User talk:OncomingStorm12th

Archiving
Teeny bit confused, but I deleted your first archive, and moved the second one to Archive 1...and your talk page is properly empty now? Was it something I did? This edit shows everything was removed, but when I looked at the page right before the page moves, it was all still there.

Anyway, from my experience, the archive tool has been known to be faulty on really big talk pages (which I don't think would include this one), and in those cases it's always best to just do the copying manually. If you have any further questions, let me know. 17:17, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what happened this time (maybe just the fact the archive template needed to recalibrate?), but, in general, making an edit, likely even submitting after having made no changes, will always "update" the page to what it really is, as you say. 17:26, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Entity = Talent Scout
I hope you agree with the merge suggestion. PS. Thanks for looking into the image: I was a bit hesitant to put a two-page-large picture without a second opinion. Amorkuz ☎  01:06, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement and the trust. My vision is, essentially, that there should be three pages: one for the planet from which the creature was cut (can't remember it's name now), one for the shapeshiting creature (Entity + Talent Scout), and one for ARC, which is the "brain" of the creature (I now cannot remember how exactly this was explained). The grouping into pages is by body separation: planet is one body, ARC is another, Entity is just the earlier body of the Talent Scout. Amorkuz ☎  09:34, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * UPD. I screwed up and make a mistake on the merge. Good news: I can fix it by myself. This year really cannot be edited on an issue by issue basis. Bottomline: I did not do enough research. I will and fix things. Amorkuz ☎  22:15, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Shooting gallery
Sorry, I came up with a perhaps better image. But bring this one back if you think it's better. Amorkuz ☎  19:07, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Reverting multiple changes
Just so you know, any editor can restore an earlier version of a page by going to the revision you want in the history, editing and publishing. 22:16, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Page moves
Sorry for having apparently never replied (or actually submitted one, anyway). Yes, you are correct that I haven't been around as much lately, as in the past, but I did look through your list when I first got it, and took care of a few of the cases. I apologise, by the way, if I am unnecessarily verbose (or confusing in any way) in my reply; my day was very tiring, but better to write this now than put it off at all.

I'm afraid I can't just take your two lists as-is, and simply trust your judgement on what ought to be where. There was a reason CzechOut created the very first on your list at Norris, rather than Chuck Norris, and that's because it's not explicitly revealed in the text, and there are no other Norrises with unknown first names to create the need to disambiguate, or slightly bend T:NO RW.

I can't really comment on all the Unbound page moves right now, as I haven't actually listened to the stories myself to confirm whether or not the new names are in fact substantiated—and as other admin are, I'm still pretty confused as to how we're meant to deal with the recent decision on those stories, particularly Deadline.

I will try to get to the others. According to T:DAB, there is no reason for an audio series to be given a dab term when that same name has no other meaning. Given that The Churchill Years is not also the name of a book the Doctor owns, there is no real reason for it to become The Churchill Years (audio series), as you say, although I suppose the intention was to differentiate it from the first anthology in the series, The Churchill Years (audio anthology). Anyway, your second list seems about right. Those should be moved back.

Manually move the links? Don't bother. It's very easy to do by bot.

Preternatural Research Bureau needs to be renamed to P.R.O.B.E.. I don't understand how the latter link was ever the series. I placed a speedy rename at that page just now. Not sure what's up with Ruthven, truthfully. Now it's a redirect to Ruthventracolixabaxil. Should that redirect be Ruthven (The Eleven Day Empire) instead? There's a lot still to look at here. I will get back to this, maybe this weekend, and I'll see what I can do. 02:40, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Anatomy
Huh. That's an interesting idea. A link in the infobox to cardiovascular system is, I think, a very natural evolution from current variables in other infoboxes. Present on? Present in? And if there's a "part of", why not an "includes" variable?

That said, I don't have time for that just now. In the coming week, though, perhaps even this weekend, I might be able to make this one for you.

(In the realm of categories, by the way, do you think category:Anatomy from the real world should be created? I normally make those by bot, based on the presence of .) 00:09, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Thread:204223
Thread has been closed. Shambala108 ☎  02:30, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox images
I have no idea where the rule comes from or where it's written down, but I'm absolutely sure that at some point it was agreed that any story released to home markets first (BBV, video games, etc) should have their box art used in the infobox. This doesn't apply to things like TV stories because TV stories are rarely published with covers initially. OS25 (Talk) 23:53, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Image Request
Hey, since you're pulling images from the latest episode, may I suggest a good one?

I recall a couple frames in there of Movellans being "exterminated; as their bodies become inverted and their skeletons show. One of these would be great for the Dalek-Movellan War page. Crop it a bit and I think it would really pop. OS25 (Talk) 03:35, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Synopses
To be perfectly honest, this is already pretty clear from the current text at Tardis:Plagiarism. The "example of what not to do" is exactly this, but with a reference book.
 * Say one day that you notice, "Wow, we have a lot of blank story pages around here." Maybe The Terror of the Darkness' catches your eye.  So you go off to the Doctor Who Reference Guide, and find a plot summary there.  You then copy and paste that plot summary into our site.


 * At this point you are caught by an admin and blocked from further editing our site. This behaviour is absolutely forbidden.

This is then followed by:
 * Plagiarism is not about having the same information here that might also be found on the official BBC website, or in a reference book. Instead, plagiarism happens when you copy the precise wording used in another source. Put everything you submit here into your own language, and you'll be fine.

Do you have any suggestions on how you think this can be made even clearer? 18:21, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Planet (The Pilot)
Sorry it's taken a while to reply. The BtS section for Planet (The Pilot) has the correct link, but as it is a Facebook story it has to be viewed on a mobile or tablet, otherwise it just links to a video. If you have a mobile device with access to Facebook, go to the official Doctor Who page and scroll back to the post from 5 April at 10.42 and it will work correctly. I wasn't certain how best to present this as a reference on the wiki, but the information is there. Hope this helps. 66 Seconds ☎  23:32, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Heather
Sorry to interject. I just saw your question, and I suspect what the reason is. I think Heather is considered a primary topic as the. I've bumped into similar cases before with Victoria, which is the queen rather than the companion and Hector without the dab term but with the disambiguation page carrying the dab term: Hector (disambiguation). Amorkuz ☎  21:39, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Heather
Hi! I only removed the rename tag because another user added it back a mere few hours after User:CzechOut removed it with his reasoning in the edit summary. I suggest you ask him his reasoning, as I was merely upholding it, and he will probably explain it better than I could. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  00:43, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * As Amorkuz has pointed out in the previous section, the part of T:DAB which applies here is that the plant called heather is the primary topic. This is consistent with the way that Victoria on this wiki refers to the British Queen. Most things named "Victoria" on this wiki are done so in honor of that queen. Likewise, people named Heather, at least in English, ultimately derive their names from the plant.


 * In many cases, it is more sensible -- and quicker! -- for the reader if we declare certain pages the "primary topic" and then put a or  right at the top of that page that directs them to a longer list of other things with that name. We have to remember that the very word disambiguation is a tad unfamiliar to many people who have not edited wikis.  Thus it's a good idea, as at Victoria, to use the  template in such a way that the word disambiguation doesn't appear.  And indeed, even though  could potentially use the word disambiguation in its default output, it defines the term, as seen at left.


 * The average reader is thus able to search for Victoria and quickly get to the list of other Victorias without having to stop and look up the word disambiguation.


 * Of course, there are some cases where a primary topic is not able to be found or fairly assessed -- most likely because the list is exceedingly long. In such cases, the un-disambiguated term points to the list itself.  A great example of this is Peter, where there's not even a primary "Peter" within Doctor Who -- who's more important to the history of DW: Capaldi? Davison? Bennett? Purves? Brachacki? Peter of Galilee, even? --  much less the English language.   14:38: Thu 20 Apr 2017

Pipe switching in new infoboxes
I'm currently unaware of a solution to this problem, but I'm still working on it.

It's currently purposeful that the only/first values on infoboxes do not pipe switch, but because it's the only way to get SMW to actually display the value. The utility of having the ability to run useful reports, like Property:First appearance -- which gives you a list of all first appearances -- or Special:Browse/An Unearthly Child (TV story) -- which will give you a list of all the things that appear for the first time in that story -- is greater than the ability to truncate the parenthetical. 23:24: Thu 20 Apr 2017

Moira
I noticed you are after undoing my edits on Moira, Bill Potts adoptive mother. I have added the pages that the links direct to, and I have read the redlinks page- which refers to the redlinks as requests for pages and that the links should be kept unless the serve no relevant function on the page. Since I have added the pages, but have had the links to those pages deleted, then what function do the redlinks serve on the page?

Thank You
Thanks you for replying so quickly and for being so understanding. Defiantly a point in favour of this wiki. Marcus.

RE: Battlefield
Turns out I never submitted this response. Anyway you indeed do have a point. That redirect has been deleted (and all links updated). Battlefield the redlink is now all yours, if you should choose to tackle it. 05:33, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Main settings
I keep thinking that we should discuss these things more. We all have our implicit ideas of how to edit best, but, not surprisingly, they sometimes do not match. I had this worry on the back of my mind that I might be undoing someone's carefully laid system in my Titanic struggle. So why don't we discuss this.

I think, being a completist, I was internally going for as full a list of locations in the infobox as possible. Fortunately, that did not amount to too much as most Titan comic stories published by mid-November 2014 did not really have these small pockets. However, I did put into the infoboxes Neptune in Terrorformer and London in Whodunnit?.

So let me explain my reasoning hoping to hear yours later. I understand it is called the "main setting" suggesting that some of the locations should be omitted. My feeling about this is two-fold.

On the one hand, a very long list of locations, obviously, would be unhelpful, so the wording gives us freedom to omit secondary locations if need be. I imagine, this is especially useful for a novel with dozens of flashbacks. Even though I actually did add half a dozen locations to the infobox of Class novel The Stone House. When there are only two or three locations, I generally see no reason to skip one of them.

But there is another aspect, having to do with the blessed eternal incompleteness of the wiki. For me, infobox and categories are the first line of defence against incomplete articles. Oftentimes, there would be few references and no plot. So whether a secondary location is even mentioned on the page becomes a game of chance with continuity. Sometimes, there is a category that can carry this information until one of us wikifies the story completely. But if not, then the unfortunate consequence is that the is no trace of the location on the page and no link to the location from the page. This impedes research and makes things non-transparent. Take, for instance, Terrorformer. I've wikified the first issue, but not yet the second where Neptune appears. Before I added Neptune to the infobox and added Category:Stories set in the Sol System, there was no link from the page to Neptune (even though the planet was mentioned in the plot, the existence of which is a rarity). And the category alone is not specific enough to point specifically to Neptune, nor would provide a traceable link.

Finally, there is an ulterior motive. It sometimes happens that I bump into information that seems doubtful to me. For instance, there is an appearance of Ada Obiefune in Whodunnit?. I'd like to quickly squash my doubt by looking at the page. But what if the story is set in space only? That seems misleading for me, as opposed to seeing a second setting in 20th century London, which is an immediate explanation of where Ada came from in the story.

This is, roughly, why I prefer to keep in the infobox as many locations/dates as doesn't hurt the eye. I'm interested in your thoughts. (And sorry for the long post.) Amorkuz ☎  19:54, April 28, 2017 (UTC)