FANDOM


Archive
This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.


Archiving talk page Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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

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 {{Speedy rename}} 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 Edit

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 Edit

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)

User:BananaClownMan has reached out to me and clarified that he is not the anonymous IP; I apologize for the accusation. NateBumber 16:46, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

Recent lists of appearances edits Edit

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.
× SOTO (//) 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.The preceding unsigned comment was added by OncomingStorm12th (talk • contribs) .
Ha, I'm not the only one who's bothered by '''''[[X - list of appearances|see list]]'''''. 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—[[X - list of appearances|'''''see list''''']] 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.
× SOTO (//) 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.
× SOTO (//) 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.
× SOTO (//) 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)
I was hoping one of you would suggest that. To whoever does this: a good summary of the points would of course be necessary. It's your decision if you want to bring it to the forums now, or wait until we've reached something here, to confirm approval and allow for more opinions. I think waiting a week or two might be a good idea. One reason is that it will gain more attention as we approach series 10.
And to answer your question: that number sounds about right. After about 5 or 6, as you say, it starts to look "crowded", and needs to be shunted off onto its own page. I don't think that needs to be policy, like it's somehow required to make an appearance list the moment the story count hits 7. It's really a matter of judgment, but of course we can come to a conclusion on the suggested maximum length of infobox appearance lists.
On comics: Wikipedia houses their article on the topic at "Comics". "Comics is a medium used to express ideas by images, often combined with text or other visual information." They use the singular to refer to comics ("Comics frequently takes..."), meaning my hypothesis earlier today turns out to be correct. So in fact, "comics" is not plural when referring to the medium. In fact, as I suspected, comics is an uncountable noun, and technically is derived, somewhat loosely, from the Greek word komikos. For this reason, the heading will continue to be "Comics", using the singular form of that noun which refers to the medium/narrative form itself.
× SOTO (//) 02:24, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
See, I don't think this is necessary: Santa Claus - list of appearances. I know we said 5 or 6, and I might agree with 7 if it were seven episodes of series 1 of Class or 7 Big Finish audios, but frankly, this looks just fine to me. I think maybe when we say 5 or 6, we don't mean total, but rather 5 or 6 actually listed in "other appearances". In that case, Santa Claus as it was before today looked perfectly fine.
Tangentially on that topic, by the way, how do people feel about that variable being listed as "other appearances"? I've only done that on {{Infobox Individual}}, to try it out (it used to just be appearances, with "first seen in" listed separately as well), and I'm wondering if I should keep it, put the same wording on the other infoboxes, or roll it back entirely. To be completely clear, it says "appearances" if no "first" is specified, and if one is listed, gives the next variable as "other appearances". The only problem I have with this is when it's used with a see list link, where technically what's given is all appearances, including the first. Of course, appearance link could be made into its own, autolinking variable.
× SOTO (//) 00:33, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I made a summary of this discussion over Thread:211467. Any further messages on these topics should be made there, as to keep the discussion in a more visible place. I tried to make all discussion here as clear as possible, while keeping neutral on the original post. OncomingStorm12th 19:41, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

Changes on story numbers Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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)


Dimension in Time forum Edit

As you are an active participant in The Lego Batman Movie thread, would you be able to have a look at the Dimensions in Time thread?

It has been requested by OttselSpy25 that I should contact an admin, so I thought it best to contact an admin who has become a custom to the four little rules.

I understand that your opinions on a story won't stop you from accepting a story... that makes you a good admin.

I'd also like to request that you don't shut it down straight away. 82.3.146.201talk to me 14:32, February 25, 2017 (UTC)

Your input is requested! Edit

We'd love to hear your input at Thread:185810. We're meant to be discussing if Martha Jones' Myspace Blog is a valid source. However, we haven't even been able to agree on what the page's DAB (BZZZZZZZ) term should be! We're thinking either Martha Jones' Myspace Blog (short story) or Martha Jones' Myspace Blog (webcast). It's kind of not a short story or a novel. It's be fab to hear your thoughts! OS25 (Talk) 03:10, February 27, 2017 (UTC)


Completely unrelated to the above message, but do you think it would be possible for you to close (or at least give your say on) Thread:211479? CoT ? 01:13, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

A question on renaming Edit

Heya SOTO! Just a short question which only needs a yes or no answer; if a page's original name should be kept as a redirect, can I move the page? CoT ? 21:20, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Anatomy Edit

Hey SOTO, it's been a while since I proposed {{Infobox Merchandise}} and {{Infobox Company}}. I've wanted to propose this for quite a while now, but never got around thinking a usefull way to build an {{Infobox Anatomy}}. It would be used on pages such as Heart, Skin, Binary vascular system, and similar pages, which deal with any creature's anatomy. As a "mold", I adapted some concepts from {{Infobox Object}}, so here are a few parameters it would have:

name
aka
image
type (Organ (anatomy), Circulatory system, and so on)
present on (species who have "X" in their anatomy. For example, on Binary vascular system, we'd put Time Lords here)
part of (if the organ is part of a broader anatomy subject. For example, in Heart, we'd put Circulatory system)
only/first/appearances
clip/bts (if there's any relevant videos for this)

These were the ones I could come up with so far. Let me know if you think this is a good idea, or if you come up with any other parameters. PS: I also have been trying to come up with something for diseases such as Heart attack, Cancer, phobias, and that stuff, but unsuccessful so far. OncomingStorm12th 23:40, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure if it should be "present in" or "present on". I'm terrible with prepositions, so just add the correct one. As for "includes": would this be a counterpart for "part of"? Like, on heart, we'd use "part of = Circulatory system", and then on circulatory system we'd use "includes = Heart"? If so, seems a great addition. Also, feel no rush on making the infobox. After all, I still haven't even finished my previous "major" work. OncomingStorm12th 01:54, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to say: category:Anatomy from the real world seems very good. OncomingStorm12th 02:28, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Another PS: the reason I originally wanted to contact you was about making an "Infobox Event", for non-conflictual events (where {{Infobox Conflict}} doesn't quite work, like Event One, Big Bang Two). For this one, the parameters I though were:
name
aka
image
first mention/first/appearances
date
location
caused by (main reason the event happened. Example: Big Bang Two was mainly caused by Total event collapse)
consequences (main consequences of the event. Example: one of the main consequences was the universe rebooting; other consequences were Amy being able to bring her parents, Rory and the Eleventh Doctor back to life)
involveds (main characters/organizations involved in the event. Example: Big Bang Two: The Doctor, Amy, Rory, River and the Alliance
clip/bts (if there's any relevant videos for this)
This one is a bit more difficult to work around, but if you have any more ideas, I think this could work (also, {{Infobox Event}} already exists, so another name would need to be made for this one). Thanks for taking your time reading these suggestions. OncomingStorm12th 02:28, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Hey SOTO, it's been a while since this. I'm guessing you ended up forgoting about this (as did I, until the last few days). So, as I have (finally) finished the Vortex pages, I'd like to engage myself on a new project, which would be either (and, perhaps, both) of these Infoboxes. Then, if you have the time to make them (and/or any more ideas for the parameters) feel free to contact me. OncomingStorm12th 16:23, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

T:DAB LINKS Edit

No, it's much weirder than that. I've just all contents twice and suddenly a new page is there, Curse (disambiguation), which was created on February 20. Of course, it is possible that somebody just deleted the last link to it one minute ago. Amorkuz 00:28, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of useless pages Edit

By the way, ever since I changed my landing page to Special:RecentChanges, I get annoyed at the "wanted" pages with gazillion of links, which are in fact just talk pages.

I expected this list to give guidance to pages sorely needed. But these links to talk pages, while red, do not actually require anyone to create them ASAP. I wonder if the code of the page can be modified to exclude them to get a list that editors can actually use. It bothers me so much, in fact, that I keep considering if I should just go and make dummy talk pages for all of them with "Hello world". I was just unsure if it might break some rules. Plus it might not be worth the time. Amorkuz 00:36, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

I would go for making some silly warning with a link as a fool-proof solution. Amorkuz 21:59, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
If I am right and this mostly happens for templates, then, for instance, "This is a talk page concerning the navigation template. To discuss its individual entries or collections thereof please refer to their respective talk pages." Just something trivial but trivially true. And actually no link is needed: what is needed is for the talk page to exist. Amorkuz 23:43, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
It is certainly a cleaner solution to remove the red links, if we can hope to avoid future Clone-ing. Amorkuz 08:39, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Companion template update request Edit

Could you please replace Template:Companions of the Twelfth Doctor with this?


{{Navbox
|bodyclass  = 
|name       = Companions of the Twelfth Doctor
|title      = Companions of the Twelfth Doctor
|titleclass = 
|imageleft  = 
|above      = 
|state      = 
|groupwidth = 6em
|group1     = Original to television
|list1      = [[Clara Oswald]] • [[Courtney Woods]] • [[Rigsy]] • [[Bors (The Doctor's Meditation)|Bors]] • [[Nardole]]
|group2     = Original to prose
|list2      = [[78351 (Lights Out)|78351]] • [[Ceri (Behind You)|Ceri]] • [[Bernice Summerfield]] • [[Peter Summerfield]] • [[Ruth Leonidas]] • [[Jack McSpringheel]] • [[Clive Finch|Clive Finch (CJ)]]
|group3     = Original to comics
|list3      =
{{Navbox|child
|group1     = Multi-story companions
|list1      = [[Hattie Munroe]] • [[Jata]] • [[Jess Collins]] • [[Maxwell Collins]] • [[Lloyd Collins]] • [[Devina Collins]]
|group2     = Single-story companions
|list2      = {{Navbox|child
|group2     =
|list2      =[[Athena (The Ministry of Time)|Athena]] • [[Estrella]] • [[George V]] • [[Maxwell Edison]] • [[Eliza Jones]] • [[Jain Relph]] • [[Heddy Garber]] • [[Julie d'Aubigny]]
|group3     =Multi-adventure
|list3      =[[Gertie (Super Gran)|Gertie]] • [[Sonny Robinson]] • [[Val Kent]] • [[Grant Gordon]] • [[Lucy Fletcher]] • [[Jennifer Fletcher]]
 }}
 }}
|group4     =Original to audio 
|list4      =[[Alex Yow]] • [[Brandon Yow]]
|group5     = Original to video games
|list5      = [[Lumpy]]
|below      = <span style="text-transform:none;letter-spacing:0px">''If a medium is not mentioned, then this incarnation did not have companions who were original to that medium; it does not mean that this Doctor failed to ''appear'' in that medium.</span>
}}

It also occurs to me that something like this should be added to the bottom of the page:

Although Grant, Lucy Fletcher, and Jennifer Fletcher originate from a television story, they did not take on the role of companions until their appearance in the comic Ghost Stories.

Thanks! CoT ? 00:53, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I found a few more pages with the Companions of the Twelfth Doctor template. I added some to the template that deserve to be there, but I'm a bit unsure about Missy, River Song, Vastra, and Strax. CoT ? 01:09, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, was the message too overwhelming? All I care about is having a new section for audio companions with Alex Yow and Brandon Yow, adding Maxwell Edison to "single comic story companions" (inbetween George V and Eliza Jones), and having a new subsection in "Single comic story companions" for "multi-adventure companions" with Gertie, Val Kent, Sonny Robinson, Grant Gordon, Lucy Fletcher, and Jennifer Fletcher in it.
Other changes that would be nice - but not necessary - would be changing Hattie (The Twist) to Hattie Munroe so I can move the rest of the links and the page can be renamed, getting rid of redirect links to Ruth Leonidas and Jack McSpringheel, and maybe adding River Song, Vastra, Strax, Rigsy, and Bors to TV companions (they already have the template on them). I would argue that at least Rigsy and Bors should be added. CoT ? 01:58, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
Heya SOTO, sorry about you having to clean up the Rosita thing, but are you going to get around to updating the template like you said you already done a few days ago? CoT ? 03:45, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother! Edit

I know you must get spammed with so many of these forum requests, and I think this is personally close to the third that I have sent your way. But is there any chance you could get a glance at Thread:212365? It's arguing for the inclusion of three stories which haven't been properly debated since the canon days, and so far there's been no one who has raised a voice against the idea. It seems pretty straight-forwards in terms of logic to me, and it's been reasonably uncontroversial.

If you could chip in to the debate, that'd be really awesome. OS25 (Talk) 17:25, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I would also say that Thread:211495 is finally hitting some notes, but it's going to be much harder to deal with. OS25 (Talk) 17:29, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. OS25 (Talk) 10:52, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Incarnations of the Doctor Edit

Incarnations of the Doctor
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • War • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12
The WatcherThe ValeyardMerlin
Meta-CrisisDream LordThe Curator

So I know that it's been previously agreed that adding every incarnation of the Doctor to Template:Doctors would be over-kill. But may I suggest that we simply add Merlin?

It seems to me that if we're going to include a one-off incarnation of the Doctor from a random new series story (Meta-Crisis/Dream Lord) then Merlin would be an equally valid inclusion. Like the Curator, he's a "future incarnation of the Doctor" who was featured in a televised story. Plus, it would even out the bottom box, so that the top row is all Classic series incarnations and the bottom row are all new series incarnations. Also instead of an uneven five, we'd have a clean-looking six.

Just a thought. OS25 (Talk) 10:52, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

I know I've been bothering you too often, and you must be fed-up with me. Would you be fine with me moving this to a group discussion or perhaps asking another admin? I'd prefer the former to be honest. OS25 (Talk) 15:27, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

You know, I had never even considered splitting up the template as an option, but it's certainly the one that makes the most sense. We could even go as far as to have a template just for invalid Doctors.

However, some thread of me really thinks that the Valeyard should at least stay on the page, as he is pretty much almost a mainstream incarnation (as in he's becoming more relevant over time). Someone like Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor, meanwhile, only gets less relevant over time, to the point that I would argue for including Dream Lord before I argued for him to be on the template. OS25 (Talk) 03:13, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Technically, yes, 10 did use up a regeneration to create Meta. But at the same time, Meta is little more than an over-glorified clone. He's not really an incarnation of the Doctor per sey, he's just a duplication; like Second Doctor (clone) or the Auton that is currently pretending to be the Tenth Doctor in the Titan comics. That second one is a guess, but it's good enough to put money on. OS25 (Talk) 05:07, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Sticks and Stones Edit

I thought about making page myself, but Terrorformer does not recite the rhyme, and I don't own Sticks & Stones, so I was not sure there was enough in-universe information for a page. I completely agree that it should be made if the rhyme is recited in that other story. But I am hesitant to make that page myself without having the story with the rhyme. I do, however, hope that some other active editors might have these DWM issues. Amorkuz 12:23, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the eternal agony deciding whether to make the page yourself based on incomplete information or wait for a fairy godmother to come and magically create the complete page with all infos. I think that your quotes are sufficient for making a page, in principle. After all, here writers aim at the common-knowledge proverb to mean what it always does. We don't need some extraordinary proof it is in DWU what it normally is. Still the Terraformer story was woefully inadequate: at first, I didn't even understand what this has to do with anything. The context there was insufficient to infer the standard meaning. Still let me make a call on Reference Desk first. I've had some very good experiences with even older issues of DWM before. Amorkuz 19:34, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I do hope it's not a lot. (And how I miss the search feature on comic stories...) Amorkuz 22:54, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Music SuiteEdit

Hey, would this be a decent idea for a category, for articles such as the Father's Day suite and the Boom Town suite, and so on? Cheers. ?Toy Story Lol? 20:01, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

The Eleven Edit

Hey SOTO, when you have the time, can you give a look at Talk:The Eleven#Spliting pages and give me and User:TheChampionOfTime a new insight on the discussed matter? Thanks. OncomingStorm12th 01:57, March 22, 2017 (UTC)

Death's Head Edit

So I wanted to know what you thought of Thread:213311, and furthermore what should and should not be done at this point.

I opened this discussion so we could decide if all of the reprinted stories within the narrative of The Incomplete Death's Head were valid. I would like to think at this point that I have pretty substantially proven that Connections (not one of those reprinted stories) exists, and that it features the Seventh Doctor and Hob from DWM, and thus our policies pretty clearly aim for its inclusion.

Connections is a story set on a DWU world with a DWU villain and featuring the Seventh Doctor. I can't think of anyone who would argue that it should be invalid, and it's not even the point of the thread. The question is (for example) if Priceless! (a She-Hulk comic) is valid now because they watch it in the story.

So part of me things that creating the page Connections would do little harm, while the other part of me is unsure.

So I wanted to ask for your input -- since the debate is not about Connections but still pertains towards Connections, should we not include it on the Wikia yet (if that means calling it invalid or not even making a page on it, I'm not sure)? Or is it fine at this point to call that part of the volume "valid" while the other parts are debated over the coming weeks/months?

I just am not certain. OS25 (Talk) 06:05, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

For reference, the page would look something like this. OS25 (Talk) 20:49, March 24, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to take part in the thread, I'm simply asking you if it's fine to make a page on the main story, which is pretty much valid without any need of discussion.
I would only create a page on the main story and not any of the flashbacks. OS25 (Talk) 22:45, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

I really am never sure what to do when you simply ignore my posts. If you have no interest either way, just say so. There's no need to "leave me hanging" over a simple inquiry. OS25 (Talk) 08:13, March 28, 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have any objections to voice, I'm just gonna go ahead and make the page. No one in their right mind would argue that it's against our policies anyways. Plus, again, it isn't really being debated right now.
If you're heavily against me making the page tell me asap. OS25 (Talk) 01:17, March 29, 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply, will continue as suggested; although it is still infuriating how slow the inclusion debates go these days. OS25 (Talk) 05:21, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

J&L short story rename Edit

Hi, I rarely ask to expedite a rename. But here we're talking about a story. And those should better be correct ASAP. I'm talking about The Jago & Litefoot Revival: Act One (audio story). It's a unique short story release in that it is the first part of a two-parter. So the current name (of the first part) should be replaced with the name of the overall story. On the Talk:The Jago & Litefoot Revival: Act One (audio story) I provided two quotes from the production team. I also listened to the first act and can attest that it is very much unfinished, complete with a classical cliffhanger (two actually) and all. CoT rightfully pointed out that this story should be treated as AUDIO: Blood of the Daleks, another audio story encompassing two ordinary releases of its range. So I'd appreciate if you could rename it before it gets out of hand. I think I've changed all the current links already. Amorkuz 18:33, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Everything looks tip-top. Can't wait for the 2nd part. Amorkuz 19:08, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

SV7, I need you Edit

Hi SOTO, little thing, but could you possibly replace all links to The Seeds of Doom and A Girl's Best Friend with The Seeds of Doom (TV story) and A Girl's Best Friend (TV story)? It's so The Seeds of Doom (novel) and A Girl's Best Friend (short story) don't need such confusing dab terms. CoT ? 00:58, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

date question Edit

Hi! On the article page 18 January, you posted the following information:

There is a delete tag on the page questioning this date. If you remember where you got it from, can you leave a message on the article talk page (or my talk page if necessary, and I'll add it to the talk page). Thanks. Shambala108 23:12, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Another request Edit

Sorry to becoming a regular bother. But I put two pages for renaming, and they have to be renamed in a particular order, so it's better to do it knowingly. The case is rather simple: Peter Cartwright (Whodunnit?) is a character and shouldn't have the dab term, while Peter Cartwright is an actor and should be dabbed. But, as you understand, if one starts renaming the former, it can be a mess. Thus, I'd appreciate it if you could do the renames and, thus, avoid the mess. Did I mention that I don't like mess? It's messy, ew. Amorkuz 21:14, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I do enjoy editing together a lot! Amorkuz 12:19, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

W. Hartnell Edit

Actually, could I ask for an advice on something I have doubts about. In COMIC: Whodunnit? there is a gravestone marked "W. Hartnell". It was noted well before me that this is, of course, a nod to a certain actor of some renown. But you see, normally, during deep editing when I see a name printed somewhere, I make a page for it (e.g., I will make pages for P. Lars and N. Chen presently). On the other hand, if I make this page, for W. Hartnell, it might require all kinds of disambiguations, explanation in lists. I fear it will make search less transparent. And there is zero information about W. Hartnell to put on his page. So I don't know if it is worth making a page for him or not. Amorkuz 12:44, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone has jumped the gun and created a page. And since it contained almost no information, it has already been deleted by an admin. Thus, now, to re-create this page one needs a more credible reason than when I first brought this up. In addition, when the page was created, I realised that there is absolutely no category other than Category:Humans that can be credibly added to it. It's not known when he died and it is unreasonable to assume that this is the William Hartnell. Best intentions and all that... Amorkuz 17:53, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Idea Edit

So I'm thinking someone should create and pin a post tomorrow reminding people that content featured in "next time" trailers still count as spoilers. I feel like this is going to be a piece of contention for new editors. OS25 (Talk) 09:07, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

TV stories synopsis Edit

Hey SOTO, one (quite recurring) problem I see around (specially now that a new season begun) is user adding other site's synopsis on articles. You once elucitade me and Amorkuz about why we don't do this over his talk page, and I usually try and link to that when removing summaries coppied from another site.

Do you think it could be possible to add a paragraph, or even a small phrase somewhere down Tardis:Plagiarism (or another policy) explaining this? It'd seem better (and more accurate) to link to a policy rather than a user's talk page. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th 17:45, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Well, now that you said it, yes, it really seems quite clear as it is. Thanks again. OncomingStorm12th 18:42, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Many things Edit

First of all (and truly why I'm leaving you a message) I noticed that you recently edited Template:Companions of the Twelfth Doctor to put Bill Potts before Nardole. This doesn't really make sense to me, as surely Nardole served as a companion first in the Christmas specials.

Second off, if you hadn't noticed, I wanted to invite you to take part in Thread:214342, where we're discussing the validity of Friend from the Future. OS25 (Talk) 22:19, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, I think Lumpy was never properly added. Basically, this is what I want:

OS25 (Talk) 22:22, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

you may box Edit

TARDIS wiki you may glitch

No, I don't know how to fix it. The preview shows the "you may" box correctly, but the actual page is rendered so that nothing is inside the "you may" box because it is too narrow. This is not, however, a glitch on my side: the problem occurs both in Chrome and Safari. Amorkuz 23:00, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that myself. OS25 (Talk) 23:11, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
The Pilot -you may LOD

Here's how the LOD scheme treats the problem

I'm going to respond here because two users have come for this. I'm not seeing this at all, but now I'm seeing that's because I use the LOD (light-on-dark) scheme, rather than the DOL scheme as you are using in that screenshot. (Just my personal preference; I'm surprised other seasoned users choose the lighter scheme.)
First off, can you confirm that if you hit the scheme changer button, this ceased to be an issue? I'll try to look into what causes this difference. If nothing can be done, I guess a temporary solution would be to allow the {{you may}} to reside at the top until the page is no longer a stub.
× SOTO (//) 23:26, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
Yea, that fixed it for me actually. OS25 (Talk) 23:32, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
Considering that most readers will come to the site on the DOL scheme, I decided it's important to have this rectified right away. So I just removed the stub tag. Thank you all for bringing this to my attention and for trying to help. I considered adding the stub category by itself, but I think it's best to just stick to conventions.
× SOTO (//) 23:46, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure this is going to be a thing we fix over a long period of time, but what should the protocol be if we notice other pages with this glitch? OS25 (Talk) 23:51, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

I'll update if we get anywhere with fixing this, but here's the protocol: if there are too many tags that it's causing a problem, put them all in one line immediately after the infobox.
{{Infobox Story
   [...]
}}{{real world}}{{ImageLinkTV}}{{TV stub}}{{you may}}
That should theoretically create a more optimal layout, but I seem to having troubles with that right now on Chrome and Windows.
× SOTO (//) 00:27, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Page move Edit

Friend from the Future (webcast) has been moved to Friend from the Future (TV story) by an anonymous user (I think). Can you move it back until there has been a discussion on its platform or at least remove the redirect? Thanks. --Borisashton 17:29, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the page was not moved by an anon, but instead copy/pasted onto a new page. By moving (TV story) to (webcast), you've deleted all the history of the original version, giving an anonymous user credit for most of the work and erasing the arguements for why it should be moved to (TV story). CoT ? 18:51, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

If you've got some time Edit

Hey SOTO, I'm currently in a bit of a rut and need advice from a seasoned tardis editor like yourself. If you're still online and you've got time, I'd really appreciate if you could come into the Live Chat!. CoT ? 04:21, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Ehhh, it's been a quarter of an hour. Not really expecting you to be available tonight. I'll try again tomorrow. CoT ? 04:39, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
Quite sorry. For future reference, by the way, I'm in EST. I was still awake, but didn't happen to be on Tardis/Wikia at the time. I'd be glad to help, though.
× SOTO (//) 15:54, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
I too am EST. Care to pop into the chat? CoT ? 16:03, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the bother, CzechOut listened to my woes just fine. Annnd, the live chat saw the most traffic its ever had in years. Hope you enjoy Smile! CoT ? 20:04, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. Glad we could be there for you. Yeah, at least Czech and I used to use chat back in like..2013. It's a pretty poor system, to be perfectly honest. Thanks! :)
× SOTO (//) 20:17, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I was wondering where my response from just earlier went. It seems we both tried to publish at the same time.
× SOTO (//) 20:17, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Wales Edit

Hey SOTO. I recently made Wales - list of appearances (I know there is an ongoing discussion on "how many appearances are required to make an appearances list", but I think we both agree this is 100% non-controversial. Anyway, the real reason I came here is: I made the list based on Category:Stories set in Wales. It has two sub-categories: Category:Stories set in Cardiff and Category:Stories set in Swansea, both of which I may end up making lists of their own. Does appearances of Cardiff and Swansea go on the Wales list as well? At first, it seems a positive (as, for example, an appearance of Europe means Earth appeared as well), but I still though it best to check on this before simply adding 109 stories that might be later removed. Do you think they should stay in or out? OncomingStorm12th 16:31, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

BritBox Edit

Hi, do I remember correctly that you're based above the Niagara Falls? I was wondering if you know this. I reread the terms and conditions of BritBox and they only mention Canada as a country where one can stream it. I'm not 100% sure anymore that one can sign up from Canada. I can't really check it myself. So I was wondering if you checked it out already? Thanks in advance. Amorkuz 22:17, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Britbox is indeed available in the US now. But, to my eye, it's not that big a deal, at least from the DW perspective. It's missing any number of serials from the 20th century which are completely available on DVD. But I guess it's better than nothing if you don't already have the older serials on DVD.
It's also got no Torchwood, SJA, K9, Class -- or even any BBC Wales DW. Unless you count The Fiveish Doctors Reboot as "BBC Wales DW". In other words, BritBox isn't getting anywhere close to the BBC's actual DW profit centres.
BritBox' selection of other British shows? Well, there again, YMMV depending upon what your current library is like. While they do have a few exclusives, many of the shows are alternatively available on Amazon, Netflix or Hulu. Or you may own them from occasional very deep discounts on iTunes. There's not a whole lot of "wow" there, especially in terms of what they have from the past few years of British television. Course, as you're more likely to be operating on the Canadian versions of Hulu, Netflix and Amazon, you may be more impressed with what BritBox offers.
If you can get it.
I'm pretty dubious about that, though, since their terms and conditions make it clear the service is "located in the United States", and there isn't currently a http://britbox.ca. My guess is that what Amorkuz is talking about in the T&C -- "the Services may be accessed and utilized only through devices located in the United States and Canada" -- is likely there to allow Americans the ability to continue using the service as they slide across the border. The T&C don't necessarily imply, to my eye, that Canadians can originate an account north of the border.
czechout@fandom    04:15: Mon 24 Apr 2017
Yep, that's the line I referred to. Now I have to edit "Canada" out of story and season pages in terms of availability for streaming. Oh well. Serves me right for getting overexcited.
On a slightly brighter note, ever since BBC removed Doctor Who from Hulu Plus, the possibilities of streaming classic Doctor Who legally became very very limited. There is no 'wow' in BritBox offering. Just some basic decency that has been lacking lately, like having the opportunity to watch the second half of Season 7. Marketingwise, it was probably a good move to keep a pause between Hulu Plus and BritBox. But it was not nice and not letting sign up in Canada isn't nice either. And this latter one makes no sense. Amorkuz 06:05, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Battlefield Edit

Hey, I was going across The Eternal Battle (audio story) and realised something which should have popped on my mind earlier: the concep of a Battlefield clearley exists on the DWU. However, Battlefield currently redirects to Battlefield (TV story). I was wondering if you could run a bot to change these links, so a page for the concept of a battlefield can be created at some point. OncomingStorm12th 02:06, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

thanks Edit

Thanks for the welcome and for the support. I'll try to be worthy of them. And "Armorkuz" (c) SOTO is definitely gonna be the name of my bot if I ever get one. Amorkuz 19:22, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Dredger redirect Edit

Hi. The term "dredger" is currently used as a redirect for Dredger (comic story). Would it be possible to delete the redirect so that a page can be created for the occupation, as seen in Thin Ice? Thanks. 66 Seconds 14:00, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

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