Talk:Series 12 (Doctor Who 2005)
Please note that, per Tardis:Spoiler policy, spoilers may not be posted on this talk page. Spoilers are only allowed on the Series 12 page itself.
April Fool's
How do we treat articles considering that it is April 1st? What's considered a joke and what's considered real news? --DCLM ☎ 14:24, April 1, 2019 (UTC)
- Wait till tomorrow to confirm they're real? Shambala108 ☎ 14:43, April 1, 2019 (UTC)
Past tense
What's with the past tense for future events? 192.241.183.147talk to me 00:00, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
- Saves us from having to go back and change to past tense when the season is over. It's a large wiki with a small number of regular editors who keep track of that kind of thing. Shambala108 ☎ 00:02, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
Page locked
This page is temporarily locked. Let me impress on our new users: please read Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. And keep in mind that, like every wiki, we have rules and guidelines. We have a lot of rules and guidelines because we have a very large wiki with a massive amount of information. Therefore, a new user who has their edits reverted by an experienced editor or admin should always ask either the editor or any admin for the reasoning. Then if there's a conflict, raise it on the talk page or an admin page (but always keeping in mind Tardis:Spoiler policy). Please don't just assume that we've been editing our own wiki incorrectly for 15 years. You may not always agree with our reasons, but we do have them. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 15:39, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
- And again. Same reasons above, as well as a warning: posting spoilers in the edit summary is a violation of Tardis:Spoiler policy. Shambala108 ☎ 22:50, October 28, 2019 (UTC)
Correct wording
I'm sorry, but SOTO's statement that "The S12 notice is quite clear that when we're making such statements we need to frame them as "X person said this", to be clear about attributing certainty without sufficient context about the source" is simply not true. This is not what it says. The notice says "Please also remember to directly quote people, or to exactly characterise their statements. Do not say that someone said something when they really didn't. Work from original quotes — not a paraphrasing of them. When it comes to anything Chris Chibnall, Matt Strevens or any major star of the show says, give their exact quote only. Remember, a part of the production team's job is to tell the truth, but only very narrowly. So this page should contain only what they exactly say.". Given that there are not quotes present at any of the points of information in the top-area of the "Overview" section, there is not a need for "X said this is true". That's reserved for quotes as is in fact what the notice actually says. --DCLM ☎ 09:56, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
Again
Locking this page again to prevent any more edit wars. Please read Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing and keep in mind that violation of this policy can result in a block. In this case the block would last until the end of the current season. And do not post any information here as that would be a violation of Tardis:Spoiler policy, which would also result in a block. Shambala108 ☎ 05:15, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Shambala. Thank you for taking action. It's getting tiresome when people insist on something when it's proven otherwise. But I was wondering if it is possible to just prevent unregistered users from editing the page, seeing as this page is almost given daily updates when new stuff is revealed, namely by myself, and a full on block will both prevent that AND the changes that will have to be made following tonight, except from by admins. Again, thanks for acting on this. --DCLM ☎ 09:45, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> And Danniesen, you can't talk, remember when you tried to edit-war over <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> Yeah? How did that go for you when you actually read the sources? 120.20.195.104talk to me 09:48, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- First off, don't talk spoilers in the talk pages. Second of all, I did not really try to edit war. Usually when a source gives some information that info is added in and the source isn't read again, because it's unusual that sources are re-edited to change things. Third off, the source is pretty clear that it says something IS that way, not COULD BE. --DCLM ☎ 10:02, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Also, it was YOUR edit that was changed back to mine just before the page-lock, so... I'd suggest not coming off as a smarty right now. --DCLM ☎ 10:04, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Show me where it's confirmed. I'll wait. I'll also wait for you to apologize for being completely wrong about <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> , shows when you think you know everything, so... I'd suggest not coming off as a smarty right now. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:11, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- You have the source right there to read what it says. Black on white. BTW, I rightly DID give you that you were right about that ONE thing, because it was CHANGED after the source was originally given. As I said, sources getting changed to reflect newer things is not common and as a result, people don't usually double-check. Even further, I'm not really playing smart here, I'm simply stating factuals. You however, try to come off as better. Repeating exactly what I said was one clue. --DCLM ☎ 10:19, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Not confirmation at all. Hold on, let me put in my resume that I paid for the whole series, then publish it online. Can we use that in this article? Same level of effort. No? Why not? Because you're siding with this one unconfirmed rumour? The source literally even says it's unconfirmed and that there was existing cases when it was proved wrong in the past. Why won't you add that into the article? Also, you have nothing to back up that the source was ever changed. I think you're just misreading it and refusing to accept that. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:29, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- If that helps you sleep at night, then keep telling yourself that. --DCLM ☎ 10:34, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- No response. Typical of an editor faced with the fact that they're wrong. Why won't you add the fact that the source explicitly states that it could be wrong into the article? Riddle me that, Dannio. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:42, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Nah, editor who really can't be bothered by keeping defending factualities to someone who actively refuses to acknowledge it. Having edited on this Wikia for years now, don't you think I have a little bit more knowledge of how things work than you, who has been on here for how long? Do you think some things would be stated as factual if they didn't outright say so? --DCLM ☎ 10:48, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- You literally can't backup, with a reason, why you won't include the fact that the source explicitly states that it could be wrong into the article. The source specifically says it's not factual and could be wrong. Try again. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:54, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Nah, editor who really can't be bothered by keeping defending factualities to someone who actively refuses to acknowledge it. Having edited on this Wikia for years now, don't you think I have a little bit more knowledge of how things work than you, who has been on here for how long? Do you think some things would be stated as factual if they didn't outright say so? --DCLM ☎ 10:48, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- No response. Typical of an editor faced with the fact that they're wrong. Why won't you add the fact that the source explicitly states that it could be wrong into the article? Riddle me that, Dannio. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:42, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- If that helps you sleep at night, then keep telling yourself that. --DCLM ☎ 10:34, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Not confirmation at all. Hold on, let me put in my resume that I paid for the whole series, then publish it online. Can we use that in this article? Same level of effort. No? Why not? Because you're siding with this one unconfirmed rumour? The source literally even says it's unconfirmed and that there was existing cases when it was proved wrong in the past. Why won't you add that into the article? Also, you have nothing to back up that the source was ever changed. I think you're just misreading it and refusing to accept that. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:29, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- You have the source right there to read what it says. Black on white. BTW, I rightly DID give you that you were right about that ONE thing, because it was CHANGED after the source was originally given. As I said, sources getting changed to reflect newer things is not common and as a result, people don't usually double-check. Even further, I'm not really playing smart here, I'm simply stating factuals. You however, try to come off as better. Repeating exactly what I said was one clue. --DCLM ☎ 10:19, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Show me where it's confirmed. I'll wait. I'll also wait for you to apologize for being completely wrong about <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> , shows when you think you know everything, so... I'd suggest not coming off as a smarty right now. 120.20.195.104talk to me 10:11, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Also, it was YOUR edit that was changed back to mine just before the page-lock, so... I'd suggest not coming off as a smarty right now. --DCLM ☎ 10:04, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- First off, don't talk spoilers in the talk pages. Second of all, I did not really try to edit war. Usually when a source gives some information that info is added in and the source isn't read again, because it's unusual that sources are re-edited to change things. Third off, the source is pretty clear that it says something IS that way, not COULD BE. --DCLM ☎ 10:02, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> And Danniesen, you can't talk, remember when you tried to edit-war over <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> Yeah? How did that go for you when you actually read the sources? 120.20.195.104talk to me 09:48, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
But it doesn't though. And I've backed up everything I have said up to this point. And I really have better things to do than arguing with people refusing to acknowledge. I'm off to do something more productive. Bye. --DCLM ☎ 11:07, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Do you want me to copy-paste exactly what it says? No? Not gonna answer? Don't wanna be proved wrong, I get it. <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> I'll be back to respond to this very discussion when it's proved not to be. :) 120.20.195.104talk to me 11:13, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Since the page is locked by admin now because of certain actions by a certain user, could an admin please make the necessary edits needed to this page now that the newest episode has aired? --DCLM ☎ 20:51, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Not happening, LOL. 120.20.172.137talk to me 07:18, February 15, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh dear God. --DCLM ☎ 11:09, February 15, 2020 (UTC)
- Since the page is locked by admin now because of certain actions by a certain user, could an admin please make the necessary edits needed to this page now that the newest episode has aired? --DCLM ☎ 20:51, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
Aliens and Enemies section
Is this section really necessary? To me, it just adds another messy list which has mostly redundant information in it anyway. Recurring and returning enemies are listed in the episode notes (as well as in the overview) and individual ones are listed in the guest stars. Also, the section only appears in the Series 7 onwards pages, meaning it would be more consistent to not have it. LauraBatham ☎ 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
