User talk:SawyerDN
Thanks for your recent edits! I'm Jimbo, your robot wiki representative! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is actually a great time to have joined, because we're now fully independent, and working on a host of new features!
We've got a couple of important quirks for a fan written wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.
British English, please
We generally use British English 'round these parts, so if you use another form of English, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card.
Spoilers aren't cool
We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details.
Other useful stuff
Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
- the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
- our Manual of Style
- our image use policy
- our user page policy
If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! — you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this:Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask an admin.
Pharos[[edit source]]
Yeah, it says so in the torchwood encyclopedia and i looked over the story. Green says investigate torchwood, pharos and something else that hasn't been in any stories. Hope that helps. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 02:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 22:30: Tue 20 Dec 2011
Christmas cheer[[edit source]]
As this fiftieth anniversary year comes to a close, we here at Tardis just want to thank you for being a part of our community — even if you haven't edited here in a while. If you have edited with us this year, then thanks for all your hard work.
This year has seen an impressive amount of growth. We've added about 11,000 pages this year, which is frankly incredible for a wiki this big. November was predictably one of the busiest months we've ever had: over 500 unique editors pitched in. It was the highest number of editors in wiki history for a year in which only one programme in the DWU was active. And our viewing stats have been through the roof. We've averaged well over 2 million page views each week for the last two months, with some weeks seeing over 4 million views!
We've received an unprecedented level of support from Wikia Staff, resulting in all sorts of new goodies and productive new relationships. And we've recently decided to lift almost every block we've ever made so as to allow most everyone a second chance to be part of our community.
2014 promises to build on this year's foundations, especially since we've got a full, unbroken series coming up — something that hasn't happened since 2011. We hope you'll stick with us — or return to the Tardis — so that you can be a part of the fun!
Rename policy[[edit source]]
Please note that per Tardis:You are bound by current policy, once you bring an item up for discussion, you are not to change it until/unless it has been discussed. The edits you made have been reverted with this policy in mind. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 01:58, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
Block[[edit source]]
You've been blocked for one day to give you a change to read and understand the policy I have quoted at least three times now: Tardis:You are bound by current policy. I don't know how to make it any clearer: if you bring an item up for discussion, you must allow that discussion to take place, without making the changes in question until/unless the community agrees with the change. Shambala108 ☎ 02:08, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
Block review[[edit source]]
SawyerDN asked me elsewhere on the Wikia network to perform a review of the above block, as is every user's right under Help:I'm blocked. However, the tone of the request was highly intemperate and contrary to the explicit instructions at Help:I'm blocked. It is very important to us at this wiki that, as much as is humanly possible, civility should reign. If you call a fellow admin names, that is a violation of our rule against personal attacks. As that rule is one of our most important, it must be strictly upheld.
Thus the block will remain in force for the few hours of life it has in it.
That being said, I have taken some considerable time out of my Friday evening to understand the substance of this issue, and I think it's important to talk about it for a bit.
SawyerDN, you are absolutely, 100% right in your desire to see these page names changed. What has happened with all these pages is what we call around here real world creep. The only correct name of the Capaldi character's page is Lobus Caecilius. That's how the character introduces himself in the episode. The name of the historical character does not appear anywhere in the episode. The Italian Job has RTD flatly and clearly stating that he took the family names of the Roman characters from the Cambridge series to which you referred "as a joke". It is exceedingly clear from watching that Doctor Who Confidential episode, however, that he did not intend for us to believe that this was an actual historical character. Rather, the whole thing was a gag as commonly seen in Asterix comics.
In other words, Spartacus may well be Spartacus in this episode — but Caecilius is not Caecilius.
For this reason, I find that further discussion about whether to change the page name is unnecessary. We have both in-universe and out-of-universe evidence to strongly support a name change to Lobus Caecilius. And indeed, at Talk:Lucius Caecilius Iucundus, you do not open a discussion. You simply inform why you're changing a name. I do that, too — all he time. And that's fine and good. That's just using the talk page to annotate the reasons you're "being bold", as our friends at Wikipedia like to say.
Where you ran afoul of our policies was at Talk:Quintus Caecilius Iucundus. There you do appear to open a discussion. It's a marginal case, because you don't clearly assert a case, as you do at Capaldi's character's page, but your use of the conditional and your indecision about which replacement name to use does seem to invite discussion.
And so Shambala is quite right to say, "Hold on, if you're gonna merely suggest a change, you've gotta wait for a little discussion on that."
The principle she's upholding here is a very important one. Basically, if you're going to ask a question about an article, or you're not sure of a course forward, you've got to allow debate. If you don't do that, then the value of discussion would plummet. People just wouldn't talk anymore. Granted, we may get no more responses at Talk:Quintus Caecilius Iucundus. But now you've suggested two possibilities for reform, it's important to let the community have their say.
So, to sum up:
- Because you were fairly intemperate in your review request, your block remains in place until it naturally expires in a few hours
- Capaldi's character's page will be moved immediately.
- Quintus Caecilius Iucundus shall remain unmoved for at least one week, after which time it will be summarily removed to Quintus Caecilius, unless the discussion leads to another name.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 07:12: Sat 01 Mar 2014
