6 April and 2013. Shambala108 ☎  15:35, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Policy questions from 3 May
I don't mess with series pages too much at the present time. I'm not sure that there's one single admin who claims "responsibility" for them, but Mini-mitch is much more active with them. Perhaps he has an opinion you'd find valuable.

Navigation templates are of much greater interest to me. The best navigation templates are distinct from categories in one of two ways. Either they consolidate information from several categories, or they offer context or presentational style you can't get from just one category.

Let's look at the poster child of the "category consolidation" type of navigation template. Our category structure is such that Doctor Who television stories is a meta-category. It contains no individual pages. thus offers a way to join together the contents of most of the subcategories of category:Doctor Who television stories into a single table. Think of the things you can easily learn from. You can find out which television stories starred which doctor, which were in which season, and not be limited by whether the episode was in the old series or new.

The other type is all about presentation. Technically, something like is really just a refactoring of category:NA novels. But it's useful because it provides the novels on a per-companion basis, and also because it lists them by more-or-less- release date. So it's taking a single category and presenting that category's information in a way that probably does more good than the simple alphabetical listing.

I would therefore say that if all you're doing is presenting a single category alphabetically, then you don't have a good basis for a nav template.

As for your first example, sure, a listing of all drinking establishments might be as reasonable an idea as. But just like it would be more useful if you could find some sort of organising principle — like maybe Terrestrial v. Extra-terrestrial or something like that.

I'm not especially seeing the utility of, however. I'm thinking that something broader like would be much more useful, since that would cut across several categories, and put our entire content of food-related pages in one handy location.

(Incidentally, I think you may have only skimmed template talk:hospitals. Tangerineduel did indeed initially object, but he eventually withdrew his objection after he saw what was happening with it.)  19:44: Tue 07 May 2013
 * While I think it could be created, I don't see a strong reason must be created.  Here's an idea.  Instead of making it just pubs, make it about places you can buy food, in general.  That way you could have lots of different points of articulation: full-service restaurants, fast food joints, market stalls, specialty stores (bakeries, butcheries, coffee shops — yes, there are named examples of all these in the DWU), grocery stores, pubs & bars (the distinction between the two being perhaps too fine to make, using DWU sources), etc.  23:09: Tue 07 May 2013
 * Well, I think it should be a little clearer that you're talking about a place, since a food retailer could be a person. "Places to eat and drink" seems simple and clear. I kinda think that should be the template name, too, although redirects for speed could be created. So  or  could call .   00:26: Wed 08 May 2013

Notification
As the food category conversation on my talk page includes multiple editors, I thought it best to reply there and keep the conversation all in one place. Anoted ☎  02:12, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Series pages
I've had good think about this, and came up with, what I think is a good idea. If you look at the Series 7 (Doctor Who) page, I have merged all the prequels out of their separate tables and just have them in as a column in the regular episode list.

I'm not sure if you will be able to see how it is formatted, but here is how is 'Autumn half' now looks:

By clicking the edit button on your page, you will be able to see how I have formatted it. You could implement this on the Series 2 and 6 pages. MM/ Want to talk? 00:32, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Fergie
The reason it's playable inline is because it's big. It used to be that width was immaterial to whether you could play it inline, but now it has to be something like 400px, which is larger than we typically use. In this case, because it's meant to illustrate a timely point, I bumped it up to around 500 to make sure it could be played inline.

That vid's totally illegal by normal rules, by the way, but this is an extraordinary circumstance. Sadly, I'll have to delete it soon. :( 01:48: Tue 14 May 2013
 * Yeah, I gotta get rid of this vid soon. I'm spending far too much time watching it on an endless loop.  It's perfect comic choreography is mesmerising.   04:28: Wed 15 May 2013
 * I find myself transfixed by the multiple layers of movement from the very back of the studio up the foreground and what kinda camera they're using to give such good focus over that depth. And the girl on the left, obviously. We need a companion from the 1960s who'll wear something Carnaby Road-ish like that on a regular basis.   04:40: Wed 15 May 2013

A nightmarish start
You recently violated T:ILL by removing interlanguage links from Nightmare in Silver on 11 May soon after the article was created. This is, of course, because you started the article with invalid ILLs. Please don't do this. When ILLs are removed, I get an alert and have to go investigate the incident. Clearly, you used a file you created on your local machine for Hide to start the Nightmare article, so you had the ILL detritus left behind from that article.

Also, you tend to start articles by adding navboxes relevant to that particular story far away from. In this case you put underneath the ILLs. Two things wrong with that. First, T:ILL firmly states that ILLs are to be the very last thing on the page. Second, you're violating T:SPACING by putting the two navboxes so vertically distant from each other. Any story-speciic navboxes should go immediately underneath, so as to avoid the accumulation of blank carriage returns.

Finally, your creational edit was at :06 (19:06 UTC), but then you say "the bottom of the hour after broadcast!" This worries me cause it makes me think you're still not fully understanding the phrase. In no way is :06 the bottom of the hour. And "bottom of the hour" wouldn't have applied here. 19:00 was the time the article could be started — so well done on getting the time right — but that's the top of the hour. Just to make sure that you understand this terminology — not to belabour the point, but to make sure you can tell others properly — lemme make this really clear. If it's 6:00, that's the "top of the hour". If it's 6:30, that's the "bottom of the hour". If an episode ended at 6:45, then the "top or bottom of the hour following the end credit roll" is 7pm. If an episode ended at 7:10, then the "top or bottom of the hour following the end credit roll" is 7:30. 13:21: Wed 15 May 2013

BIT
Lol. It's not as mad as at looks. I guess you could say that technically there are no cover dates. But all you need to know is this. The first issue very definitely came out on 20 September 2006. The release schedule was once a fortnight for the entire run, so all you do is progressively add on 2 weeks. If you're too lazy for that, you can probably find a list at comicbookdb.com or here that'll get you most of the way to issue 70. The Doctor Who Toybox will get you all the way home, but you have to click on the individual magazines to see the precise date.

Beyond the general year, I don't really know when the so called "special editions" like Doctor Who: Battles in Time Daleks vs Cybermen Special happened, nor do I really care, since they have no narratives inside. Maybe the Toybox has those dates.

I just added to }, so you can be a bit more accurate, but please only use this variable with DWBIT, and where ever there literally is no cover date. I don't want to see it popping up on DWM issues. 21:05: Wed 15 May 2013
 * Actually, please do consistently switch all these from to .  (If you're not too far along, you could make that variable name, but if you're already well underway just keep going with .) I'm gonna add a little footnote to the  variable which will explain the phenomenon on every BIT page so that others don't get confused.   21:25: Wed 15 May 2013
 * I would say you need to stop and do some research. My instinct would be to say that they're wrong.  I can't imagine a reason why two issues would be released on the same day.  It's more likely to be the truth that they released 47 two weeks after 46.   01:06: Thu 16 May 2013

Days of the year
Might have taken rather longer than I had planned, but the question has now at last been asked of the community. 22:50: Wed 15 May 2013