User talk:Epsilon
Adaptational exclusive information
Hello, there. I wanted to expand more on the brief explanation I gave on the Merridew page concerning the unofficial precedent on how novelisation information is handled, as it felt unfair to offer a quick summarisation in an edit description box.
So, going over what I wrote in the edit description, citing novelisations is rather similar to citing a second episode to the first source, with the example I gave being how mavity is handled by citing the two episodes that reference it, but only the episode that goes over its origins is cited to avoid confusing readers on where the concept came from:
- After the TARDIS took off again, Newton grew confused and misremembered the "delightful word" they had said as "mavity", (TV: Wild Blue Yonder [+]Loading...["Wild Blue Yonder (TV story)"]) causing the term "gravity" to seemingly be retroactively erased from history and replaced by the word "mavity", though the Doctor seemed to retain some partial memory of the original word. (TV: Wild Blue Yonder [+]Loading...["Wild Blue Yonder (TV story)"], The Church on Ruby Road [+]Loading...["The Church on Ruby Road (TV story)"])
The same approach is employed with adaptions like novelisations, in which information the book expands upon, like backstory or internal monologues, are cited separately so readers know where this new information origins. I'll use an example I recently encountered on Shervan Singh's page for clarification: This was the original version
- He was later alerted to fact that the aforementioned squadron was under the control of the Meep, and headed to the road on which the the Nobles' home was located, (TV: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"], PROSE: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"]) Bachelor Road, (PROSE: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"]) where a battle between the Wrarth Warriors, Singh's squadron, and the possessed soldiers commenced. He then arrived once more at the Millson Wagner Steelworks, where he witnessed the Meep being arrested by Captain Zagran. He then left with Colonel Chan and Shirley Anne Bingham, after having said goodbye to the Fourteenth Doctor, and accumulated enough information for his report. (PROSE: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"], TV: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"])
And this was the altercation I made, after pointing out I was not violating T:NPOV and pointing out why both cetins were not referenced at the bottom if they were going to break off anyway.
- He was later alerted to fact that the aforementioned squadron was under the control of the Meep, and headed to the road on which the the Nobles' home was located, (TV: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"]) Bachelor Road, (PROSE: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"]) where a battle between the Wrarth Warriors, Singh's squadron, and the possessed soldiers commenced. He then arrived once more at the Millson Wagner Steelworks, where he witnessed the Meep being arrested by Captain Zagran. (TV: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"]) He then left with Colonel Chan and Shirley Anne Bingham, after having said goodbye to the Fourteenth Doctor, and accumulated enough information for his report. (PROSE: The Star Beast [+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"])
As you can see, the revision singles out the address of the Nobles' home as being information revealed only in the novelisation, while the information that debuted in the episode is credited to the original source. The ending citations are also separated to showcase what occurred only in the episode, and what was expanded upon in the expanded universe.
It is also rather similar to the McGillop conundrum you brought up; a second source is cited even though it just recaps what occurred in the first source, making it look like there is some sort of discrepancy to the accounts. If the second account does not deviate from the information presented in the original source, then it is best to just cite the first source until the point the second expands on the original, allowing readers to know where to look for the information.
I hope you found this description enlightening, though my communication disability might have hindered some of the points I was trying to raise, and id there is any confusion, please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will try my best to answer your questions in a satisfying manner. Until we speak again, BananaClownMan ☎ 23:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Credit crunch of 2008 merge query
Just curious on the switching of the merges from Financial crisis of 2007 to Credit crunch of 2008. As "Financial crisis of 2007" is based on conjecture and "Credit crunch of 2008" is actually stated in dialogue the previous way around that the merge tags were arranged should be better. It would be best to keep the actually named article rather than the conjectural title.
The merge tag should go on the page that will be merged into the existing page, effectively getting rid of it, or for titles like this it'd be turned into a redirect through the merge process. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Cursor
Yeah, I had it then too. It's gone now. Really no idea what was happening. Najawin ☎ 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Re:SB
I think it embodies the worst aspects of RtD1 while having none of its strengths. It's juvenile, moreso even than SJA, jettisoning "family entertainment" for, well, entertainment for the titular group. It's overly sure of itself, running through near identical iconography and story beats as parts of RtD1. And much like what Chibnall was criticized for (as well as others), it toys with political iconography in haphazard, careless ways, ultimately having a very messy, muddled message. (I think it's far more clearly anti abortion that KtM ever was, and the people I watched it with felt the same.) All in all, the worst possible start for the new era, and I cannot imagine why Gardner and Collinson didn't wrestle the script out of his hands. I know the people I watched it with said that had Devil's Chord not been on as well, and not been as good as it was, (as well as the implicit promise of the coming episode) they simply wouldn't have continued with the season. It was disastrous. Najawin ☎ 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think it's intentional, I think it's confused. But if I criticized Chibnall for muddled messaging (and I did, oh boy did I), I think it's only fair to do the same for RtD. I just want good, conceptually clean Doctor Who, with clear themes, a clear message (like, a real one, not just "guns bad"), good acting and good writing. Is this too much to ask for? Why haven't I gotten it in over 5 years? But yes, Gibson and Gatwa were fun. They're not the issue. It's RtD resting on his laurels. Devil's Chord is substantially better here, but even still I think there's stuff you can trim up. This reminds me far too much of RtD1 S2 as opposed to S1, and that's... just kinda disappointing, really. I'm almost dreading this coming week, because I've hyped it up too much in my head and worry that it can't live up to expectations. Najawin ☎ 01:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh crap! (An apology)
Hey, Epsilon, I know this is really out of the blue, but I was looking back through my talk page, and I noticed two old messages you left me that I don't believe I'd ever seen before nor responded to! Both messages are pretty old now (one was over a year ago!), but I still wanted to apologise profusely for never following up on them. I hope you were able to eventually do what you were asking of me through other means. If not, I'd be happy to do it now, even this belated!! For clarity, the notes I'm referring to are this and this. WaltK ☎ 00:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
For future reference, The Birthday Boy can only be found in Titan's third omnibus volume. WaltK ☎ 14:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Annual contents
Hello Epsilon. Re: this edit, if you actually engage in a conversation at the talk page, we might be able to come to a solution which represents the contents in a satisfactory way for all. Instead, your my-way-or-the-highway approach to reversion is making this incredibly difficult to achieve. For example, you're concerned that the contents section as proposed by me inaccurately represents the order of the contents of the annual. Fair enough. Maybe we could add a column for page number, or alter the numbering in the first column somewhat? All while preserving my wish to provide an actually readable list which conveys information in a palatable format. I would appreciate if you were to keep in mind this basic wiki etiquette in future. Danochy ☎ 12:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
