If you don't like one of our policies, attempt to change it through direct, succinct discussion at a single thread at Board:Panopticon. Do not attempt to poke holes in the rule by editing pages in the main namespace in a way that demonstrates the weakness of the rule, or by starting the same argument in several different places.

If you disagree with a policy or guideline, don't edit this wiki so as to prove your point. It's a truism of wiki editing that no rule can ever be written which is completely applicable in every situation. There will always be exceptions to the rules, especially because Doctor Who is a vast topic with 50 years of history.

When we say, as we do at T:HONOURIFICS, that periods should not follow "Dr", we know that there are cases where our franchise's main character is rendered "Dr. Who". This doesn't invalidate T:HONOURIFICS, and it definitely doesn't give you licence to start correcting every instance of "Dr" to "Dr."


  • Don't create pages about false or frivolous topics. Just because you don't like T:HONOURIFICS doesn't mean we need List of times that Dr. Who appeared in the end credits
  • Don't edit articles against your own beliefs — or, more importantly, the facts — just to demonstrate a problem with a rule. So don't start an article at Dr. Who Magazine just to emphasise your disdain for T:HONOURIFICS.
  • Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.

Here are some other examples of how to uphold this policy:

Case Do Do not
If someone slaps a {{delete}} tag on your favourite article ...explain on the talk page why you disagreeengage in "an eye for an eye" behaviour by slapping a {{delete}} tag on another article, giving the same rationale
If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...participate in the discussion, basing your argument our policies create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion
If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusiondelete most of the remaining article as "unimportant"
If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...find a valid source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited sourcesummarily remove from that page or other pages everything which appears to be unsourced
If you think that our list of valid sources has unfairly omitted (or included) a particular source ...start a thread at Forum:Panopticon arguing why that source's status should be changeduse it as a source when you know it is under discussion or fails one of the "four little rules"
If someone claims that you're violated our ban against personal attacks...immediately defuse the situation by apologising, then be extra-cautious with your words in the futureclaim that the other person has actually been violating that rule too

A blockable offence

If you do start making the kinds of edits that this rule argues against, you will be blocked from further editing. Please remember that the administrative staff staff here are not paid — even those who work for Wikia are not generally paid for their work at Tardis — and most of this sort of activity simply creates more work for them to clean up.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.