User talk:Borisashton: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:33, 12 October 2018

Welcome to the

• Borisashton •

Thanks for your recent edits! I'm Jimbo, your robot wiki representative! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is actually a great time to have joined, because we're now fully independent, and working on a host of new features!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a fan written wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.

British English, please

We generally use British English 'round these parts, so if you use another form of English, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card.

Spoilers aren't cool

We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details.

Other useful stuff

Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! — you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this:

~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask an admin.

Images

All images uploaded to the wiki must have a copyright license attached, such as {{screenshot}}. This can be selected from the dropdown when uploading or by putting the template on the file page. If your uploaded images do not have licenses, they will be deleted. Also, all images must be at least 250 pixels wide. You can find a quick list of image rules at Help:Image cheat card. Thanks! P&P talk contribs 17:32, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time thread

I see you like your invalid sources, perhaps you might like to take a look at this thread http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:211495 just here. 82.3.146.201^{talk to me} 18:09, February 25, 2017 (UTC)

Questions

Hello! I was to first off thank you so much for contributing so many fine images to this wikia. Article illustrations are so important, and invalid stories are so often left to the side. I do have a few questions about the stories you've presented, since it appears that you're the only person who has seen many of these.

My first question comes down to the Facebook-only Zygon segments. How much do these adaptations entail? Audio, narration? If so, one could likely make the case that the stories are very much novelisations, and thus should not be invalid. Of course we would need to have a discussion about this, and I am just inquiring on the details of the story in case we ever want to go down the route.

The one that certainly hooks me the most is Christmas Past, which is the second LEGO product to feature DWU characters, and it's also the only DWU Lego product to be produced through stop-frame animation. My question is this: have you seen the suggested original upload which was not part of a collage? The one that was actually called Christmas Past? Surely you must get your info from somewhere.

If you have, what do Clara and the Doctor watch on the TV in the original? The answer to this could be very important, as it could decide if the story is declared an advertisement or not. If they watch an ad, then it simply can't be valid according to our policy (we've, at one point or another, come to the conclusion that ads are not stories). But if they watch something else, then it's a whole other ball-park.

If you see any other story where you think there's the case to be make for the story to be valid despite it being a "sketch" or such and such, hit me up with that info and we can chat over it. OS25 (Talk) 22:18, March 13, 2017 (UTC)

Re: images

Hi! You can always go to Special:Recentchanges to find the specific reasons for deletions. I've deleted a bunch of images over the last couple of weeks, but I believe that the ones I did recently were mostly >100kb, when we require images to be <100kb. I also deleted one that had no license, but I can't remember whose it was. Shambala108 ☎ 01:43, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Merchandise

Heya :) Thanks for your recent edits. :) Just wanted to let you know, though, that {{Infobox Merchandise}} really isn't meant to be used the way you're using it. It's supposed to be for toys, games, wearables, edibles even -- but not for ranges of narratives (or ads or near-narratives).

I'll soon be introducing a new infobox for ranges, but understand that in the past we've implicitly agreed not to have a infobox on pages like Doctor Who and Torchwood. And I'm still not super-convinced it's a great idea on the novel ranges, cause names like BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures aren't actually official.

But that's maybe a slightly different question. Until the new infobox comes in, though, please stop using {{Infobox Merchandise}} for describing any sort of narrative/video/advertising range. Thanks! :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:19: Mon 24 Apr 2017

New editor bug

Yeah, I can confirm it's definitely weird and a bug. But the code that does that little thing isn't local to Tardis. So I'll have to go on a hunt elsewhere at Fandom to figure out what's going on. It's definitely on the list, if a little lower down.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:07: Mon 24 Apr 2017

Crossover madness

Okay, let's do this. First of all, there is a very useful page Crossover explaining the concept and giving many examples.

That characters who have set foot in DWU once should not be covered in all their other appearances is detailed in the last post/closing remarks of CzechOut on Sleeze Brothers.

Then there was a follow up with several examples of gratuitous appearances of characters from other properties, also from CzechOut. I'll just copy it here and create some links: Some of our users here at Tardis have been trying for a month or two to make some kind of rule that "if a character is in a DWU property, then prior or subsequent appearances are also in the DWU. But there is no such rule in T:VS. And, in fact, there's precedence to suggest otherwise, as with Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Jar Jar Binks, and a whole host of others.

The other threads are still open and either too long or a bit too heated. So I'll not quote them here. I do realise that I somehow did not find a clear statement that a crossover character meeting the Doctor should be valid. But this should immediately follow from T:VS and from the multiple precedents. Hope this helps. Amorkuz ☎ 23:30, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Crossover madness

When in doubt, it's always a good idea to ask. As for the closing of the thread, it should be done by another admin, one who did not participate in the discussion. It's not a problem for the thread to stay open though: the stories were explicitly ruled to be valid after another (very short) debate. By T:BOUND, they remain valid until ruled otherwise. In other words, despite our thread remaining open, there is no problem editing the stories. Amorkuz ☎ 21:58, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Hi, don't worry. I did see that. But Inclusion debates is specifically intended for discussions of validity. Strictly speaking, this thread was off-topic. Such questions should properly be discussed in the Panopticon.

I was interrupted in the process of writing the closing remarks, so left this secondary concern without explicit response. Sorry about that. I will add it to the thread.

Let me, by way of apology, give a more detailed answer to you personally. But essentially the answer is present on the thread. OttselSpy25 perfectly summed up the practice of the wiki: "We can't have a page on every cultural reference to Doctor Who..." This accurately describes the policy of the wiki regarding cultural references.

First of all, an extended cultural reference is still a cultural reference. Whether a story (SitL in this case) is mentioned by name, discussed contentwise or shown onscreen, it is still the same story. There is no material difference between Sheldon saying that he watched SitL and Sheldon actually watching SitL onscreen. In fact, I would say that the former is of more importance since it is almost inevitably the primary focus of the mise-en-scène, whereas a working TV set with SitL on can easily serve as a background to something else.

Secondly, you say yourself that it is unreasonable to cover the whole episode of TBBT, just the part of it with SitL. But it has been a long-standing policy of the wiki to only consider full stories. For valid stories, this is formulated explicitly as the first of the four little rules. But the same principle clearly applies to invalid stories too. After all, given the power to edit out inconvenient portions, one could make almost any story valid. Take, for instance, Thread:209691. If one could remove all features of Chronotis that come into conflict with Shada, the objection of AeD and the final ruling based on it would not have made sense.

In fact, if anything, the coverage of TBBT on Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe should be compactified and consolidated. It is more than adequate and an interwiki link w:c:bigbangtheory:sheldon will always be more informative than any page created on this wiki.

For all these reasons, this proposal wouldn't have merit on the Panopticon. Amorkuz ☎ 22:29, May 5, 2017 (UTC)

Capital images

Hi, I think the simplest solution is for you to reupload the images with extension .jpg. I'll delete that .JPG ones. Thanks for not ruining the table. Amorkuz ☎ 20:23, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my mistake. Amorkuz ☎ 17:48, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

No real world

Hi, I've noticed that you're uploading and putting on pages images that were flashing, usually without context, in the Pyramid and in Monks' broadcasts. I would like to remind you of T:NO RW. In short, you cannot identify a person by the image based on your real-world knowledge. In order to put those images on pages, you need either to use the context (like in the case of Neil Armstrong, where the event is identified by the narrator and there is enough prior DWU information to understand who is in the spacesuit) or you need to compare the image with images of the same person that were featured in the DWU before. In the latter case, however, the new image is in most cases simply redundant in the presence of a superior image. A good example is your image of "Gagarin", which is so fuzzy that it would have been impossible to tell whether it is really him even if other images existed.

I would appreciate if you remove those images that are based on your real-world knowledge rather than DWU information from pages. Thank you in advance. Amorkuz ☎ 08:21, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, BTS is completely fine and actually useful. There may be some obscure link that would make the connection already. Or it can appear later one. Amorkuz ☎ 18:23, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for plagiarism

Hey, a number of admin have grown concerned over your recent additions surrounding things from the so-called "Leekley Bible". It appears to us as if you may have simply cut and pasted copy directly from Shannon Sullivan's website. This is strictly disallowed under T:THEFT. Worse, T:THEFT#Non-CC-BY-SA sources specifically names Shanon Sullivan's site as one that shouldn't be copied. Shannon's site isn't published under the same kind of license Tardis is, and their content isn't freely available for us to copy.

Therefore, just as universities will come down on you hard if you plaigiarise, so, too, must we. Your recent work will be audited, and probably largely removed. And you will be prevented from editing until 23 November 2017. Please note that several admin arrived at this decision, jointly -- both in terms of determining that plaigiarism occurred and what the length of the block should be.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:03: Fri 23 Jun 2017

Now we are six hundred

Please refrain from adding material from sources whose validity has not been established to the in-universe parts of pages. Amorkuz ☎ 07:18, November 25, 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: All poems in the book are invalid until their validity is decided by inclusion debate(s). Thank you for alerting me about that page. I will deal with it. Also please reread Tardis:Canon policy that clearly states that there is no canon on this wiki. Amorkuz ☎ 08:35, November 25, 2017 (UTC)

RE: video

Thank you. I did scan the video (did not rewatch the whole thing) before uploading, and didn't find the mention of a future Doctor. The video has been deleted, and will be uploaded again when that information is no longer a spoiler. Thank you again for coming to me.
×SOTO ^{contribs ×^°/↯_{^/_•}}^]^💬_•|^_{_{_{_/-}}_//_: 00:09, November 27, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for defending the wiki from overly aggressive users. In order to improve our coordination in the future, a couple of points. It is more efficient to notify an admin on their talk page than to continue undoing edits. If need be, the edits can be reverted at any time. So, unless the new state of the page makes babies cry in their prams and birds fall from the sky, it is not necessary to return the page to the original state right on the spot. What needs to be done is to suggest a discussion on a talk page and notify an admin. What should be avoided (and was avoided in this case, which I am very happy about) is replying in kind and making too many undo edits. Note that if one user makes 4 edits and the other user undoes them 4 times, then both have engaged in an edit war and both are likely to be blocked. As I said, it did not happen this time, but you came very close. Make sure to always keep a cool head. Amorkuz ☎ 23:10, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Hello

My name is Kinji Takigawa Party Night and I'm from America. So... What's your favorite and least favorite doctor. My favorite doctor is the Fourth Doctor and my least favorite doctor is war doctor.

4thDoctorRules 22:05, February 6, 2018 (UTC) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinji Takigawa Party Night (talk • contribs) .

TerryNation.jpg

Hey hey :) As requested, I added TerryNation.jpg to the category Terror Nation documentary images yesterday.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:26: Thu 08 Feb 2018

User talk pages

Hi, I'm asking you to refrain from adding the "unsigned" template on user talk pages. It's fine to do it with article talk pages, but please leave the unsigned comments on user talk pages alone. It's frustrating to get an email notification of a new talk page message only to have it be someone adding a signature. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 20:50, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Re

I thought the old version was better. Can't remember my exact reasons at the moment, but that's why.--WarGrowlmon18 ☎ 01:20, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia template

Hi! Thanks for your concerns about the {{Wikipediainfo}} template.

Basically, the wikipediainfo template is best used for real world articles (people, places, culture, etc etc etc) that we don't know a whole lot about in the DWU and therefore can't include in our articles. If someone really wants to know more about, say, the Dancing House, beyond what we include on the wiki, they can go to wikipedia for info. This helps to avoid speculation on this type of page and to avoid people going beyond what the stories tell us.

As for the fictional elements of the DWU, though, like you say, our articles are superior to wikipedia's (and probably most other sites on the internet). We don't want people leaving the wiki to get information when they can get it here.

As for your specific question, The Doctor (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), I don't know anything about that story, but I can't imagine that wikipedia would necessarily even have an article about that character (they have notability guidelines that we don't), but if they do, it still probably wouldn't be as thorough as ours.

And P.S. thanks for the heads-up about the vandalistic pages. Shambala108 ☎ 23:54, March 26, 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes and novelisations

It's understood that if an individual is in a TV story they're likely in the novelisation as well. For those rare cases where a character is only in one or the other, then the body of the article should explain that, for maximum clarity.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:46: Mon 16 Apr 2018

Categorising images

Just wanted to drop in and tell you that I appreciate your hard work on this project. This is not to say that your other work is any worse, but the lack of character categories is something that I myself noticed too but did not have time to address. So kudos and thanks. Amorkuz ☎ 22:52, April 23, 2018 (UTC)

Time Lords with unknown names

Hi, I notice earlier today you added Category:Time Lords with unknown names to a lot of incarnations of the Doctor. However, it might come to interest that the category is defined (on it's page) as "This category is not for pseudononymous Time Lords, but for Time Lords who are never named in-story.". This means that, even if we don't know the Doctor's true name, we do know a name (a pseudonym) for them.

I believe the category is meant to be used for Time Lords such as President (Birth of a Renegade), Time Lord 2 (Colony in Space) and Adjudicator (Thin Ice), who we know literally no name at all, and the page is named by their rank, profession, or simply the fact that they're Time Lords. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 18:18, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided to wait until a "discussion"/chat, (recent edit wars were stressful enough that I'm trying to avoid them at any cost) and now it seems Shambala108 beat us to it. Anyway, thankfully this was another situation that was easily fixed. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 20:40, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

Death Hoax

I was upset at first. But... It was just Death Hoax. https://en.mediamass.net/people/tom-baker/deathhoax.html – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinji Takigawa Party Night (talk • contribs) .

Category page numbers

Heya :)

As you likely know, the previous 200/next 200 link is the standard way that category pages work on MediaWiki installation. The explanation given at Wikipedia's help page applies here:

A category page can only display a limited number of items (currently 200). If more pages belong to the category, there will be a link to the next ones. (emphasis added)

We've never had page number links of the kind you described here at Tardis. Like many bigger wikis — for example, Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha — that system isn't as useful just because we've got way more articles on hand. Because it also contains an image component, it can make a category turn into a multi-page affair when it doesn't need to be. So we long ago rejected it in favour of something that's generally more useful to our needs.

We use a script on Dev Wiki that allows for the display of more than 200 pages on a single category page, so that you don't have to flip between category pages. For instance, 20th century individuals is a category with close to 5k members. But instead of having to flip through the pages and guess where the Ts are, it's all on one page. Given that there are also double alpha-indices on the page, it's super easy to find whomever you're looking for — way better than the page number system you're describing.

However, you have run into a limitation of the script. See, screenshots doesn't house pages so much as media. The script doesn't see media as pages — so it's not at all triggered on that category page. And it never has been.

This means that media categories have always just had the standard previous 200/next 200 link at the top. To the extent that we've ever needed to manipulate these image categories — which is to say, not much at all — we've simply used a bot. It's pretty easy and painless — and it preserves the all-on-one-page feature for the categories most of our readers care about.

So if you'll give me more information on what you're trying to achieve, I'm happy to give you some bot help, or possibly design a DPL or <categorytree> solution.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:09: Fri 18 May 2018

Why cant add images to this fandom any more – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry videozcxhj (talk • contribs) .

Hedigar

Thank you for removing that category. I did try the edit button, but the category section didn't appear, so I was unable to. Thanks again. Ben Moore512 ☎ 20:54, July 13, 2018 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Quite by accident, I did note the blanking of the talk page myself, this time independent of your message. However, I do appreciate you notifying me and would ask you to do so (me or any other admin, that is) in the future. I may not always respond to you with thanks (it is a time issue; I have been short on that commodity almost since the beginning of the year; plus in case of serious vandalism, it may require quick and sometimes protracted action), but please know that it is always appreciated. There is always a real chance of missing out on some issue requiring admin attention. Amorkuz ☎ 10:04, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Royal template

Hey, I noticed you are working on {{Monarchs of England and Great Britain}}. I like the idea a lot, but I would prefer to call it “rulers” rather than “monarchs” because of Cromwells, who were Lord Protectors and not monarchs. I will not have time for this until the weekend. So if you object, please let me know and we will discuss. Amorkuz ☎ 13:51, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

The Eleven's TARDIS

Sorry for the aggro for the Eleven's TARDIS page. I wasn't sure how to sort the title. --Saint2 ☎ 20:42, July 28, 2018 (UTC)

Reducing file sizes

Oh, don't worry, you're not being intrusive at all. Thank you for the website recommendation, I'll be sure to use it. Ben Moore512 ☎ 14:17, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

Missing episodes

Sorry to butt in. But I'm not entirely sure I understand your reasoning. Just because there was an animated or telesnap reconstruction doesn't mean all missing episodes are found. They are still missing. Why are you removing these categories? Can we talk about it? Amorkuz ☎ 15:21, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

I see. Ok, let's think about it. I'm gonna apply philosophy to database maintenance now, pardon my Aristotle. On the face of it, you are right. All serials of Season 4 have missing episodes. But they do not necessarily have missing episodes. In other words, nothing in Season 4 (barring voodoo or Doctor's divine intervention) implies that these serials are incomplete. It is a complete coincidence, a contingent truth. So, philosophically speaking, we should not put Season 4 within the missing episodes category.

But there is a more practical reason not to do this. Call me an optimist, but imagine that all missing episodes of one of the serials are found. Normally, this would necessitate removing the missing episodes category from the serial page and done. But now this would require to remove the missing category from the Season 4 category, while at the same time adding it to all other serials of Season 4. This is a non-trivial maintenance operation that you yourself (or maybe I) might remember in a couple or years or not. But I am almost sure that nobody else would be able to figure out that this is what needs to be done. In other words, while the current set up is correct, it is not stable modulo potential incoming information. And it will almost certainly lead to an incorrect state if this information arrives. It also creates non-uniform, multi-level representation of missing episodes, which is not necessarily good for data mining.

If you agree with my reasoning, could you please revert it to missing episodes category applied only to serials? If not, I'm happy to listen to your reasoning. Amorkuz ☎ 15:37, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

nth Doctor categories

Yes, the Doctor categories seem legitimate because, as you say, this is never going to change. I saw you doing it and saw no problem with it. Especially given that you paid close attention to seasons with Doctor change of guards. Amorkuz ☎ 15:48, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

Reversions

May, I ask why do you keep deleting my edits? There's nothing wrong with them (apart from the Day of the Daleks one, you are perfectly right to delete that one), I just want to know. No hard feelings. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ADarthTokuDalek (talk • contribs) .

Ace Sixth Doctor Companion

Hey, any reason why you have placed Ace into a sixth Doctor companion category? I'm assuming this is a mistake or is it something that appears in an audio/book/comic which I am yet to listen/read. (Please don't say which)

Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 20:17, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

Ah short trip is fine to tell me as I don't have many of those Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 21:13, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks definitely don't own that one Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 21:20, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

The Lost Skin

Hey, I see you've been adding a lot of categories to pages and that you added The HAVOC Files 4 stories to The Lost Skin. I'm not 100% sure because The HAVOC Files 4 is the only one I don't own, but I think that the planned part 3 wasn't included in HAVOC 4 to allow it to be rewritten into the Novella form.

Thanks for what you've been doing around here though. :)

ThomasRWade ☎ 11:35, August 24, 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. As I mentioned, it's the only one I don't actually own from the Lethbridge-Stewart series, and they've yet to put it on Kindle, so I can't confirm.

ThomasRWade ☎ 17:28, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Companions stories

Hi! I notice that you started a project of categorising stories by featured companions (which prompted me to start categorising other stories by "main"/regular characters, which I've been wanting to do for a while as well).

Anyway, I'm passing by to ask you to which extent do you intend on taking this project: you will also extend this to companions introduced in audios, novels and comics? If you wish, I can assist you with those; decided it was best to check with your first, to not disrupt your current project. So, happy editing. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 01:17, September 1, 2018 (UTC)

I've mainly been following their lists of appearances, and adding anything I see that's missing. Good to know you plan to include non-TV companions as well. Best wishes. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 14:31, September 1, 2018 (UTC)

Human spouses

Hey, I noticed you are populating this new category. My sincere advice is to run it by Shambala108 first. It would be a pity if you do a lot of work that she then deletes by putting a lot of work. In pitching this new category to her, maybe you also formulate why you think it is needed. Amorkuz ☎ 15:55, September 16, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Spouses

Hi, Category:Spouses (and the related Category:Time Lord Spouses or other similar) violate point one of Tardis:Don't over-categorise:

"Are too broad — People who at one time lived on Earth; Actors from the United Kingdom; Stories that include the TARDIS, and the like. Since all of these are extremely common virtues in the broader DWU, the category would add relatively little of value to the page. Moreover, the category would be very hard to ever complete."

We stay away from very broad categories because it would be way too hard to completely fill the category, and even if we could, it would be way too large to be of use. Category:Spouses of the Doctor is not a problem, as it refers to spouses of just one character: much easier to fill and it fits in another similar category, Category:Relatives of the Doctor.

Thanks for your attention, Shambala108 ☎ 02:44, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

Shared meta-universes

Hey, I've been looking at some of your recent additions concerning apparanetly shared meta-universes. I've begun a thread Thread:238065 on this topic in case there's a discussion that needs to be had, or there's something I've missed when I've been going through your edits. I couldn't find anything you might've noted in edit summaries / talk pages beyond your assertion that they're part of the same universe, which I'm not sure there's evidence of. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:56, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Pronoun Issue

Hi, could you please point me in the direction of where the pronoun issue is being discussed? I have left a post on the talk page of "The Doctor" page. Mysterious Editor ☎ 22:01, October 9, 2018 (UTC)

Bradley Walsh

Thanks for the eagle eyes!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:33: Fri 12 Oct 2018

@@ Line 262: / Line 262: @@
 Hi, could you please point me in the direction of where the pronoun issue is being discussed? I have left a post on the talk page of "[[The Doctor]]" page. [[User:Mysterious Editor|Mysterious Editor]] [[User talk:Mysterious Editor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:01, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
+== Bradley Walsh ==
+Thanks for the eagle eyes! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 16:33: Fri 12 Oct 2018</span>

Anonymous

Search

User talk:Borisashton: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:33, 12 October 2018

Images

Dimensions in Time thread

Questions

Re: images

Infobox Merchandise

New editor bug

Crossover madness

Crossover madness

The Big Bang Theory

Capital images

Thanks

No real world

Categories

Blocked for plagiarism

Now we are six hundred

RE: video

Thank you

Hello

TerryNation.jpg

User talk pages

Re

Re: Wikipedia template

Infoboxes and novelisations

Categorising images

Time Lords with unknown names

Death Hoax

Category page numbers

Hedigar

Talk page blanking

Royal template

The Eleven's TARDIS

Reducing file sizes

Missing episodes

nth Doctor categories

Categories

Reversions

Ace Sixth Doctor Companion

The Lost Skin

Companions stories

Human spouses

Category:Spouses

Shared meta-universes

Pronoun Issue

Bradley Walsh

Navigation

Wiki tools

Page tools