Spoilers are precisely defined here. Rules vary by the story's medium. Info from television stories can't be added here until after the top or bottom of the hour, British time, closest to the end credits roll on BBC One. Therefore, fans in the Americas who are sensitive to spoilers should avoid Tardis on Sundays until they've seen the episode.


Archives: #1, #2, #3

Welcome to my Talk Page! To save time, you can call me N8.
Please remember to sign with ~~~~ so I can see who you are.
– N8 (☎/πŸ‘οΈ)

Re: thinly-veiled characters[]

I found another character to add to your "thinly-veiled characters" section in your sandbox: an unnamed companion in PROSE: The Blue Angel fits the description of Cedric from NOTVALID: Search Out Space.

14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and for your list of "valid references to invalid stories", you might not be aware of the two references to Griffoth (from NOTVALID: Attack of the Graske) in TV: SJAF 1 and Journey's End. 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Another for this list would be that in TV: The Christmas Invasion, the Tenth Doctor refers to man he had once met called Arthur Dent; this encounter was first mentioned on the Who is Doctor Who website, when Arthur Dent mentions the Ninth Doctor, who lay in front of a bulldozer in front on Dent's home. 11:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
In PROSE: Big Bang Generation, the Doctor mentions Time Squids and Crinis from NOTVALID: The Twelfth Doctor Interactive Story. 23:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Another is Magister1971. 13:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Although there have been many references to NOTVALID: Dr. Who and the Daleks in valid sources, one that hasn't had much attention is in PROSE: Bafflement and Devotion, where it is evident that the version of TV: The Daleks that Iris lived through was actually a version of Dr. Who and the Daleks.

13:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this one isn't present, considering you wrote Cobweb and Ivory, but aren't the painted warriors retroactively intended to be Weeping Angels in your story? 08:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Up to ye whether you want to list him, because he's intentionally ambiguous and could be any of several thinly-veiled-licensed-characters or public-domain characters; but three of the possible identities for the Man in black are the Master/War King, the Genesis of the Daleks Time Lord messenger, and Voyager. Also, left a couple of messages for you on Discord! Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
PROSE: The Gallifrey Chronicles mentions Jemima-Katy as one of the Doctor's companions, who was an "applicant" to be the Doctor's companion in NOTVALID: The Skivers. 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Important news[]

Oi! Would appreciate you showing up on Discord when you can, I have several pieces of Who-related news of some great import which I'd like to discuss with you, and which cannot be discussed on-Wiki for various reasons (such as T:SPOIL). Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


Why did you remove the plot section of The Book of the War? It won't be an easy one to write, but it can and should have one β€” probably following the order of events given in the Timeline and building from there. Also, if you'll slide over to Discord once more, I have related things to discuss with you which T:SPOIL still bans from these parts… Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I dunno. Probably it would be better for someone without any COI at all to have a look at the situation. You've written for FP, of course, and as for myself, I do have a vague connection to PROBE β€” we're very close to my Oath here, so I don't feel comfortable making any administrative decision, even if I think I can have valuable things to say as an editor among equals. Also, if you could give me a reply on the above;? (And show up on Discord whenever convenient…) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. It's really a pity Najawin vanished just as so much new FP stuff was bubbling to light… Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, waiting for you over on Discord. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

RE: Comments on your Sandboxes[]

Thank you so much for your support. I've still got a fair bit of work to do before I'd feel happy seeing the template implemented (currently the template will only work well for prose stories) but I'm going to be adding support for other forms of story soon. Hopefully other editors will also like the template when I propose it upon the return of the forums! Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re:Infobox Phenomenon and Conflict[]

Hey, I was away from the wiki for a while, so could not respond sooner. Regarding the infobox, yeah, it's been in a sandbox for a long while, mostly because I and other people with whom I discussed it couldn't find a 100% suitable name (because the more generic "Infobox Event" already existed as a redirect to {{Infobox Event or Exhibition}}.

That said, your suggestion of "Infobox Phenomenon or Conflict" had come across my mind once and, honestly, is probably as good as we'll ever get for it. I'll proceed to publish it and work on a documentation of the three types of "events" they can be used on: conflicts, which is already done by {{Infobox Conflict/doc}}, sport matches, and other, more general events. Feel free to use it on whichever pages suit them. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 14:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Slight update: I decided to leave the final name as {{Infobox Event or Conflict}} because describing 2012 Olympics or Fourth Doctor-K9 chess match (The Androids of Tara) as a "phenomenom" didn't seem quite... as fitting (though {{Infobox Phenomenon or Conflict}} still exists as a redirect). OncomingStorm12th ☎ 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


I've just done Minor (star), and somebody else did Maxie Masters, so you can cross those off your list!

Also, waiting for you over on Discord with some fun FP discoveries whose implications I'd like to discuss with you… Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Hey! Please do see my second reply at Talk:Man with the Rosette. I really didn't think I was doing anything out of the ordinary here β€” nor meant to imply that you had done anything especially wrong. You yourself cited T:EDIT WARS β€” well, at the end of the day, there was one reversion from you and one counterreversion from me, which is still well within accepted practice on both ends. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Third opinion[]

Thank you very much for the ping today, it served the dual purpose of reminding me about your message last week (sorry for forgetting about it).

Coming onto that, I'd probably go with "Notably, several of BBV's decisions were decried by Lawrence Miles" over "This was notably decried by Lawrence Miles". This is because he lists two releases in particular as reason for feeling the way he does so the "several" just helps future-proof the statement (assuming Miles won't complain about literally everything they do with the license moving forward). As you say though, the distinction is very minor and the link to the tweets is there for those seeking clarification either way. Borisashton ☎ 23:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: messages[]

'Ey! Been awaiting your feedback on a handful of things over on Discord, one of which has a fortunate connection to one of your latest posts over on Tumblr and Wiki implications… Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: appearances tab[]

Yes, this seems well within the precedent of things like the "soft testing" of the new 'Infobox Event' on a select few pages in the main namespace before its wider implementation. You can go ahead β€” but do make a note on the talk page(s) clarifying the special nature of these changes, and that other users shouldn't begin converting Thirteenth Doctor - list of appearances to the new format out of the blue! Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RE: Your message on my talk page[]

You're absolutely right I neglected to sign a few messages, but really, is that the main worry? I... made a string of very bizarre edits. Utterly misreading the contents of a page on a trailer, telling users to "get owned", ending inquiries with "TELL ME NOW NOW NOW!", and removing a use of the phrase "BTS" meaning "Behind the Scenes" because of the Kpop group of the same name. I was... well... not in an entirely lucid state of mind at the time. Yeah, I probably shouldn't try editing in...that... anymore. NightmareofEden ☎ 17:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Page moves[]

Hey, I've seen you attempted to move The First Men in the Moon (comic story) from your sandbox into the (main) NameSpace. I appreciate your eagerness to improve the coverage, but, in the future, please only move sandbox pages if you're moving them to another sandbox title.

This is because non-admins automatically leave redirects behind when moving pages, which is fine on a sandbox NameSpace, but that's not desirable for the main NameSpace. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Tree limitations[]

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this project! I think your way of representing Orson Pink is very good. I also like your Doctor family tree. I feel it would be nice to try and include family members such as Granny Five, although this probably isn't practically possible.

I also like your series relationships diagrams; I feel they are much better then mine. I'm going to have a look at re-making some of mine with individual stories rather then whole series. With regard to missing intersections, I've been meaning to have a look at how practical it is to add more tiles. There are some cases in some of my diagrams where different tiles to the ones given would have been useful.

Additionally, now that there's 3 people (me, you and RadMatter) taking an interest in trees, I feel that it's important to consider the fact that, with Fandom's current implementation of the mobile skin, trees will not work on mobile as this will be a major hurdle on getting this used on the wiki at large. I have a few ideas, non of them great, on how this could be overcome, but I thought that I would mention this as something to consider. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 15:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the prefix version as it is, as you said, more flexible. I can't see the harm in resurrecting the old prefixes in just this scenario where it does add a lot of clarity. To be honest, the majority of casual users with whom these prefixes would be confusing are going to be on mobile and so won't be able to see the trees properly anyway. The only case where I could see prefixes being an issue is if a story isn't part of any series, such as Glam Rock Detective. An idea that has just occurred to me is that my extra citation template could be used, although this is not yet finished and may not make it through the forums anyway. The benefit of this would be that author is shown (something that I feel could be particularly useful when dealing with Paul Magrs and that side of the DWU, as well as release date and other information that could add some context to otherwise confusing looking placements. It would also help with the seriesless story scenario.
Another concern I have is that using individual stories isn't always as practical or effective as using series. For example, in this tree showing the way TV spin-offs connect together, pinpointing a particular story doesn't always work. Moreover, it's probably more helpful for the new fan that this is intended to help if series are used as they likely wouldn't have knowledge of every story name. Therefore, I feel that both versions of the tree should be used with a key always present (perhaps in a collapsible) to make sure it is clear which format is in use. The different keys could be set as templates, or even just one template that takes an argument and changes what key is shown based on that argument.
I do not believe that it is possible to make the tree (which is simply a table with a lot of formatting at its core) not display on mobile, at least not in a practical sense (in theory, the entirety of the tree could be placed on the page by CSS or JavaScript which then wouldn't be rendered on mobile. In practise, this would make easily editing the tree basically impossible). It is definitely possible to add a message warning mobile users that the tree won't render properly, and it should be possible to make this message only render for mobile users. I have been considering providing a link to let mobile users view the tree with the desktop skin, although this of course isn't perfect, especially if they are using the Fandom app. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 18:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I have worked out how to add extra tiles to the {{tree}} template. The extra ones that I've added are on the bottom row of the tree on my 14th numbered sandbox. Are there any others that you feel it would be particularly useful to have? As {{tree}} is protected, I would like to make all of the extra tiles that will be needed before asking an admin to add it to the template. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 11:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
That shouldn't be hard to do at all. I'll add it tomorrow. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Are these the tiles that you want added?
This content does not display properly on mobile. Please switch to the desktop skin to view it.
Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 10:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Are these good?
This content does not display properly on mobile. Please switch to the desktop skin to view it.
Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant. I'll be asking an admin to add the new tiles to {{tree}} in the near future. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 13:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
{{tree}} has been unprotected and I've added my changes from User:bongolium500/tree to the template, including editing the documentation page. Therefore, you should be able to replace all uses of User:bongolium500/tree with {{tree}} in your sandbox. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 17:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The reason I thought it would be good to make a thread is that trees do not work on mobile and I believe (although have not confirmed) that some things (such as the use of tabs) have been disallowed due to not working on mobile. There isn't really a way around this (unless the trees are created in a sandbox and screenshotted with the images being inserted into the page, although this wouldn't work properly with light and dark theme and would make editing the trees a massive hassle). What I'm currently thinking is to exploit the fact that CSS does not load on mobile to create a message that replaces the tree on mobile telling people that the trees do not work on mobile view with a link to view the page on desktop view. This could be implemented straight into {{tree/start}} and {{tree/end}} but the templates are protected meaning I'll need to bother some admins to get them unprotected again. I'll also need to add a bit to CSS. This means it's not something I could get implemented today. Do you have any other ideas? Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I've finally got round to making trees a little more mobile friendly to the point where I think they could start to be used. On mobile, the tree is hidden and instead a message is displayed with a link to view the desktop site. This is implemented directly into the various templates and so no extra work is required when creating trees. Therefore, if you think it is fine to start adding them to pages, I can think of no technical reason as to not. I think this could work as an additional section at the bottom of story pages, as seen here, although it could also go in the notes/story notes section. It may also be worth standardising a key in the form of a template. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 19:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


Hi Nate, how are you? I just saw your addition to the Twitter page and was unsure if the reference to The Crooked World does actually belong there, or if the birds in question should have their own separate page. I see your point about the Crooked World having manifestations of memes and whatnot, but the novel was released four years before Twitter was even founded, so I'm not sure if this was one. I mean, in-universe it works magnificently and makes me think that Steve Lyons may be psychic, and I don't mind at all if it stays on the page, I just wanted to check to see if the release date/authorial intent was a problem? LauraBatham ☎ 04:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Scanlon = Monk?[]

Hello! I'm sorry to report that I have some heavy doubts on the legitimacy of the John Scanlon/Time Meddler connection; more details in the Tumblr post I linked. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: Novelisation page names[]

Thanks for the heads up; at the suggestion of User:Shambala108 I've queried User:SOTO about what the current policy is just for clarification's sake, though I don't expect a speedy answer or solution - I posited the name change 7 years ago and a grand total of nothing has occurred since then. To answer your question, I can't think of any other pages this particular situation might apply to off the top of my head - I only pushed for the Lavel page's change because I was gifted the Battlefield novel and noted the added information. If I find or think of another page that could benefit from the same name change, I'll come back and add to this. Pbandfluff ☎ 22:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: The Merge of Morbius[]

Hello! I likewise hope you're well… Despite the (I assume?) continued unavailability of your Discord, remember that we can also communicate through Twitter! I believe I left some messages for you there several days ago.

As concerns this Morbius business: hmmm. I don't know. "The Ship" relies on a very direct licensed connection β€” she is "the timeship which converted Compassion into the first humanoid timeship", with Compassion appearing under license; that's thus a licensable 'aspect' of the Doctor's TARDIS and we acknowledge the appearance. Likewise "the Homeworld" we can acknowledge as Gallifrey because it's "the home planet of the Great Houses", with the Houses appearing under license.

I'm not sure I see an equally straightforward reasoning with Morbius and the Imperator. "The first President of the Great Houses to have advocated for more interventionist policies, been deposed, and executed"? Perhaps β€” but that is, I think you'll agree, a step further removed, even if the logic holds.

The thing is, I can't really justify to myself the idea of accepting that reasoning for 'Imperator Morbius', but remaining blind to the War King's former identity as the Master, which is easily argued on a similar basis of "the most infamous criminal the Great Houses produced, whose timeship left the Homeworld on the same day as 'the Ship'" (that is, you could argue this even if we set aside the matter of whether we should acknowledge that the Lord President in The Taking of Planet 5 was a licensed appearance the Master from the word go β€” which is another pathway to potential acknowldgement of War King=Master).

Plus, there are concerns about where extending the Homeworld Principle this far might take us. Auteur is "the metafictionally-minded early member of the Great Houses who charted the meridians of time", so is he really Astrolabus by the Homeworld Principle? Etc., etc. It is not that I would necessarily be against a proposal for the Wiki to acknowledge "implied characters" across the board (as per the proposal on your user-page's bulleted list); but I am leery of doing so "through the backdoor" by extending the Homeworld Principle further and further. The way I see it, the Homeworld Principle is its own standard, which is not quite the same standard that would let us accept things like Imperator Morbius or Auteur/Astrolabus; and we should stay true to the spirit of the current law.

All this being said, perhaps there is some angle I'm missing about the specific Imperator/Morbius matter.

Actually, I think there's a somewhat speculative angle we may have all missed: The Brain of Morbius was cowritten by Robert Holmes. It is known that the Robert Holmes estate gave The Book of the War the right to use the Sontaran, though Miles decided it was best not to include any named TV Who concepts in the book. Is it not conceivable that Holmes owned Morbius (or at least, some portions of the character; perhaps not the name), and authorised his use? How sure are we that The Book of the War did not have the license to Morbius, anyway? I don't have any certainty in this area but perhaps the matter is worth investigating. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi, do you have plans for the redirects left behind after your recent page moves thanks Shambala108 ☎ 18:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


Time to revive old traditions: I would appreciate you nipping over to Discord if you have a minute free! Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 22:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


Hi Nate,

You are correct that the character's only "official" appearance in the DWU was in the charity anthology, however the Special Executive characters Wardog, Zeitgeist and Cobweb have made several appearances in Marvel comics which feature Fascination (these are the only ones which I have red-linked/intend to create pages for as they feature DWU concepts). Fascination has also been referred to as a loom-born Gallifreyan in an X-Men handbook.

And I am doing really well thank you, hope the same for you! RadMatter ☎ 22:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Re:Infinity Doctor[]

Ha! That was a nice catch, and, much like the Fugitive Doctor, he benefits that the moniker we're using appears in their first story's title, and (ever-important) it also has a meaning to the character in-universe.

Although dab terms are good and saves our lives when naming pages, you are right that they're not as useful when writing (and reading!) articles themselves, so I think that, presented a good alternative like this one, we should take advantage of it. Rename incoming! OncomingStorm12th ☎ 23:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I.M. Foreman[]

Hey, always nice to see you around (and sorry for the delayed answer, the placement of the notification bell reeeeally isn't helpful, I often don't see it). So, let's go for it: when redlinking to the page, I defaulted to Gallifreyan (Interference) much in the same vein of Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven), which is "a generic-dabbed-by-story term, in the lack of a better one" (however, if you do think of a better, less generic name, please reach out again! As you've by now surely noticed, I'm all-for non-dabbed pages whenever possible.

As for the category... I'm not sure. Sure, the War Doctor is in Category:Incarnations of the Doctor despite not being often called "the Doctor" (although, in many many stories he... ends up being called just that ;p). In general, though, I think it'd be a bit weird to name the category after any of the incarnation instead of the overall Time Lord/Gallifreyan name. We don't have, after all, Category:Incarnations of the Eleven, but rather Category:Incarnations of the Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven). (again, please give me a shout for a good name for the overall character, {{conjecture}} might be our best friend, since you're more familiar with the character than myself)

Finally, the "prev"/"next"... I.. don't know. I feel like it'd be slightly redundant with {{Meddling Monks}} and the likes of it (otoh, perhaps draft a Sandbox incoporating this idea. That'd be a good material to our temporary threads, if they ever materialise before our propper forums are back.) OncomingStorm12th ☎ 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a bit on the nose, but [[The Show Traveller]] came to mind (to mirror I.M. Foreman's Travelling Show, and it fits, cause all of them were a part of the travelling show, right?) Let me know what you think. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It's occurred to me that the thing about templates like {{Doctors}} and {{Meddling Monks}} is that, for Time Lords with lots of minor incarnations like the Doctor, we don't have all of them in the mini-navbox under the infobox. A next field in Previous Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) pointing to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) would not be redundant with the presence of {{Doctors}} on those pages. I think I am cautiously in support of the prev/next idea now.
By the way, if you could jump over to Discord, got a couple of things to tell ye about! Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 20:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Once again, would I speak with thee of matters paradoxical over there… Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 16:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Infobox inquiry[]

Hi Nate, I'm doing well. How about you? What you're asking about is pretty simple. I've made it at User:Bongolium500/Infobox Individual and I've placed an example below.

The relevent code can be found at the bottom of the infobox. It only has 1 set of navigation fields but this could easily be expanded. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 19:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Infobox test[]

Yes, by all means! Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 18:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Mh. Try refreshing it a couple of times? Worked for me. Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Great Black Eye[]

Would be happy to discuss all this with you more broadly and speculatively on Discord if you would…! At any rate, I do think there is something intentionally eye-like in the Glorious Dead art β€” note the cluster of "stars" near the center. It's more obvious when you zoom out and look at it in low resolution that it gives the impression of a simplified eye design, black withe a white pupil.

I also think the "purely the post-War Eye of Harmony" and "eye of the Master" interpretations should be covered separately β€” in large part because, by all appearances, Miles didn't intend the Eye in The Adventuress of Henrietta Street to be anything else than the Post-War Eye, sans Master connection (or else, surely the Man with the Rosette would have something interesting to say about it!). Linking it to the visual from The Glorious Dead and the broader idea of the echo-Master was very much Parkin's retrospective dot-joining. So, in the spirit of these "Possible identities"-type sections on pages being used to also give readers a sense of the competing authorial intents of the real-world writers, it's best to keep them separate even if the Master version is consistent with some interpretations of the Eye of Harmony versions. Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 23:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Oh, and as for the repetition β€” let me know if you have any better ideas, but the thing is that the stuff from Glorious Dead is simultaneously "a sighting", and possessed of context useful to interpreting one of the "Possible identities"; so it really should be represented in both sections of the page, given the way the page is currently structured, or else one of them wouldn't be complete. I did try to write the two paragraphs in such a way that the one is more focused on the sheer event of the Doctor being given a glimpse of the black eye-like sun, while the other was more concerned with explaining the context, quoting the Master's retrospectively very interesting statements about the world which the black sun would herald, etc.) Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


Hi there! Thanks for your message and sorry for taking so long to respond. I haven't had the time to do any editing but reverting vandalism for a while.

Yeah, I did notice that we were moving pages ourselves now, although I didn't know exactly how come. If I've added Speedy Rename templates to any pages recently, it must have been force of habit! Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 19:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


Are you around Discord-wise? Scrooge MacDuck βŠ• 14:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Page moves[]

Hi, when you move pages don't forget to delete any unnecessary redirects thanks Shambala108 ☎ 02:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi. Regarding a general-purpose Template:Counterparts, I completely agree. That would work far better and save a lot of time and space in the long run, though it would have to be created by somebody better at template coding than myself. I'm thinking of something similar to Template:Looks like which can be used as standard, where we can either add the subject or it is autopopulated by the page name. If a general counterparts template was created, I think it should say "Alternate counterparts of [subject]" rather than "Parallel counterparts of [subject]", that way it includes both parallel universes and alternate timelines. 66 Seconds ☎ 22:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Need a favor[]

Hi, I need a favor and I'm hoping you can help me. I've been so busy the last few years, and the forums have been down almost as long, so I've lost track of where certain stories and their elements stand on the wiki. As far as the characters for He Jests at Scars... (audio story), do you know what has been decided on how to cover them? Thanks and if you don't know, could you point me in the direction of someone who does? Shambala108 ☎ 23:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I think you answered my concern, but I want to be sure I have it right.
So any character from He Jests is considered to come from the Unbound series? My reason for asking is that a new user created a bunch of character pages, like the Doctor, the Master, etc, with the dab term "He Jests at Scars". When I see a bunch of pages created like that, I always wonder why they don't already exist, but I don't want to delete them if that's how we're covering them. So are they valid pages or not, do you know? For example, The Master (He Jests at Scars...) and Fourth Doctor (He Jests at Scars...). (Ignore the multiple policy violations on the pages, there's no need to fix them if the pages will be deleted.)
It also looks like he created character pages specifically for several of the other Unbound stories, so I guess your answer will apply to all of those.
Thanks again! Shambala108 ☎ 01:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it, especially since, as I told User:Scrooge MacDuck, I don't really know anything about the topic and wouldn't really know how best to fix the pages. Shambala108 ☎ 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)