User talk:BananaClownMan/Archive 1

	This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

Welcome to the

Error creating thumbnail: Read-only mode

BananaClownMan

Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia 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're American, 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:

• the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
• our Manual of Style
• our image use policy
• our user page policy
• a list of people whose job it is to help you

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:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial

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 on my talk page. Shambala108 ☎ 16:34, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

Delete tags

Please do not ever remove a delete tag from a page. Doing so could be interpreted as vandalism. Pages that are proposed for deletion require discussion. Please read Tardis:Deletion policy and Tardis:Vandalism policy. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:34, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I though the matter had been settled when a category for heroic sacrificed had been made. BananaClownMan ☎ 19:15, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

I can't edit the category Individuals exterminated by the Daleks for some reason. I want to put it in the Individuals by cause of death category but the wiki won't let me.Slughorn42 ☎ 20:15, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Death in science fantasy

Heya :) I'm sorry to have to do this to you since you've only just joined us, but I really have to delete all of your work categorising people by type of death. The reason is that these categories can be easily abused because they're ambiguous. In science fantasy like Doctor Who, it's often difficult to assess whether someone was really killed by another entity or not. More to the point, if they come back to life, did they, in point of practical fact, ever die in the first place?

To take but one example, let's examine Rory and Amy at the end of The Angels Take Manhattan. They ostensibly jumped off a roof, killed themselves, collapsed a reality — and then promptly came back to life. So did they commit suicide, or did they merely do the thing necessary to defeat the Weeping Angels? Moreover, did they commit suicide of any kind or were they effectively killed by the advancing Weeping Angels — pushed off the roof cause there was no other rational action to take? In other words, can their action be interpreted as self-preservation, rather than an irrational act of suicide?

See, it gets very, very complicated in science fantasy to ascribe with any certainty a) whether someone has died at all or b) who exactly killed them. And that's just normal science fantasy. With Doctor Who you've got the complicating factor of whether an incarnation of a Time Lord actually dies (as described by Ten), or whether it's more of a metamorphosis (as described by Two). And then there's Jack Harkness who is immortal and thus doesn't die. Yet some people describe him as dying multiple times and resurrecting himself.

It's all very tricky stuff which various fans will interpret differently. Thus, T:CAT NAME clearly applies to all these "individuals by type of death" categories. They simply are going to invite dispute, and so they're now going to be deleted.

Please don't let this discourage you from editing with us. I've had tons of my own edits deleted or overridden as have most editors who've been here for any length of time. And please don't think that we're in any way monitoring your work and looking for a way to delete it. We absolutely need you to stick around and help us! We've just found over the course the decade we've been open that some types of category tend to lead toward dispute, and that it's therefore important to choose category topics that don't obviously admit of multiple interpretations.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  15:27: Fri 13 Jun 2014

Incarnations of the Doctor

Please note that, per Thread:145487, we do not pipe switch incarnations of the Doctor in the way you did at Christopher Eccleston. Please read the forum page so you can see how we are dealing with incarnations on this wiki. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:56, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for an hour so I can clean up your recent edits. When I have done so, I will explain the block and then unblock you. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 16:34, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the block has been lifted. Leave a message here if for some reason you are still unable to edit. Shambala108 ☎ 16:40, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Companions

Please do not remove companion categories for established articles. If the community decides they are companions, then one individual user is not allowed to remove them. If you think they do not deserve companion status, bring it up on the individual article talk pages. You are a new user here, and may not be aware that users can't just change certain things without community consensus. Please take the time to read Tardis:Discussion policy and Tardis:You are bound by current policy, as I believe these will help you understand how we deal with these kinds of situations. I will unblock you after I post this. Shambala108 ☎ 16:39, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, I merely believed that I was correcting a mistake. I mean, the Arwell family isn't even listed as companions of the episode page, and Dorium didn't even travel with the Doctor once, let alone in multiple episodes.BananaClownMan ☎ 08:37, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi. Please do not change the infobox name in articles. The infobox name must always match the article name (minus the dab term, if any),

In addition, please do not move pages. If you feel a page needs renaming, you can add a {{Rename}} tag to it so there can be discussion. Then if discussion agrees, an admin can move it. There was no good reason for you to move "The War Chief" to "War Chief", as it's a long-established page. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 13:21, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Real world people categories

Hi! Your recent category additions, "Real world people encountered by the Doctor" and its subcategories, will most likely be deleted when the admins who have bots can get around to it. I wanted to let you know what the problems were so you understand why they aren't appropriate for the wiki.

First of all, you have to understand the distinction made on this wiki between in-universe and out-of-universe. In-universe applies to the story elements of characters, objects, organizations, etc. that are encountered in the stories. Out-of-universe applies to the production of the stories, including cast, crew, story plots, etc. We don't ever mix in universe categories with out of universe categories.

The problem with your categories is that, from the DWU perspective (that is, the in universe perspective), almost all of the people the Doctor encounters are "real world people". The category proposes to catalogue the people the Doctor meets from our real world, but out of universe categories are never to be applied to in universe pages.

Another problem is that your categories have been placed inside the category Real world people, which is an out of universe category, where we gather together all the people that have worked on DW and its spinoffs.

There are a few pages that can explain in detail the distinctions, which can often be hard for a new user to grasp. Please take a look at Tardis:Point of view, Tardis:In-universe perspective and Tardis:Out-of-universe perspective. In addition, the descriptions at Category:Real world people and Category:People from the real world can explain the distinction much better than I can.

In the future, to save yourself some hard work, if you have a major category suggestion, you might want to run it by an admin to see if it's appropriate for the wiki.

Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 15:21, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

User page

Hi! I have removed some information from your user page as it violated our spoiler policy. Please note that user pages are not exempt from the policy. Please carefully read Tardis:Spoiler policy, as we take it very seriously on this wiki. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:28, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just assumed it would be okay since, logically, <name removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> will be my first Twelfth Doctor story when it airs in 5 weeks.BananaClownMan ☎ 14:48, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Please, please, please read the policy. Even mentioning the title on this talk page is a violation. Shambala108 ☎ 15:30, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Starting a forum post

Hi! To start a forum post, you just head to the board you want located at Special:Forum. In your specific example, you would go to Board:The Panopticon. Near the top of that page, look for "Start a discussion". When you click on that, you will get a question "What do you want to talk about?" — that is for your forum title. The box below, that says "post a new message to the The Panopticon board", is for your message itself. Please note that you do not have to sign your name in the forums, as it will automatically be done for you. Shambala108 ☎ 23:39, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you.BananaClownMan ☎ 23:44, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Category rules

Please ensure that any categories you add to pages are substantiated in the main text. For example, you must add a note to Michael Wisher explaining why the page carries Actors who have voiced for the Doctor. Categories are not a substitute for content. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 00:56, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Okay. BananaClownMan ☎ 09:32, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Category structure

I reverted your edits on the Doctor actor pages and I thought I should give a full explanation as to why. Tardis:Category tree details the basic structure to categories on this wiki. The four overarching categories of articles are in-universe, real world, non-DWU, and wiki administration. So, "articles that are in one of these four categories should not go into another of them." Matt Smith is a real world article, so it can't be put in Category:Look alikes of the Doctor, which is in-universe. Category:Doctor Who actors that exist in the DWU is an edge case. It makes more sense for these articles to be primarily real world, so we stick to real world categories. I hope that makes sense. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. P&P talk contribs 03:35, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you have any questions about categories, it's best to ask an admin. CzechOut is the person who best understands the category structure on this wiki. Shambala108 ☎ 03:59, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hi! It is common practice on this wiki, when wanting to change infobox images for popular pages like the Doctor and his companions, to run the proposed images by the community first, via the article's talk page. This is done for two main reasons:

• Often a user's desired image falls short of our infobox image policies. These policies are spelled out at Tardis:Guide to images.
• For really popular pages, merely changing the image without community consensus often leads to edit wars, with users going back and forth removing each others' images.

Therefore, if you want to change the infobox images at Third Doctor, Fourth Doctor, or indeed any of these popular pages, read the policy above to make sure you understand the guidelines, then post the image on the article's talk page, allowing for discussion. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 20:45, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Please leave a message on my talk page stating that you have read the above message. Since I posted it, you have ignored it twice, at Seventh Doctor and Eighth Doctor. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my message, so please get in touch with me. Shambala108 ☎ 18:33, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did in fact miss this, I was getting junk mail from Flash/Arrow wiki and must have deleted the update when I clicked on the "all wikis" section of the "mark read" button.BananaClownMan ☎ 18:35, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

Spoiler policy

Hiya. I just noticed that back in December, you made an edit to Roz Forrester that violated the spoiler policy. I realize this is a bit late, but we take the spoiler policy really seriously, and I see that you've been warned before, so I want to make this very clear: any information from an unreleased story is a spoiler and disallowed. Titles, actors, anything. P&P talk contribs 06:05, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

User:Shambala108 has pointed out to me that I might be coming across as if I'm an admin. To be clear, I'm not an admin. I'm just an enthusiastic editor, and I apologize for any confusion. Thanks. P&P talk contribs 17:35, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Trenzalore

No, the 'fan speculation' is that the Trenzalore tomb is alternate. Never was such a thing said in the show. Not. Once. The Great Intelligence was quite clear on it, the Doctor was clear on it, and all production chatter about the episode was clear on it. The Doctor dies on Trenzalore. It's not an alternate timeline.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meganerd18 (talk • contribs) .

Messages on your talk page

Hi! I need to point out that you are never to remove messages from others on your talk page (unless they are vandalism, which Meganerd18's message is not). To do so is a violation of Tardis:Vandalism policy. If you feel that a user has violated Tardis:No personal attacks, you can talk to an admin, but don't remove the message.

Regarding the alternate timeline/Tenzalore stuff, you might be interested in reading comments made on Thread:153800. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:00, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Also, Thread:153800 hasn't convinced me the Trenzalore thing is still to come.BananaClownMan ☎ 16:31, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor

I have been trying to improve the Tenth Doctor article and make it more accurate to what we see of him, such as his arrogance being a product of anger and superiority and you seem to have a problem with me noting that in the article. Why? The Fox King (talk) 14:31, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

You have continually removed a paragraph about his breaking points in the 2009 specials, his anger is covered above the paragraph about his flaws, and your examples of strength are open to interpretation; Lucius Petrus Dextrus's stone arm might have been fragile from the petrification process and the Heavenly Host he fought was damaged and might not have been at full strength.BananaClownMan ☎ 14:49, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

BananaClownMan, please in the future address your replies to the user's talk page, so they will receive a notification that you've answered them. This is standard wiki practice built into the system. The above user may never see your reply since you left it on your page. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:48, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for one month for violating Tardis:No personal attacks. Your behavior to a relatively new user at Tenth Doctor is decidedly unwelcoming. I understand that you put a lot of work into cleaning up the Doctor pages, but I've noticed that you tend to undo many edits to those pages. Any wiki editor knows their work may be changed.

After seeing today's almost-edit-war at Tenth Doctor, I intended to speak to you on your user page about your tendency to undo others' work, but your last edit at the page left the following edit summary: " Any further examples of removal or poor use of grammer will have consequences)". This sounds like a direct threat, and you do not even have any abilities or powers to enforce any such consequences.

Your block will last one month, and that's being extremely generous. Most of the time, I and other admins would block you permanently, but I take some responsibility in not addressing this issue with you earlier. Your block will expire in one month. Shambala108 ☎ 15:45, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the generosity, and apologies for my arrogance; I understand that just cause I put so much work into the pages does not give me ownership of them now. Maybe I rushed back to the wiki too soon, still full of myself for my "victory lap" and feeling threatened when someone else made an edit. I think this is a wake up call to my "mortality", for lack of a better term, and that I need an enforced vacation to bring down my ego. Thank you for helping me see that.BananaClownMan ☎ 16:28, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Re-Apology

All is forgiven, although I don't see how I was writing anything in bad grammar as it was all true. I've re-written it more all-anticipating though now. The Fox King (talk) 07:08, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and I have now re-edited the article and put the citations next to the information they correspond with. The Fox King (talk) 00:23, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Update templates

You might want to read the text at {{update}}. Basically, {{update}} is for marking whole pages as in need of additions and goes at the top, while {{section stub}} marks individual sections as in need of additions. The latter might be more appropriate for what you're trying to do on the Doctor articles. P&P talk contribs 10:57, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor

Please explain the following edit summary that you posted at Twelfth Doctor:

"(http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/why-i-love-the-twelfth-doctor-73011.htm Updated with new information)"

Are you trying to cite an outside source for in-universe information? Shambala108 ☎ 16:21, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

Please stop citing non-valid sources in your edit summaries. I know you're not citing them in the article, but new users might see your edit summaries and think the sources are valid and can be used within the articles. If you must cite them, please do so with an explanation on the article talk page, not in your edit summaries. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 19:21, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Placement of Titan 12th comics

So just to keep from starting a big dumb edit war, how long should we keep piling the Titan Twelfth Doctor stories between Caretaker and Kill the Moon? I've been reading them and none have ever explicitly stated where they take place, the current placement started because of the reference of Skovok Blitzer in Terrorformer. Meanwhile the DWA and DWM stories are currently piling up in the post-Last Christmas pile. Should their placement be considered too? --TARDIS2468 ☎ 12:36, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor

Please leave a response to Shambala108's request on the Seventh Doctor Talk Page. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 03:33, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

Please leave a response to User:RogerAckroydLives's proposition on the Seventh Doctor Talk Page. The matter has been brought up with the community and the limited response has been entirely in my favour. Please consider my offer, and end this debate. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 19:26, July 30, 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from being insulting and needlessly harsh. The onus was on you to respond. I have no control over your personal life, and no relation with it. Nothing I have done has been with any intention to exacerbate your personal problems, and, in all honesty, nothing truly could have done so. Please maintain your maturity when conversing with others. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 11:36, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Edits at First Doctor

Hey :) I wanted to leave you a note to explain why I had to revert your recent edits at First Doctor. The main matter at issue was your simplification of references to support the claim that the Doctor was a genuine father/grandfather. While you did make the text somewhat simpler to read, you took away the reader's ability to judge for herself which of the two claims — we'll call them the television claim (genuine parent) and the Lungbarrow claim (not genuine parent) — has the greater support in Doctor Who fiction. Having a large number of references for the television claim is correct, because that's generally how the legend goes. It helps readers tremendously to know that it receives the far greater support, because that's the case in the body of all Doctor Who fiction. The Lungbarrow claim is barely referenced outside of that one book, and it's fair to present as a minority view.

As my time is short, it's possible that I reverted more than your edits on this particular point within the article. If I did, I'm sorry about that, and it wasn't what I intended. But please do retain the imbalanced references present on the parenthood point as you continue to edit the article.

Thanks so much for all your work around here!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:54: Tue 18 Aug 2015

Also about your edits at First Doctor, there really is no need for you to apologize. It was an easy mistake, but it could have been prevented; I mentioned the fact that the Doctor had companions with him in my edit. In the future, please fully read something before deciding it's incorrect. The Champion of Time ☎ 16:27, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

Re: The Brink of Death

Sure! I'd be happy to :D However, I'm a bit busy at the moment and have only had time to view parts of each (In total, they amount to a whopping 5 or 6 hours, behind the scenes included), so I can only tackle some of the last audio for now, and will put a stub for the other three. That's why I held off, but since you asked, I bet I can do a little bit of sprucing up! --Thunderush ☎ 15:54, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Requests to other users

Hi! While I completely understand your desire to "complete" the various Doctor pages, I need to tell you to refrain from asking other users to fill in missing sections. We are all busy with our lives, and have priorities of what we want to do on the wiki. In addition, both users that you have asked, User:OttselSpy25 and User:Thunderush, have been around on this wiki for a while, and they are both well aware of what needs to be done. It is their choice whether they want to contribute in certain ways or not, without other users or even admins asking them to do it. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 18:20, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Titan Back-up Comics

Hey, I just wanted to tell you that we are currently sending down a final vote on the Titan back-up comics down at Thread:177099. You seemed to have a pretty strong opinion on the issue, so I just wanted to make sure that you knew that the vote was happening. The polls currently tally to three votes for the back-up strips being valid and four for them being invalid. All votes have gone towards making the WeLoveTITANS comics invalid. If you want a say in the matter, there is a week and three days left on voting. Sorry for the bother! :-) OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:26, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor

Please revert your correction of User:Skittles the hog's reversion of your edit. The Ninth Doctor article is absolutely not told from the point of view of the Ninth Doctor. As stated at Tardis:In-universe perspective, all in-universe articles are written from a neutral perspective. Please see the policy page in question. Shambala108 ☎ 14:42, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Undo function

Hi! At this point in your editing, I have to tell you to stop using the "undo" function when other people edit the Doctor/Master pages or other pages you've worked on. As you've acknowledged, you do not own these pages, and a basic tenet of wiki editing is that our work can be undone/changed at any time.

Your use of the "undo" function has alienated other users (there has been at least one vocal complaint), and at times, in your attempts to undo what you think is wrong, you are also undoing corrections of policy violations.

Another issue is the placement of stories on these character pages. Please do not get so strict about the timeline of stories. In the DWU, there is just so much contradiction and lack of information that any timeline info we come up with is going to involve speculation. That is why we moved timelines out of the main namespace and into the theories namespace.

Continue to edit, but if you do see a need to remove part of another user's edit, you must leave an edit summary explaining why. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 00:13, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

Masters

Hey, I noticed that you did some cleanup work at The Master, and while it mostly looks great there are a couple issues. For one, deciding concretely when the Master was captured without any info to suggest it is pure speculation. Your placement on Simm kinda works, as it leaves it up to the reader to decide when the capture happens, but your direct placement of the Roberts' section of while he's changing is pure speculation. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:44, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Also, we can't place the info on them being captured by the Sild on every incarnation and alternate timeline unless the story explicitly references them clearly. So Simm is cool I think, and maybe a few others (I'd have to check) but putting them on every novel and audio Master is simply speculation. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:47, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

But "all incarnations" within one story does not qualify what the novel takes as that to mean. In the same way that The Gift can not qualify Doctors 9-12. It also doesn't help that qualifications for seperations between incarnations is unclear. Some think Delgado, Pratt, Beavers, Ainley, Beavers in the Seventh Doctor audios, and Beavers in the post-TV movie audios are all the same incarnation. We don't know what the book or the Sild qualified as "the incarnations of the Master." The only Masters that should be added are those included or described in the book. Also it needs to include how they (as I presume they do) get back to their own times.

Also we need to cut down on the starting a sentence with one story before cutting into an unrelated one. It incorrectly suggests a correlation between the two stories, and is blatant laziness, trying to not actually write a complete description of the story and instead piggy backing on another.

On the topic of the "drezz for the occasion" issue, while it makes sense to boil it down to a fine point in the story where he was captured, it could also just be that that the authors didn't know or care that the Bruce body has not been brought back in any sources. Keep in mind that the story claims that the band spent decades practicing -- that doesn't make any sense with the TV movie's claim that Bruce's body has hours left. Instead of making jumps in logic, it's better to put it in the Bruce section and to leave it up to the reader to decide. If that seems bulky, then it will indeed need to be consider putting it in the "After the Eye of Harmony" section. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 23:27, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi! Please note that per Thread:128198, only admins are permitted to move pages. Please see the forum post for reasons and instructions. Shambala108 ☎ 14:20, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it, but you left behind a redirect for each move which I have to delete, but I can't until I change all the links. That's why only admins move pages, because non-admins can't delete the redirects and usually don't bother to change the links. Shambala108 ☎ 14:35, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Re: undo instructions

I hate to have to do this, but I'm blocking you for a week. I've told you to stop using the undo function to revert another user's good faith edits, and that if you had to use it, to leave an edit summary. You and User:RogerAckroydLives cannot keep undoing each other's edits. It has to stop and this is the only way I can get through to you. Shambala108 ☎ 21:35, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please don't use the edit summaries to form a conversation or a lengthy speech. Edit summaries are for short explanations of one's edit, not a chat forum. Thanks. --DCLM ☎ 11:11, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Reversions

Please stop reverting my edits. Even if you do not accept my rationale, you are consistently removing far more information that simply that which you disagree upon. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 11:37, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start an edit war. Contact an admin or solve it another way. --DCLM ☎ 11:41, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Timeline info

Hi! Please note that the theory:timeline namespace is not a valid source for any in-universe articles. It is based on speculation, which is why timelines were removed from the main namespace in the first place (see Forum:Timeline sections on pages). Please understand that there are sets of stories for which we will never know the proper timeline because different authors don't care about each others' work, and that it is not a focus of the main namespace of this wiki to properly order stories. I know that's one of your interests, but it's just not possible.

On another note, User:Revanvolatrelundar is pretty much our expert on anything Eighth Doctor-related, so I'd take his word on Eight's timeline. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 15:37, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi! I need to remind you once again that the theory timeline namespace is absolutely not a valid source for in-universe articles. Stop using it as a source, even in the edit summary.

It is not necessary to have an exact timeline on the Doctor pages. I don't know how to make that more clear to you. Most of the timeline placement is based on speculation or improperly drawn conclusions (like character's clothing). Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 23:46, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things

Hi! A couple of things:

• First of all, never ever link to an off-site video, not on an article, any kind of talk/discussion page, or even in the edit summary, as you did at Twelfth Doctor. Please read Tardis:Video policy.
• Second, since you were the one who brought up a supposedly "off-topic" argument at Thread:185178, I just have to tell you that it is your and User:RogerAckroydLives's editing practices that prompted my comments. The two of you have been undoing each other's edits as well as the edits of other users, and you seem to be placing way too much effort on establishing some kind of chronology of the Doctor. Let me state this as clearly as I can: you can't do that. DW is too full of contradictions and missing information. Therefore, going beyond what a story tells is speculation (which is not allowed), and trying to reconcile two differing stories is just going to cause edit wars.

There is plenty of other work that can be done on the Doctor pages, since that seems to be your interest. Forget about making some kind of coherent chronology in the main namespace, or at least take it to Theory:Timey-wimey detector. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:34, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

Voice from the Vortex Invalid

I saw that you recently added an invalid tag to Voice from the Vortex! (short story). Was there any discussion about this beforehand or did you just decide to invalidate it? TheChampionOfTime ☎ 22:03, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

This wiki does not invalidate stories based on continuity. I really understand where you're coming from, but this story was simply written in the style of a Doctor Who Annual story. This is a regular Ninth Doctor story with Rose Tyler behind a layer of intentional mistakes. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 22:27, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Could you please start a discussion before you add an invalid tag next time. :) TheChampionOfTime ☎ 17:24, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Hello There how are you

Night Flight to Nowhere

It seems odd that a story published in 1982 would feature Delgado, are you sure this is the case? The Champion of Time ☎ 23:27, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! The Champion of Time ☎ 16:07, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Ordering and placement

Feel free to start another edit war.

On a less exasperated note, and disregarding the various forms of harassment and insult you have put me through, I haven't been reordering stories (out of, I assume you mean) broadcast order, simply reordering the two stories which follow timelines on other pages, or will when they are created. Flowerchild's earring and Ace's rucksack in particular will both need to be ordered the way they occur, not the way they are broadcast, so Ace and 7 might as well follow the same order. I know you won't ever be convinced, but whatever. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 12:19, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, it is much appreciated. I don't feel any great resentment towards you, it's just difficult to start a discussion afresh with a history like ours, especially when I'm greeted with the message title "Old habits die hard".

I don't know if I can give you any particularly helpful sources, but the reason for my most recent edit to 7's page was twofold: first and foremost, it was due to the fact that I've been doing a lot of edits with relation to the "Fashion and clothing" area of the wiki, adding some very basic pages, (coat, jumper, jacket, cravat etc.) doing some reworking of the applicable categories and adding info on costumes, especially those of the Doctor's themselves, having recently found some very good sources on the topic. Secondly, however, I was relistening to some of the 7/Ace/Hex stories and noticed some references to her (original) rucksack, and its destruction in SN. I can't give you a story as I can't recall at this precise moment, but it was further reference to a chronology which set SN after GSitG, and is further evidence for a non-broadcast order chronology being valid.

Again, thanks for the reevaluation; I'm glad of your support. My old arguments aren't precisely what I think now, given the fact that, while all of what I said is completely defensible, some of it isn't so much evidence as implication (Peri talks about Daleks in Timelash, but it wasn't even intended to be set before Revelation, let alone broadcast out of production order, rendering my GL/Curse argument a bit pointless). However, when it comes to the actual physically evidenced stuff, (earring/rucksack) I still feel the same: broadcast order be damned, these stories are set in a different order, and my opinion has nothing to do with production sequence (otherwise I would be campaigning for Happiness to be set after SN, something I have no intention of doing).

I'm glad we can move forward, and I hope we can continue work together. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 13:00, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

Revision note at Ninth Doctor

Hiya :) Couldn't help but notice this diff, in which you take great umbrage to Tybort's simple act of editing. I hadn't really noticed before but MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2 seems to have been relegated recently to just the Monobook skin.

Nevertheless it's a long-standing notion that when you submit changes to the copy of articles, you've got to be prepared for them to be "mercilessly edited". This concept is so central to Wikipedia that they consider it one of their five most basic notions. (See WP:MERCILESS.)

Put another way, none of us owns any of the articles here. While any may request a little time to edit an article without interference, and while there may be the occasional need for an admin to lock down an article protectively, anyone is free to edit articles as they see fit (with some broad exceptions for inappropriate language or provable factual errors).

Finally, it's important to remember what the word edit actually means — to prepare written material for publication by correcting, condensing or otherwise modifying it. According to the diff above, that's all Tybort was doing: modifying by condensing. My interpretation of the edit was simply that he felt the article had become needlessly wordy, so he truncated parts of it.

Trust me, readers on phones — a substantial part of our audience — appreciated his efforts. It is important that we try to keep things brief, and the details he excised were, in my view, clearly better-placed elsewhere on the wiki. Remember, the pages about the incarnations of the Doctor should be used to give the most significant details about an incarnation's life. It's up to the story pages, or in some cases individual person or object pages, to give details. The general notion for a wiki is that readers should go from a broad article (Ninth Doctor) to something more specific (story article) to something even more specific (an article about a person, place or thing). If you try to cram everything on to the top-level article, the reader will have no incentive to click through to other pages.

So, please, don't take offence: Tybort was genuinely editing the piece, and doing so in good faith. With any luck, the recaps of the Peladon stories that you mentioned will also be trimmed soon enough.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:46: Mon 23 May 2016

Reverting edits

Hi! As you may remember, I left a message on your talk page on September 25th requiring you to leave an edit summary when you undo another user's edits. By my count, since that message you have undone 25 edits, leaving an edit summary on only 5. That comes to 20%. That is unacceptable. Due to your frequent use of the undo function, I am requiring you to leave an edit summary when you make this type of edit. It doesn't have to be long-winded; it just has to explain why you feel the edit is invalid. Do other editors the courtesy of explaining why their edits are undone. Shambala108 ☎ 02:41, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Time placement revisited

Hi! Regarding the message you left at User talk:RogerAckroydLives: "I have recently made it my mission to look upon all available information on the PROSE, AUDIOs and COMICs that can be linked together to form the most logical timeline of events for the Doctor. My modus operadi thus far has been to do most the legwork on a word document, then publish my finding onto the timeline theory pages, wait a few days to see if anyone contradicts what I put, then update to biography on the Doctor's page."

There are several things wrong here.

First and foremost: I have repeatedly told you (and RAL for that matter) to stop trying to make some kind of timeline out of the various Doctor pages. I have explained on your talk page (several times) as well as various forum threads and/or talk pages, and I still can't get through to you. Please explain to me why you are having so much trouble understanding my words.

Second: I have told you before that the theory namespace is absolutely not a valid source for in-universe articles. That namespace exists only because we wanted to let users play around with timelines when we removed them from the main namespace. Any attempt to sort Doctor adventures into some kind of order belongs only in the theory namespace.

Third: It is against basic wiki policy to put information somewhere (in this case, the theory namespace where very few regular editors visit), say "If no one objects, my information must be valid", and then put that information onto main namespace pages. Under most circumstances, you must submit changes to a place where more users can see it, that is, a forum or a talk page. In this case, however, we are still dealing with timeline information, which cannot be used on in-universe pages.

You obviously enjoy doing this project, but I will state as clearly as I can, keep the ordering of timelines on the timeline namespace. There is no way to reconcile the several different authors and media in a way that makes sense. We do not allow speculation on this wiki. Therefore, there should be no attempts to create an ordered timeline on the Doctor pages.

If you haven't read Forum:Timeline pages and Forum:Timeline sections on pages, I suggest you do so. They deal with the removal of pages/sections that we no longer have, but the reasoning for removing them applies to what I am trying (apparently without any success) to explain to you. Shambala108 ☎ 02:37, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page, and I'm sure Shambala108 will agree with this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with contributing to the Theory:Timeline pages. Her problem seems to be with things like this where you've rearranged the Third Doctor's entire biography in one fell swoop with the explanation of "Having looked up the continuity of these stories, I think I found the most logical placing of them.". Now please remember that I am most definitely not an expert on how to do things here, but I would recommend that when changing the order of stories in a character's biography you should be able to uncontroversially explain your changes in the edit description (i.e. don't change too much at once and say something other than "because this is the order in the timeline" or "this is the most logical").

Also it's good to remember there are many events that are just impossible to pinpoint and to claim that there is a most logical place to put them could be considered pure speculation. C o T ☎ 20:07, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I worry that Shambala108 might not approve, but... I'd say go for it. Personally, I agree with you that it makes sense to sort Eleventh Doctor stories into those with the purple jacket and those without. If there is a story where the Sixth Doctor is travelling alone and is wearing a blue coat then it makes perfect sense to put that in a place in his biography before he stops wearing it. All I'm saying is instead of making one huge edit where you switch story order maybe make several smaller edits. But, as I said above, I am not an expert on this wiki's policies. I hesitantly advise that as long as it's backed up with evidence and not complete speculation you can probably do it. But don't take my word for it.

Also, happy belated birthday! : ) C o T ☎ 23:49, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to all of the specific points you left on my talk page, but let me start with this: When an admin has told you not to do something, do not ever attempt to get permission from another user to try to use it as justification as you did at User talk:TheChampionOfTime. He/she is a relatively new user, even newer than yourself, and your trying to get him/her involved in your attempts to get around my instructions is pretty low.

Ok, now to your specific points:

• "Before I get down to business, I'd like to voice my displeasure at you reading what was meant to be a message for User:RogerAckroydLives only." This is a wiki. There is no such thing as a private message. Please read Tardis:Vandalism#Your own talk page. If you need to send someone a private message, you will need to do it off-site.
• "I just feel compelled for things to have order." I understand, believe me, and we already discussed this long ago. However, you can't seem to accept that we cannot give any completely factual order for Doctor stories. I've told you (and User:RogerAckroydLives) several times but you either don't get it or you think you can ignore it.
• "I noticed that the only contribution you made to those talks was in the defence of a timeline page; what made you change your mind?" What changed my mind was the ending of the discussion and the establishing of the policy. Please see Tardis:You are bound by current policy. In addition, I am an admin and it is my job to enforce policy on this wiki. Are you actually suggesting that I should ignore the policy because I disagreed with it before it became policy?

I will try to state this as simply as possible (and this will be my last attempt to get through to you):

Because we can't definitely place the entirety of Doctor stories in any kind of non-speculative order, we will always have users disagreeing about story placement and undoing each others' edits. From my point of view (as an admin), this is unacceptable. Please see T:NO WARS#Edit wars. It is my job to enforce the policies of no timeline info, no speculation, and no edit wars, and I will enforce it by whatever means will work.

The reason I'm making a big deal with this is that you have in the past undone the edits of other users because of story placement, some of whom were new to the wiki, and this is an extremely unfriendly action to take. That's why I am so opposed to this story order mess. Shambala108 ☎ 01:07, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

STOP! I don't have time to write much right now, but do not rearrange anyone's biography! Do not ignore Shambala! C o T ☎ 19:18, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had just seen your message and was extremely worried that you would begin changing 6's bio. The fact is, it doesn't matter what I said, I'm not an admin. Whatever Shambala108 says is what matters. You and I don't make the rules and it's rather counterproductive to think we do. All you can do by spiting Shambala108 is ruin your own reputation, so please don't. Your life may be stressful, but this part of it doesn't have to be.

"this will be my last attempt to get through to you" - Shambala108

Shambala108 states in her above message. You seem to have missed this and provided a rebuttal on her talk page, but this is not and has never been a debate. I fear this may result in you getting blocked (again). Please, apologize to her now and live to edit another day. C o T ☎ 21:28, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief, but first things first, this discussion has nothing to do with me so I'd ask that my part in it end here, please don't respond to this. Seriously, take these opinions or leave'em.

• "Yours with malice" was something you said that was unnecessarily spiteful.
• You say you are doing this for newcomers to the wiki, but you are very quick to undo other's edits that conflict with your timeline. Shambala108 pointed out that this can be very unwelcoming for new users. Heck, I was one of those new users. My final advice for you is to remember that your timeline may not be completely accurate. In the event of another user making an edit that contradicts your timeline do not undo it, bring it up on their talkpage instead.

I'd say more, but I'd rather be doing Scorchie stuff. Again, don't reply, if this conversation continues then it should be between you and Shambala108. C o T ☎ 22:25, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Costume vs placement

Hi BCM. I recently noted your conversation with CoT (hopefully not being too intrusive, just had a look when it came up on my "followed pages" notifications) and saw you cited my use of costume for placement on 11's page. Before you assume that it's my attitude to arrange everything strictly by costume, I would like to note that the particular costume I was editing around had an obvious "introduction scene", which would indicate placement for any sources not including contradictory information. I don't edit like I did in this instance all the time: eg. The Algebra of Ice clearly features the Doctor in his NA costume, with his waistcoat being his pullover replacement for the TV movie, and even has Ace comment on how the Doctor used to look as compared to now. The cream suit, however, was introduced, to Ace's surprise, in White Darkness, long after her solo adventures with 7 had concluded, and approximately a quarter of the way into the NAs. Algebra, on the other hand, clearly sets its "a good while later" (two years+) epilogue shortly after Timewyrm: Revelation, yet goes so far as to have the Doctor in the same costume as he is in the main bulk of the narrative. Of course, narrative facts trump costume, but presumably Lloyd Rose mistakenly believed that the NA costume was introduced at the beginning of the series, leading to a strange semi-error. I'm certainly not advocating for it to be placed somewhere all but inexplicable simply because of this. Only when costume or clothing has a clear timeline (item is discovered/acquired at a set point) do I try to place otherwise vague stories in such an order. Unusual clothing does not trump narrative continuity, however, even if it contradicts established costume continuity, and I don't want you to take what I did in one context as a declaration of intent with regard to any and every other.

Yours with no intended malice, RogerAckroydLives ☎ 06:45, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

No worries whatsoever. No offence taken, and I hope any information I have provided helps you with your editing. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 03:49, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor TARDIS interior

First, I'd like to say that I really like what you've been doing with the Seventh Doctor timeline page. I'm confused about the TARDIS interior, though. You've kind of scattered the stories relating to the change to the Movie interior - Ground Zero, Excelis Decays, The Settling, Notre Dame du Temps - all throughout the list. Are you saying it changes back and forth multiple times, or have you just not really thought about it?Also, there's no need to place audios based on how old the Doctor looks on the cover - the covers are notoriously often incorrect, and this wiki's policy is that they don't count as in-universe information.Fwhiffahder ☎ 21:01, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Breakdown of issues with your edits

You keep changing "is travelling with" to "featuring" at the top of the page. There's a distinction. Head Games features Mel, but she isn't travelling with the Doctor. The same applies to other companions.

The Doctor regenerates from his previous incarnation, and is immediately thrown into a confrontation with the Rani on Lakertya.

That's extraneous information. All that needs to be on a timeline page is why it's placed where it is. The Doctor's confrontation, with whom, and why should NOT be on the page.

The Doctor is still recovering from the effects of his recent regeneration, and still has a large amount of the lindos hormone in his system.

The hormone doesn't matter for the timeline page, all that matters is that he recently regenerated, because that's what determines the placement. The lindos stuff is over-specific and useless.

The audio's blurb sets this between Paradise Towers and Delta and the Bannermen, and the Doctor is carrying his red question mark umbrella, setting this after The Warehouse. The two-disc audio details what happens when the Doctor is coerced into changing the past, but offers no conclusion about which of the versions is the "correct" one.

"Two-disc audio" has nothing to do with the timeline. "Details what happens when..." is just narrating the story. "Offers no conclusion..." also has no influence on placement. Both/either disc take place concurrently, as far as the rest of the timeline is concerned.

The Doctor still acts light heartedly, but Mel is starting to feel jaded by him.

The word is "lighthearted." Not "light heartedly." And you can't "feel jaded by" someone.

The Doctor and Melanie meet Emil Hartung. The Doctor realises he will have to leave Mel soon, lest her morals compromise his agendas.

Again, it doesn't matter who the Doctor and Mel meet. That's got nothing to do with the placement. Just leave the detail that it's only part of the story in parentheses.

On Iceworld, the Doctor and Mel bump into Sabalom Glitz again, and also meet a time displaced 16-year-old girl named Ace. Mel decides to leave the Doctor to travel with Glitz. The Doctor offers Ace the chance to see the wonders of time and space in the TARDIS, and she accepts.

Once again, none of that has to do with the timeline. All that's important is that Mel leaves with Glitz and Ace joins.

The Doctor, who is beginning to lean towards his scheming ways, gives his white coat to Rebeekan, and begins thinking about changing it for a brown one.

"Who is beginning to lean towards his scheming ways" is bad grammar and irrelevant. You removed The Story of Extinction for no reason. You gave too much detail about the scene from Birthright. I'm pretty sure Legacy says there isn't actually any time between it and Theatre of War for the Doctor and Ace, so Citadel of Dreams can't happen there.

Ace is under 18-years-of-age and is familiar with UNIT and the Brigadier, setting this after Battlefield.

"18-years-of-age" isn't the right way to say an age. Her familiarity doesn't set the story, we're placing the story based on that fact. So stop saying that something "sets" a story.

• PROSE: The Algebra of Ice: Epilogue

The standard way to indicate a specific scene on these pages is to put "(epilogue)" (for instance) after the name of the story, not to use a colon with "epilogue" capitalised and in italics.

• PROSE: Love and War: Epilogue

Ditto.

• PROSE: Set Piece: Epilogue

Ditto.

The TARDIS has been to Olleril recently, setting this shortly after Tragedy Day. As far as Ace knows, this is the first time she has seen an Ice Warrior, though she did encounter them in Thin Ice. Benny, who has never been on Mars before this point in her life, takes a temporary leave of absence from the TARDIS.

Again, not "setting." Benny's experience with Mars has no influence on this page, so don't put it in.

The Doctor returns to the House of Lungbarrow. Chris decides to travel alone using a Time ring given to him by Romana. The Doctor is sent on a mission by the Time Lords to pick up the Bruce Master's remains on Skaro, and is also given a new sonic screwdriver by Romana.

Lots of extraneous information here.

The Doctor says that he personal friends with Death.

You just reverted my adding "is" for no reason.

At Colditz Castle during the Second World War, the Doctor and Ace are confronted by Elizabeth Klein, a scientist from an alternate timeline, who escapes her defeat as an anomaly. Ace decides to be called "McShane" from this story on.

Where, when and who are totally irrelevant. The only important thing is that Ace starts going by McShane, because it helps place stories where she uses that name.

• PROSE: The Heroine, the Hero and the Megalomaniac

Set during These Things Take Time for the Seventh Doctor.

The correct way to indicate that one story happens during another is to put it underneath, indented.

The Doctor has dropped Ace and Hex off in 1966 Monte Carlo with instructions to steal the Veiled Leopard, (AUDIO: The Veiled Leopard) while he visits Evelyn Smythe.

"While he visits Evelyn Smythe" is irrelevant. All that matters is that this happens during The Veiled Leopard.

Set a few months after The Harvest, with Hex mentioning how he killed a man during The Settling.

"With Hex mentioning" is nonsensical phrasing. You disorganised Forty-Five.

Ace has significant military and tactical knowledge, implying a post-Deceit setting. Hex has his first encounter with the Daleks.

It's not just "implying." You can't have knowledge before you obtain it. "Hex has his first encounter with the Daleks" is vaguer than "This is the first time Hex has encountered Daleks."

The Doctor goes to Alaska, setting this after Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible.0

The fact that the Doctor goes to Alaska doesn't set the story.

After a battle against the Kai'lizakia, Forge operative Lysandra Aristedes joins the Doctor and Sally in the Black TARDIS.

Who they fight is irrelevant to the timeline. What's important is that Lysandra joins.

The TARDIS is restored to its prime condition, and the Black TARDIS is destroyed.

What does "its prime condition" even mean? And the reabsorption of the black TARDIS means nothing for the timeline.

Ace no longer knows her age, setting this after Set Piece, where she knew for a fact she was 26. The Doctor has posited Lysandra to fight in a war in her native time, and Sally also leaves the TARDIS.

Ace's knowledge can't set anything. That's not what posited means.

Hector leaves the TARDIS and settles down with Sally to raise a family. Ace's glimpses herself wearing a high collar, riding a motorbike in Paris in the 19th century, and being surrounded by the Lobri in her future. The TARDIS control room is changed to a white configuration after To'Koth uses it to return to the home dimension of the Elder Gods.

Once again, irrelevant information. You messed up the section for You Are the Doctor and Other Stories.

The TARDIS finds who it's been looking for; Mel, who rejoins the TARDIS crew.

That should be a colon, not a semicolon. "Mel, who rejoins the TARDIS crew" has no predicate.

The Doctor is wearing his linen suit and is wistful about travelling alone. After reencountering Elizabeth Klein, the Doctor insists on her accompanying him on his travels so that he can keep an eye on her, knowing she will continue to pose a threat to history.

Lots of completely irrelevant stuff here too.

After travelling together for a while, Klein takes her chance of revenge on the Doctor by stealing his TARDIS and abandoning him on the planet of the Vrill.

And again.

After Klein is erased from history by the Time Lords, the Doctor visits UNIT to find a different version of Klein now working there. The Doctor is beginning to show signs of aging; his hair is depicted as tufts growing out of the side of his head.

Only the last part has any relevancy.

The Doctor spends a couple of decades in the Daleks' prison, presumably leaving him with his aged appearance from Doctor Who, and setting all stories with the older-looking Doctor after this one.

Covers are secondary to the actual narrative. The Doctor's ageing happens over time; there's no need to try to pinpoint one particular spot.

Set after Excelis Decays, with the Doctor presented as elderly looking, and briefly considers returning to Gallifrey.

Bad grammar.

The Doctor traps Nobody No-One inside his head, but, after his younger self is killed, he "burns out of existence" when time catches up to him.

The Doctor trapping Nobody is irrelevant.

According to the audio's blurb, this is set between Master and Valhalla.

Master and Valhalla came out after The Sirens of Time, so where is this blurb coming from?

Set after Kingdom of Silver.

You put this after several stories, with no details. How do you know they're set after Kingdom of Silver?

The Doctor has stopped believing in the efficacy of imprisonment, setting this late in his life. He also starts a prison riot without thinking about the injuries that will result because of him.

Why are you adding irrelevant details again?

Set after UNIT: Dominion, with the TARDIS control room having the design from Doctor Who. The Doctor is nearing the end of his current life and has been trying to eradicate evil because he feels his next incarnation won't be strong enough for the task.

Terrible phrasing.

After managing to capture the Eleven, the Doctor is cryptically informed of a task he has to complete for the High Council. This is presumably the task he was given in Lungbarrow, to retrieve the Bruce Master's remains from Skaro, setting this immediately prior to Doctor Who.

There's no indication that this is after Lungbarrow, or that it leads directly into the movie.

Having visibly aged from years of his Machiavellian schemes, the Doctor is shot in a San Francisco gang shootout while transporting the Master's remains from Skaro to Gallifrey. Taken to Walker General Hospital, the Doctor dies when Dr. Grace Holloway's exploratory surgery damages his circulatory system. Despite the anaesthesia halting the process, the Doctor is able to regenerate into his next incarnation several hours later.

Literally none of that should be there except that the Doctor regenerates.Fwhiffahder ☎ 01:04, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

A week away from Earth

Why exactly are you sure that these stories don't take place in the broadcast order? Here's two lines from the novelisation:

"This particular trap was devised by a guy I know. He was a commando in World War Two. They used it very effectively in a raid into occupied France in 1942. He told me about it himself." Last week, [Ace] added to herself, in 1943.

[Ace] was thinking of her last visit to Earth: it had been 1943 and she had seen her mother. But then her mother was a helpless baby that Ace had come to love without even knowing it.

I hope this settles this. I specifically said in the edit that the Doc and Ace spent a week away from Earth. I'm pretty sure I put this info was on the timeline page at some point. I'd kindly ask that you undo your own edit so as to not make this look like an edit war. CoT ☎ 15:15, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Check out Tardis:Valid sources. The scene where Ace mentions the French raid is not in the TV story and the fact that Ace is thinking about her mother during the events of the story do not contradict the original story. CoT ☎ 15:31, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Basically, if info from a novelisation doesn't contradict the TV story, then it's valid. I really don't know why you think production order is better. Also, you have an awfully large gap between Survival and Genesys. CoT ☎ 15:48, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Colorized images

I realize this is ridiculously late to be bringing it up, but way back in December 2014 you changed the image on the Second Doctor page of his regeneration in The Night Walkers from the black and white original to a colorized version, which has sat there until now. So this is just an extremely belated reminder that colorized images can't go on in-universe pages. That's all. Thanks! P&P talk contribs 03:40, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Here's the entirety of what T:VS has to say on novelisations:

"If the passage specifically contradicts established facts on television, then that passage is disallowed. But if the book gives a new fact not contradicted by television — such as a character's name — then it's allowed."

So I would say the line stands unless there is substantial, non-speculative evidence in favor of production order over broadcast. P&P talk contribs 01:19, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Help with Hyperballad

Hey BCM, could you maybe add a paragraph about the Doctor's first meeting with the Skinks to Skink. It would really improve the article and I'm afraid it's something I just can't do as I don't have the story. CoT ☎ 15:41, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

The Many Deaths of Colin Baker

Do you think the Valeyard remembers experiencing The Brink of Death from the Doctor's perspective? Of course not. He remembers Spiral Scratch. There are three timelines involved in The Brink of Death:

1. The original, where the Doctor and Mel avoid Lakertya initially, the Valeyard doesn't replace the Doctor, and the Doctor inevitably regenerates at some point anyway. This is the version in the Valeyard's memory - The Red House proves that his memories of being the Doctor extend at least until the Eighth Doctor's adventures with Charley. The Valeyard by his very nature (a Time Lord from the future) changes the past when he transports the Doctor to the Matrix. Considering that we have both a timeline where the Doctor regenerates in an unspecified way (this one), and a version of the Doctor's regeneration with no explanation of how it fits with the others (Spiral Scratch) there's no reason not to put Spiral Scratch in this timeline.

2. The main one in the story, where the Valeyard impersonates the Doctor to Mel, the Doctor is trapped in the Matrix, and both he and the Valeyard are trapped there. He undoes his existence by making telepathic contact with his past self.

3. The last one, where the Doctor doesn't avoid Lakertya, and dies to the radiation. He's literally killed by his future self. Considering his regeneration/Rani-induced befuddlement, I think this pretty neatly explains Love and War too, and why he'd think he was killed by his next incarnation. Fwhiffahder ☎ 13:43, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

Harvest of the Faction Knock-offs

He has a more jovial outlook, implying a pre-Virgin placing.

It would be really nice if you'd stop reverting people's edits so quickly, and talk about it first. You don't actually own the timeline pages, you know.

The Doctor's happiness doesn't "imply a pre-Virgin placing." Your statement is factually incorrect. You're inferring that it should be placed before the Virgin New Adventures. It seems you often blur the line between what the story literally says, and where you think it should be put - like saying that a story element "sets" the story at a specific point. A story is set at a particular point only by the intent of the creators (author/editor/publisher). A story is placed by people editing the timeline. Also, the Doctor being happy doesn't necessarily imply that it's set before all of the New Adventures - that's not the only time he's like that, and it really generalises the New Adventures. His personality isn't significantly different from on TV in the first several books, and later in the series he lightens up a lot. There are also times after the New Adventures where he wears that outfit (The Revolution) or is happier (Valhalla).

So a more accurate statement would be "The Doctor is happier and wears his S26 outfit on the cover, so this has been placed before Nightshade. He is travelling alone." Fwhiffahder ☎ 13:43, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

My comment about reverting edits isn't really just about this case - whenever someone makes an edit you disagree with, you immediately revert the entire thing instead of bringing it up on a talk page. See above, about the Sixth Doctor timeline. I put a good bit of work into redoing the section on his regeneration, but you disagreed so you immediately undid it all instead of talking about it, which really just looks like being territorial. Fwhiffahder ☎ 14:30, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculating on timeline pages. They're not even really what you'd call "official." The timelines page itself says that they contain "an awful lot of conjecture" and "will always be largely suppositional." The goal of the timeline pages is to speculate and fanwank as much as humanly possible so that we can make the ridiculous mass/mess of contradictory stories that is Doctor Who fit into one self-rewriting history. If we start saying "this contradiction is irreconcilable and there's no two ways about it" we might as well give up on the whole thing. (Which is what the wiki proper did long ago) Fwhiffahder ☎ 15:08, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

timelines have been taken out of the normal namespace because they contained an awful lot of conjecture. And they will always be largely suppositional

these pages are definitionally the opinions of editors

From the timeline page itself

Timelines are not encyclopaedic. They're fanwank.

We don't want rationales do we? Rationale is just another word for "reasoned speculation". We want sourced facts, surely. And, again, there are no sources.

From forum:timeline pages. You should just read all of that page.

The point is that all the timeline stuff is theory and speculation, not "fact." There isn't really an exact order to these stories, just general broad strokes and a mess of different authors with different ideas. Losers like me and you invented the order seen on the timeline pages, outside the DWU. Our goal is to try to make things that don't fit together properly fit, and there's no line where speculation becomes somehow bad. For instance: As far as the rest of the wiki is concerned, the Past Doctor Adventures and Big Finish audios by Mike Tucker and Robert Perry are a rough sequence much like the broadcast order of the show proper. However, the timeline page currently puts a huge split right in the middle of them, for reasons to do with other stories altogether. Inventing a theory to fit Spiral Scratch and The End of the Line together that isn't directly substantiated by the stories isn't any worse than that.

The timeline pages are two things: a fanwanky hobby for people like us, and a concession to us by the wiki's admins to have a ghetto for something that doesn't honestly deserve to be here at all. Official policy is that they'll never have the rigor of the wiki's real articles, so there's no point deluding ourselves that they can. Fwhiffahder ☎ 15:22, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

:) That's really sweet, but I was only joking about it. Fwhiffahder ☎ 17:22, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

The Monk

Can you show me the page where all the Monk Templates are so I know how to link to it properly? and who you had to ask to create them as I've tried to get ones like these for the RaniAdric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:00, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do the same for the Rani than. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 18:43, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor

Thanks you've found a better place for it then I have Going to place what I am currently writing after the place you've just put it Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 12:02, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Eighth Doctor timeline

Wow, you've been busy. Yeah, everything looks pretty much bang on. Interesting placement for Damaged Goods, and there's nothing to contradict that he didn't have his memory at the time. I've never been sold on Mary's Story being set during the Time War but again there's tiny hints to say it is.

To be honest I would place The Forgotten before Natural Regression, purely on his hair. The Forgotten is never gonna fit nicely since it was written before we knew Eight never fought in the War, so I would have placed it earlier in the War where the most obvious Gallifreyan weapon to wipe someone out (the Great Key) hasn't been used, and Eight's hair is closer to his original look than when he's recently cut it in Natural Regression.

Great work! --Revan\Talk 21:37, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

timeline pages

Hi! Regarding your repeated reverting of User:Fwhiffahder's edits at Theory:Timeline - Fourth Doctor, this is your last warning. Stop undoing the work of other users without discussing or giving a reason, and if you disagree with another user's edits, you must explain yourself, either on the article talk page or the user's talk page: the first time - not just when someone complains. There are too many complaints about your editing habits on your talk page and on various article talk pages. I've let a lot of this go because I know your intentions are good, and you've worked hard on this wiki, but you have to respect the editing of others. Shambala108 ☎ 01:39, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Re User:Fwhiffahder's recent complaint, you have been blocked for six months for repeatedly, without sufficient explanation, removing other users' posts. I have been extremely lenient with you, as can be seen by my repeated warnings on your talk page, but this behavior has to stop, and the only way I can get you to understand this is with a fairly severe block. Shambala108 ☎ 14:00, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

4th Timeline

I didn't say "accept my version without question." I'm just trying to get you to follow protocol by bringing up your concerns on a talk page, instead of forcibly undoing other people's edits without explanation. Fwhiffahder ☎ 12:28, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to notice a theme here

You've removed a ton of contributions I made to the Seventh Doctor timeline with an explanation that only covers a tiny bit. It seems to happen a lot with you, honestly. I wrote a ton of introductory prose at the top of the page, and you removed it all. You replaced my (correct) notes under some stories with ones that misuse "setting" and muddle tenses. When you make contributions (other than ones that are just reverting others') people (including me) try to work with them and clean up the mistakes in them, and don't revert the entire thing. Please do the same.

And no. The Doctor's apparent age on the cover means nothing. There's an official decision somewhere around here (having trouble finding it in this labyrinthine library) about Big Finish covers. They aren't in-universe sources. They're made to illustrate the story in an abstract way, but outright contradict the story in cases like Spaceport Fear. They never have pictures of the Seventh Doctor that aren't from either 1987-9 or 1996, making him appear to jump from young to old. They are absolutely not a good indicator of timeline position, or better than narrative information. The only thing they're good for is roughly categorising Big Finish releases as "TV Seven" and "Old Seven." And Big Finish has blurred that line now to where you can't even find it reliably. Fwhiffahder ☎ 11:50, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for answering it here but I am kinda blocked for the momment anyway here it is

Anatoly Ranskahov says Помогите мне, пожалуйста, помогите.

Help me, please, help.

Kinda ironic

"I promised myself if we ever got free we'd never lose what we had again. Especially not pride."

A man who valued pride the most begging for help.

Re:Clearing something up

(I'd have replied over at FPW, but you didn't have a talk page there and I didn't want to presume!) I apologize for my hasty accusation, and thank you for clearing up the error; I've rescinded the erroneous comment from SOTO's talk page. No hard feelings at all :) NateBumber ☎ 16:48, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Question(s)

Hello! Welcome back to the site.

The timeline info can actually be found on TARDIS, on the page Stripped for action?. If you want a slightly longer version, with a few more citations, you could check out the original in DWM 168.

Connections is the linking arc to the 1993 anthology The Incomplete Death's Head. It is set before, congruent, and after COMIC: Party Animals and is a sequel to COMIC: Time Bomb. It also features the Seventh Doctor, is set on a DWU planet, and has a DWU character as its villain.

The reason it has no page and a limited coverage is that it is currently under debate at Thread:213311. More specifically, we are analyzing if all of TIDH is valid, or indeed if any of it is. If you'd like to swing by there and leave a post, it would by very helpful towards kick-starting that discussion. OS25 (Talk) 09:56, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well, on the topic of Peri travelling with 7 this is suggested because the Doctor and Frobisher talk about Peri as if she just left the TARDIS.

As for further discrepancies with the timeline printed by DWM, I could comprehend the worry but honestly it's of little matter. With the recent Titan comics, for instance, we have seen the Doctors have many flashbacks to things that technically haven't happened yet. 10 sees TEoT Master long before TEoT, Clara makes a cameo appearance as a picture on a wall in a story set around the same time as TV: Death to the Doctor, etc. We can smack our heads and say "D'oh! They got it wrong!" and we can certainly cover this information on the pages, but we can not use this to over-ride the official timelines. Authorial intent means more than execution. OS25 (Talk) 10:19, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Master

Hi, you seemed to have recently added several "section stubs" on The Master regarding a lack of a clear description of the Masters "reaction" to regeneration. Whatever do you mean, and how does such a thing justify a section stub template?

Also, if you're going to add these, please add them to the most-sub-section of whatever story is written. OS25 (Talk) 10:53, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have read those stories and I can surely add that info... If you can give me examples...

Can you quote to me other passages describing how the Master/Doctor reacted to regeneration? OS25 (Talk) 21:19, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor

Hey BCM, so as to prevent any potential edit wars I figured I'd chat with you first. Would you be apposed to me 1) putting all of the sections of the Twelfth Doctor's life where he's with Clara inside one big section (like I've done with Tenth Doctor), 2) putting all the solo adventures you've put in the Kill the Moon-Mummy Orient Express and Woman Who Lived parts of his life into "undated events", and 3) putting those two DWA comics from December 2015 and January 2016 into the section after Heaven Sent and He'll Bent? I've explained it over at User talk:95.149.104.214. CoT ? 11:17, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

I really should disable autocorrect on my iPad.

I really agree with most of what you're saying, but I quite disagree with the outcome. I think the page should look a bit like this. The reason I'm talking to you is that you're the one that put all those stories in the order they are. In the past, I've seen that these sorts of edits don't go down too well with you. I figured that it would be best to explain my logic beforehand so that none of the stuff that used to happen happens today.

Recently, - during matters which had little to do with Tardis wiki - I've discovered within myself a hatred for timelines. If possible, I want to get all this theory out. I want our articles to rely much more on blatant connections made by the stories and when they were released than on timelines. While these solo stories could definitely happen between Kill the Moon and Mummy on the Oriet Express, they do not definitely happen between Kill the Moon and Mummy on the Oriet Express. To directly say that they do is to lie. Sure, release date would indicate these stories take place during the Clara era, that was the only era the authors knew, but they don't have to take place where you say they do.

Clara takes up a huge chunk of the Twelfth Doctor's life, so I'd say it's best to place them in the undated events section, which is for all undatable events, not just undatable events that can be summarised in a sentence. CoT ? 15:41, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

It was just a matter of someone who was really enthusiastic bout timelines, but had barely seen/read/heard any of the stories they so passionately argued about. But that doesn't really matter.

The difference between Twelve & Clara and Six & Evelyn is that Evelyn is that Evelyn lives with the Doctor. As shown in Listen, The Caretaker, Kill the Moon, Flatline, In the Forest of the Night, Dark Water, The Magician's Apprentice, The Woman Who Lived, The Zygon Invasion, Clara Oswald and the School of Death, Deep Time, Beauty Sleep, and I'm sure many more, Clara does not live in the TARDIS. All of the adventures currently lumped together are not meant to be lumped together, they're just set between one of the Doctor's regular meet-ups with Clara. CoT ? 20:23, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Couple of things

Hi! I had to restore your talk page because you didn't actually archive it, you just deleted all the previous posts. I don't have time to explain the process of archiving now, but I will get back to you later today (probably during the evening my time) with archiving instructions and to answer your question about your block. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:13, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have done most of the steps right, he just never added Template:ArchCat to the top of the page. OS25 (Talk) 21:20, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

OK, three things:

• First, to quote you from User talk:TheChampionOfTime: "if there is no mention of Clara (or any other companion) in a story, it must take place at a time the Doctor was on his own." This is speculation, which I have told you many times is not allowed on this wiki. There are tons of companion-less adventures that take place while a companion is in the TARDIS or somewhere else. Stop adding speculation to main namespace pages.
• About your attempt to archive your page: What you did was merely remove the info and create a user subpage with that info. However, you have not left an easy way for someone to search your "archives". That's why you must follow the correct instructions. At the top of your talk page, there is a drop down menu, with "edit", "history" and a few other things. One of those things is "archive". Click on that, and you will be taken to a page with buttons that say "select all" and "deselect all". You would usually choose "select all", except that you have a few active conversations going and won't want to archive them, so manually select the threads that are finished. Then you will click on "save archive" and that should do the trick. You should then see at the top of your talk page a link to your archive(s). Take a look at my talk page to see what that looks like. Sometimes, it doesn't work. If that happens, use the undo function and try again. See Tardis:Archiving policy for guidelines.
• Your block was for continuing to use the "undo" function to revert other users' edits without explaining why in either the edit summary or on the talk page. I had warned you (by my count) four times that you needed to start leaving an explanation, so when you once again ignored my instructions I had to block you. Please keep in mind that constantly undoing others' work without the courtesy of an explanation is rude and potentially unwelcoming to new users. All of us forget to leave edit summaries from time to time, but with you (and, incidentally, User:RogerAckroydLives, who also got the same warning) it was getting to be a bad habit.

Please, before you archive your talk page, re-read my messages about timelines on the main namespace of the wiki. You seem to be engaging in the same practice of rearranging Doctor/companion adventures based on your own theories; as you have been told multiple times, this belongs in the theory namespace only. Thanks for your attention. Shambala108 ☎ 01:06, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Position of inter-language links and categories

Heya :) Thanks for your recent edits. However, I need to ask you to please stop changing the position of the interlanguage links and catgegories on pages. The bot is running right now to take care of any stray problems in this regard, and you could very well accidentally undo the work it's trying to do. Thanks much!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:27: Wed 19 Apr 2017

Aging/Regenerating

Hi

You've recently removed edits to The Master's page which make it openly clear the vagueness of the Titan's illustration of a key scene, and I would like to clarify why this was in place.

While most fans would jump to regeneration being the answer, this doesn't have to be the case. If it was meant for us to be able to directly identify the moment as regeneration without any controversy, they would have illustrated it as such. We know what regeneration is supposed to look-like at this point.

There are numerous moments in the comic where we see the paradox distort time. The Doctor takes the form of his other incarnations, for instance. We've seen time ripped by anomalies in this arc, and it is not outside of the realms of possibilities that what we're seeing is not regeneration. So we need to keep this open on the page itself, to avoid speculation. OS25 (Talk) 23:09, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

T:NPOV warning

Hi, I would like to remind you that it is a long-standing policy of the wiki that all valid stories have equal weight. The claim in your edit summary that "creators of the character [...] have more right than the BBC to say what it is" is in direct violation of T:NPOV. No one has more right than the other. Those that have the license have the right and we treat all such stories equally. Those who do not have the license do not have the right in the very legal sense of the word (see T:VS). If different stories provide different accounts of some event, all should be covered and no account should be given preference. Please consider it an official warning that you cannot choose one such account from PROSE: Legacies and put it in the lead while deleting another account from TV: The Snowmen completely.

On a side note, as recently pointed out by CzechOut, the fact that a story is published is not by itself a proof that the publisher has fulfilled all legal formalities and obtained all necessary licenses. Candy Jar Books has very recently published a story (in exactly the same faux-free format) that grossly violated both the BBC license and our spoiler policy. They even went as far as to use an image owned by the BBC to promote this supposedly free story on their website.

Thank you for your attention.

Secondly, as I already explained in an edit summary, when an admin reverts your edits, the correct reaction should be to ask why on the talk page of the said admin. In fact, if your edits are undone by any editor at all, you should not insist on your primality by undoing in your turn (please (re)acquaint yourself with our policy on edit wars entitled Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing). You should always try to discuss the matter on the talk page of the user, the talk page of the article, or Panopticon thread depending on the issue at hand. Amorkuz ☎ 12:57, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Forgotten Son

Ok, let's think about this.

First some general platitudes. If stories contradict each other, the standard way is to use: "according to one account", "according to another account", etc., however many accounts are there. Unless the stories make an effort to fit each other, speculation is not to be used to make two accounts compatible.

DWU is, frankly, full of such contradictions. If you think GI's origin story is muddled, try to explain the genesis of Daleks. After similarly difficult deliberations regarding the origins of Cybermen, Moffat finally took pity on us and explained (from the Doctor's mouth) that all the origin stories in existence have happened because Cybermen evolved independently in many different places.

So now to the question at hand. The Doctor thinks that The Snowmen is the origin story, so it is "one account". The refutation of this account cannot come from out-of-universe. Neither can it come from a company that is legally prohibited from mentioning the Doctor. Absolutely nothing they print has any effect on the Doctor. Candy Jar Books have rights to GI, which is why their variant of the origin story is currently "another account". But they cannot retcon anything happening in The Snowmen. Please remember that there is no Doctor in Candy Jar Books' books for legal reasons. Even when recalling events from TV episodes, they legally have to resort to euphemisms. For instance, they have a character called "the thief". And nothing that happens to the thief in their books can be applied to the Second Doctor unless it also happened to the Second Doctor on TV. I implore you to exercise extreme caution while editing based on CJB stories. The licensing situation makes them jump through the hoops, creating secondary hoops for us. Amorkuz ☎ 23:24, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

The Tenth Doctor Adventures - Volume 2=

There is no mention of Mickey in any of the adventures, especially in Infamy of the Zaross, I assumed that was due to the events of the Cyberman Two Parter. There is also no mention of his new body. I placed it before the impossible planet because they rapport between the two seem like the have been together a long time post regeneration plus the mention of the cybermen (I didn't know about that comic before you referenced it) made me think they. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 19:51, November 28, 2017 (UTC)

New Series template

Since we are both working on this template, I propose that we work out a common rule of thumb how it should be instead of guessing each other's intentions. The edit summaries are way too small for that, so let me try to give you my side of the story. First and foremost, I see this template as the production- rather than content-related one. It's about stories published by BF under the umbrella title "The New Series". (An example of content-related template is {{Companions of the Twelfth Doctor}}.) This explains, for instance, why The Jago & Litefoot Revival is included while All Hands on Deck is not. Both are originally from the Short Trips range. But, although the latter is set in the Time War, which is under the New Series licence, it is not part of the New Series range according to BF.

My guess is that you try to put series of the New Series in chronological order (of first release), which I completely agree with. Unfortunately, BF is not explicit on what constitutes a series. But I believe the hints are there to be discovered. Note once again that these templates are not filled based on the meaning of the template's name, but rather based on how this name is used by BF in production. For instance, the {{BF EDA}} does not include the Eighth Doctor adventures from the main range. It may be hard to guess now why it includes Dark Eyes and Doom Coalition. Don't know if you remember, but Dark Eyes used to be part of the Eighth Doctor Adventures range. And the same logic was then applied to Doom Coalition, which was produced as a continuation. I moved The Eighth Doctor: The Time War to this template precisely because it was not described as the continuation of Doom Coalition (in fact, there will be a different continuation [1] that is not announced yet). Incidentally, this link is also where I got the term "Time War Saga" from. It is the term used by BF though not very prominently, but still it can be found here, here, VOR 104 etc. It seems that the Time War Saga bundle is no more, but you can read at the last (working) link that it consisted of all four War Doctor box sets and what was eventually released under the title The Eighth Doctor: The Time War 1.

Thus, the reason I combined The Eighth Doctor: The Time War with the The War Doctor is simply because it was announced from the very beginning as a prequel to it [2] and sold as part of the Time War Saga. (Yes, the concept developed in the process, which we are not supposed to discuss per T:SPOIL, but it was planned to be part of it from the get-go.)

You can hopefully see now why I do not consider The War Master to be part of it. It was announced separately and never claimed to be part of that run of box sets. Look, for instance here: "Or save money with a bundle, get The War Master along with ... on download. And for fans of the Time War saga, don’t forget that we plunge head first into the Time War with the Eighth Doctor played by Paul McGann and new companion Bliss played by Rakhee Thakrar, coming out later this month." Time War is clickable there and leads to the Eighth Doctor box set.

I'll be the first to admit this is not precise science, so an independent verification would be nice. It is provided by the production codes. Releases with through enumeration are clearly part of the same run, whereas starting enumeration anew is a sign of a separate production. Here's the evidence:

• Eighth Doctor Adventures, Dark Eyes and Doom Coalition all have production codes with prefix BFPDWCDMG (whatever that means :)): Blood of the Daleks part 1 is BFPDWCDMG001, ..., To the Death is BFPDWCDMG034, Dark Eyes is BFPDWCDMG035, ..., Dark Eyes 4 is BFPDWCDMG038, Doom Coalition 1 is BFPDWCDMG039, ..., Doom Coalition 4 is BFPDWCDMG042.
• The War Doctor and The Eighth Doctor: The Time War both have production codes with prefix BFPDWWAR: Only the Monstrous is BFPDWWAR01, ..., Casualties of War is BFPDWWAR04, The Eighth Doctor: The Time War 1 is BFPDWWAR05.
• The War Master has production code BFPDWWMAR01.

I hope I managed to persuade you of the grouping I propose. If not, I'd be happy to hear your arguments. Amorkuz ☎ 10:25, December 15, 2017 (UTC)

Second Doctor Timeline

I felt it necessary to take a moment to explain why I believe you are incorrect about placing a bunch of stories between The Wheel in Space and The Dominators. In your edit description you imply that the time in between The Wheel in Space and The Dominators is like the time between most other stories, when it is narratively made clear that this story takes place directly after the Doctor finishes telling Zoe about the Daleks. The one of the first things the Doctor says in this episode is, "Yes, just a little bit weary, Jamie. It's a very exhausting business projecting all those mental images, you know." This means that he had literally just finished using the mental projector to show Zoe the Daleks. More than that, this very clearly seems to be Zoe's first adventure traveling in the TARDIS, as one of the first thing she says after landing is, "And there won't be any Cybermen or Daleks, will there?" a very clear indication that this is her first adventure and she is nervous. As I stated in my description, an exception can be made for The Forgotten because crossover stories tend to mess about with the memories of the Doctor and his companions, so even if he did go on an adventure with his future self, from his perspective he still would have just finished using the mental projector.

I feel the crux of your reasoning for putting these stories where they are, in spite of the fact that they clearly contradict established canon, is because you are basing their placement on the fact that they say "Zoe hasn't been traveling with the Doctor long" or some variation of that. I feel like when you look at this statement, you are looking at Zoe's time in the TARDIS from a viewer's point of view as opposed to her own point of. I maintain that the following stories take place back-to-back uninterrupted, barring side stories and crossovers: The Wheel in Space, The Dominators, The Mind Robber, and The Invasion. However, your position is that because there are stories that take place early in Zoe's travels with the Doctor, these stories have to take place at some point before the end of these four stories. The only problem is that you are overlooking one major detail: Even though this period of time covers four stories, totaling 24 episodes, from Zoe's point of view, probably not even a week has passed. Zoe began her travels with the Doctor at the end of The Wheel in Space, and according to my reasoning, The Dominators takes place next. The Dominators seems to take place over the course of a day or two, so by the end of that story we have about two days at the most that Zoe has been traveling with the Doctor. Then we go to The Mind Robber, a story which I can't imagine takes place over the course of more than a day at most. After this we go into The Invasion, a story in which a significant amount of time passes from its beginning to its end, but in all probably only five days pass. So by the end of this all, in spite of how eventful her time with the Doctor has been thus far, it has only been about a week since Zoe has left the Wheel. Having these stories take place shortly after The Invasion would still qualify as being "early" in Zoe's travels without having to shoehorn them into some place in the timeline where they cannot logically fit, especially at the cost of taking away The Dominators status as being Zoe's first TARDIS adventure.

I encourage you to rethink your position on this, but I hope we can discuss this in a civil manner. Perhaps we can get some second opinions on this subject in the Wiki channel of the Discord Group. –Nahald ☎ 20:41, December 22, 2017 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor Timeline

Thanks, though I really can't have much of an opinion one way or another at the moment because I really haven't gotten the chance to get into much of the Seventh Doctor stuff yet. But since I'd rather not keep all those stories unplaced, I suppose I could go ahead and put them into the article's timeline based on where you put them in yours, better than keeping them unplaced permanently. By the way, while we're on the subject, here's some other timeline articles that have some unplaced stories that I haven't gotten around to listening or reading, maybe you'll know what to do with them:

• Theory:Timeline - Last Great Time War
• Theory:Timeline - UNIT
• Theory:Timeline - Torchwood

Yeah I know the Torchwood one is a bit of a doozy, but I'm mostly concerned about that one audio story that has yet to be placed in there.

Re:Congratulations!

Thank you! I'm still kind of glowing from seeing my name on something published. If you're interested in doing the same, I highly recommend submitting to charity anthologies and/or pitching whenever anyone is asking for submissions. It happens more often than you'd think! – N8 ☎ 20:33, January 29, 2018 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor

Hi there. I'm continuing this conversation here to avoid an edit war. The Beast of Babylon frames all its story around Rose, and only works with Rose being a very recent memory for the Doctor. The whole story involves the Doctor having second thoughts on the decision to leave Rose, one he has only just made.

The Eyeless, The Promise, and quite a few other stories now have opened room for adventures before Rose. The Oncoming Storm has a Ninth Doctor that's basically a depressed wreck, which most certainly isn't how he looks in Rose or any time after it.

With reference to the "recently calibrated" line, Vampire Science has the Eighth Doctor saying that he spent three years after leaving Sam at a Greenpeace rally getting used to his new body. It's a very vague term that is used. If it was "having only just regenerated", then fine, but it leaves plenty of wiggle room for more stories.

It's become quite a tiring process of reorganising the page time and time again, but with the information from all the stories so far released, its the best fit for them all. --Revan\Talk 11:49, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

I get the whole Rose argument. At the time it was a little nod that he might have just recently regenerated, but that piece of wiggle room is being really exploited by almost every new Ninth Doctor story we get these days. My personal view on it is that if I had big ears I'd be commenting on them almost every time I look in a mirror. The Doctor's eccentric like that, so it makes sense to me.

The Promise definately takes place before Rose. At the start of the Ninth Doctor segment the Twelfth Doctor tells Bill that he had "hadn't long regenerated" when he met Plex. He also says that he was "running from an old face; from an old voice in my head". Without a doubt its not long after he's regenerated.

On the subject of the ears reference in the Promise, Plex says that his new face doesn't suit him, and he replies: "neither do the ears, but we work with what we have." To me it kind of suits the notion of him having a bit of a complex about them. It's certainly used as an ongoing joke in Series 1.

The Oncoming Storm is an early one for sure. I can't recall if the screwdriver is used, but it certainly doesn't mention his red one, and from memory I can't say if mentioned to a blue was was made either. It's his character that places that story. He's frosty, staying behind the scenes and barely wants to involve himself with people. He only gets involved at the end when he has to. That's definately way out of character for how he is in Rose onwards, so to me its paving the way for a whole new Ninth Doctor era we never really knew about.

The short stories we've had over the last couple of years which have him on solo adventures don't mention any kind of information to place them. But what you said about Rose making an impact on him has actually gone a way for me to have an idea on where to place them. If he had met Rose then certainly he would be thinking about her, maybe even referencing her. Giving that there's no mention at all to her tells me that he hasn't met her at all yet, thus placing it before Rose. --Revan\Talk 13:17, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

"Working around license text"

I noticed in this edit summary you referenced that you were dismissing the "working-around-license" text, but fyi, Christmas on a Rational Planet is fully licensed and features the (named) Seventh Doctor as a main character. That said, you're probably right that the information about the Shadow Directory and the caillou isn't suited for that page :) – N8 ☎ 13:08, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Ears and other stuff

Hi again. The ears subject is very ambiguous, hence all the debates going on in fandom, including ours. I know that when RTD wrote Rose, he had planned for it to be one, if not the first of Nine's adventures, hence the line about the ears. Rose was thirteen years ago now (Jeez, I fell old), and both Titan and Big Finish have pushed several stories into the gap before Rose, and I very much doubt they'll stop. I'm going to bring you back to The Promise, where Nine makes a comment in his opening page about his ears. It's his first comment when asked about his new body, so clearly he has an issue with it. When the War Doctor regenerates he even mentions it, so how his new ears turned out are clearly something the Doctor has an ongoing resentment with. No matter how many times I read over those pages in The Beast of Babylon, I still can't see how anything more than even one adventure can be squeezed in there after he leaves Rose.

The way things look to me is that the guys at Big Finish and Titan are trying to retcon the Ninth Doctors life so we can see more of his adventures. I'm fine with that, he's one of my favourite Doctors, but it does mean that preconceptions over that very dubious line in Rose are being stepped around a bit. It's nothing that Big Finish haven't done before: in The Caves of Androzani Peri seems very new to the TARDIS, but Big Finish managed to get in dozens of adventures and even a second companion before then!

Right, so that just leaves The Bleeding Heart. The story just screams first story, if not one of the very first. I think it was in Vortex, or at least on a forum, that it was intended as a coda to the War Doctor series. The story involves beasts from the Time War, regrets the Doctor has about that time, and all while he's searching for somewhere to relax and forget about the whole thing. The whole stuff with War's sonic was just a little bonus for placement. The Oncoming Storm, on the other hand, doesn't really have anything concrete to place it anywhere after he regenerates. The only thing I can remember is the way he behaves and acts. Part of it is like how he is in Rose: he's in one place and saves one person, then he's off, popping in at another location as the story progresses.

I'm not sure if it's still up there, but for the release of the second Churchill Years boxset in February, the Oncoming Storm was made free as a taster for the range. I hope its still up there now so you can listen to the story yourself. --Revan\Talk 17:27, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

Just a little extra if you're interested: on the Divergent Forums (the unofficial Big Finish one), there's a thread for free stories Big Finish have offered over the years and where to get them. I haven't looked at it in a while, but there might be some still available. I remember scouring the thing when I was at uni, it's a good way to look after the pennies! --Revan\Talk 10:01, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

DotD novelisation

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'll definitely let you know if it's in there! – N8 ☎ 17:39, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we never learn his first words. However, we do find out that (presumably very early on) the Ninth Doctor rampaged around the TARDIS smashing all the mirrors and vowing to never look at what face he was wearing. So that might be relevant to your conversation with Revan. – N8 ☎ 20:23, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

It's a very odd way to resolve it, but I'll take it!!! Maybe Big Finish will be brave enough to make a whole series set before Rose with him dodging mirrors. One can dream! :P

It's been good debating it, anyway, its healthy every now and again. :) --Revan\Talk 16:29, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Clive's website

Hey again. The policy of the wiki has been to exclude websites from validity, which is why Clive's website appears in the behind the scenes sections of articles. At the time I was opposed to it happening, as I'd spent quite a bit of time writing articles based on characters on the website which were subsequently deleted. I don't really have a problem with websites if they're in-universe, so if you think it should be included in what we cover get a discussion going. You have my support already. --Revan\Talk 11:50, April 9, 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars

Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. I have nothing more to say on the subject, but you need a refresher on the subject. Please read it carefully.

Note, however, that extending your edit war to several pages goes in the direction of Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. Please keep that in mind.

I believe you that you thought you were being civil to the IP. Sorry to disappoint. You were, for some reason, talking to this IP from the position of authority, which you do not have. Part of being civil is treating others as equals. Instead you were instructing another user how to behave, whether they have to login or not. Given how many blocks you have for not following admin instructions, it is strange of you to expect other users to blindly follow your (non-admin) instructions.

Further, you were claiming to rely on a policy without providing a link to such a policy. Since you clearly respect Shambala, let me remind you how she explains policy: she would either provide a link immediately or go back and search for the piece of policy she means. In the worst case scenario, a couple of times she stated that she could not find it at the moment but had a clear recollection of seeing it in the past. Compare it to your edit summaries: "It is not an opinion" and "Until then, this wiki does not count narraction as voice acting". You should not be issuing opinions on behalf of the wiki. Even admin may disagree on finer points of interpreting various policies.

What you (and the IP) should have done instead of reverting each other's edits while exchanging ever more heated edit summaries was to start a discussion on the talk page. Let me try to explain it in your language. If you're righting a project or a paper with another student and they removed something you added, do you add it back or do you ask them to discuss it? I'm betting on the latter. Think of editing the wiki as collaborating on a paper.

The question you were debating is not as clear cut as you tried to make IP believe. I encourage you to explain your position, say on the talk page of Rose. I can think of several nuances that may or may not affect how such cases should be handled. But, because of the edit war across at least three pages, today is not the time to discuss it. Amorkuz ☎ 17:30, April 25, 2018 (UTC)

Well, as usual, the truth did out in the end. The more aggressive party showed their true colours. But first of all, though I know it is hard in the heat of the moment, please try to stop before the fourth reversal in the future. If the page is not in a state that would require you to hide it from your boss/mother, it can stay in this state for a day or two. The best course of action is to invite the other person for a conversation on the talk page. If that fails, the second best course of action, which you eventually took, is to notify an admin. Oh and, from the purely psychological perspective, it provides for a better, friendlier conversation if one does not combine the invitation to talk with the revert of the edits.

Regarding authority and stuff, I know it often comes out unintentionally. So in effect, I reacted not so much to what you said but how you said it. And though I do agree with you that there is no benefit to editing under an IP, still none of us has the right to impose this belief on others. This was the most serious case of telling the IP what to do. Their reaction ("So because I don't have an account that means my opinion is worthless?") is a clear indication that it was interpreted as a hostile comment. You are right to a certain extent: talking to an IP is generally hard and more often than not impossible. For one thing, they do not receive notifications of changes/new messages. But we have to respect their choice nevertheless.

Now for the examples: "You can't just readd something" was probably intended as a protest but in this form sounded like an order. "Until then, this wiki does not count narration as voice acting" was when it sounded like you are authorised to speak on behalf of the wiki. Fortunately, these things are easy to avoid by adding a bit of subjunctive and "I believe"-like modifiers. The above two edit summaries could, for instance, be rephrased to "I'm afraid readding something without providing an argument would not help resolve our differences" and "Until then, I do not believe narration is counted as voice action on the wiki" (passive voice is also a great pacifier). These are mere suggestions. You will surely right it in your own style. The main thing is not to forget to add these little niceties, which we routinely add when looking someone in the eye.

Happy editing. And I remember that I still owe you the Master thingy, which sadly no one else is commenting on. I just don't seem to find proper editing time in the past two months. I'll get to it, I promise. Amorkuz ☎ 21:29, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

A Rose on any other monitor

I thought I reverted the Midnight removal and another user removed the removal of The Poison Sky. Could you double check if it is ok now? Amorkuz ☎ 09:36, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

No worries. And good luck with the thesis. Amorkuz ☎ 01:27, May 21, 2018 (UTC)

Wild Pastures Placement in The Tenth Doctor Timeline

Are you sure about Wild Pastures taking place during Donna's travels with the Doctor as you put it in the Theory:Timeline - Tenth Doctor article? The narrative seems to suggest that it takes place after his travels with Donna, not during. –Nahald ☎ 20:27, June 9, 2018 (UTC)

Actually just had a chat with someone who listened to it, seems the Doctor is still with Donna at the time, she's just vacationing somehwere. –Nahald ☎ 21:19, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor and Torchwood Stuff

There's a few stories in the Sixth Doctor timeline that I'm a bit unsure of where to place, particularly the new Jago & Litefoot story. Also, the Torchwood timeline page has a lot of stuff under unplaced, not sure how knowledgeable you are on that. –Nahald ☎ 23:48, August 21, 2018 (UTC)

7th Doctor Timeline page

Hello! I have a couple of questions to ask you about this page.

Firstly, I noticed you removed the links to the audio adaptations I added. While not strictly necessary, I don't see why they shouldn't be there. They're useful and don't exactly provide any detriment to the page. On top of that, they often have extra information not originally provided in the books, like Cold Fusion which helps to place the Day of the Doctor and The Sirens of Time.

Secondly, is there any reason the 7th Doctor page doesn't have the forum header like the other pages all do? it means it doesn't feature on here: Theory:Timey-wimey detector. I'd add it myself but I first wanted to check if there was a reason why it wasn't there. Danochy ☎ 04:13, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Timeline discussion

Hi, I apologise for not responding to you sooner, I somehow only noticed that I had a new message on my talk page now, so I hope that you don’t think that anything I’ve done since has been a passive aggressive response to your message.

Anyway,I’ll admit I did see you as somewhat territorial to begin with, but I’ve since seen that you did construct vast amounts of these timelines to fit everything in a certain place, so I can see why it would be irritating for someone to come along and start making large changes without even discussing.

Honestly, I think everyone needs to use the talk page more in general because it seems as though when the edit summar is used, it just turns into edit wars with people arguing.

I didn’t realise that you added the extra placement subheadings and do think that is a good idea. At the end of the day, we’re both trying to do the same thing here, even if we don’t agree on everything, I think it would be a good idea to keep in touch and discuss these things over both the timeline talk pages and our own. In fact, I have just posted in the talk page for the Fourth and Fifth Doctor pages and would very much appreciate a look in.

Many thanks, SJF

SarahJaneFan ☎ 18:54, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Angels Weeping 13?

Hmm, I haven't delved into most of the book yet, but I understood from this one interview with the author that the last story in it featured 13. CoT ? 14:18, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

“I asked could I do a Thirteenth Doctor story and the response was in the negative,” he says. “This was last February. They weren’t sharing scripts for the new series and told me her personality hadn’t been set in stone yet. They were still at the planning stages for the next season.”

Rudden had meanwhile mentioned to a friend he was writing a Doctor Who book. With widened eyes, she revealed her mother would be delighted. She had been a huge Whovian as a child, only to be told by the nuns at her school in Ringsend that it was inappropriate for a girl to be interested in science and time-travel.

She had been a huge Whovian as a child, only to be told by the nuns at her school in Ringsend that it was inappropriate for a girl to be interested in science and time-travel. “I asked my friend if she wanted me make her mother part of the Doctor Who universe. An idea appeared and it started writing itself. And who else would meet a 10-year old girl at the end but the Thirteenth Doctor?”

^a few paragraphs from the interview. CoT ? 14:34, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

Update: 13 definitely, undoubtedly appears in the second last story of the collection, the one with Judoon. CoT ? 02:01, October 19, 2018 (UTC)

Images

Hi, I'm on an iPad right now so I'm not logged in, but this is Shambala108, and I removed images from all the doctor pages yesterday. Do not add them back. 68.131.63.11^{talk to me} 00:58, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor TARDIS Interior

Hey, I was recently listening to the 2016 Ace and Mel Big Finish trilogy and line in Maker of Demons stood out to me, so I think it might be of interest.

The Doctor, Ace and Mel are sitting in what they describe as a ship’s galleon, only they’re actually on a Spaceship that’s been made to look like a regular sea-faring ship.

Mel comments on how strange it is to be inside a Spaceship with wooden panelling, to which the Doctor responds by saying that she clearly hasn’t seen all the rooms in the TARDIS yet.

I took the Doctor’s comment as a reference to the secondary control room, but I find it interesting that this exchange even happened as they’re supposed to be using the TV movie console Room currently, which obviously is known for its wooden panelling.

It’s making me wonder despite the sound effects, if we can really claim that the console Room used in the Seventh Doctor Audios after the Settling really is the TV Movie one.

SarahJaneFan ☎ 16:30, November 22, 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous User Making Changes to Timeline Pages Headers

Just wanted to let you know that an anonymous user with the IP address 70.94.73.78 is going around changing the section headers to all the Timeline page headers, changing them to marks seasons rather than periods of the Doctor's life. I'm going around and reverting his edits right now, but we should keep an eye on him. I doubt we can report him since these are theory pages, but if he starts just doing whatever he wants, we may have to find some way to intervene. –Nahald ☎ 04:13, December 3, 2018 (UTC)

Yage

After all, what was more likely to be true? That she was a twenty-year-old travelling the universe with a Time Lord in a police box, or that she was twelve and at school in Sheffield?Yaz's thoughts at some point during the events of the novel.

Hope this helps. The second of the options is not the reality there. Amorkuz ☎ 20:35, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Well I didn't say "indicate," I said, "implied." ;)

Images

Hi I'm going to stop you now before you get any farther. Please stop adding so many images to The Master. The general rule is one image at most per section. Small sections should not have any images. Please go through your recent edits and pare down the number of images to something more manageable for all browsers thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 01:45, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you remove most of those images. And keep in mind that any editor is free to change/edit what you've posted on that page. Editing is really supposed to be done on the pages, not on someone's sandbox where no one else can have input.

And you could open a thread about splitting the Master pages, but you would have to have a really good reason to justify the work that would be involved and that would outweigh the many reasons why the pages were merged in the first place. Make sure to read through the old Master posts regarding the merge before opening any new thread about it. Shambala108 ☎ 02:24, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Image debate

Hi, just saw your note on User talk:Shambala108 and figured I could help out! Yesterday Shambala pointed me to User talk:Forgetful 10th doctor fan#Hat images, where CzechOut lays out the guidelines: "Unless a section is exceptionally long, it's a good rule of thumb to use a maximum of only one pic per section." Frankly, seeing as it's a rule of thumb rather than a hard & fast rule, I think many of Jack "BtR" Saxon's recent edits are rather uncalled for, and that can be determined without any debate; I've already replaced the removed image on Time corridor without any trouble. – N8 ☎ 18:39, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Hi there :) The addition of images to any article carries with it a technical burden. Add too many, particularly if the article is itself already quite large, and the page just won't load swiftly for some of our users — particularly those on cellular on a phone. So admin do reserve the right to delete images from pages in an effort to make articles more manageable for readers.

That is why I have now deleted your massive addition of images to Eleventh Doctor — a page that is still one of our biggest.

Understand, though, that this is a situational thing that is going to defy definite rules. What N8 didn't point out from that message I left for Forgetful 10th doctor fan is that I went on to say that even if we allow one pic per section, it's not always a great idea for every section to be illustrated.

You have to consider the ratio between text and images when deciding if a section should even get one. So, I actually went on to delete images from some sections entirely.

Of course, this is a 2013 case, so I should say that another consideration you have to make these days is: Where is this image going to end up on a phone? A lot of times, an image illustrates a certain block of text perfectly well on desktop, but completely misses the mark on the Fandom App. And you may not be able to position it quite the right way, particularly if you have too many images in that section.

So please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Shambala is wrong to generally assert, and take action, upon the "one image per section" notion. Nine times out of ten, that's completely in order, and it makes sense to stick to that, when you're working a wiki that has 70k pages! And it'll almost always help the situation on mobile devices.

But the reason that the one-pic-per-section thing is a guideline rather than an absolute rule is because every page is a little different, and they evolve over time. We need to consider what makes the most sense editorially — and technically — when we emplace images. So there may well be exceptions to that notion. But you should generally expect that no more than one per section is going to be allowed.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:25: Thu 21 Mar 2019

Hey, looks like we were typing up things at the same time, but in two different places. Since we published at about the same minute, let's continue the discussion here, since most relevant parties are already here, if you don't mind.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:32: Thu 21 Mar 2019

Debate

I guess it's not a problem, as long as I get the chance to make my case.

"A number of ushers and I have been having separate discussions about the number of images on articles, and I think it’s time we come up an official rule for image use, since it has transpired that there is no official wiki policy on image numbers, only a guideline layout out by CzechOut to User talk:Forgetful 10th doctor fan#Hat images in 2013: "Just because we allow one picture per section doesn't mean that a picture a section is a required. In fact, it's often a bad idea to use one pic a section, if the sections are relatively brief. You need to stand back and look at the article as a whole. Pictures shouldn't flood the frame, but instead have plenty of room to breathe." Even users that govern this rule have reportedly disagreed with it.

Now, one of the deciding factors in only having one image per section is in order to reduce load time for pages, since it has been claimed by User talk:Shambala108 on User:Jack "BtR" Saxon's Talk Page that "a lot of people visit the site on cell phones and other mobile devices", and the load time for them can be "especially long". I myself do not have such issues with my mobile device, but I am able to believe a small number of individuals do when factoring in that some people do not have superfast connection speeds. However, phone technology has really advanced since 2013, and will continue to advance in the coming years, so the problem of loading time is not the biggest of deals in this argument, though a valid point to be made.

But, there is one upside to a restriction on images; "too many bakers can spoil the cake". Image overflowing has been an issue, but I have a solution; zigzagging images so that no two images are on the same side in a row, and having only one image per story entry for the long articles that cover multiple stories in a single section, such the Doctors, the companions, and the rogues gallery.

Speaking of the Doctors, since they are the character with the most appearances in the franchise, I believe they are the exception to the "rule", since they are undeniably long pages. The sections on their appearance definitely need an image for a visual reference for the readers to have. Not to mention that there are a number of "sub-sections" in the physiological profile sections; are they to be applied to this "one-section" rule of thumb. I would like to make the case that images that display important moments be prioritised on the biography section, such as the moments before and after regeneration, the moment they meet or invite aboard a new companion, the Doctor facing a main adversary, or when the Twelfth Doctor returned to Gallifrey."

- "A Pro-Image Case by BananaClownMan ☎ 22:36, March 21, 2019 (UTC)"

I agree that a restriction on the amount of images in a section should be limited solely to the wiki's longest pages and not be a blanket rule. -- Saxon 22:39, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Images

Hi! To address each point separately:

• The link you sent me doesn't work.
• Your statement "my mobile phone has never had trouble opening a page with lots of images" is great for you, but there are other users on this site. Admins have to think of how every user experiences the site, not just ourselves.
• Given that you added back the images two different admins removed from Eleventh Doctor, despite us leaving edit summaries explaining why we were removing images, please give me a good reason why you shouldn't be blocked for such flagrant defying of admin instructions.

Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 01:06, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

See, I don't think you're getting my point here. The admins on this wiki work hard to make sure everyone understands that if they have an issue with an admin edit, take it to the article talk page or the admin's talk page. In addition, we are constantly instructing users about Tardis:You are bound by current policy, which states that you are bound by current policy even if you are planning to propose a change. Your undoing of my and User:CzechOut's various edits, with your edit summaries there for everyone to see, works against both those points. Any new user who sees your edits, and your longevity here (almost 5 years with over 10000 edits) might think that you know what you are doing and that your behavior is acceptable. That is why longstanding editors sometimes get blocked - they work against the rules, setting a bad example for new users (and incidentally more work for the admins). Shambala108 ☎ 14:37, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

Torchwood Timeline

Hi! Could you please check the Torchwood timeline talk page? Cheers. Danochy ☎ 00:47, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Doctor's Timeline

Hello, Why did you undo my edit on the Fourth Doctor's timeline page? I provided evidence for the move. Additionally I moved Party Animals and the other audio story because the Doctor was trying to get to Brighton, meaning they’re not right after Shada but right before The Leisure Hive. Thanks. Chubby Potato ☎ 23:40, June 6, 2019 (UTC)

Block

Blocking you for three days because you continue to ignore admin instructions. You've been told not to add more images to these long pages. You apparently think that, because you don't have a problem with loading time, that it doesn't matter how others are affected. In addition, there is currently a discussion, which you started, on the forums addressing number of images per page. Per Tardis:You are bound by current policy, you cannot act against current policy until/unless policy is changed. Shambala108 ☎ 23:12, June 8, 2019 (UTC)

The Beast of Babylon

Hiya!

I’d just like to Beginning by saying that I pretty strongly agree with the argument put forward in regards to the placement of the Ninth's Doctor's solo Travels, however I can’t help but feel as though the argument in question isn't quite supported in the text for The Beast of Babylon.

If the story had simply referred to the Doctor recently meeting Rose/regenerating/fighting an Auton Invasion, I would agree that there’s enough ambiguity there to place more solo stories. However the text seems pretty to clear to me on the Doctor's movements between being rejected by Rose and meeting Ali.

Here are a few extracts that detail the Doctor’s movements between being rejected by Rose and meeting Ali:

‘I said goodbye to Rose, I came in here and started up the engines and, the next thing I knew, lights were flashing, alarms were blaring. It was all bells and buzzers and bleepers and hooters and tweeters, and I knew that didn’t mean my dinner was ready in the microwave–you don’t know what I’m talking about, but it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the TARDIS is uniquely tuned to sense any problems with the fabric of time, and just as it had alerted me to the presence of the Nestene Consciousness in a place called London back in Rose’s time, now it was alerting me to a very similar problem somewhere else on the planet, a few thousand years earlier.’ ‘The Starman?’ ‘Give the girl a big round of applause.

To summarise: After Rose rejected him, he returned to the TARDIS and was alerted to the Starman.

So off I went to try to head this Starman off at the pass.’

He then went to cut the Starman off before it reached its destination.

Now, this orb–’ he picked up the silver ball from where it had been sitting in a cradle on the control console–‘was created in a very similar way to the Starman. It has the power of a collapsed star in it. It was made by a very clever, and not very nice, character called the Exalted Holgoroth of All Tagkhanastria. And he was no better than the bloody Starman!

The Doctor realised he would need the Orb to defeat the Starman and knew where to find one.

So I thought I’d kill two pterodactyls with one stone. I paid a visit to the Holgoroth, pretending to be an emissary from the Crab Nebula, and I stole his orb right out from under his nose–which is an exciting story I’ll tell you one day if you’re very good–and I went after the Starman and got to him before he reached Earth. In the process he nearly killed me.’ ‘I saw.’

So he stole the Orb and caught up with the Starman and then ended up on Ali's planet injured.

Of course you could say that the Doctor decided to take his time dealing with the Starman and had other adventures before he decided to catch up to the Starman or steal the Orb, but for me this just doesn’t really ring true. Personally, I think the best thing to do is leave The Beast of Babylon on it’s own and keep the other solo stories in the novelisation gap. Now this doesn’t make a lot of sense when looking at the continuity of The Beast of Babylon, but the novelisation gap does still exist and it wouldn’t really make much sense for the Docfor to spend weeks in his new body and still not feel calibrated anyway. It’s clear that even if you can squeeze a few more solo trips during the events of The Beast of Babylon, it couldn’t really be a great length of time. At least, I believe so anyway. Thanks for getting in touch, I look forward to hearing back from you.

SarahJaneFan ☎ 21:18, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor's Post-Donna Companions

Hello. Recently I’ve been looking into the various comic strips that Ten has appeared in with new companions and I feel as though perhaps the order in which he travels with those companions might need to be revised a bit for the following reasons:

In the Titan Comics Series, The Doctor is still getting over the loss of Donna. He refuses to talk about her or what happened to her (even to Jenny) and sometimes calls Gabby by Donna's name by mistake. Gabby finds Donna’s room left as though someone had only just been using it. However the series has also been stated to take plac between Planet of the Dead and The Waters of Mars quite explicitly by not only the lead writer but also others involved with Titan.

Meanwhile the IDW series with Emily Winter and Matthew Finnegan leads directly into The Waters of Mars, as we know. The Doctor is more open about Donna and willing to talk about her to his new companions, however he is also wary of taking on new companions, but was fairly easily convinced and they parted on happy terms. He also mentioned that things didn’t end well with his previous companion (which is obviously a reference to Donna but it’s not explicitly said to be her that he’s talking about) which doesn’t really fit with Majenta coming just before Emily and Matthew on the timeline as they separate on fairly good terms.

With Majenta, he doesn’t really take her on as a companion so much as she forces her way into his company and declares that he now works for her. Over the course of their adventures Majenta grows as a person and begins to get close to the Doctor and enjoy being his companion after initially not getting on with him, however he immediately grows distant and pushes her away when she gets too close, claiming that he doesn’t take on companions anymore, that she is no more than just a job to him and that they’ll separate as soon as her memory troubles are resolved. Also prior to the story where she joins him, he was drifting through the Time Vortex with the TARDIS in sleep mode in a way that indicated he was in some sort of depression.

The Doctor has no qualms takin for Heather An she Wolfie on as his Companions which puts these stories at odds with his no companions rule from the Specials, on top of this he parts on good terms with both companions.

Then there’s also the Darksmith Legacy with Gisella, which wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t for the fact that the Doctor assumes that Gisella will become his companion at the end of this series and is hurt when she turns him down.

I propose that the timeline go something like this:

Journey's End Travels with Majenta (The Doctor is in a depressions following the loss of Donna and has decided not to take on companions anymore. He is extremely defensive when Majenta gets close to him and decides to finally resolve her memory issues when he thinks she’s growing attached) The Next Doctor Planet of the Dead The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith Travels with Gabby and Cindy (The Doctor is stillness recovering from Donna's recent departure, Gabby believes that Donna is her direct predecessor but as Majenta wasn’t around for long, she may fit in the gap. Travels with Emily and Matthew (The Doctor has recovered from the loss of Donna. Leads directly into The Waters of Mars) The Waters of Mars The Darksmith Legacy (After things ended well with Emily, and looking to turn things around after he went too far, The Doctor offers Gisella companionship, who rejects him) Day of the Doctor Travels with Heather and Wolfie (The Docfor is now okay with the idea of taking on companions.) The End of Time

I know that generally we don’t place too many stories during the Last Holiday period, but I don’t think there’s necessarily any indication of how much time actually passes. In fact, the Doctor claims to be 904 in Day of the Doctor and then 906 in The End of Time, which could suggest that quite a lot of time passed between Waters of Mars and End of Time. SarahJaneFan ☎ 01:12, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that placing Heather and Wolfie before Gabby makes no narrative sense. It’s one thing to dodge around and make excuses for the Doctor’s attitude towards to taking o companions and it’s another for him to go from being completely fine about Donna's departure to suddenly being really badly effected by it. Even late into his travels with Gabby and Cindy, he’s still not quite gotten over Donna but we’re supposed to believe he’s already had his happy slapped Adventures with Heather and Wolfie. Also, the point about it going in out of Universe order is pretty much rendered moot by placing Majenta, the first post-Donna companion so late in the timeline despite the fact she’d fit better earlier on. It also makes a lot of sense that the Doctor would choose to take on companions during his Last Holiday as after the Time Lord Victorious incident it is completely believable that he’d want someone with him to take his mind off of the things to come and to stop him from going too far. In my opinion, it’s incredibly difficult to suspend disbelief that he was inspired to get over Donna and get a new companion by a cat, and then had happy and upbeat adventures with Heather and Wolfie, only for a random offscreen event to suddenly make him depressed about Donna's departure again and make him reluctant to take on companions. Not only is it needlessly complicating things, it’s also disturbing the narrative arc that ran through the Specials, the one that RTD specifically wanted the people who wrote the comics not to interfere with. SarahJaneFan ☎ 01:12, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

Bullet Time Placement

So no clear indication is ever given in this novel as to when its set in the Doctor's Life other than the fact that he’s wearing his linen suit which would suggest a VNA era placement. The author has gone on to say at some stage that it goes during the events of The Room With No Doors, however he claimed that it goes between a scene in the book where the Doctor crawls out of a grave and when he next appears in the novel.

However there is in fact a narrative gap during the book towards the end where the Doctor takes Joel and Penelope home where this could potentially be set. The Reference Guide picked up on this and moved Bullet Time into the later gap as it made more sense than the placement the writer had given. This is of course where we currently have Bullet Time placed.

However, now in a time where we know that there’s many many stories between Lungbarrow and the TV movie, it kind of makes the need for a solo gap just prior to Lungbarrow redundant and I can finally help but wonder if perhaps it might make more sense to move Bullet Time and the other adventures in the same gap to the post-Lungbarrow gap. After all he ends ups travelling in his linen suit as early as Notre Dame du Temps.

Not a major issue, but perhaps something to ponder. SarahJaneFan ☎ 23:59, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Dead Media

That’s not a problem but I think we should have one rule on putting unreleased content on the pages and stick to it. Myself and others have put unreleased stories in the awaiting placement section before and you’ve removed them, so we kind of need to decide whether or not we’re doing it and more importantly whether it’s breaking the rules of the wiki. SarahJaneFan ☎ 14:32, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

Eighth Doctor timeline section headers

Out of curiosity, why did you remove section headers such as “Collapsing timelines“ from Theory:Timeline - Eighth Doctor? I understand that sections such as “Sam and Fitz” might be insufficiently descriptive, but I see no reason why (for instance) all of the Doctor’s adventures with Sam and Compassion should get lumped into one section while events like the Divergent Universe are given their own headers. – N8 ☎ 03:27, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

I’m just realizing that I never thanked you for your speedy and very helpful reply. Cheers! – N8 ☎ 17:21, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Page moves revisited

Hi you've already been informed once before that only admins are permitted to move pages. I'm not sure why you suddenly decided it was ok to move The Doctor (Contents), but I've moved it back for now, and it is currently under discussion. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 02:03, September 18, 2019 (UTC)

Beevers Master

From what I recall, there wasn’t much to go on in terms of placement so I think that’s why it’s pre-Traken to be safe. I’ll give it another listen to see if there’s anything I missed the first time around. SarahJaneFan ☎ 12:43, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

Okay I listened to Animal Instinct again. I still didn’t pick up on anything that placed it anywhere other than at some point in the Beevers Master's life. However he doesn’t recognise River at all, whereas in The Lifeboat and the Deathboat he already knows her.

Animal Instinct could go after Mastermind as he loses his memories of his time as Roberts, but then that would leave an unchronicled first encounter between the Master and River from the Master's perspective.

So it’s probably best placed prior to the TV Movie, but whether it’s before or after The Keeper of Traken is unclear. SarahJaneFan ☎ 15:58, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

The Master Sandboxes

As I said, I support the project of resplitting The Master as you've been sandboxing, but now that Big Finish have given us a specific title for the Derek Jacobi Master, I think he really ought to be at War Master, the War Master or the Master (War), as opposed to the Master (Professor Yana). Either way Yana doesn't really work. Immediately after regaining his memories, the Jacobi Master outright rejects the name Professor Yana, which sets it apart from the Master (Harold Saxon), where he does continue to use it as an alias even after the game is up: the Disciples of Saxon know full well that "his name is……THE MASTER!" but still call him "Saxon" in regular conversation.

Relatedly, The Master (Time War) isn't a very good name for the childlike Master from the comics, considering that the Jacobi incarnation, per Big Finish, was heavily involved in the Time War before he used the Chameleon Arch and hid himself at the end of the universe.

On another note, I insist that the Gordon Tipple Master should have his own page rather than be covered at The Master (Deathworm Morphant). To start with, if (as it should be) the Master (Tremas) is a separate page from the Master (Decayed body), then clearly we're counting stolen bodies as separate versions of the Master. As such, the Tipple Master before he merges with the Morphant, gets executed and takes over Bruce's body shouldn't be considered to be the same guy as the Morphant-enabled Roberts Master. So what to call his individual page? The credits of The TV Movie give him a title of sort, "the Old Master", so like "War Master" I'd be inclined towards Old Master or the Old Master; failing that, there's the slightly ambiguous the Master (Final incarnation) to use the in-universe description, or the Master (Executed), or any number of other things.

(Some of what you've written at User:BananaClownMan/Sandbox/The_Master_(John_Smith) seems to imply the John Smith Master and the Tipple Master are the same incarnation, but even if they didn't look completely different, that'd be speculation of the worst sort that will never fly on this Wiki. Yes, both are referred to as "the final incarnation" of the Master, but there's other things that could mean; The Eight Doctors thinks it's another stolen body like Ainley, and the unofficial-but-interestng Time Rift suggests there was a whole other mostly-offscreen regeneration cycle that the post-Ainley Master was given by the Time Lords and, presumably, burnt through in-between Time Rift and the prologue of The TV Movie.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:26, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, I tried to figure out why you thought it was ok to archive the discussion at Talk:Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor. The only explanation I can come up with is that you are unaware of Tardis:Archiving policy, which states, first of all, "This must only be done when the primarily active discussions have been resolved or gone cold. In the case of the latter a cold discussion is 2 months following the the last post to the subsection. Archiving as a means of "sweeping under the rug" a contentious discussion is strictly forbidden."

More importantly, the policy states, "Archiving of article talk pages can only be done by an admin, who are the final arbiters of when a discussion has concluded."

I have undone your archiving of the page because that discussion is very active, and you performed a disservice by hiding the comments made by everyone in that discussion.

Thank you for your attention. Shambala108 ☎ 17:03, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

Second Doctor Timeline, The Isos Network

The official summary of The Isos Network on the Big Finish website states that this story takes place as the Doctor, Jamie, and Zoe are leaving Earth after defeating the Cybermen. There is absolutely nothing within the timeline that would contradict the placement of this story, in fact it makes very little sense for it to take place so long after the events of The Invasion. Unless you can come up with a good reason to dispute this placement, I'll be reverting your edit sometime within the next 24 hours.

Here is the link with the summary in question:
https://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/doctor-who-the-isos-network-1079

–Nahald ☎ 06:20, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

User pages

Hi please remove the conjecture tag from your sandbox page(s) thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 16:37, January 8, 2020 (UTC)

Any user pages should only have Category:User pages. Shambala108 ☎ 18:08, January 10, 2020 (UTC)

An Apology and Explanation

Hi, I just wanted to apologise for my comment and attitude on the Thirteenth Doctor timeline page. It was unnecessarily confrontational and just a bit out of order.

Often I feel like we’re always fighting each other, I don’t know if that’s just in my head or if you feel the same, because god knows we often disagree. I guess I just want to make it clear that I don’t come looking for fights, and I really don’t want to have any disputes with anyone, even if we often come to blows on placements.

That said, I do feel as though sometimes you treat the timelines as though they belong to you and you have the final authority over them, which is often to the detriment of other users, and not just myself. I do appreciate that you have put a lot of work and effort into the pages, and I’m probably guilty of forcing my own view at times as well. I think that everyone needs to start making compromises and discussing more, so that if we’re not necessarily all in agreement, there’s at least a general consensus because there’s multiple people editing these timelines.

Now I know how it looks, I’ve come over here saying I want to apologise but then I’ve basically just complained about you. I guess I’m just trying to say that yes I’m sorry for my attitude earlier today and that I don’t wish to continue feeling like I’m fighting you on everything. But I also have some concerns that I feel I should share, in the spirit of talking things over rather than letting it get the point where I’m making passive aggressive comments or we’re on the verge of an edit war.

To help you understand where I was coming from with the placement of the DWM comics, I would say that I feel it’s unhelpful to rely on publication order for multi-part comics. I mean The Warmonger Part 1 was released between Ghost Monument and Rosa, while the final part didn’t come out until after Resolution. Similarly the Titan Comics we’re running almost concurrently with DWM at the same time. It’s not as easy a solution as slipping At Childhood’s End in publication order. It almost seems bizarre for me to be arguing against publication order because usually that triumphs for me if a story’s placement is other arbitrary. However I feel as though on this occasion, it makes more sense and flows better to have the two comic series sorted by story arcs. Now obviously there’s no evidence saying that these stories all happen successively, but at the same time there’s nothing to say they come in that loose publication order either. In my mind, story arc elements trump publication order, especially when there’s virtually nothing else to go. I can appreciate though, why you might see things differently.

Again, I do apologise for my attitude earlier. I certainly wish to communicate ideas and thoughts more openly both on the talk pages and the user pages, because I really don’t enjoy the prospect of edit warning and infighting. SarahJaneFan ☎ 01:17, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Yeah I just wanted to clear the air and set things back on track because at the end of the day a placement on a timeline isn’t the end of the world, so I don’t want to come across as being difficult about it.

All this talk of the Thirteenth Doctor’s timeline and it looks like we’ll need to have a proper talk page discussion about the placement of the various comics as someone’s just reshuffled them again. SarahJaneFan ☎ 19:30, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

The Legacy of Yana

Why did you remove the paragraph about the Master and Chantho's discussion of Yana in Utopia from the Legacy section of Yana? Surely the way the Master thinks back on Yana after Yana's death is of relevance to such a section, I would have thought. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:13, February 20, 2020 (UTC)

"The Doctor's early life"

Just a simple question of procedure: is your declaration at Talk:The Doctor's early life to have a community dicussion on the matter an invitation to open a thread? (Your concerns as expressed on that talk page will no doubt be addressed on such a thread by User:NateBumber or myself, more fully than they have already been on the talk page — though if you check said talk page you will see that I have already attempted to clarify Nate's position, which I share.)

(Also, I still would like a reply on the question above, about Yana, whenever it is convenient, but it's hardly urgent. If you have too little time to answer both queries I'd rather you went to this one first and leave Yana for the unspecified future.)--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:16, February 21, 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just pinging you to let you know that I've replied to your comment on Talk:The Doctor's early life! – N8 (☎/👁️) 13:34, February 24, 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I just like to know why all these new pages you are creating are needed? When you created "early life" at first I thought it was weird, but it ultimately made sense. But why are all these new pages needed. It seems to be defeating the purpose of the individual Doctors' own pages. It just makes no sense to me. Surely this can easily be on the Doctors' pages themselves. --DCLM ☎ 13:54, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you are simply killing all the Doctors' pages. --DCLM ☎ 13:58, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected on "early life". I just thought it was you. My bad. But the other pages simply seem to be defeating the purpose of the individual Doctors' own pages in my view. --DCLM ☎ 14:02, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

Doctor pages splitting

Hi, I see you're an editing spree where you're splitting whole sections of each Doctor to their own pages... Might I ask why is that? OncomingStorm12th (talk) 14:13, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

It's just that this adds an immense amount of confusion. It made sense that the Doctor's "early life" was given it's own page as you could not explicitly state that this pertained to the First Doctor. But this just looks very confusing and not needed. I don't see a problem with long articles. --DCLM ☎ 14:21, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

Ok, if this is the case, I'll kindly ask you stop doing these splitting edits. For two reasons:

1) The main problem isn't just that First Doctor is a long page. The reason The Doctor's early life was created is because several stories claim that First Doctor isn't quite the "First". Thus, by complying with Tardis:Neutral point of view we must "give all media equal weight" and not chunk all info on their childhood in the First Doctor's page, exactly because some sources say there were incarnations before him.

2) The solution to shortening pages isn't splitting them into other pages. As pointed by Shambala108 in Thread:264489#9, the solution is to "trim where and when we can". By splitting it into several pages, readers will have to deal with just the same amount of over-detailing some pages have, but now they'd also have to go through the trouble of clicking several pages.

All in all, the intent is appreciated, but ultimately not what the original intent of Thread:264470#4. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 14:27, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

To second User:OncomingStorm12th's points, before you start making major changes, especially including the massive removal of info from pages, ask an admin first. When I get a chance, I will be deleting these pages and restoring the old ones. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 14:33, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

Page moves for at least the third time

You've been blocked for a week for moving a page after you've been told at least twice not to. I won't bore you with the instructions for when you think a page needs moving, because I've already explained it before. Shambala108 ☎ 02:22, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

Second Doctor timeline

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you could give your thoughts over at Theory talk:Timeline - Second Doctor, when you get the chance. Thanks in advance, Danochy ☎ 02:27, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me - it's good to know why you were unable to reply sooner, but for future reference it would have been nice to just have been flicked a note that you'll get back to us as soon as you could. But no matter now. I've given my reply, so I look forward to your response when you have the time. :) Hoping you stay safe and well in these troubled times, Danochy ☎ 04:59, March 24, 2020 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor Timeline

Surely an exception should be made for Battles in Time? They pretty much clutter the timeline with 4+ rows that amount to one story. A story that we can’t even gleam much info from, so it’s not like TV multi-part stories where at least there’s a great of information we can chronicle.

Several of the Frobisher comics that similarly have several parts with a different title are presented on one row in the Sixth Doctor timeline and there’s never been a issue with that.

There’s no rule to say that each part should have its own line, and when the only notes attached to it is “this leads into this” don’t you just wonder what the point is? The timeline pages are difficult enough to navigate without without having a whole heading just for four short entries that amount to a single told story.

I would ask you to at least go away and think about this. I’m by no means asking that all multi-part stories sit on the same line, just that we make an exception for the Battles in Time as a way of keeping the page briefer and tidier. SarahJaneFan ☎ 18:25, March 17, 2020 (UTC)

Block

I'm sorry, I don't know what else to do or think, but I know you know the rules about images per section, yet you continue to ignore them. Your block is for a month, but let this be a warning, despite your many contributions to the wiki, you cannot continue to ignore policy and expect to get away with it. Shambala108 ☎ 23:46, March 21, 2020 (UTC)

Answering this here instead of on Community Central...

Given your explanation, I've unblocked you. In the future, if you're working on something that requires multiple edits, you might want to use the {{inuse}} template, which will let other users know that you're in the middle of something.

And you asked why other pages have multiple images per section. There's a simple reason for that: we have 80000+ pages on the wiki, and some of them get edited fairly often, and those who clean up the wiki can't catch everything. I myself am very busy at work right now and have little free time to edit/clean up the wiki, and I'm sure others face the same constraints. Once I have some free time, this is one of the (very very many) things I need to take care of, before I can even get to the stuff that I want to do. Shambala108 ☎ 00:22, March 22, 2020 (UTC)

Alternate timelines and "Doctor Who and the Time War"

Look, this isn't working. Our mutual good-faith attempts to improve the Wiki are fast turning into an edit war. Let me explain my position at greater length than I could in an edit summary. Please don't edit the page again without answering these concerns properly.

Alternate timelines are a specific in-universe concept, not a catch-all term for what-if histories. A "what-if history" like "what if Karn doesn't happen?" could just as easily be a parallel universe or an oxbow reality for all we know. We can't assume that something is an alternate timeline just because it contradicts other stuff or because of a vague statement that it's "parallel events".

Furthermore, an offhand comment on social media is not a valid source. In some very specific cases, at the end of lengthy Wiki threads, we decided to use such statements as evidence that this or that story was a parallel universe rather than invalid. But this isn't a unilateral, uncontroversial decision that a single user can take in an edit summary.

Yes, forum threads sometimes stall, but that's just the way of things. And FWIW, for such a high-profile topic as "R. T. Davies's take on the Time War", I don't think this particular thread would. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:09, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Master thread

Hi there, if you don't already know Thread:269689 has been created which focuses on the prospect of splitting up the Master pages. I want to invite you to join the discussion; I'd say your participation is needed desperately if the proposal is to gain any traction. Your sandboxes provide proof that a split could work and the OP doesn't really have a clear idea on how to move forward. Thanks for reading, --Borisashton ☎ 23:33, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Timeline Pages Discussion

Hi, Danochy and I have started a discussion over on the timey-wimey detector talk page over the editing of the timelines as we have previously mentioned. There’s also further comments on the Second Doctor Timeline talk page. We’d really appreciate it if you could take a look and perhaps contribute to the discussion whenever you might have a chance. SarahJaneFan ☎ 15:07, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

The 13th Master

Hi, there. I was just browsing your userspace sandbox articles about the different incarnations of the Master, and was wondering why The Master (Decayed body) — The Master (Tremas) and The Master (Deathworm Morphant) are all split up into seperate pages when it's confirmed in The Deadly Assassin (TV story) that the Master is in his thirteenth and final incarnation, which is echoed in Doctor Who (TV story) where the Eighth Doctor also remarks that the Master is in his "final" incarnation. I understand continuity after Ainley does get rather muddled, but his incarnation at least should be considered the same as the incarnation portrayed by Pratt/Beevers. Sabovia ^{(Message Wall) | (Contributions)} 14:02, April 5, 2020 (UTC)