User talk:BananaClownMan

	Archives: #1

RE: Checking In

Hi. I am doing okay, thank you for asking. I never really went out much anyway to be honest, so the only real difference is the no work shifts, which really sucks but there's nothing much I can do about that. How are you going? LauraBatham ☎ 10:06, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

It's no trouble at all, we all make typos every now and then. Plus it gives me edits towards my badges which I'm not going to complain about.

That's good that you are still getting paid. I'm only casual and up until a few days ago work was still open (it's had to close for two weeks due to a recent outbreak in my area), so I'm getting zilch. LauraBatham ☎ 10:25, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Aw thank you very much. I hope all goes well for you too. Yes I did see it and yeah, I cried too. Especially during Rani's little speech. I love that the DW writers and actors are finding a way to give us all these little stories during these uncertain times. LauraBatham ☎ 01:04, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Check on

Hey BananClownMan! That's rather thoughtful of you to check in with me, especially since my activity here has been pretty minimal the past few weeks ahah. I'm doing well. Like most, I'm working from home given the isolation and all but in the internet-age, that doesn't massively change how I work; just louder with family around I suppose and less checking in face-to-face with my colleagues :). How's things going on with you? All well I hope? ^_^ Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 12:21, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're able to pay your rent! :D

I agree, the weekends are a difficulty. I too have taken to revisiting Doctor Who as a great leisure during Lockdown. I might even take to watching all the Classic Who episodes I've yet to watch. ^_^

The 'watch alongs' are a joy to watch. While I've not seen all of Sarah Jane's travels with the Third and Fourth Doctor, having watched all of her NewWho adventures outside audio dramas, it was certainly an emotional listen. Really is great the Who team are making all these videos, despite separation in isolation. If only I could convince my family to watch them with me ;) Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 14:36, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Check On

Thanks for asking! It's not been too bad for me - my uni's been continuing online, which pretty much just saves me the bus/ferry fee. So apart from missing the hands-on labs, it's been pretty normal. It must be hard for those affected by the disease, though, either directly or through the loss of an income source. Hope you're doing alright, yourself. Danochy ☎ 21:54, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Fifth Doctor edits

Hi, why did you remove the "Travels with Brooke and River Song" section from Fifth Doctor? At least from a first glance, I can see no policies broken there - apart from a bit of formatting needed - but nothing worthy of total removal. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 17:38, April 17, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, of course :p. I didn't see the time of your edits, sorry. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 17:55, April 17, 2020 (UTC)

Theory:Timeline - Shoreditch Help

Hey there, I was wondering if I could get your help with something: Currently the only timeline article that keeps track of the events of the series Class is Theory:Timeline - Shoreditch. While the single season of the television show and the novels that came out at around the same time are placed within the article, the audio dramas are not. Initially I wasn't too concerned about this since Big Finish only released two volumes with a total of six stories, and I was doubtful that they would release more. Well, turns out they did, so now we have twelve unplaced Class audio stories. I have not had a chance to listen to these stories myself, and I'm not sure if you have either. All I know for sure is that all of them seem to take place before the events of the series finale. Maybe you could offer some additional insight or might no someone who can? I'd appreciate the help! –Nahald ☎

Timeline discussions

Hi, I hope you're still doing well, especially with all these new Doctor Who webcasts and short stories to help us through the lockdown. Just letting you know that I've finally gotten around to giving some responses on Theory talk:Timey-wimey detector and Theory talk:Timeline - Second Doctor. I hope you can find the time to read and respond to my suggestions over there. Danochy ☎ 06:04, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Check in

I’m so sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. That was very thoughtful of you to ask. I saw it when you posted and made a mental note to get make to you but then as you can imagine Time got away from me and I kept telling myself I needed to respond until wham, it’s suddenly well over a month since you got in touch. So sorry again for that. But um, yeah I’m pretty much fine thank you for asking. Getting on with things. I hope you’re doing well also. SarahJaneFan ☎ 21:35, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor Timeline Talk

So I just left a message in the Seventh Doctor's Timeline Talk Page and I would appreciate it if you could have a look and get back to me with your thoughts if you have the time. It’s quite overly long and might need a bit of thinking and processing so just take your time if you are interested. Thanks. SarahJaneFan ☎ 21:35, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Hi, they're not my ideas, but these potential changes at 7's timeline are certainly something to consider. Since it's now been three months since the proposal was made, I was wondering whether you'd be able to give your thoughts, whenever you have the time. Cheers, Danochy ☎ 21:16, August 28, 2020 (UTC)

It's good to hear life is opening up around the world - just a shame it's because government's failed to get rid of the virus, rather than the lack of it. But don't worry, Life always comes before the wiki, and sometimes you just need to be in the right frame of mind to write a reply. It's the same for all of us :-)

On the topic of the timeline, the proposal isn't to place the audios before the novels, it was to not make a judgement call at all, instead going with the in-universe evidence from the Gallifrey series regarding the tampering done by Braxiatel. I suggest you look at the TLDR section and proposal section to get a good idea of what SJF is proposing. Danochy ☎ 04:45, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

Italics

Hi! Just popping in to point out that User:Shambala108, on an otherwise-unrelated thread, has confirmed my interpretation that Tardis:Italics allows the use of italics for emphasis.

(…) And Tardis:Bold text and Tardis:Italics allow for different ways to emphasize your points. Stop using all-caps.Thread:273268#383

No one's forcing you to use them in your own contributions, but it's not against Wiki policy to do so, and thus there is no point in removing them as you have been doing.

Even if you should persist, I'd also like to repeat a query I've made in edit rationales there: if you think the italics are a bad way to express the emphasis, that's one thing, but why do you remove said rhetorical device altogether more often than not, instead of replacing the italics with some other means of putting emphasis on a specific word? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 09:40, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits!

some of your recent edits are problematic, you seem to be pushing ahead with your own opinion rather than starting a discussion. you removed Rosie Taylor from Ninth Doctor companions and put her in the "non-DWU companions" category, despite the fact that the story she appeared in is still considered valid by this wikia. you then removed Rigsy from the Twelfth Doctor companion category - despite him still appearing on the template. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

once again you make the edits. Rigsy is on the companion template so you cannot simply remove him from the category without a discussion. and Voice from the Vortex! (short story) is not tagged as invalid whatsoever? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

The Unnamed Doctor

Hey, I noticed you added The Unnamed Doctor to the Eleventh Doctor's timeline a while back, and I'm just wondering where it's from. I checked across the wiki and couldn't find it anywhere, so it would be good to get a page created for it. Danochy ☎ 02:38, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I don't have access to that unfortunately, but good to know regardless. Danochy ☎ 10:50, May 28, 2020 (UTC)

River Song and Jack Harkness

Hey pal, hope you're well. I was checking River Song's contribution history and it appears you added on that (and Jack Harkness's) article that the pair are married in their infoboxes. What source is this from? Sounds like it would be cool to check out if these two actually hooked up :D Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:20, June 4, 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sweet, thanks for pointing me in the right direction :). Does that not then mean it should be included on their pages somewhere? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:47, June 4, 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Eighth Doctor talk

So I’ve read the thread and honestly I find the whole thing incredibly unconvincing and worse, based mostly on misconceptions.

To start with the Grace scenario, I believe it would be fair enough to say that the “months” comment could be a reference to either the movie or The Fallen as in both the Doctor meddles with Grace's future. In the former by setting her down the wrong path with his hints and teases and in the latter by setting her back on the right path that she would’ve been on before his intervention.

However, the problem here is that it’s not just the one comment. The “months” comment is actually just a recap of an earlier discussion that the Doctor and the Master have in the story, where the Master actually clarifies that the “future warping” he was talking about is the events of the TV Movie and he actually orchestrated the Doctor’s meeting with Grace in The Fallen so that the Doctor could see the results of his meddling. So it would be a little bit bizarre if the Master tells the Doctor that he orchestrated that reunion to teach him a lesson about the meddling from the TV Movie (and then not mention any meddling from the Fallen because really it’s minimal and just a case of the Doctor clarifying to Grace that actually no her destiny isn’t to discover regeneration for humans) and then suddenly later recap the Doctor meddling in The Fallen as one of the things that he believes the Doctor has been doing wrong. I’ll leave quotes below, but you’ll have to trust me that they’re word for word what printed in the comics.

"I saw an ideal opportunity to teach you a vital lesson. I directed you back to London, to witness the results of your casual tampering with a woman's destiny...From there I took you to Japan to see the disaster shaped by the Gaijin; creatures so similar to yourself...beings obsessed with obtaining knowledge at any price...And then to Trionikus, where blind luck alone saved you from murdering an innocent."

"In the past few months alone you have warped the Holloway woman's future, shattered Sato's honour and attempted to murder the benevolent Kroton."

The other point brought up is to do with the Master and his status in regards to the TARDIS. Now they try to make an argument in the thread that the TARDIS is purged of the Master's influence at the end of The Glorious Dead therefore it has to come after the novels. This is basically complete rubbish and I’ll explain why.

In the comics, he’s established as having passed straight through the Eye of Harmony and into the Time Vortex where he’s rescued by Esterath. It’s then established that his symbiotic nuclei became merged with the TARDIS, resulting in him having power over it. However he physically resides in the human body Esterath placed him in, its just that his symbiotic nuclei infected the TARDIS’ systems rather than a copy of him actually being present in the TARDIS.

In the BBC books line however, the Master is trapped within the Eye of Harmony at its singularity. He communicates with the Doctor through mirrors a few times throughout the run but he’s shown to have no real influence over the TARDIS. The Gallifrey Chronicles actually establishes that the Master is effectively a god within the Eye of Harmony but he has no way out and his powers don’t really effect the outside world. He uses all of his power to trigger a cold fusion device, knowing that the Doctor would allow it to detonate in the TARDIS as the explosion would be absorbed by the Eye. All this really did was damage the interior and bit and destroy some of the Doctor’s possessions. So that pretty much shows how powerless the Master is. He uses pretty much all the power he has to perform a petty act of what he refers to as revenge that doesn’t even really do anything beyond hurt the TARDIS and destroy some of the Doctor’s possessions. And the Master knows this, it’s not even as if he was expecting more damage to be done. So the Doctor just closes the Eye of Harmony and leaves the Master there still trapped, presumably until he escapes in Forgotten.

So I hope you can kind of see the distinction here. If the books overlapped with the influence the Master’s develops over the TARDIS in the comics, then he’d have a lot more power over it in the books too. In the comics, effectively his DNA infects the TARDIS systems allowing him to direct and control it, whereas in the books he is just trapped in the Eye of Harmony with little influence over anything.

From my perspective I’m really struggling to see any degree of a strong argument for placing the Comics so late in the Eighth Doctor’s life, compared ample if not perfect evidence suggesting that they should be earlier on in his life. You can always fudge things however you want to, obviously in the end we always find a way to make accounts work with each other but in this case I just don’t see why there would be any benefit to putting the comics after the novels. And I say that as someone who would really rather the comics go after the novels but after extensive research I just can’t see the comics sitting comfortingly so late. SarahJaneFan ☎ 21:17, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

The only reference I could track down in the novel was that the Doctor makes a comment about having tried to appeal to the Daleks better nature once, but didn’t think that it worked. I even looked through the continuity notes on other sites and that line was the only thing I could find with any slight link to Evil of the Daleks.

It’s an incredibly vague comment but he’s presumably referring to the fact that he tried to teach the Human Factor Daleks but they ended up turning on the other Daleks and a war broke out with the Doctor assuming they died.

In Children of the Revolution, the Doctor discovers that they survived and started their own society, but they end up committing suicide by the end anyway. Really the outcome is the same for the Doctor, he encounters good Daleks and thinks they’re destroyed the first time, but he later discovers that they haven’t been but then they are destroyed for real the second time. Either way it’s a failed experiment at appealing to the Daleks better nature because the evil Daleks are the only ones to survive these encounters.

And like, as I said it’s incredibly vague. There’s no mention of Evil of the Daleks or the Human Factor Daleks?, it’s literally just this so you can see why I didn’t think the continuity note saying that “The Doctor knows the fate of the human factor Daleks” doesn’t really fly.

"Sam shuddered. The Doctor was really getting himself worked up. "There’s no appealing to their better nature, then?" "I tried that once," he admitted. "I don’t think it worked."

Basically I’d argue that this line makes just as much sense coming after Children of the Revolution, as it does coming after Evil of the Daleks. And even then it’s still an incredibly vague reference. SarahJaneFan ☎ 10:31, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

stop just stop

why dodo keep getting rid of a stitch in time from the doctor when its canon and it happened just stop. A stitch in time 2 ☎ 12:38, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

Master edit

Hi, can I ask the reason behind this edit? {{section stub}} is a template that is supposed to identify where an article is missing info and, as such, is extremely helpful. Thanks in advance, --Borisashton ☎ 23:19, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

I see. Would you be bothered too much if I added them back? Cutting down on existing info is one thing but I think actively obscuring appearances not yet covered as part of this effort is detrimental to the wiki's goal to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and could be seen as a T:NPOV violation. Even just the template's acknowledgement that a story happened in that part of the timeline is better than nothing.

All in all, I commend your efforts but I don't think completely omitting info is the way to go to solve the Special:Longpages problem. The article is no longer the longest, at least. To comply with that request, more than half the article still needs to be expunged and the Master is currently a recurring character in the television series and multiple spin-offs. It will keep getting longer whether we like it or not so there's no need to favour the new releases to the ones not yet covered. Try to cover every story as consicely as possible is what I'm saying, I guess. --Borisashton ☎ 23:28, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Re: error

Hi I don't know for sure how this works, but I can tell you what I've seen User:CzechOut post to others who have asked similar questions in the past.

Basically the wiki (and I presume all wikis) work on GMT, so if you are in a different time zone, it's possible to think you are making an edit on one day when the wiki considers it another day. If this doesn't sound like it answers your question, you can try asking User:CzechOut. Shambala108 ☎ 22:12, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I believe I know the answer to this one. I see you live in Buckingham. The wiki actually works on UTC which is usually the same time as Britain but we are in British Summer Time at the moment and will be until October. BST is an hour ahead of UTC so your contributions on 10 August at 00:30 BST instead registered as 23:30 on 9 August meaning you didn't technically edit on the tenth and thus lost your progress. --Borisashton ☎ 22:31, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Tricked out by time on this wiki. How ironic. - BananaClownMan ☎ 22:33, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Small timeline reservation

Hi, I have a small issue with the timeline layout concerning the "awaiting placement" and "currently unplaced" sections. These sections are incredibly similar in their explanation for what they're for:

Currently unplaced

These entries are placed here due to being part of an ongoing storyline that has yet to offer sufficient enough evidence to be placed in a specific part of this Doctor's timeline.

Awaiting placement

These entries are placed here until evidence presents itself that provides a clue as to where they happen in relation to other entries. Some of these are part of ongoing storylines that could present evidence towards the end of the plot.

The main issue is that the "Awaiting placement" section also allows ongoing storylines, when that's the explicit role of the "currently unplaced" section. I'd suggest we rewrite both of them to make them clearer, though, something along these lines:

Currently unplaced

These entries are part of an ongoing storyline and are placed here until further evidence arises in the stories to come.

Awaiting placement

These entries are placed here until a suitable position in the timeline can be determined based on the available evidence.

These are more to-the-point than the originals, and more clearly define what each section should be for. It also makes it clear that the first section is about waiting for time while the second one is about waiting for effort on the editor's part. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Danochy ☎ 01:13, August 21, 2020 (UTC)

Sweet, I'll get right to it :-) Danochy ☎ 11:21, August 21, 2020 (UTC)

Template:McKee

Hey, follow up to our conversation here. I'm still not 100% sure what to do about it, but feel like since you made it I should probably pawn the problem off to you before making a forum thread or anything. Najawin ☎ 01:07, August 23, 2020 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. Najawin ☎ 17:02, August 23, 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, I noticed that Shambala deleted it after our conversation here. So it's currently a dead template. Najawin ☎ 05:06, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

Supremacy of the Cybermen main enemy

Hi, I noticed that you changed the main enemy on Supremacy of the Cybermen (comic story) back to Cyber-Controller (Supremacy of the Cybermen) and I was wondering if I've missed something, because I've seen on numerous pages that the "main enemy" of several Cybermen stories have been individual Cyber-Leaders or Cyber-Controllers, which, to me, feels somewhat strange as it means that for most Cybermen stories, the Cybermen themselves aren't labelled as the main enemies. In terms of Supremacy of the Cybermen, I thought Rassilon and the Cybermen were more appropriate for the main enemies as Rassilon is a central antagonist until the end, whereas the Cyber-Controller only shows up at the end, plus the Cybermen are major villains everywhere else. It seems quite bizarre to just list the Cyber-Controller as the main enemy.CyberFoundries900 ☎ 12:17, September 27, 2020 (UTC)

The Doctor (Battlefield)

Concerning your merge tag on The Doctor (Alien Bodies): in which story is the Battlefield Doctor suggested to be the Doctor's final incarnation? I read through all his stories a while back when rewriting his page, and that never stood out to me. – N8 (☎/👁️) 04:59, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

Redirects to sandboxes

Hi, just letting you know that when you search for a Doctor (e.g. type in "Tenth Doctor" in the search bar) your sandbox page is recommended in the drop down thing, thanks to the redirect pages you've created. Now I'm not sure if there are any rules on the matter, but it's really not ideal to have sandbox pages to be so visible to visitors to this site. Just thought I'd talk to you first, so you can either take this matter into your own hands or make your argument as to why they should be kept. All the best, Danochy ☎ 21:21, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with your sandboxes existing, and I'm sure they will remain a valuable resource if those articles are stripped down, I just don't think sandboxes (of any kind) should be popping up in the search results. Danochy ☎ 21:38, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

User:Danochy is right to point this out. When you named your sandboxes "something Doctor (BCM)", you unintentionally implied (based on the naming policies of this wiki) that there is a story called BCM that the Dcotors appeared in. Also, when you created the redirects, you left the incorrect names intact, creating the problem mentioned by Danochy above. In the future, 1. tell an admin if you need something deleted and 2. don't name your sandboxes anything except what is already accepted as stated at Tardis:User pages thanks Shambala108 ☎ 02:15, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

T:BOUND and the Dalek Thread

Hey, I'm glad you agree with my arguments and all, but that thread has yet to be closed. On paper, you are in egregious breach of Tardis:You are bound by current policy with your edits to Black Dalek Leader and suchlike. I don't actually think these edits need to be reverted at this point because that thread is moving towards a clear resolution, but… still.

So, consider this a serious warning. I'd hate to have to make you the first person I have to block, as an admin here at Tardis. And that's not a passive-aggressive thread, that's an absolutely genuine sentiment. You are in most respect a great and productive editors! But you must follow the rules in these matters. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:35, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism & block

…Well, my message above stands at testament that I didn't want it to come to this, but you are now blocked for a period of one month.

On top of the already egregious T:BOUND breaches detailed above, you have ported the contents of User:NateBumber's sandbox over to Mark Seven wholesale, without giving attribution. Not only is this a failure of T:BOUND because no admin decision had been made on whether to merge, but, more importantly, this falls squarely under the umbrella of T:THEFT.

This is a policy that absolutely must be respected at all times and I find it hard to believe (albeit not impossible) that an experienced editor like you didn't know about it. In any event, and with your having a well-furnished history of blocks in the past, I have no choice but to give you that block and tell you to please heed this warning and not edit so recklessly again.

You are of course free to present an apology/explanation on my talk page on another Wiki; Community Central is traditional.

With no ill feelings, --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:31, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

Curator timeline

Hey, might I enquire as to why you moved around Dr Black and Canaries in the Curator's biography? With timeline-theorising banned in the main namespace, usual practice is to stick with release order unless there are obvious reasons not to, in such matters. So if you have some obvious reasons I should like to know them, as I certainly didn't spot them upon reading either of these stories.

Oh, and, no hard feelings about the block, by the by, I hope? I'm glad to see you back with us. I'm terribly sorry I didn't reply to your message on my wall on the $crooge McDuck Wiki; it turns out I no longer get notifications from messages on my talk page in the UCP, or at least not in the same way I used to. Also, in my defence, I had advised you contact me on Community Central in this instance, in my blocking message — not on $MW.

Mind you, I don't think you were asking for a reduction of the ban per se, reading it now? And with T:THEFT I wouldn't have had much latitude to do so. So I don't suppose it materially changed anything. Still, this could all have been handled better; sorry there. I'm at least glad you understand what you did wrong with regards to T:THEFT, and that you will refamiliarise yourself (or, by now, have done so) with T:BOUND. Let us hope neither of us is ever put in that situation again, eh?

I await your replies on both points most eagerly. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:23, November 2, 2020 (UTC)

This rule is the reason we've got the Theory:Timeline namespace. Time was, timelines were part of the main namespace, and, where available, story pages would include our "best guesses" as to which stories took place before and after. This got too confusing and speculative for our liking, so we shunted the whole thing off to a side-namespace that's not counted as "part of the Wiki", but is more like one big collaborative sandbox.

More generally, endless arguments about timelines and chronology often turn into edit wars, so that's another good reason to avoid them.

A good test-case is the order Season 26 stories go in on Seventh Doctor and Ace: there are convincing, but ultimately esoteric, pieces of evidence towards the original authorially-intended production order, rather than the broadcast order, being the correct in-universe timeline of events. But they were just too thin and vaporous for us to quite agree on them, so we stuck with our presumption to list TV stories by broadcast order, even so.

…Oh, also, the issue wasn't that you magpied another user's sandbox without their permission, per se. Permission would have been preferred, but that's not the main issue. The main issue is that you didn't give the user credit in your edit summary. (And there's a further issue, which is that the sandbox was itself an amalgam of work already done by other users on the various pages that were to be merged; consequently all those editors "should" also have been credited in the edit summary, if you were doing the merge manually rather than by merging page histories.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:00, November 2, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Apology

Oh, thank you for such a nice apology! It didn't bother me too much, and I didn't mean for you to get banned when I pointed it out for attribution's sake. Your apology was unexpected but very much appreciated, and it more than makes up for it. I hope you're well, and I look forward to editing with you again! – N8 (☎/👁️) 00:42, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Master title

Hey! W/ regards to a recent edit of yours, I left a message at Talk:The Master where your input would be more than welcome. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:12, November 6, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Eleventh Doctor timeline

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I'm happy to discuss The Power of Three, but would also like to talk about a couple other things too.

First, here are the reasons for placing the back-ups during The Power of Three.

1. There isn't a huge gap on Earth between TDTWATW and Pond Life. We could assume a year passes for them between there, but that's really not ideal.
2. It's already tight between the beginning of Pond Life and Dinosaurs on a Spaceship.
3. The Power of Three doesn't give any indication as to whether the Doctor visited the Ponds between October and their anniversary. When Amy references the "nine months", she's talking about the cubes. While that really should be closer to 10 or 11 months, that can be put down to a continuity error more than anything. (AMY: "And the cubes, well, they're just here. Still. What's it been, nine months? People are just taking them for granted.")

Hence why The Power of Three is the best gap for the back-ups.

Now onto your removal of the "second chance with the Ponds" section, which held most stories released after The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe. It makes perfect sense to me that the Doctor would return to travelling with the Ponds soon after they were reunited, and yet you insist that these stories be placed prior to The God Complex, making that gap far too big, considering the strong arc it has going on, as well as putting them way out of release order.

We made sure all the stories we put after TDTWTW had no reason to go earlier. For example we left Vengeance of the Atomon before TGC as it references an earlier DWA comic. We also left four of the 2-in-1 novels there as Terrible Lizards has a note indicating it should be before Wedding. So this wasn't a random change we made, we were very careful about it.

One last thing: Destiny of the Doctor should probably be earlier, as it doesn't suit the mood the Doctor would be in after losing Amy and Rory. Neither does Decky Flamboon, but that can't be avoided. I'm not sure if the God Complex-Wedding gap or the Wedding-TDTWATW gap would be best though, or perhaps even pre-The Impossible Astronaut?

Hope these explanations are to your satisfaction, Danochy ☎ 02:17, November 8, 2020 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the late reply, I took a bit of a break to focus on exams.

In regards to the backup comics, I guess the way it is placed now works just as well as during the Power gap.

As for the "second chance with the Pond", I'm not entirely convinced. Yes, they are travelling less and less, but that is not until Pond Life. It makes more sense to me that they'd have been travelling with the Doctor more frequently in the months before Pond Life, because otherwise the last time they travelled frequently with the Doctor would be over two years ago (as per the two years line in TDTWATW); if that were the case, why would they suddenly notice the lack of travelling they've been doing?

Finally, the Eleventh Doctor would say "It's something Pond would say" whether or not she was a current companion. All the line indicates is that she's not currently aboard the TARDIS. That said, I guess the context would be crucial there. Danochy ☎ 04:26, November 20, 2020 (UTC)

Hey, well done on your new job! Hope it's been going well for you. Apologies for the late reply (again) - this time I somehow completely missed your message and only saw it when reading your latest message.

Your points on the name are certainly valid, and I have no attachment to calling it a "second chance", so you can name it however you think is best. We should, of course, keep an eye out for any evidence that would preclude placement in that gap, but for now there doesn't seem to be a problem with placing several stories there.

Thanks for doing the research on NotW. Glad we've got that line sorted. So I guess the tweed jacket means it should be placed either side of The Snowmen. Did you find 11 to be downcast enough for pre-Snowmen placement? From memory he seems pretty upbeat in The Time Machine, although it's a while since I listened. Danochy ☎ 22:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you too!

Thanks for the festive message, it was warming to receive. Although I doubt I'd ever be an admin, as I'm not particularly suitable for that role, but the thought is appreciated.

Epsilon 📯 📂

15:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas message!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too! Sorry if you get loads of replies like this, I just felt it was necessary to thank you because I genuinely didn't expect that. It's really nice though, thank you. :) CyberFoundries900 ☎ 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks, and a Nadolig Llawen to you from Wales! -- Saxon (✉️) 19:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you as well. I hope you have a safe and happy holidays. Here's hoping for a good new year. LauraBatham ☎ 23:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks for the kind words. I hope you have a safe and merry Christmas and a happy New Year too.

SherlockTheII ☎ 00:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks! And a very merry christmas to you too! Danochy ☎ 03:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the merry Christmas wish BCM, and I hope yours was good as well! – n8 (☎) 19:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Merry Christmas

Hey pal ^_^ Sorry for the late reply; Christmas keeps me super busy. Thank you for the wishes! I hope you had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy New Year soon. All the best :) Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradox Moon

Politely, your repeated changes are unhelpful and incorrect. Template:Infobox Story/doc/novel makes it very clear that the featuring field is being used properly as is; T:PREFIX explicitly says that prefixes are for "[giving a] source for a statement of fact in an article" [emphasis mine], not simply referring to an episode or book. Et al (or etc) is common usage on this wiki in reference to multiple relevant sources (e.g.), and there's even a forum thread discussing whether to use et al vs etc in general that we can't currently access due to forum issues. Were you to replace et al with etc, that's understandable, given the current debate, but there's simply no justification for removing it all together. At best then we can quibble over how to interpret the line about Clara not dying, but it seems far more likely to refer to a timeline in which she left normal constraints of linear time and thus failed to die than one where she simply died at a later date. None of this is correct (except very very possibly the Clara point, but that's deeply unlikely), none of it is helpful, and in some instances there is clear policy against the changes you are trying to make. Najawin ☎ 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Master's early life

Hey! Just saw that you created a sandbox you titled "The Master's early life", but which you wrote as though it concerned the Master's first incarnation (…sort of; you go as far as his leaving Gallifrey despite it being often suggested he regenerated a bunch of times before he turned Renegade!). Obviously your sandboxes are your own, but would you mind terribly calling it something else, like "First Master" or "The Master's first incarnation"? As there is currently a proposal at Talk:The Master for a The Master's early life page in the main namespace which would have a very different setup and purview, being instead about the various accounts of the Master's lives, plural, prior to Delgado. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, with regards to User:BananaClownMan/Sandbox/The Master (War Chief): placing Koschei after the War Chief is intriguing, but I dunno. I think it makes more sense to place the Dark Path Koschei as early as possible — I have him down as immediately after the Janet Dibley Pavo in my own speculative timeline. The CIA File Extracts illustration of the Master on Gallifrey fits the physical description of Koschei in Dark Path quite nicely, don't you think?

(Note, incidentally, that although we cover them as such from the available evidence, it is quite possible that the Cwej Koschei is a different incarnation from the Dark Path Koschei, as he alludes to already having used the "Master" moniker before; he may be the incarnation directly after Dark Path, still flip-flopping between being "the Master" and being "Koschei".)

If we want to take the FASA Monk thing seriously, I'd say #5 is Dark Path!Koschei, #6 is Butterworth. (Or #4 as Dark Path!Koschei and #5 as Cwej!Koschei if you separate them.) I am inclined to put Dreyfus down as #8 or #9, and to have Kriegslieter go directly into Delgado (#12? let's go with #12 for this timeline), meaning I place Brayshaw as #10 and Kriegslieter as #11. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

First Doctor Alternate Timelines edit

Hey, I just wanted to explain why I previously reformatted the "Alternate timelines" heading on First Doctor as sub-heading 1. I've done this before on pages such as Dalek and Cyberman because, at least this is how I've always interpreted the situation, alternate timeline events are technically detailing the page subject's history in alternate timelines, therefore it always seemed more logical to me that such info should be attached to the end of the "History" section, rather than a main section immediately afterwards. I apologise if these title edits are incorrect, and, if so, I'll stop doing such edits and will revert any that I find. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 09:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Apologies for the late reply. In response to your message on my talk page, I'd argue that, although alternate timeline events happen outside of a Doctor's natural chronology, they are still technically, at their core, "history", just not the "main" history. It's like how the "Psychological profile" sections have sub-sections distinguishing from habits, personalities, and skills, rather than regular headings; they're different from each other, but fit under the same umbrella term. Therefore I believe that the title "Alternate timelines" should be a sub-heading of "History" and not a regular heading. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 23:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

VR vs TLA

TLA belongs to a category of games often called "Phone Take Over" or something similar. Kaigan Games is known for this, with pretty much all of their games being these style of games. The idea is that you open up the app and it emulates a version of someone else's phone you've found and through that tells a story (eg, looking through their contacts list helps you find out why they went missing, or you can call/text fake individuals to get prerecorded messages and piece together what happened the night they disappeared). It's first person in the sense that old RPGs are first person, there's no distinct protagonist and it's you doing the actions. It's not really VR though, there's no virtual reality you're experiencing. (I guess you could maybe call it AR? But that's a stretch.) Najawin ☎ 23:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Template

Hey, you're welcome to do what you like in userpage sandboxes, but if you create templates in the main template namespace they have to abide by current policy. You can't have a navbox with your name in the title, and which does things like treat the Shalka and Curse of Fatal Death Masters as alternate universes. (To expound on those errors: not only is the Shalka Master mostly invalid right now, but insofar as he's not, it's through his appearance in Sometime Never... as a ghost-thing, which is inarguably in the "main" universe! And as for Curse, it takes place in the mainstream DWU. Possibly in an alternate timeline within that DWU, but that is very different from a parallel universe Master like Kisgart.)

Now, I have deleted that template; please tell me if you want me to move its content to a sandbox or if you had them backed up yourself, but they cannot remain in the main template namespace.

As for other bits of constructive criticism if you continue to work on this in a sandbox: you're missing the "Merlin" Master, and as for the link to the Monk, probably if we split the Master we'll also split the Monk, and only the page about Butterworth will be treated as "maybe it's an incarnation of the Master, maybe it's an incarnation of the Monk"; there's no reason to mislead our readers into thinking there is the slightest possibility in valid source that Rufus Hound & Co. were the Master. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There you go, then! Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

banana

clown man

Timeline changes

Good afternoon, I just want to assure you that I’m not trying to make any changes to the timeline as it currently stands with the multiple timelines idea. Of course I understand you may be concerned as you’ve put work into them that I’m trying to separate out the continuities. That’s not what I’m aiming for here. The idea is that the timeline as it is now, will remain as a multi-media timeline, while others will be added to the page specifically for separate continuities. So for example, someone will come to the timeline and be able to see an all inclusive multi-media timeline page, or maybe they’re just looking for a BF listening order and they can look at that instead. It just gives different options to people and also doesn’t take away from anything that’s already there.

As I say, by nature of it being a theory page, nothing in it is representative of the views of the wiki at large. Making a BF or Virgin only timeline isn’t an implication that they actually take place in alternate universes, it’s just a way of viewing the different continuities carved out by various licensees, which is interesting to some as much as a multi-media timeline is to others. The key thing here is that there’s really no right or wrong answer when it comes to timelines. So someone should be well within their rights to come to the wiki and see a timeline that caters to only one specific continuity. I myself do believe in The multi-media approach, but like I say other options are available and why not cater to that too?

The mods haven’t had an issue with multiple timelines sitting on a single page before, and I’ve had the okay to try this tab approach out, so I’m not sure what else I can say? At the end of the day. All I can do is assure you that the timelines as they currently stand aren’t being altered, extra ones are simply being added. SarahJaneFan ☎ 13:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, I just wanted to update you on the situation. We messed around with the tab system a bit and tested it out, but we found too many technical issues with it to continue. So I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that we’ve abandoned the idea and won’t be going through with it.

However while I’ve got you, there are a few other things I’d like to discuss.

Myself and User:Danochy would seriously like to propose that we start using reference links as a way to present evidence in the timelines. It’s so much easier to just say “Set after The Monster of Peladon” with a link to the footnotes with an exact quote that proves the story is set after The Monster of Peladon than a user trying to explain everything in their own words. Particularly as this can be misconstrued, or bias can get in the way. With the reflinks, there’s less room for mistakes.

We particularly need a way of making things more clear and concise on the pages, so as not to cause confusion or end up with incorrect placements.

Just recently you’ve incorrectly altered my own edits of The Unzal Incursion and House because you’ve prioritised misinformation from elsewhere over my own experience of the stories. Now I know this isn’t your intention and you didn’t mean any harm by it, and of course you’ve apologised as well.

However these incidents aren’t isolated, it’s fairly often this sort of stuff happens. Danochy and myself put a great deal of effort into researching and updating these timelines. Before we came along there was so much painfully wrong about them. Mainly because they’re primarily based around the reference guide (which is mostly accurate but outdated and sometimes incorrect) and eyespider (which even the guy who created it admits can’t really be trusted) so we tracked down the stories we needed to and set to work.

But any time we try to do anything, you just revert it. You do it to everyone, and it’s not the first time we’ve had a conversation about this. Now I know I can be prone to that sort of thing as well, but honestly I don’t know wish to do it and it’s more of a fighting fire with fire type deal. Maybe not the best solution but there you go. I just wish you would sometimes step back and trust others to make edits on the timelines. It truly feels like you’re “in charge” of the timelines and everyone else has to seek your approval. Because let’s face it, no matter what edits anyone makes, it always falls under your scrutiny when you do one of your sweeps and then you align it with your vision again.

I just wish it didn’t have to be this way and I didn’t have to feel this way. In my heart of hearts, I want us to agree on everything, get along and not have issues. But I feel like every time I edit the timelines it’s two steps forward and one step back.

Now of course these are public timelines, and anyone can edit as they. But the issue arises when you start to take stewardship over them and control nearly every aspect. It legitimately feels as though I work for you because you get every benefit from the timelines and I feel as though I do all that research for nothing.

I truly don’t know where to go from here. We’ve tried using talk pages on timelines to suggest ideas. Ignored. We’ve tried talking to you directly. Ignored. We’ve tried playing you at what we perceive to be your own game and of course we get nowhere like that either. We have so many ideas for how to improve the timelines, but time and time again it feels like we’re immediately shutdown and it’s thrown in our faces. And for what? It’s not like you’re an admin either. But somehow I find that I have to come to you to get permission to do anything.

I’m truly sorry for any offence I’ve caused, but I needed to get my feelings out in the open. I want so badly for things to change but right now we are stuck in our ways. This started off as a brief message but soon turned into something of a rant. For that I’m also sorry. I really don’t wish to cause you any distress, I’m simply at the end of my tether and don’t know what to do. I just wish you’d hear me, and I consider some of the things I have to say.

Sincerely, SJF. SarahJaneFan ☎ 23:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I’d like to wish you all the best at your new job and with your new home.

So, I admit that we jumped the gun with the tab idea, but we were just testing things out anyway. We got excited and as I mentioned, I myself was somewhat frustrated at the time.

I do understand your protectiveness of the timelines, but as we all know they are public and for everyone. I’m constantly told I have to put up with things I don’t like on the timelines because they’re public, so we all have to make concessions. So yeah it would be nice if you could trust in other editors and step back from time to time, but I understand where you’re coming from.

I like the idea for the nb notes, and I’ve tried it out. I have to say however it does look incredibly similar to the reflinks although that may just be because I’m on mobile. Either which way, I guess it separates the website links and the notes. Thank you for that suggestion.

I would like to address your point about the Sixth Doctor timeline however it’s going to be a bit long so I’ll create a subheading for that particular point alone down below.

Thanks again

SJF SarahJaneFan ☎ 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor timeline discussion

Now you mention the Sixth Doctor timeline as an example but actually I feel like that works to support my earlier point. It shouldn’t be taken as read that all stories where the Doctor is paranoid about his future are listed that way, primarily because there’s not actually so many stories that fit that criteria as you may think.

Most of the stories involve the Doctor simply being upset and mistrustful of the Time Lords in light of the recent events of Trial, rather than having anything to do with the Valeyard himself.

And Spindle of Necessity involves the Doctor basically at rock bottom, hiding in despair from his future in fear of the day he becomes the Valeyard. However he is told by Atropos that this is only a potential future, and this rejuvenates his travelling spirit.

Currently the timeline page suggests that the Doctor is living as a recluse on Torrok in Time Of Your Life because he’s paranoid about meeting Mel and becoming the Valeyard. I’ve done some research and this isn’t entirely true. The Doctor is certainly avoiding Mel, but it isn’t the reason he’s hiding on Torrok. He’s actually hiding on Torrok from the Time Lords who are trying to convince him to go on a mission for them, and naturally with this being soon after Trial, he is insulted by this and hides away on Torrok for two months to avoid them before finally giving in and running the mission.

In my opinion, his characterisation makes a lot more sense if Spindle of Necessity comes first, where we’re shown the Doctor at his lowest following Trial. Each subsequent story shows the Doctor slowly recovering from his Trial before he’s finally back to his old self. Even his reluctance to meet Mel makes sense after Spindle, assuming that now he knows the Valeyard timeline is avoidable he’s chosen to keep away from Mel as a way of averting it. In Business Unusual, it’s even established that for his whole post-Trial life he intentionally took on atypical companions as a means of avoiding Mel and skirting the Valeyard timeline so it’s not just an issue he faces in the immediate post-Trial days.

And while we’re on the topic of this period in the Sixth Doctor’s life I’d also suggest that there really shouldn’t be too big a gap between The Ultimate Foe and The Marian Conspiracy.

• The older Doctor in The Wrong Doctors suggests that the younger Doctor visit Sheffield Hallam University after dropping off Mel.

• The Doctor makes a comment in The Marian Conspiracy about causing the genocide of a species that could be construed as him not being entirely over the events of Trial yet.

• The Doctor alludes to travelling with Peri recently in Arrangements for War.

• The Doctor’s later travels with Evelyn take place within the 10 years of the Fifth Doctor, Peri and Erimem era. And as Peri is established to have known the Doctor for 12 years in The Sixth Doctor and Peri boxset, and was separated from him for five years after Trial, that suggests that the Sixth Doctor and Peri travelled together for anywhere between 5 and 7 years before Trial.

So nothing here is explicit, but there’s a few tidbits suggesting a smaller gap than perhaps we might currently have. I particularly disagree with the recent move of the Jago & Litefoot series to pre-Evelyn, although I agree it should be before Charley joins.

Back to the point at hand, I again just think an overhaul may even be necessary on a few of the timelines because there really is a lot of misleading information. Like just the other day I found out that Excelis Dawns takes place on the way back to Frontios rather than on the way to Kolkokron as both the reference guide and this wiki have suggested for years.

And tbh, The Carrionite's Curse probably sits best layer in Six’s timeline because he carries a book by Professor Litefoot that was published in 1899 and personally signed. As the Doctor generally speaking meets J&L in order, this would mean The Carrionite’s Curse likely comes after his other meetings with them. At least after his appearance in J&L itself anyway. SarahJaneFan ☎ 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Doctor Timeline - Quiz Books

Hi, I just wanted to approach you about a possible change to the Fifth Doctor timeline. I think I already know what the answer will be, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.

So currently we have the various quiz books listed as individual short stories on the timeline, but I think it might be better if we just cover them under one entry per book. I believe the reason they’re listed as short stories on the main wiki space is actually to get around the fact that there’s some fourth wall breaking stuff in there. So essentially they’ve taken all the subheadings that are entirely in-universe and called them short stories.

But the thing is, they’re not really short stories, at least not entirely. Some of them are literally just a paragraph, and in the case of the Quiz Book of Magic, it is effectively just one story about the Doctor teaching Tegan and Nyssa magic.

We don’t necessarily need to cover stories in exactly the same way that the wiki main space does. Although really this sort of thing is really inconsistent and seems to be covered a certain way depending on the opinion of the person making the page. Time in Office for example is absolutely an anthology of four individual stories, but because Big Finish didn’t advertise it this way, the wiki treats it as a single story. So yeah there’s no consistent rule for this sort of thing.

But I think based on the content of these books and how they’re presented, at least in the context of the one I have tracked down, it makes more sense to cover them under a single entry than as a group of several short stories. It’d certainly look better on the timeline too, as it’s not really necessary to have a whole subheading for an obscure quiz book from the 80s which is effectively just one story anyway.

I eagerly await your thoughts, SJF SarahJaneFan ☎ 23:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Will do, thanks! SarahJaneFan ☎ 23:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

War Doctor Begins question

Hi, I’m pretty sure it’s the same sound for both screwdrivers to be honest. At least from comparing them I really could tell a huge difference. SarahJaneFan ☎ 03:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi, I hope you are well. I was just wondering if you could direct me to where it was decided that the characters listed in the infoboxes should only be referred to by a single name? LauraBatham ☎ 03:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Masters

Hey! This is indeed prep-work to the, by now, foregone conclusion that we will split the Masters. At this point it's just a matter of waiting for a functional Forum in which to officialise this, but User:CzechOut himself has agreed that we should do it.

By the same token, we shan't be using quotation marks unless there is literally no other option — because someday we're expecting to start phasing out the Master linking templates and promoting direct linking to [[War Master]] and so on, and you simply can't have a page name start with quotation marks. And indeed, the reason User:OncomingStorm12th and I started the "rollout" with War Master and Spy Master is that these are official names, not just debatable fan nicknames. Certainly they're as official as War Doctor, which we feel no need to saddle with quotation marks.

Saxon Master will probably be used for Simm, as this is what the credits of Masterful used. As concerns Ainley, deciding whether he is the Tremas Master or Trakenite Master is nontrivial and is one of the things we'll need the Forum thread to determine. Likewise we need a consensus on what to call Roberts, since Masterful unhelpfully gives us the unusuable "Movie Master". Again though, as all these names are somewhat more controversial, I don't intend to start using them on the Wiki until the actual page-splitting thread happens. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Re:Master links

Heey, I'll break this down in a few points to try and best answer you question:

• Going from War to "War" and Spy to "Spy" is bad for a technical reason: as User:Scrooge MacDuck pointed out in here, using a comma at the start of a title is terrible for the search bar, so best not.
• And, technically, these ""are"" official names, via The War Master (audio series) (and most BF credits on their website actually using "the War Master" for Jacobi), and Dhawan's theme being indeed titles "The Spy Master". So, while not a credit, its as good as a nickname as we'll get for him, probably.
• I've not yet changed "Saxon" and "Tremas" to these, mostly for this reason; they're good, but lack the tiniest nudge of being "official" that these two have.
• As for having separate pages for the Masters... let's say that is the Masterplan, but as having a joint page for the Master was a forum decision, it can only be overthrown via forums as well (and they're temporarily down due to Fandom migrating codes). Let's say this is doing the closest I can within current policy, but certainly my mindset as well.

Hope this helped :) OncomingStorm12th ☎ 02:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Character names

Hey, with regards to your changes of "the President" to "Pandad" at this link — er — please don't? As noted at Talk:The Monk and more recently at Talk:The Doctor, paragraphs cited to specific stories should generally refer to the character by the name used in the story. Otherwise, you end up doing things like giving the impression that the name "Pandad" was already in use when Double Trouble was written, when in actuality the name was only introduced in 1985.

It's nothing major, but that is the best practice, so just try to keep it in mind. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Flashbacks, cameos and references

Hi, I hope all is well for you at the moment.

I was just wanting to raise a point with you regarding the timelines real quick. Now distinguishing between flashbacks, cameos and references on the timelines has always been difficult, especially for those unfamiliar with the entries in question. These are three quite distinct phenomena, and with the recent influx of references being included on some timelines, I thought it would be a good idea to come up with a way of distinguishing between the three.

Now it may not be the prettiest format, but I think the best way of doing this would be keeping references in the current format and displaying the other two as follows:

• MEDIUM: Story (cameo)

or

• MEDIUM: Story (flashback)

Alternatively we could point out that the entry is a cameo or flashback in the entry description instead.

Anyway, looking forward to hearing what thoughts you may have. Danochy ☎ 13:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Another possible approach would be to do something like this:

(FLASHBACK)

After being killed in a bar fight in 1899, Jack is discovered following his resurrection by Alice Guppy and Emily Holroyd. They recruit Jack into Torchwood Three while he waits for the Doctor to turn back up in Cardiff. (TV: Fragments)

(SEGMENT)

Jack and Ianto fight Scorchies at the Millennium Centre. Ianto opens up to Jack about his life before the battle of Canary Wharf and how the loss of Lisa has affected him. This leads to him being invited on a mission to the Brecon Beacons for a few days, leading into Countrycide. (AUDIO: Broken)

(REFERENCE)

Torchwood Three begins to take in the Weevils that roam the streets of Cardiff and give them shelter and a bathroom within the Hub cells. (AUDIO: Hostile Environment)

SarahJaneFan ☎ 13:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I like this suggestion the most. It makes it visually obvious that it's not a full story while also showing what type of entry it is. Danochy ☎ 23:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I too like the format, though I think that underlining the (REFERENCE) parts can help show that it's not a part of the narrative for new readers.BananaClownMan 20:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement! I also think underlining would make a good addition to the format. Danochy ☎ 23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Timelines

Hi! I recently noticed your statement that you didn't agree with the addition of some stories to the timeline, although you didn't think anyone had the right to remove said stories. That's fair enough, but I think a more measured approach could be applied here. As I mentioned at Theory talk:Timey-wimey_detector a while back, I think that the addition and removal of stories should be conducted on a case-by-case basis (where invalid stories are concerned). Now obviously the state of the timelines should not be determined by a single editor, but I suggest that if the consensus of timeline editors is that a story should be removed, then removed it can be! That way a single editor can't solely influence the removal of stories, but they also can't solely influence the addition of said stories. Danochy ☎ 01:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey, how's it going?

Just wanted to make a proposal to you that will hopefully make timeline discussions somewhat easier. As you know, the wiki isn't exactly a prime place for such discussions to occur, especially when it comes to edit summaries (but even talk pages can be a bit of a nightmare). SarahJaneFan and I have been thinking that a better place for the three of us to hold such discussions would be an external site, like Discord (but feel free to propose others if more convenient). Naturally any major, system-altering changes should take place in the proper way on talk pages, but we thought this would be a better way to address changes/disagreements in an easier and friendlier environment. If you are interested, just add me on Discord (Danochy#3948) or suggest your preferred method of communication.

Cheers, Danochy ☎ 11:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, 100% agree with this. It’d make discussion so much simpler. The edit summary notes don’t really allow us to clearly express our full thoughts on the matter. SarahJaneFan ☎ 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, that's all good, I completely understand. Thanks for your candidness. Personally, I find it the reverse - emails and this sort of thing often fill me with anxiety, while I'm much more comfortable talking in person or via instant messaging (not that the anxiety completely disappears, mind). I find that with reasonable people at least, any misunderstanding can be cleared up immediately, whereas with emails/talk pages I may never even become aware of any perceived indiscretion. I do respect your decision though, but if you ever change your mind, know that we would always try to make you feel comfortable and any debate would only ever be friendly in nature.

Thanks for the heads up as well! But yeah, as Scrooge said, Discord is entirely anonymous so there wouldn't be any personal information involved (definitely no more than would be conveyed on Fandom). Finally, sorry if I was being too impatient for your response, but thanks for your reply, and happy editing! Danochy ☎ 05:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Dalek template

I'll go make a ruling! But it would not have been proper to do the edit before a ruling had formally been made on said talk page. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Discord

Don't worry about the policy aspect. An email address is a private detail and this is why it is against policy to solicit it unprompted; Discord should be understood more like an external forum (where accounts are not usually under people's real names); it is not against policy to suggest "you should come participate on X thread on Outpost Gallifrey". Also, there is an official FANDOM Discord server and a system for publicly displaying your Discord ID as part of your Wikia account. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Featuring

Hi please note that the "featuring" field for infoboxes is meant for recurring characters, not one-time characters. Significance or prominence have nothing to do with it (and are subjective and therefore do not belong in the infobox) thanks Shambala108 ☎ 05:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Questions from a new-comer

Dear BananaClownMan,

Thank you for taking time to read this. I have a few questions. One, How should someone go about making an article on let’s say, First Doctor (Time & Time Again)? Also, what level of divergence from N-Space grants a character their own article? Is there a “people who met the Doctor” category, and should there be or would it be too big?

Thanks, User:PepsiMag

Talk pages and edit summmaries

Hello! Couldn't help notice that things were heating up in the Theory:Timelines namespace again. The object-level debate itself isn't my area, but I do want to remind you that "edit wars are good for absolutely nothing", as the fellow said — and moreover, that substantial disagreement such as has come to the fore should really be hashed out on a talk page, not in edit summaries. This is clearly contentious, other people might want to weigh in, and having the argument through edit summaries makes it unnecessarily hard for new people to look through the points on both sides and give their input. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I see. The thing though, the thing is, people in edit wars (or nascent edit wars) generally feel correct; in fact by definition, usually, one half of the war is abstractly correct. I agree User:SarahJaneFan should have included edit summaries; but unless the edits are so unreasonable as to be vandalism that can't be allowed to stand, when attempts at reversions are failing to resolve a situation, it falls to whoever can gather the wits and force of will to do so to be the bigger person, and take it to the talk page. Even if that means letting the other edit stand in the meantime. (You can then demand that the other user join in the talk page discussion, and complain to admins if they don't!) Still, I'll have a word with SJF too; fair's fair.

Now as for the object-level issue. Look… there's a reason I rarely edit the timeline pages. With no offence to anyone who likes editing them, I just can't see the point in trying to make a single consensus timelines. Too many cooks, too many recipes. There are too many areas where different stories just want to occupy the same spot and "can't". (They can paradoxically overlap, in my heart and even in-universe within the inconsistent timey-wimey-ball that is the Web of Time; but they can't really in a linear timeline page.) This seems like a prime case. Should we take it upon ourselves to deduce our own order, to match one side's authorial intent? But what about the other sides' authorial intent? What about the fairly rare event of an official source giving us an official timeline in the form of Interweaving…?

By some points of views all of the options here seem reasonable to me. If I had my way we'd try and maintain parallel timelines following each of the possible approaches, instead of maintaining a single Theory:Timeline - Seventh Doctor, though that probably would degenerate into uselessness pretty quickly.

I think what you're getting at is that we should be consistent in our philosophy; that either authorial intent is always prime, or a later document like Interweaving… is always prime, but we can't mix and match. I can see the impulse, but I'm not sure that's workable either. There is no such thing as an objectively-correct algorithm for sorting all DWU stories ever in an order that makes sense, because there is no such order, only vague approximations. A timeline entails judgment calls, and furthermore, ones which will, one way or the other, end up based on aesthetic preferences.

(I mean heck, wrong Doctor, but for my money I think the whole idea of a post-The Gallifrey Chronicles restoration of Gallifrey is fundamentally unsatisfying; I stick by the old idea that the early Big Finish Eighth Doctor audios — up until the Divergent Universe — take place somewhere in the Greenpeace Gap, and I firmly believe that as far as the EDAs are concerned, the destruction of Gallifrey that Eccleston remembers is The Ancestor Cell. I'm not saying the timeline community should stop everything and agree with me, but I am saying that it's as valid a view as any, and that you should keep in mind that even for something that major, there are people who would to be doing something radically different and feel deep in their guts that the current way is wrong-wrong-wrong.)

So really, it's all down to consensus. I think you should try to hash out, on the talk page, with as many timeline-editors as possible, which way of looking at the DWM comics you prefer. You have a fairly reasonable justification for your view, but I think proving it to be the objectively "correct" one, or to make it entirely consistent with every other decision, is neither desirable, nor in fact possible. You need to just make your case, and User:SarahJaneFan needs to make theirs, and the community needs to decide which idea it finds most elegant, that's all. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Checking in

Hey BananaClownMan, just wanted to say hi and that I hope your year's been going well! – n8 (☎) 13:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

For(u)m Letter

Hey there, I hope your Halloween was decent. As you might know, we've not had forums for over two years at this point. A few of the regular editors have been having a discussion on this topic at Forum talk:Index and we'd like the input of other prominent editors if you have the inclination. Cheers. Najawin ☎ 08:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, just reminding you that I have been waiting

Hello, just reminding you that I have been waiting for a response in the seventh doctor timeline talk Tellymustard ☎ 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

sorry if this seems like nagging

Hi, just sort of posting here because I see you are on the wiki and I am unsure if you get notifications for the seventh Doctor talk page. I replied to your comment from earlier today. Sorry if this message has annoyed you.Tellymustard ☎ 16:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Did this message annoy you? And if it did is that why there is not yet a response to the seventh Doctor timeline talk even though you have been on the wiki all day? If so, I sincerely apologise for bothering you with that message on your talk page yesterday. Tellymustard ☎ 16:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

DWM arcs trump release order.

Is there a list of rules like this we use in the timeline pages? Tellymustard ☎ 13:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Tellymustard

Thank you for contacting me, I’ll get onto it. SarahJaneFan ☎ 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Re:Block

Thank you for the advice, I hope that we can put what happened with me past us in the future. Tellymustard ☎ 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, just forgot to put something in the original message. Even though I am a imbecile I know not to even attempt to sockpuppet, they would probably discover me if I did because I only ever edit very niche pages. due to my bizzare tendacy to only edit timeline pages, Weird pages that barely even exist, lists, and minor obscure characters they would notice me. Uh, sorry if this bothered u, I just wanted u to know if I am ever banned again you wouldnt need to worry about me sockpuppeting. I would rather just not run a risk and simply compile a list of edits to do when I get back. Why I am sending this I don't know I should just die.

Hi, Fandom staff here. I know this is an old comment, and you didn't actually say more than "I should just die". But I just wanted to be sure you have our list of resources to show you some of the helpful people who you can talk to. -- Sannse <staff /> (help forum | blog) 08:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Thanks, BananaClownMan, that's very kind of you. A merry Christmas to you too! - Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 12:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you and yours as well! – n8 (☎) 14:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and right back at you: Happy Christmas (or Yule, Hanukkah, etc) and a Happy New Year!

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! Very kind of you indeed. Hope you have a good Christmas + new year yourself! Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 23:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

to you as well! Editoronthewiki ☎ 14:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page message

Hey, just want to let you know that I'm aware of the message you left on my talk page. I need to do some research before taking any action, and of course this is a busy time of year so it might take some time, but I wanted to make sure you knew I plan to do something about it. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RE: Edit summary

I am not sure how to reply to a edit summary so I will just quote it here and post my reply below the quote.

"Before {so and so}" is often avoided to make the timelines look like a linear passage of time - the Doctor doesn't know he's about to rewrite Kazran's past, but he does know he's having solo adventures. Also, I'm currently working on this timeline in a word document, so please keep editing consistent so I can update my word page until it's ready for publication."

kk. Tellymustard ☎ 20:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas to you as well. And a happy New Year. I hope you have a good holiday season :) LauraBatham ☎ 03:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in to wish you a happy holiday season to you as well! :) OncomingStorm12th ☎ 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you as well! Jolly Yule, Joyous post-solstice and belated Saturnalia! I'd meant to thank you earlier, but I'm now glad I didn't because I get to thank you even more. I'd felt quite touched by your message because we hadn't interacted in a long time, and I think it must have hung with me subconsciously after I noticed it yesterday and set off some sort of Jungian Christmas Carol in the wilds of my mind. Today I've ended up sending way more short little "season's greetings" to random people in my life than I've ever done on Christmas. My humbugs chirp sweet carol now. It's been quite fruitful and I think I was inspired by you. Jangling neurons tell me that perhaps I did this one to you, many eons ago, but regardless... thank you for making a difference in my life from your kindness. Deeply and sincerely, all the best to you BCM! CoT ? 05:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

My Sandbox

To clarify, User:Najawin/Sandbox 5 is explicitly available for all users to edit. Its sole purpose is to coordinate threads for when we have the forums back, and it was created during a discussion between myself and Epsilon on the subject of coordination between users. I have absolutely no issue with Tellymustard, or indeed anyone else, editing that particular sandbox. My point on Shambala's talk page was simply to attest to a pattern of behavior. Najawin ☎ 11:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: The Seasons

And a happy holidays to you as well! Thanks for the kind message. OS25🤙☎️ 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Temporary forums validity debates

Hey — this may be unorthodox, so apologies, but — I notice that you supported several proposed validity debates in the Tardis:Temporary forums. Via my now-live "Rule 4 by proxy" proposal, I hope to cut through the need for individual threads on multiple such candidates including Shalka and the Cushing movies. If my proposal seems viable to you, I think it would be productive of you not only to add your signature to that proposal, but to withdraw it from the individual inclusion debate proposals, to ensure that my wider proposal is discussed first. (If it fails, of course, you can re-add your signature to the individual inclusion debates so that they can be had independently after all.) It's up to you, though, of course. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Merlin Master

Glad you like the idea. I'm afraid I can tell of you of no legal avenue to get these stories, other than secondhand copies of the Annuals or, of course, in the case of Creation of Camelot, BF's The Planet of Dust & Other Stories. Naturally, if you make yourself contactable off-Wiki, something less cumbersome could be arranged, but as you must know by now, that sort of thing is frowned upon on-Wiki (even from one fan to another rather than anything larger-scale).

As concerns his psychological profile — well, he's just a very straightforward Generic Classic Master, is the thing, which makes it somewhat tricky to write without feeling like I'm over-extrapolating from a few incidents. (But it also means that he's "somewhere between Delgado and Ainley" in a literary sense, which is why I think it's elegant to suppose that this is also where he is in a timeline sense.) Other than the obvious, we could make a note of the fact that he was good at setting up exit strategies in advance (as seen in Camelot and Radio Waves), that he was somewhat presumptuous (seemingly not accounting for the possibility that Quan wouldn't obey him on principle), that he was good at social manipulation/sowing dissent (as seen in his role as "the Merlin"), and perhaps more amusingly that he had some artistic inclination (if we take seriously the mention that "the Merlin"'s duties at court include being a bard, as well as a magician and advisor). But as I said, overly-general statements on this sort based on this little evidence just feel to me like reading tea-leaves. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Re:Disney Time

Well, personally, I think the best place to put Disney Time is right before Zygon.

It's very simple. The Doctor gets that telegram, but he's distracted from responding to it right away. This is where "moustach Harry" fits in, from the Annuals. Then, eventually, the Doctor gets another ping and runs off to see the Brigadier like he originally intended to.

I personally feel the outfit is just too important of a detail to place it any later in the timeline than Planet of Evil. OS25🤙☎️ 23:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well you know, it's the Timeline subspace, I really don't feel the need to debate which theory fits better, but at the end of the day I don't think that placement belongs somewhere like Fourth Doctor. It's just not what was intended. OS25🤙☎️ 02:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed your recent edits to Disney Time. I must again insist that your fan theories might be fine on the Timeline page, but any suggestion that Disney Time does not lead into Terror of the Zygons should not be placed on story pages or character pages. It is speculation and misinformation and does not represent the very obvious intent of the story. OS25🤙☎️ 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Consider the above admin-endorsed. We keep the Timeline stuff segregated from the main namespace for a reason. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Re. Ninth Doctor - Have You Seen This Man?

Hi. I am not finished covering Have You Seen This Man?, as it is a lot to get through. While I did set out to do it by myself, I feel given the expansive nature of that source, a bit of help covering it would be appreciated. There are a lot of entries to get through. All I ask is if you keep the same sort of formatting as the pages I created for consistency, as well as using the Doctor Who? redirect given that the original website doesn't use "Have You Seen This Man?" as a title, just the url.

I feel my efforts may be better placed in trying to create more sources pages for tie-in websites than getting caught up in Wikifying just in-universe info from one story. There is a lot to juggle!

Thanks.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

20:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

SourceFilter

Hey — please desist from removing {{SourceFilter}} from timeline pages. It should ideally be used on every timeline page; at any rate it does no harm by existing and is of some benefit, so removing it Just Because is essentially vandalism (albeit, I trust, not malicious). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Look at the Template:SourceFilter page itself! Like many template pages, it includes an explanation of how to use the template. As to the why, our goal with T:CANON and similar policies is to give readers all the facts and then allow them to make up their own minds about what they want to take and leave — not to force them to accept everything as valid to their own headcanon or else. Hence SourceFilter. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Fifteenth Doctor

Hiya, just wanna quickly rectify my claim that Fifteen being a photo model was disinformation. I've been a highly strung recently, and that what I said wasn't correct. I was wrong there.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Primary universe

It doesn't ring a bell, sorry. But as per the state of affairs at Talk:N-Space I do still, on the whole, favour The Doctor's universe. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's not ideal when we're trying to discuss it in relation to other universes ("Cybermen travelled from Pete's World to the Universe"? meh), though I've been tempted before.

And I don't think Chibnall's lore matters. Even if we accept the Timeless Child story, it's still the Doctor's universe for 100% of their biography we know and care about; why should we specifically prioritise their purported universe of origin over the one they live in now and have pledged themselves to protecting? The Doctor's TARDIS wasn't the Doctor's first TARDIS, after all. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Biography subpage

See Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0. If you want to have a biography subpage, you must have a mainpage biography section as well. And this section cannot fail to discuss any story, it just caps out at 1-3 sentences for each one. Najawin ☎ 07:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Galleries

Hey, thanks for your work expanding galleryes, but do not change the display size. All widths should be set to 250 across the Wiki. Again, if you want to change it, it would have to be done consistently across all gallery pages, and thus require a thread. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Citesource

Regarding part names, what do you want me to tell you? If it's to be updated, it will be via the Forum thread. If you think there's more to be said on that Forum thread and it's gone silent, contribute to the Forum thread. But IIRC there's already pretty clear consensus for changing the part-number format to something else than "(part four)", even if there isn't yet any clear agreeement on which of the other options to use.

Regarding italics, untitled stories do not have names. That's, you know, what being untitled means. Not capitalising "Untitled" is not in breach of the policy about italicising all titles because Untitled is not a title, but rather a statement on the Wiki's part that this story lacks any kind of title. Now, if you think aesthetically we ought to italicise 'Untitled' too, that's something you could bring up at Template talk:Cite source or in a thread. But it's not against policy. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Re. Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes

Going forward, an out-of-universe perspective should be favoured in all continuity sections if possible. This is a big ask, and although it's an ideal to trend towards I will not demand that we pull out all stops making valid stories' sections conform to this. However, given that we're going to be creating Continuity sections when none existed, I can and will ask that all continuity sections on invalid pages, and "continuity to non-valid sources" sections on valid or invalid pages, be written from an out-of-universe perspective. I think that ought to solve Czech's issue, to whatever extent it may have otherwise been a concern.@Scrooge MacDuck, Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes

Here.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not correct. Real-world perspective is to be favoured in all continuity sections going forward. What I meant, though, is that editors didn't have to pull all the stops to get every section rewritten as a priority — that it's okay if some legacy ones remain in the old style until the changeover can be implemented (like with old-school citations vs. {{cite source}}), whereas all new continuity sections, including by definition all the ones for non-valid sources which didn't originally have such sections, must be written from a real-world perspective. Thanks for checking! --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Recent edits

Thank you for reaching out. But you are removing information — I think possibly by accident? I don't dispute that you're adding some as well. But, case in point, your edit to A Letter from the Doctor removed the material referring to Whotopia: The Ultimate Guide…, as a plain ctr+f over your draft relative to the previous revision was enough to determine. This must not happen. If you cannot guarantee that no information is lost to your attempted redrafts, then you must be prepared for those revisions to be reverted until you, or someone else, goes through the changes and salvages the good ones from the information-removal. You also removed the redlink to Readers (A Latter from the Doctor) without discussion, which is likewise not acceptable. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is what edit summaries, and indeed talk-page discussions, are for. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure. We're all human. But it's been a pattern with your recent edits, of your doing very extensive redrafts with zero explicit justification, hence why I think it's worth it to ask you to more consciously address the reasoning behind your changes. As the recent issue with your wholly out-of-policy removal of blank "Continuity" sections and such shows, changes you think are obviously correct are sometimes… not so. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Might I also suggest. We have the forum system back. Suppose you want to change how multiple articles are written, such as removing blank "Continuity" sections, or your extensive rewriting of First Doctor that proved... controversial. If you want to move forward with these proposals, or other things like them in the future, since the choices you made in enacting these decisions would impact multiple pages, would be to start threads discussing them. Najawin ☎ 04:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I know these teeth

Ah, good catch on Liberation of the Daleks ^[+]Loading...["Liberation of the Daleks (comic story)"] about Fourteen's first line being "I know these teeth.", as I had focused on the "What? What? What?" which Whotopia ^[+]Loading...["Whotopia: The Ultimate Guide to the Whoniverse (reference book)","''Whotopia''"] directly followed on from.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

01:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Twice adapted

Hi. Yep, I can add new fields to infoboxes. I've added |adapted into2= to {{Infobox Story SMW}} (I have not added it to {{Infobox Story}} as the eventual aim to phase out that template and rename {{Infobox Story SMW}} to {{Infobox Story}}). Let me know if there are any issues or if there's anything else you'd like me to add. Bongo50 ☎ 13:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Looking into your recent edits and edit summaries, please use the edit summaries for edit summaries, not to engage in discussions regarding the edits, and / or the preceding editors' edits. Put that on the page's talk page or create a forum topic if it's got a wider wiki-concern.

Don't try to engage in an edit war with the edit summaries, there's better places to engage in discussion regarding these matters, if it's a matter of a more recent article engage an admin and the page can be locked to prevent editing until the vexing issue is resolved. Consider if you're an editor who is wading through edit summaries trying to determine what has been changed to the article itself, the edit summaries should help as a 'what's changed' log.

Policies and rules are what hold together this wiki's pages and policies. While admin's words and statements are a good place to start, they should be backed up by policies, talk pages and forum discussions. Citing an admin can be the start, it should follow that there's a policy, talk page or forum discussion that supports that statement. And if there isn't then it should be brought to the forums or a talk page to establish or clarify this situation. I acknowledge that there was a period when we didn't have good forums that would allow for this. But as we do now, that is the path that should be taken to establish matters. —Tangerineduel / talk 01:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary shouldn't be arguing or engaging in debate about an edit that had been made. It should be to summarise what change has been made to the page.

Tardis:Edit summary explains this.

Additionally, I would add Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing as another policy regarding edits. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations

Belated, I know, but just wanted to say thank you for your adminship-related congratulations, and wish you a happy holidays :) – NateBumber (☎) 15:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: You open a discussion about it

AFAIK it is current policy to have tabbed galleries for actors playing characters at different pages. A forum thread is therefore redundant, surely? I'll double check the original thread to make sure though.

Also, sorry to hear about what happened on your talk page.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I double checked Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies, and, as per @Scrooge MacDuck's closing post:

"I was initially going to specify that actors who play the character at a different age should be their own discussion, but then I remembered that we already do something very similar at Kazran Sardick, so… no, come to think of it, we absolutely should show Caitlin Blackwood on a second tab at Amy Pond."User:Scrooge MacDuck

So child versions are allowed in under policy, and, as I have no desire to change this, someone who objects to this has to open a thread — I would recommend asking an admin for advice, if you feel comfortable with doing so.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of information

Hi there,

With regards to https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Giggle_(TV_story)?curid=362541&diff=3690278&oldid=3690276, I was just wondering what purpose the removal of information there served? All of the information that you removed seemed like it fitted perfectly well in a continuity section, and I'm slightly confused as to why you removed it, and was hoping for some clarification?

Thanks for your time, Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Templates and adaptions

It's been established that adaptions should now be included in infoboxes' lists of appearances, so I think by implication they should also be included in other templates from now on. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The order's not "anachronistic" from the point of view of the novelisations, which is the important thing; I don't really see the problem there. But you make some fair points, and certainly I'm not claiming the edits in the other direction were wholly consistent. Perhaps we had best refrain from now, but start a thread about this. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a feature, not a bug. Repeating the in-universe order would serve no purpose; novelisations should be listed in order of release, it's useful to do so. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Re:Character templates addition

Great idea! I've added |great-grandparent= through to |great-grandparent10= and |great-grandchild= through to |great-grandchild10=. Bongo50 ☎ 18:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Fourteenth Doctor article

Hey there! Hope you're doing well and that the New Year was good. Great to see you're still editing around here too :)

I am writing concerning the recent changes you made to the Fourteenth Doctor article. Great stuff, naturally, reworking much of it and so forth. However, I noticed you removed a lot of detail from the Habits & Quirks, and Skills sections of the page, while also restoring the length of the First Adventure section. Therefore, I was wondering if you could tell me why?

I know the page isn't strictly following the template about shortening adventures to 3 lines, but is it not backwards to actually make the Bio part longer rather than more summative? I have checked with the staff team about this and they have re-affirmed to me the intention is still to focus on shortening these parts of the article and moving the original draft (or fully expansive bio) to its own sub page.

Also, why remove so much detail from the prior mentioned two sections? Details like the Doctor's use of the TARDIS and regeneration, as examples, are included on the other Doctor articles, including a tag line requesting their inclusion as well.

Naturally, all of this could just be a mouse slip kind of thing as one mass edits an article, but given you removed the "Stand Clear" template, I thought it best to check in first before I spend time re-adding it all and (in the other case) trimming it all down again.

Looking forward to your reply Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 10:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see then. I'll put it down to you being tired at the keyboard, hence missing it out. I get what you mean about edits seemingly getting thrown around; I've been having the same gripe with CS links meaning to be the norm now but loads still using the old versions, mixing them up!).

As for the Doctor's articles, I always do my best to follow the section suggestions that were placed to help with thematic paragraphing. So, with skills as an example, that resembles something like this: the Doctor's technological skill - general intellect - combat experience - influence/leadership over others - languages - TARDIS piloting - regeneration - other skills. Having also wanted to make changes in this regard, I included said extra information (and retroactively probably should have copied those section suggestions over) to better organise what was a bloated chronological and messy Personality section as editors tossed information in without structuring it as such.

With that said, I therefore presume this means I am okay to re-add those removed parts (and include the suggestions while doing so) to restore this structure. Also, per you now adding the template it, that also means I can restore the trimmed down versions of the Bio parts? Although, you said you would provide more detailed reasoning/clarification on something? Therefore, I'll fix the lost links but I'll await your next response before doing any sort of mass editing on the page.

Thank you for the reply. I hope the sleep goes well. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. While moving in to re-add those links, I noticed you have included those section suggestion headlines anyway so I re-added the lost information for each of those where they were there prior. I take it that was the intention, given you had added those in. Again, looking forward to your more detailed reply later. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello once more! Glad to hear your sleep was restful. I'm not a big soaps fan myself, but I do hope the show was a good watch :)

That's pretty cool you invented the idea. I think its great; makes editing the pages a) consistent and b) organised, which is always a positive. Concerning the information, I think I can agree on removing the bi-generation part, given that appears to be more Toymaker than Doctor controlled, though I think references to the TARDIS piloting and his ease into the regeneration can stay: some cases in point for it - 14's post-regeneration goes well, whereas others do not (10's + 13's unconscious states, 8 losing his memory, 12's overall confusion, 5 falling into a panicked state shifting between incarnations) so I think there's proof there he's better adapted to it than others. Concerning piloting: Nine, Ten and Eleven proved themselves relatively inaccurate pilots (linking to the regeneration too; 10 crashed on his first usage, and 11 couldn't pilot to the correct year, whereas 14 was really accurate during his early hours by contrast. Naturally, if you have stronger counter points, do let me know.

As for Epsilon removing the template; to be honest, its not a hill I'm willing to fight on over it. I was talking to staff members who assured me the intent was to keep the Doctor's pages short and split into a Bio subpage (its obvious 15 and 14's articles will be doubled in length within a year given the power of expansive media) but I'm not going to spend my time edit warring over it until staff implant it their themselves, then at least I know I'm in the right for pressing for shortening the article. I don't have the time for that kind of back-and-forth debating without resolution so that's a concern that can be dismissed for now.

Sorry to hear you have been having a rough time recently. I share your desire for wiki editing to also be a positive escapism from daily life - spending hours writing about something we're passionate about to share with the community is a brilliant pass time! I also share your concerns with editing here though; as brilliant as this wiki is, its greatest flaw remains its immense size. One day, an article reaches a great state, but then a mass of editors can come along, loads of editing occurs and it becomes a mess because editors are inconsistent. There's variation from fully-clued in editors on all policy, editors who are competent but out of date with style policy, to brand new editors who do not know the many policies (or even FANDOM editing in general). Yet, the wiki's vast size means a mistake can linger on a page for days, weeks, years without correction and even mass planned action decided via community discussion does not occur (or, more common, does not stretch across all of the wiki's articles) because the people intent on doing it simply don't have the time to do so or because the wiki is so so vast in in its content they fade into inaction on it because adapting 100,000 articles is overwhelming for what is, in reality, 20(?) consistent daily editors.

My compromise has always been: focus on what I'm most knowledgeable and passionate about writing. At least then I know a slither of the wiki is being edited to the best of my ability. Albeit, it frustrates me I don't have the time to improve everything my eye catches. Besides, even my editing isn't fully up to snuff in some respects though because new policy comes in that I need to brush up on, but again clashes with other editors because that wiki-wide consistency is so difficult to maintain. At least Doctors 1 through 13 are definitely intended for cutting down, given staff members added the template there personally. That shall be my endeavour, in the fleeting chances I get to progress with it.

Anyway, that's enough of that ahah. I have indeed found the reply satisfactory and I eagerly await your response concerning the inclusion of the Doctor's piloting skills on the article (see paragraph 1). Always good to chat - glad it helped you :) Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 19:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. I just noticed (despite my reply) you have not responded to me and gone ahead and removed all of the discussed paragraphs anyway. Is something wrong? Were my reasons not satisfactory? Why? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Apologies for the earlier message - my computer was lagging it seems and did not show your talk page edit. The joys of technology!

I suppose the Shaun comments are interpretative then. I took the line delivery as a joke like "yeah, you're alone in a tight box with a man but he's far from appealing", which (in some ways) is later reinforced by Mel not showing much physical attraction for him in her impassionate agreement that he's "beautiful". Fair enough though; perhaps the implicit is not confirmation.

As for the rest of the content, should this mean similar content should be removed from the other Doctor's articles too? So all the references to their piloting skills, regenerations, and pocketed items? Since 14 now does not include them? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to your reply! Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, those are quite valid points to make. I didn't thing about that personally. Thank you for your speedy response. Hope all is well! Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 00:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

stop removing

i mean this is the most nicest way in the fourteenth doctor the random regnerations obviously gos there in the biography its pretty obvious so stop removing it. because i don't want to have to report you. just remember you dont own this fandom stop removing things as if you own this fandom and doctor who. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsjadwtc (talk).

The above comment may be crudely-put, but I must chime in with the same sentiment. Your recent edits on The Master incarnation pages are thoroughly out of order. You've removed information, removed {{cite source}}, and all wthout any clear justification as to what your edits are about. It has become increasingly clear that your editing-style of creating your own drafts in sandboxes is simply not appropriate, leading to needless conflict and removal of information. It's fine to use sandboxes for a bottom-up rewrite of a low-traffic page, but stop doing this for recurring character pages. It leaves us admins with no choice in the short term but to revert your contributions, even though I'm sure there are constructive edits somewhere within the wanton deletions. I'm sure you are doing it in good faith but you are disrupting the Wiki in thoroughly unproductive ways, please stop editing like this. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me so promptly.

I did indeed refer exclusively to actual story citations using {{cite source}}, not to the incarnation linking templates (which you were correct to phase out — that's one of the many individually-good edits caught in the unfortunate necessity of the reversions). I'm certain I spotted instances where you changed a cite_source link to an old-school link. Apologies if you were indeed trying to preserve the cs versions and missed those, we're all human.

I'm not sure what you mean re: "paragraphs are now starting behind images instead of underneath", or what policy it's meant to relate to, could you give me an example of the kind of problem you're talking about?

Linking to "Aliases of the Master" is only necessary when there are too many aliases for a given incarnation to list comfortably in the infobox. Otherwise, aliases specific to an incarnation should be retained in that incarnation's infobox.

"Repetitiveness" is in the eye of the beholder. One might "repeat the spirit of the same sentence" rather than condense it all into a paragraph so as to make the information more accessible by explaining it at greater length, for example. Outside of ledes, brevity is not the goal; completeness is. This doesn't mean it's never the right decision to rewrite a section to be more compact… but you should be much more careful about doing so, and tackle it on the talk page if you're unsure. Case in point I find a lot of your "abridged" versions much less clear and informative than what they replace. Take this edit to Child Master (The Then and the Now) — I think it's, like, 90% negative. You remove sentences and data from the BTS for no clear reason, you remove the bit about the Eleventh Doctor recognising the Child Master's cruelty even though that's exactly the kind of information we should have in a "Psychological profile" section, you remove the character's names from the lede and make the explanation of the time paradox vaguer, you change the in-universe phrasing of the first biographical section to the fourth-wall-breaking "Backstory" — none of this is productive. At best they're controversial edits which should have been tackled on the talk page, but I frankly fail to even comprehend how you could have thought most of this stuff was an improvement. I'm not trying to be aggressive here, I do fully trust that you're trying to improve the Wiki is good faith, I'm just sort of… at my wit's end trying to make you understand my perspective, which is that your editing style in such instances tends to do far more harm than good in execution.

And regarding the "unjustified" thing, I was ebing purely factual — your edit summaries were blank. Obviously you don't have to write a separate edit summary for every little syntaxic change, but you had no summary of what was done and why, even for very extensive changes, and this is what absolutely must be corrected. Don't delete entire bullet points without saying that's what you're doing and why, to pick an obvious one; but also don't completely reorder the biography sections as you did on The Master (The Destination Wars). (Really, that change, never mind that it seems to me to be completely wrong on the mrits, should ideally never have been done without a talk page discussion; but at minimum an edit summary explaining "I am completely reordering the biography because of such-and-such reasons" is absolutely essential.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe putting them at the start of paragraphs is in fact the obvious default, and have no idea what you're talking about re: the reverse being standard. I strongly recommend that you stop altering this.

Regarding the "Aliases" thing, I would say that it's the Fifteenth Doctor page that is wrong in this instance.

Regarding the description field — I'm sorry to hear it's difficult for you, but it is "absolutely necessary" to leave such a summary if you're doing edits this extensive. You should never find yourself using {{inuse}} but not a summary, for example. Anything lengthy and potentially controversial needs a summary. I'm very sorry but if you can't bring yourself to do the summary for a given edit for whatever reason, don't do the edit. It's not productive to expect people to review every edit to check what was done in case you did something that needs reverting. But no, the summary thing isn't the only or even main problem, it just made everything harder.

The basic fact is that many of your edits were in fact bad. Again, see my analysis of the randomly-chosen edit to the Child Master page. You had made the lede, biography and personality section worse for no intelligible reasons. I mean this in the kindest possible way but please, just stop trying to abridge things, especially ledes; it leads to loss of information, and to sentences which might appear clearer to you but do not to other people.

You should also never massively reorder a biography without bringing it up on the talk page first. The biographies on the main-namespace page cannot and should not match the Timeline page, is something I fear you have lost sight of. The main-namespace page is not supposed to include any more speculation than absolutely necessary; e.g. for an ongoing character like the Dreyfus Master, even if you come up with a clever way that two stories could hypothetically fit together on a theory page, you should generally keep them in release order on the biography unless there are very strong in-narrative reasons to think otherwise. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 02:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was in essence a matter of doing away with timeline-theorising, and simply putting the contradictory accounts in the straightforward order of the Doctors featured in the stories, which seemed the most neutral way in this case. The reverse of reordering a biography to a more speculative version. Admittedly though, this is nonobvious to a cursory observer, so perhaps I should have opened a talk page discussion about it, even so — but then I don't claim to be perfect. The chaos caused by your serial Master edits has helped me to realise quite how important this all is more than I did before. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 03:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Permission to Edit

Hello, I just wanted to reach out and see if it's ok for me to add a few small edits to the Fifteenth Doctors page. It's just some small behind the scenes info. Don't want to mess up anyone's hard work. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Anthony Turner1 (talk • contribs) .

Apologies for the late reply. I asked for permission because I went through the editing history of the page yesterday and I saw that you had made a majority of the edits. I had just a few small pieces of information that I wanted to add and with myself being new to editing I was hoping to ask for permission and a bit of guidance on how to properly format and edit. I've actually been a user of this fandom wiki for about 8 years but I wanted to get into the editing process a little bit more starting this year. For example the digital signature that you mentioned I actually am not sure how to do that myself. So I was hoping maybe you or one of the others could give me pointers.

Thank you, Anthony

Re:Subtleties and suchlike

Hey. Just to clear the air since you made the move, everyone involved in the relevant discussions is on the spectrum, and I assume a sizable minority, if not a majority, of the people on this wiki are as well. I was using the term to refer to the idea that specific issues can have some peculiarities that other issues don't. The countable definition of the term on wiktionary, as I said on the other wiki. Again, I apologize if it didn't come off that way. But nobody involved here thinks that you're incapable of understanding subtlety generally, just that you missed some specific things on this issue. (As everyone occasionally does.) Cheers. Najawin ☎ 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Toymaker

Hey, this is fast approaching edit-war territory, so let me restate: please don't try to reorder the Toymaker's page to place all Gough appearances before Bailie. That's fine for timeline pages, but biographies should not match the timeline pages generally, because the timeline pages involve a lot more speculation and "making things make sense" while the biography should just neutrally present the evidence. Unless COMIC: Relative Dimensions ^[+]Loading...["Relative Dimensions (comic story)"] was written with a post-Nightmare Fair settings in mind, which seems vanishingly unlikely, we should not try to construe it into being out-of-order from the Toymaker's perspective somehow.

(Also, the not-things paragraph is an origin unto itself, not "restating the Toymaker's extradimensional origins". Do not remove information. I keep saying that.)

I'm really glad you joined us in the hosting move, but you have to abide by the rules to remain a productive editor. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Checking in and clearing up

Hey there, just been reading over the General Discussion on the Fork & been planning to get round to speaking to some other regulars about the path forwards and the decisions made to fork.

In relation to the matter of forking, I do not know how much I can say of other peoples' personal experiences without checking with them first, but you can find here a thread of one of the major grievances I have had in terms of Czech and a loss of confidence in FANDOM. There's certainly plenty else to be said on that - by myself (other issues with Czech, including straight-up decrees that put a lasting non-negotiable limitation on certain things), others here & others on other Wikis have forked or are considering forking (like their increased excessive ads, AI usage plans or what they did to the McDonalds Wiki).

On this, though: I would like to say a personal sorry for the relative secrecy from myself as a regular editor who was part of the discussions on FANDOM's many misgivings & the plan to fork. FANDOM has previously been... not great... to communities - particularly gaming ones - that they've become aware are looking at forking. (In-fact, they modified their forking policy on Community Central not too long ago to be even more strict, to nobody's surprise.) As a fellow neurodivergent, I can understand that the lack of immediate clarity to yourself may have been somewhat frustrating and hope that all I'm saying here is helping to mitigate that for you, even a little.

In relation to general forking conversations, I do want to clarify that there are no active plans to introduce ads over here. Ads might be a potential alternative to the receipt of larger donations as a way to upgrade the wiki hardware, but that's not actively being pursued. And that a number of us regular editors (who could be safely contacted off-Wiki to avoid any potential issues with FANDOM) have been involved throughout the process of discussing and implementing the fork. And even many of those who were not able to be made aware of the exact specifics of the plan were clear in conversations off-Wiki regarding their feelings towards FANDOM & Czech, and the idea of being somewhere else.
JDPManjoume Regular Editor ☎ ✍ 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Re:Current practices and attitudes

Hey, I know you aren't a fan of people reading your comments to others on their talk page, or vice versa, but I do want to emphasize that the general understanding of talk pages is that they're not private.

I don't really understand your PoV on the transferring edits thing, I didn't understand what you were saying for your reasoning, but I think people realize that you're engaging in good faith with your attempts to provide attribution. I brought up the topic because it still wasn't correct (in spite of you trying in good faith, I fully admit!) and I felt we should decide on whether it was good enough or insist on a link - generally, not just with your edits. And this isn't a you issue, if that makes sense. When wikis go independent there's been a history of the Fandom wikis copying their edits. It was something we had to discuss eventually. Don't feel too bad about it imo.

Also, I do want to emphasize, we have a forum system here and you're always welcome to try and change policies that you don't agree with. If you think this is an alternative option to leaving. Cheers. Najawin ☎ 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)