User talk:SOTO

To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO. Also, please sign your messages. Thanks.

× SmallerOnTheOutside  (☎/ ✍ / ↯ ) If you've come here to request a simple, uncontroversial page move, please consider using instead. This puts all rename requests into a neat little chart that all admin can see and work on.

Archiving talk page
Hey, I have 47 topics on my talk page, and though it was long enough to be worthy archiving. However, as it's be my first time doing it, I think i messed it up (twice, actually).
 * My first attempt made an empty page (I think I didn't click "select all" before publishing)
 * My second attempt seems ok. However, my normal talk page still displays all messages.

Can you give me a bit of advice how to fix these? Thanks OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:04, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly does work now. As for the talk page not being empty before, it probably just wasn't properly "updated", even though there wasn't content anymore. Anyway, thanks a lot. OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:22, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Big merge request
Hi, me again, sorry for being a nuisance. As you might have noticed, I'm slowly reviewing the Titan comics. However, having read the first two years of them, I have a significant advantage over editors who created the pages without knowing all the twists to come. In particular, 11D stories are more or less one big arc per year (Moffat-style). But it was not at all obvious at the beginning. More precisely, the same character has been introduced at least three times in the first three stories, and still has at least two pages (it's complicated as the other pages should remain methinks). I've put in a merge request, and would like to ask you to review the merge and perform it if possible. However, having being at least partially responsible for spoiling Class novels, before going into the details, I'd like to ask your permission to spoil. Amorkuz ☎  00:52, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is an unpaid job though, and admins should also be free to enjoy DWU. Disclaimer: I will clean up the page and I will merge the lists of appearances now (fortunately, not made into separate pages yet), however, the first year of 11D (second too actually) is extremely Moffatey, by which I mean timey-wimey. So getting a straight sequence of events out of the convoluted narrative is a big job (time-consuming in the absence of search function).What I will do now is combine the existing material of the two pages and would be extending it, going story by story, rather than character by character.
 * Just to make sure I'm not going against tradition here (and trying to keep spoilers to the minimum): what we have is a shapeshifting creature that stayed in one form for some time and then changed its form (to an individual it met before), after which it kept changing form at will. Currently, we have one page for the initial stable form and another page for the multiple different forms it took after. My reason for merging is that it is the same consciousness assuming different shapes. (There is a mild complication that a portion of this creature was kept elsewhere and was destroyed. However, there is a very apparent telepathic connection between this portion and the rest. Thus, I think both the portion and the creature (before and after the shapeshifting began) should still be covered on the same page.) If you agree with this reasoning, then I'd appreciate merging Entity (The Friendly Place) onto Talent Scout. Amorkuz ☎  09:27, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought about it again, just to be sure. I know how to tell a story about the merged thing, a story that has a beginning and an end. But if you start breaking this story into parts, then it's not clear why you should stay at two pages only. The story gets splintered and harder to understand. I think merging is the right thing to do.
 * UPD. In fact, I just bumped into an in-universe evidence for the merge that I completely forgot about. It's an explicit timeline drawn by the Doctor and present on Talent Scout. Ok, no more options anymore. Merge-merge-merge.
 * PS: Wow, when I mentioned pages moved, I did not expect it to be that much. Amorkuz ☎  23:43, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Amorkuz ☎  00:01, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Thread:179549
So I've recently become bothered by how Thread:179549 ended. Not because it didn't have the conclusion that I wanted two years ago when I opened it, but because the final conclusions to the thread are extremely hasty and have nothing to do with the discussion in question. If anything, it ignores the discussion to instead just make up a new precedent out of thin air. I don't even care about if the Cushing films are valid or not -- it's more that such a huge decision on how we decide Rule 4 on this site shouldn't come from one admin bringing up his views before shutting down the thread before anyone else can agree or disagree.

My issue is that people might one day try to quote the "findings" of this thread in another discussion, and in my eyes the conclusion has little to do with what we were actually talking about and is extremely flawed. There's a whole flood of future discussions about unwritten stories that this forum could preemptively end, when the forum itself wasn't really handled all that well. I'm going to move forwards that we somehow seek to re-open it to continue the discussion, and I figured you would be a good place to start asking since the admin in question has become inactive. Do you have any thoughts? OS25 (Talk) 15:13, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Pages moved by users
Hey. So, I recall the last few weeks a few non-admin have moved some pages. Even though the names that currently exist are indeed the correct ones, links were left behind to the previous names. So I'm dropping a list of pages whose named have been moved:

These have correct titles, and the redirects should be deleted, as well as links moved to new name

 * Norris was moved to Chuck Norris
 * Golgalith was moved to Golgauth (as well as the talk page)
 * Sydney (Deadline) was moved to Sydney Newman (Deadline)
 * Antigone was moved to Antigone (Psychodrome)
 * The Doctor (Exile) was moved to Third Doctor (Exile)
 * Previous Doctor (Exile) was moved to Second Doctor (Exile)
 * Tom (Deadline) was moved to Tom Bannister
 * Amy (Deadline) was moved to Amy Bannister
 * Anastasia (Duchess) was moved to Anastasia Romanov
 * Ian (Ghosts of Winterborne) was moved to Ian Burgess
 * Project Longinus (comic series) was moved to The Forge (comic series)
 * Cyber-Control (Mondas) was moved to Cyber-Control (Telos), though this one will later need a move to Cyber-Control (Tomb of the Cybermen)
 * Justine (Alien Bodies) was moved to Justine McManus
 * Anarchitects was moved to Anarchitect
 * P.R.O.B.E. was moved to P.R.O.B.E. (series)
 * Shuncucker was moved to Kresta Ve Coglana Shuncucker
 * Patience's husband was moved to Fifth Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)
 * The Eleven-Day Empire (audio story) was moved to The Eleven Day Empire (audio story)
 * Ruthven was moved to Ruthven (The Ruthven Inheritance)
 * A'daletem Ano'nde was moved to A'daltem Ano'nde
 * Pokemon Go was moved to Pokémon Go

These don't have correct titles, and should be moved back

 * The Diary of River Song, which was moved to The Diary of River Song (audio series)
 * UNIT: The New Series, which was moved to UNIT: The New Series (audio series)
 * The Companions of Doctor Who, which was moved to The Companions of Doctor Who (series)
 * Adventures in a Pocket Universe, which was moved to Adventures in a Pocket Universe (audio series)
 * The New Counter-Measures, which was moved to The New Counter-Measures (audio series)
 * Time Hunter, which was moved to Time Hunter (series)
 * The Churchill Years, which was moved to The Churchill Years (audio series)
 * The Adventures of K9, which was moved to The Adventures of K9 (series)

PS: Wow. That's a lot more than I expected. Probably now the faster way to deal with this might be using the bot. OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:53, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * PS2: I know you haven't been much active these last few days/weeks, so sorry if it fells like I'm trying to give you a lot of work when you already aren't having much time to edit. If you want, I can manually move the links for any of the cases, and warn you up, so your only "work" will need to be deleting the wrong-named redirect. (I would add to all of these, but, as redirects were made, I'm unsure these would be effective, or even usefull) If they would still be, despite the redirects, also warn me, and I shall do so. OncomingStorm12th  ☎  02:05, February 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, this reply was way longer than expected. Please, read it after you rested. There is no hurry for you to read this one.


 * Oh, it's fine you've not answered this so far. I was aware that, at first, it was due to you being mainly evolved on the Lemony Snicket Wiki, and now tireness (honestly, who would ever be able to judge anyone over this?). Anyway, going back to the lists themselves:
 * I think that, in trying to make the list as simple as possible, I might have made it confusing. On the "These have correct titles..." list: the first link (page title) is the name the page used to have, and the second, simply with a link (page title) is the new name. I actually totally agree that Norris should not be moved. I probably just put the links on the wrong order while making the list (as well as with Patience's husband). That said, feel free to check if other links are also on the right order (there were so many pages, I now fear more links might have been misplaced)


 * As for Ruthven: I believe the problem was: changes were made between when I made the list and when you read them. When I made the list, Ruthven was actually the name for Ruthven (The Ruthven Inheritance). Only later it was made a redirect to Ruthventracolixabaxil. Now, as it redirects to a Time Lord, I agree it is still usefull, but with a different meaning than the original.


 * Overall, yes. I do believe you should review and check the moves before doing them. I might have missunderstood one of the changes, or linked in the wrong order (like i did with Norris) or other mistakes. Still, the good part is: I achieved my goal. The main reason I did this list was to make sure the moves made by regular users wouldn't be burried on the move log. If you're looking at this, even if you needed to take your time to do it, than I'm more than happy. Thanks for it all :) OncomingStorm12th ☎  03:04, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

I screwed up
Hi. This is a note with an apology for making you do unnecessary work and for making a mistake. Good news: I can fix it by myself. My only consolation (and a promise) that in the end it will be better than before. Before it was correct but incomplete; now it is incorrect and incomplete; I will make it correct and complete. The situation is even more complicated than I thought. And it cannot be edited on an issue by issue basis. Bottomline: I did not do enough research. I will and fix things. Amorkuz ☎  22:13, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Block request
There's been an edit war going on at Theory:Timeline - Seventh_Doctor. Someone (apparently switching between the IP addresses 193.62.133.33, 194.80.219.142, and 31.205.27.22) has been repeatedly reverting that page to an earlier edition, justifying this by saying that "he insulted the admins hes lost the right to have his version of events" (presumably about Fwhiffahder? or Pluto2, both of whom were contributors?) and "your putting it back to a flawed version filled witrh non-cannon stories and pointlesds comments on sections like Nightshade!"

After seeing Pluto2 go back and forth with this IP, I went through and painstakingly resolved all the conflicts between the two versions of the page, keeping the IP's old version's organization as more consistent with that of other timeline pages, but implementing the newer, pre-battle edit's many typo fixes, summary removals, and overall timeline improvements. I hoped this would stop the edit war, and I've pointed these fixes out to the anonymous IP user, but apparently my version is "flawed", "filled witrh non-cannon stories and pointlesds comments on sections like Nightshade!" Indeed, for Nightshade, my compromise version says
 * The Doctor essentially kidnaps Ace when she tries to leave. This seems odd considering Love and War, where he lets her go (and is revealed to have wanted her to), but months do pass between them.

while the IP's says nothing. However, their version has many instances of inexplicable and pointless summary, like for the TV movie:
 * Having visibly aged from years of his Machiavellian schemes, the Doctor is shot in a San Francisco gang shootout while transporting the Master's remains from Skaro to Gallifrey. Taken to Walker General Hospital, the Doctor dies when Dr. Grace Holloway's exploratory surgery damages his circulatory system. Despite the anaesthesia halting the process, the Doctor is able to regenerate into his next incarnation several hours later.

Meanwhile, the compromise I made says simply, "The Doctor regenerates."

I'm not one to make baseless accusations, but I'm suspicious that this user is User:BananaClownMan, who was blocked in October for getting in similar edit wars over timeline pages. Anyway. Just hoped that you'd be able to sort out this issue. Hope you're well! NateBumber ☎  23:39, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Recent lists of appearances edits
Hi, I wanted to let you know that an IP user User:82.3.146.201 has been editing many lists of appearances. He/she has a stable address and seems to be a serious editor, so I did not pay much attention.

However, I just noticed that his/her edits of appearances in comics remove the name Titan from the subsections for Titan comics. In addition, the changes of the type: from "Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor" to "The Eighth Doctor" make it reasonably cryptic where theses comic stories are taken from. So I started having reservations to this part of the edits. However, I am not 100% certain that I'm right, plus some of his/her ideas might have merit.

In short, not being sure I can contact him/her and not having authority to claim the edits are definitively wrong, I bring this issue to your attention. Sorry for adding more unpleasant job. Amorkuz ☎  18:52, February 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * Since we both agree that the edits are generally good but can be approved in some aspects, I left a message hoping he/she would see it and contact you, making the discussion and overall outcome much better.
 * I myself can say nothing of the italics and formatting. I never thought about it, so can't form an opinion. My main concern is removing the publisher-based section title and renaming fixed names of series. Since you agree that this is a cause for concern, I'll look at what needs to be done. Amorkuz ☎  08:21, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. I assumed that the company wasn't needed if the series had a title. Such as the lists don't have "BBC" followed by the series title. Would you like me to fix this? I'd be happy to. 82.3.146.201talk to me 20:22, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it makes the most sense to carry on this conversation, all three of us, here.
 * Yes, episodes of Doctor Who would never go under "BBC", but there's a certain amount of context in giving the name of the company that puts out a certain comic or range of books. IDW puts out a certain "class" of comic stories, shall we say, and in the 90s Virgin's series and the BBC Books series were very much separate, both in continuity and in style. So it's useful to distinguish between Doctor Who Adventures comics and IDW or Titan's, and between Big Finish's output and the former AudioGO. In other words: yes, it is important to keep those headings, and have the full range subheadings below them. I definitely commend you for adding all those italics, by the way. 03:53, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
 * My reasons are entirely pragmatical. First of all, the "Contents" box provides a good navigation tool for long pages, such as Tenth Doctor - list of appearances. Having "Titan" there helps against a lot of scrolling. And since I agree that Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor is a bit clunky, Titan provides a more recognisable jumping point. However, this clunky title is what this series of comics is called on the wiki, so after a while one starts recognising it too. On the contrary, "The Tenth Doctor" can be used to describe many different things, so I prefer the former as a subheading.
 * In addition, a collapse of one level causes inconsistencies in the hierarchy tree: one compares apples and oranges by having "IDW" and "The Tenth Doctor" on the same level. Plus, "Free Comic Book Day" and "Mini-series and one-shots", which used to rightfully be a subcategory of "Titan" has now become a subcategory of "The Eleventh Doctor", which is just plain wrong: the former is a separate series of Titan, the latter collects several separate series, definitely having nothing to do with Doctor Who: The Eleventh Doctor (though having something to do with the Eleventh Doctor himself, adding to the confusion).
 * This was my rationale to initiate the discussion. I should also say that I'm very happy someone is improving lists of appearances. Amorkuz ☎  07:22, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey all. I've seen the changes happening for quite a while as well, and I'd like to add one or two points to it:
 * First, I do think it's good someone decided to give a look at List of appearances. I always felt it was a part of the wiki not many bothered much to edit (myself included. Now, I took some interest in them, and started keeping an eye on them as well)
 * Second, I must agree with Amorkuz about changing "Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor" to "The Tenth Doctor" is a bit of a loss. Even though we usually drop "Doctor Who" from titles, this is a case where not dropping seems worse (as it makes the title too generic)
 * Third, it seems that, as a rule, the IP user blank spaces when making the first sub-headings of a heading. While I agree we totally should leave a "blank line" between the "Series 5" and the "Series 6" sub-headings, it feels to me like a waste of space to put a blank line btween "Television", "Doctor Who" and one more between "Doctor Who" and "Series 5".
 * Fourth, I have been, for quite a while, been wanting to make a forum thread to standardise the intros of all "lists of appearances", and also standardise the way we link to them. Mostly, we link to them as see list, but with every other instance of adding apostrophes, we'd do it as see list (open the editor to properly see what I mean). Do you think it's worth making a thread about it, or is it best for us to finish this discussion first, before beginnig a new one? OncomingStorm12th  ☎  18:33, February 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Just saw this, I realize that the Doctor Who: bit needs to be added back, as soon as I've cleaned up the companion lists, I'll go back through the ones which need it re-adding and will do so. 82.3.146.201talk to me 18:43, February 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * While I'm all for standardisation myself and am generally very likely to suggest something like that myself, let me try to play a devil's advocate: what is the practical difference of the two "see list" variants? The obvious one is that bots may miss some occurrences if both variants are used. But that, in principle, does not necessarily mean that one is better than the other. Is there some difference in the rendering of the two variants? Thinking of it, changing it by bot is probably easy, so there's no problem doing it, unless there was some practical reason for the current choice. Amorkuz ☎  23:27, February 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think there's any pratical difference between the two. Now you mentioned it, using two variants might make it a bit harder for bots. If we were, however, to settle down with one of the two variants, I'd rather use the one where the apostrophes are outside the brackets, simply because that's how we use them for most linking.


 * Ha, I'm not the only one who's bothered by . It's not technically wrong, I suppose, but I fix them all (to italics within) from time to time by bot. Funny how you prefer the opposite—  is the original format, in fact, when we first starting rolling those links out, and I think it's the cleanest, most compact option. I can't say appearance lists have gotten much attention since the time I brought up that they shouldn't be called "List[s] of Appearances", possibly four years ago. 02:10, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * On spacing: You are absolutely right that there needn't be an extra space between an h2 (such as Television) and an h3 (such as Doctor Who). Not because there's any real way to "waste space" in formatting that has no actual bearing on the page as presented, but because it actually makes the page formatting less clear in source mode. Think of it as an unwritten extension of T:SPACING: if there's no actual content in the parent heading separate from the child heading, no extra carriage return should be added. So:

== Television ==

''Doctor Who

 * Not:

== Television ==

Doctor Who

 * Additionally, it's "IDW Publishing" and "Titan Comics". More importantly, it's "Novels" and "Comics", never "Novel" and "Comic" as I've been seeing around lately. Those are adjectives, for one thing, and do not represent any sort of plurality in the way "Prose", for example, does. Even if there's only one novel listed, it's still "Novels", please. 02:19, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you are saying, other than the comic section. I think this should be like audio, it can be audios such as "I love purchasing big finish audios" but it can be just audio. I think we should do the same for the comic section so all sections are more on suit. 82.3.146.201talk to me 11:58, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * That can be discussed, of course. The way I see it, "Prose" and "Audio" denote a particular form, rather than individual stories, while "Comic" is more often used in the singular: a comic. Think of it this way: you can say, in the form of audio, in the style of prose, in the format of television, but say "in the form of comic", and no one will know what the hell you're talking about. That said, maybe it is a by strange that comics is the only major form we pluralise. Maybe we can pretend it's like "physics", "aesthetics", "hermeneutics" and the like, and therefore actually singular because of a Greek origin. Heck, that might even be right. 21:27, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * One more thing I'd like to bring up, and maybe make it become a "rule" after discussion: how many appearances are necessary to make a list, rather than just using the infobox? Usually, I do them after 5/6 appearances, because that's when it starts to look too crowded on the infobox to me. Any opnions (and, again: would it be okay if I made a thread about this rather than the 4 of us discussing it here? I can make a general overview about what's been discussed alredy, and perhaps it will bring more atention to the discussion, which could be a very good thing, potentially). If it's ok, then I'll do it as soon as a get "approval" for it. OncomingStorm12th ☎  00:58, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Changes on story numbers
Ok. I hate to have to do this, specially because it's a new user, and we've all been there. However, User:Bob Dallas has been making changes to the number of stories (so far, only on A Good Man Goes to War (TV story) and Let's Kill Hitler (TV story), though, on the former, I was able to revert it without him changing it back. It is my understanding that these changes would violate Tardis:You are bound by current policy, as Thread:183627 is still open (but please correct me if I'm wrong). For this reason, I tried leaving a message on his talk page (as friendly as possible, specially since I'm not an admin), but this seems to have had no effect. Additionaly, now I can't simply revert edits on Let's Kill Hitler (TV story), as there have been more than one edit needs reverting (which means only admins can restore the "correct" version). Anyway, sorry for having to give you (yet) one more task to make. OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:06, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, nevermind. In the meantime, P&P did this. OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:17, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Killers vs. murderers
I was always wondering about the difference. Since you just changed it, you probably know. Could you explain it please? PS Ack about multi line info boxes. Amorkuz ☎  06:43, February 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I support merging the two categories. Originally, I tried to find the literary distinction and found variants of the following one, suggesting that the difference is that a murderer must be convicted in court. But that is not stated clearly in dictionaries: cf. murderer vs. killer. Given that many editors are not native speakers, and given that neither your nor my definition explains the term "cold-blooded killer" (shouldn't it be "murderer"?), it seems very unlikely that the two categories are used consistently by different editors. To give a concrete example, we two did not exactly see eye-to-eye on that.
 * PS. Sorry for a delayed answer. I have a difficult month at work. Amorkuz ☎  00:37, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
 * I needed to think on this. I would be more in favour of keeping Killers as the more general one, merging Murderers into it (and obviously doing the same with their "Human" subcategories. I'm not sure why it is bad to put pages directly into "Killers" though. I completely agree that Assassins and Executioners should stay because these are professions, not criminal designations. Since we currently have no idea why editors put people in "murderers" rather than "killers", perhaps, a simple merge suffices. Then, if need be, and additional category Criminals can be used to emphasise criminal intent. Or, if it is really important to emphasise that the person is a criminal because of a committed murder, a subcategory Category:Convicted murderers can be created in the intersection of "Killers" and "Criminals". Otherwise, I think adding, say "Soldiers", or "Criminals", or "Assassins" or etc. as an additional category would be clearer to the readers. Otherwise, there is too much of subjective morality involved. Are Nazi soldiers murderers? But they were just soldiers at war. But the Nürnberg trial. Or closer to DWU, is Nia Brusk a murderer? She killed and was convicted by her body was controlled at the time by an external force. That's why I would prefer to put everyone under "Killers" and stop judging people. I mean, just imagine a Panopticon discussion on whether the Doctor is a murderer. (And yes, Executioners clearly belong under Death sentence.) Amorkuz ☎  16:46, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not a trivial question. I do understand why it might be useful to separate accidental killers from intentional murderers. But I do agree that the difference should be very clear from the names of the categories. I still struggle with the concept of intent though. Take 007. He has a license to kill. Presumably, this pushes him towards "killers". But he decides whom to kill himself and might be convicted as a murderer in a country other than Britain.
 * By the way, I just realised that "Soldiers" is not within "Killers" but is within "Crime" via "Violence", which makes even less sense to me. On the other hand, soldiers do not have to kill. It's not really in the job description. It depends on the kind of soldier. For instance, a driver for an officer is not likely to kill and does not need to. On the other hand, "Assassins" are killers by definition, but one can easily imagine an apprentice assassin who never killed anyone yet, met the Doctor, saw the error of his way, etc. And while we're at it, cannibals need not kill either, as Snowpiercer teaches us (I so regret watching it).
 * One of the problems is that we compare apples with oranges.
 * "Soldiers", "Assassins" and "Executioners" are jobs with a particular job description that may or may not involve killing.
 * "Killers" is an objective description of events.
 * "Murderers" is either a legal or a moral category (moral in describing someone who kills out of free will rather than out of necessity or under orders). It is quite clear that this is the hardest to deal with.
 * In principle, I am often for maintaining status quo. Turning "Murderers" into "Convicted murderers" is the least invasive procedure. In fact, allowing for a little looseness in interpretation, one can also include here those who have been convicted in the public view rather than in a court. The main problem I see is that deciding which current murderers are convicted cannot be done without knowing every story intimately. In most cases, the text of the Wiki would not suffice. Hence, I don't really see a way how to do that. Amorkuz ☎  16:49, February 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the term may even be used directly in the story, making a distinction between "killer" and "murderer" (though once again there's no guarantee that different authors use them consistently).
 * Essentially, for me the question is not what these terms should mean. I'll take any consistent interpretation. For me the question is how editors have been using the terms. Perhaps, it might make sense to ask this, not on Panopticon, but on the Reference Desk. Perhaps, there is, in fact, a consensus on how these two have been used. If so, nothing needs to be changed.
 * Also I don't quite understand how people edited before you made the "Killers" category.
 * PS. Every time you talk about cats, I think of Miss Quill. Amorkuz ☎  23:26, February 12, 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are some examples I find fishy:
 * Carys Fletcher is currently a murderer. But it wasn't her. It was the Sex Gas, if I remember correctly.
 * Sara Kingdom is currently a murderer. I guess this is her killing Bret Vyon, but it was on orders. Her other actions I do not view as crimes.
 * And Bret himself is a murderer. When did he manage. He's been in only 3-4 episodes and one audio?
 * Oh, come on now, so The Brigadier is a murderer too? Is it something I don't know? Or is killing invading aliens counts as murder? Or is this him blowing the Silurians sky high?
 * Great, now Charlotte Pollard is a murderer.
 * And the nurse Rory Williams.
 * I may be wrong, and there may be reason behind these categories. But at first sight, these look like the "killer" cases. Amorkuz ☎  23:45, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

Regs for dabs
Ooh, yummy regexps. Thanks. Toys to play. Yay!

And I will return to Robert's. Things can still be done. For instance, dab page for Rob is already referenced, while one for Roberts isn't, and Robertas and Robertos I missed. Robert Mukherjee was not included on purpose, by the way, as it seems slated for deletion.

With this new tool, I might even attempt to make a dab page for Delta (disambiguation), which I previously dismissed as too much work, but I wanted to ask if it makes sense? Should dab pages be only for first words in the page title, plus last names of course? Or any part of the title is game? Amorkuz ☎  08:46, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

BHS stumped
Hmm... I have no answer to that. Blind spot I guess. I would call it a Freudian slip if I could find any connotations in BHS. I've always been told that my mind works in mysterious ways. I guess this is a proof. Amorkuz ☎  00:12, February 17, 2017 (UTC)