User talk:Scrooge MacDuck
Re: Re: Apology
You'll get no more clarity from me. I ignored you for a reason because you, like always, were going round in circles to get the final word. You are an admin, act like it. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 20:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
btw
You might want to protect Doctor Who (just because that page probably should be protected) and block the vandal. Najawin ☎ 14:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Admin help
Can I get an admin's eyes on Forum:TV Comic & other periodical issues? I just feel like I've been attacked in a very inappropriate way. OS25🤙☎️ 05:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia
An example.
- Coffa: One of Jabe’s associates from the Forest of Cheem aboard Platform One. He was distressed to hear of Jabe’s death from the Doctor. (1 .2) (Played by PAUL CASEY)
MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 21:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Dirk Gently
Hi Scrooge, You said at Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (series) that you were going to make a thread on Dirk Gently. Do you mind if I make it, as I have a vague idea of how to do it, or do you want to do it? Aquanafrahudy 📢 13:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. Aquanafrahudy 📢 13:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Popping in to ask
How's User:Najawin/Sandbox 9's sections (in terms of subsections + pictures? - best to scroll down a bit for best effect) this time? Najawin ☎ 01:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, so whenever you think that should go live. (Obviously others can edit whenever they wish. Changes are still desired, especially since there's no S13 summary.) Najawin ☎ 04:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Companions of the 13th Doctor template action request.
As the Template for the Companions of the 13th Doctor is Locked (for good reasons), and I have suggested adding Different (Canaries)to the template but no one has replied to this (also understandable most people can be very busy). So I am making my pitch to you because on the talk page you have been the only active admin. at the end of The Paradox Moon (short story)Siblijg Different now going by Mae sets of into the universe travelling with the 13th Doctor. May I thus suggest you ad Different to said template, thank you. Anastasia Cousins ☎ 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Anastasia Cousins ☎ 16:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Re: Life on Magrs stuff
Yeah, think you're probably right about Autumnal cat drawings; for a start, I hadn't realised about the fact that it's a different fictionalised version of Bernard Socks, and the Manhattan map shouldn't have been created in the first place. Not sure I agree with you about the Iris Wildthyme in the Post, but I'm iffy on that one. The one written in the style of Story of Fester Cat we should probably keep, and I was iffy about the Rue Broca one, but I think that might pass. What's your opinion on the poems? Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- But if you read The Story of Fester Cat [+]Loading...["The Story of Fester Cat (novel)"], Fester is quite definitely a defined, rounded character. And the same character pops up in A Year Since and arguably in Fester Cat's poem. And surely that tangible character is copyrightable. (Also, Party Like it's 1979 [+]Loading...["Party Like it's 1979 (short story)"] certainly seems to suggest that certain fictional versions of characters reappearing are enough to satisfy rule 2) (can't comment on Bernard Socks, as I haven't read Welcome Home) Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, it has Fester speaking from a posthumous position, which he is able to in Story of Fester Cat, and it also more or less follows on from the end of Story of Fester Cat I think (but I'm not sure because a) I'm only halfway through the book and b) the book isn't linear). Aquanafrahudy 📢 21:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, do you think a dead anthropomorphic Fester Cat would be copyrightable? Aquanafrahudy 📢 21:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The Curator returns
Hey. Finally back again. More stories for you, of course. Massive things. But first: Discord.
I've sent a friend request from a new account (Phoenix). We'll catch up there as soon as we're both online at the same time. (Internet access is still very much on the wibbly side.)
Mind adding me back to the channel, as well? Love from the Island.
× SOTO (💬/📈/↯) 20:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Moving N-Space to "Primary universe"
I was reading a wiki page here a few days ago, and saw it refer to what has been typically called N-Space as a default term for the universe the Doctor Who franchise is set within as the "Primary universe", and I though that would be a good name that would put the "N-Space naming controversy" to rest. Unfortunately, I've forgotten in what story it was referred to as such, and can't citate the reference. I wanted to ask if you thought "Primary universe" would also make a good difference, and if you might know how to find the source? BananaClownMan ☎ 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Truth be told, I wish we could call it "The Doctor's universe" too, but, thanks to one Christopher Chibnall, to call it that would no longer be accurate, since he went out of his way to make it not the Doctor's universe, but their adopted one. I wonder why we can't just title the page "The Universe", like how Luna is titled the Moon or Sol is titled the Sun?BananaClownMan ☎ 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I get what your going with, but I'm afraid I'm too literal minded to accept it. Oh, and sorry about the galleries width. I didn't know it was a rule, I just thought it was picked at random. BananaClownMan ☎ 09:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Re: And Today, You series
Okay, thanks. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 12:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, didn't notice that. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 06:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
T:POINT
Just out of interest, would a NuWho exclusion debate on my part be against T:POINT? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, personally, I interpreted those statements literally, and the point would have been that ordinary rule 4 apparently invalidates what most people are interested in us about. Probably still T:POINT violation, though. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Citesource problem
I feel now is a good time to bring up the problem with the citesource template, if it is indeed preventing story titles from italicising just because they are untitled, which violates a policy I can't remember on how all story names' need to be italicised. Furthur more, is there anything that came be done with hyperlinks such as, (COMIC: Endgame (part four)), for example. The brackets within brackets just doesn't jive well. I remember talking about this grievance in a forum, but the forum has not been updates for a while now. BananaClownMan ☎ 09:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry
I figured since some sources are mentioned multiple times, we only need to specify the medium once. But I suppose you're right that context is necessary. Please accept my sincere apology. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Definite article
Hi, Scrooge. I was just wondering what the current policy is on using the definite article in page names.
Specifically, I'm wondering if the likes of White Guardian and Black Guardian need to be moved to The White Guardian and The Black Guardian to comply with current policy and when pages for non-individuals need the definite article. For instance, why does The Dragon Scriptures have it when we don't have The Time Vortex or The Scrolls of Gallifrey? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Okie doke, thanks for that. I haven't been keeping my eye on the forums and just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 22:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes
Good evening.
I was hoping to find some clarity regarding why continuity sections were being remade from an out-of-universe perspective, when they are reference in-universe events. I had contacted the main advocate of the edits, User:Epsilon the Eternal, and they pointed me in your direction by supplying me with this quote from Forum: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.
Readying this, I am given the impression that only stories marked as in-valid are to have out-of-universe written summaries, and that valid stories are to retain an in-universe summery. Am I correct in that assumption?
Thank you for your time, Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 20:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits
I'm coming to you directly to prevent any unneeded unpleasantness from happening, like you thinking I'm a vandal and blocking me over an honest misunderstanding.
I promise you I am not removing information, except the occasional titbits that are either incorrect or unrelated the the article. At worse, I'm just rewording some sentences to get more direct to the point and "trimming the fat", to coin a phrase, to avoid repetition. My main goal is to update the articles now that I have full access to the source material as part of my research into the Fourteenth Doctor's character in preparation for upcoming 2023 specials. Believe me, I dislike it when users delete information, too.
I hope to settles any trouble that has been caused. Sincrely, BananaClownMan ☎ 22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh the removal of Whotopia: The Ultimate Guide to the Whoniverse was no accident, for two reasons. 1) It says "appears" and "imply", which means it is speculative and speculation has always been taboo on this wiki. 2) It dabbles in timelines, which have long been relegated to theory forums unless absolutely needed, in conjunction with the taboo against speculation. These points, plus its evident irrelevance to the short story itself, are why I took the initiative and removed it. BananaClownMan ☎ 00:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Editors shouldn't have to explain every edit they make, otherwise the wiki wouldn't feel like a safe place for contribution. I'll have been editing for 10 years next June, and we've done fine with some good faith and talking it out if there's a disagreement. BananaClownMan ☎ 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a link to a list of these policies? Because everyone's been coming out the woodworks lately throwing words like T:NPOV, BOUND and "by policy" at me, and I have no idea what they're talking about half the time. I'm just trying to edit like I always have, and seems I'm out of the loop on certain updates. BananaClownMan ☎ 00:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Forum:Clarifying in-universe deadnaming policy in response to Rose Noble
Hello. I am sorry for bothering you about this but I would like you to take a look at Forum:Clarifying in-universe deadnaming policy in response to Rose Noble as I feel that anonymous user 51.191.137.161 is skirting a bit to close to transphobia. (I am not saying they are but as a trans person I feel they are on the very edge of it) I would like you to at least step in and remained everyone to stay civil and polite. But due to the anonymous user having no prior contributions before this forum I feel that they really just arrived here specifically to add to this forum. Not to mention their constant accusations of that trans people are trying to make themselves the centre of the world which to me feels very very close to Transphobia and has made me rather uncomfortable. I added my views on the subject and soon after they immediately accused me of calling them cis and and said that is it foolish of me to think that trans people know more about being trans than cis people. I had not accused them of being cis. I was not even referring to anyone in particular. As well as arguing for real world people to have their deadnames on this wiki which I believe would be in breach of fandom policy. Now I will leave it up to you to decide what to do but please at the very least just step in and make sure everyone is playing nicely. and if I am in the wrong at any point in this please do inform. Anastasia Cousins ☎ 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Peri
Hi, Scrooge. I'm a little confused. Is there no limit to the length a story's coverage can be on a character's page anymore? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I extended it from three sentences to five before you reverted it. The biography as it is now doesn't actually integrate anything from other sources beyond two insights into Peri's thoughts and feelings from the novelisation. I don't really see the value in detailing absolutely everything she does in that one story and think the important things can easily be trimmed down by several hundred words.
- Upon arriving on Thoros-Beta, Peri and the Doctor were attacked by the Raak and captured by Kiv's men, but they managed to escape with Yrcanos after Crozier attempted to interrogate him to learn what provoked the Raak. The Doctor began behaving oddly and betrayed his friends to Sil, leading Peri, Yrcanos and Dorf to stir up rebellion amongst the Thoros-Alphans until they were stunned by Frax and imprisoned.
- Peri was chosen by Crozier to become the host for Kiv's brainwaves. Assisted by Matrona Kani, he experimented upon her, resulting in her mind being erased and Kiv taking control of her body. To prevent Crozier's discovery from making Kiv immortal and affecting evolution across the universe, the High Council used Yrcanos as an unwitting assassin to kill Kiv by destroying Peri's body with a CD phaser soon after the successful transfer. (TV: Mindwarp [+]Loading...["Mindwarp (TV story)"])
- If that's not enough, I'm really going to have to go over everything I've written on her page, which I've limited to the key parts of her involvement in stories rather than complete walkthroughs. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- In which case, I'll aim for that much. At its current length, it's a bit indigestible. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
About spoilers
Just a double check. As it currently stands, I presume the policy on T:SPOIL ALLOW means spoilers are disallowed on any talk page outside of those limited examples right? Does it mean stuff in the Tardis talk: namespace, for instance? -- Tybort (talk page) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, but what I said before appears to also apply to the caveats in T:OFFICIAL INFO, too. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Bulgaria school murder
Hi, Scrooge. Got a familiar bit of spam at this page and its talk page. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Cite source template clarification needed
Hello Scrooge. Hope all has been well. Congrats on being a staff by the way! Great to see you are still around ^_^ Was hoping you could help me clarify a matter.
Given Doctor Who was off air for about a year, I have come back to find there is this new “cite source” template used on TARDIS for citing stories as we have always done here with in-line citations and so forth. However, while editing, I have noticed there is inconsistency in which style is used among various editors and also within articles on the wiki. For example, in the same section “cite source” is used for one story but the next it is the classic “TV: Story” style.
I checked the policy pages but am struggling to find the new “cite source” one; the T:CITE one still commands the usage of the classic style. Therefore, I thought it best to ask you which one we are meant to be using or if we are indeed using all three variations but it depends on the circumstances (in-universe or out-universe, real world articles or character articles). Can you help provide some clarification?
I look forward to hearing your reply! Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 22:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ahhh, okay then! So I do use it and where I see someone is using the old style or where the old style is still on the article, I should convert it to the new “cite source” one in all cases (regardless of the article)? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Great! The wider editing base is aware of this change yes? Some editors appear to keep reverting my changes regarding this style; edit warring risks occurring it seems if editors aren’t aware and I keep having to change them back to the “cite source” style - loads more work too. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Executive decisions
When you've the time, Talk:Disney+ (in-universe) and Talk:Wild Blue Yonder (TV story) have stalled out discussion (imo) and could use an admin to make final calls on their topics. Najawin ☎ 23:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Page deletion
If you've the time, From the Doctor to My Son Thomas is just fundamentally flawed and should be deleted. It's blatantly plagiarized from wikipedia. Najawin ☎ 20:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, if you (or any admin who's online and reading talk pages) could have a look at Isaac Newton when you've the chance. The original IP user who accused me of violating T:NPOV is back and is vandalizing (#6) the page after Nate's ruling, refusing to accept it or move to the talk page. Blocking them and/or locking the page might be needed. (I'm removing myself as it's probably bordering on T:NO WARS here, even if it's technically vandalism.) Najawin ☎ 00:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Re:R4bp
As far as that thread goes, I'm perfectly willing to call that thread unresolved and start over, perhaps with a more narrow scope, or with a more structured framework for how to proceed. It's been two months just about since the last bit of movement there, and I'd have to reread the whole thing if there was a new response anyhow.
I do think there was some interesting lines of thought that we were working on, but the thread just became so long that there were, what, four, five of us who were engaged at the end? And those who tapped out earlier on missed out on just large swathes of that discussion. It seems a bit unreasonable for, in effect, four or five users to be having a discussion that's this foundational and everyone else to be filibustered out. But at the same time the issues at play are complicated and do require a lot of discussion. So there's just not a super clear answer here imo.
But I'd be willing to trust a third party admin, say Nate or Bongo, to call it unresolved and then open up a new thread with a more narrow scope or with specific rules of engagement (at least to begin with - something like analyzing Web Theory in particular in one thread, not discussing any other issues, or perhaps discussing how we deal with Roland Rat-esque situations and daisy chaining more broadly, etc etc) if you are. Najawin ☎ 18:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
