User:Cousin Ettolrhc
We are all of us living inside the bottle. And one day, the bottle will break. Then all worlds will be one world. The inside will meet the outside.
Bloodline to bloodline, in constant transition. Our pattern, our flesh, and our one restoration. / Conception, completion, the will of the city. The Grandfather watch me. The Grandfather know me.. / Grandfather watch me. Spirits maintain me.
Introduction
Welcome to my userspace! Please call me Ettolrahc or (the) Cousin, and not Charlotte (for anyone who can't reverse words easily, Ettolrahc is Charlotte reversed but I only like being called the former in wiki-related circles).
Areas of interest
My primary areas of interest are Faction Paradox, the BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures, and the Eighth Doctor across media in general.
I plan on getting into Cwej: The Series, Bernice Summerfield (probably do VNAs first), and potentially Iris Wildthyme
Expectations
Apologies for the amount of times I re-edit a page immediately after editing to fix typos, often multiple times - I do most of my editing on mobile, and often forget to preview "Visual Editor" before saving, and even when I do it often doesn't save the source code, making it useless. (to be clear, i so edit in source mode)
I do wish to improve T:VS, although due to all of the recent Temporary Forums threads, there is little left I wish to valifate.
My work on wiki
My created pages
See /Created pages
Pages I've edited
See /Edited pages
Sources ready for re-editing when I have time
1. Of the City of the Saved...
Sandboxes
Forum opening posts
Opening Post
There are many categories hanging around the wiki, such as Category:Non-DWU Cybermen and Category:Non-DWU Doctors, which seem to be attempting to tell our readers that these concepts "didn't really happen in the DWU". The phrase "what really happened" is often used to define "canon", and so having numerous categories about saying "Non-DWU" is arguably in violation of Tardis:Canon policy, which says we do not define a canon.
Solution 1: NONVALID
The prefix NOTVALID is currently used for sources which fail T:VS but still warrant coverage, and I propose we do a similiar thing for these categories. However, I also think "notvalid" looks a bit ugly, and would prefer we did "nonvalid" (a la Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 6: Subpages 2.0's proposal to have "/non-valid sources" subpage). EDIT THIS IF THE THREAD HAS PASSED AND BEEN ARCHIVED, OR IF THAT PROPOSAL FAILED. This would make the new categories be something like Category:Nonvalid Doctors (or perhaps Category:Non-valid Doctors).
Solution 2: normal, but "from an invalid source" or "from a nonvalid source"
Another possibility is changing the category names to be more similiar to valid categories, Category:Incarnations of the Doctor from nonvalid sources, for example. This has the advantage of continuity across valid and nonvalid pages, but has the disadvantage that the title is longer, and it could be argued that the "nonvalid sources" being later in the category name makes it harder for readers to notice its contents failed T:VS.
Additionally
I think it would make sense to rename the NOTVALID prefix to NONVALID in this thread, as such a minor thing doesn't really deserve its own thread, but I doubt renaming a prefix could be done in a talk page, and this thread is related to that idea.
EDIT TO INCLUDE SIGNITURE WHEN THREAD IS OPENED
Opening Post
![This subject is, or pertains to, an invalid source, as as such should not be used to write in-universe articles, except those tagged with {{NCmaterial}}]. Click here to see why](/w/images/Tardis_Images/5/59/Invalid_remake_3.png){kind=small}
When looking at pages about concepts ruled invalid by this wiki, it is often confusing to know why precicely they are "invalid". All I am proposing is to change the link in {{invalid}} from T:VS to a subsection with "Behind the Scenes" called "reasons for invalidty", or, optionally, any link the user wants - for example to a thread recently closed which invalidated it. This has double advantages - if someone wants to validate a source, they can investigate the reasons it was deemed invalid and attempt to disprove them, and if someone wants to keep a source invalid in such a debate, they have those old reasons readily accesible so invaliditing evidence isn't accidently missed.
I think that all relevant threads should go into the "reasons for invalidty" subsection, as well.
Discussion
Opening Post
The page TARDIS control room has bugged me for a while, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of the article is written as if it is The Doctor's TARDIS control room, but then at the bottom it has other control rooms. Of course, technically, thats the apropiate way to structure such a page... but that, I feel, shows that the page shouldn't be of the type it is. I propose splitting the page into constituents, one for each "redesign" of the TARDIS interior. Some lines of these redesigns are difficult to define, but I've tried my best in my implimentation of this splitting - if anyone disagrees with how I've done this, this is the perfect place to say so! I do not think that the fact that some of these definitions may be contraverial warrants the split not occuring at all.
Additionally, if anyone else wants to make a network of sandboxes instead of mine, which you feel are better, go right ahead and propose them in this thread.
Final note - is it console room or control room? This wiki currently chooses "control", but I chose "console" out of pure bias. I think this is as good a place as any to quickly re-discuss this (as it was originally discussed in Thread:121948, a while ago)
Discussion
Moved to Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR, continued in Forum:Queen Victoria and other honourifics
This is for all of the opening posts I have ready for the forums.
- I want to change our phrasing of invalid/noncovered to be more intuitive and indicative to what they actually mean in the current wiki. But I haven't proposed this yet, as I have no idea what to name them. Please contact me on my talk page (or discord, preferably) if you have any advice!
