User talk:Snivystorm

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference

Hey this is my talk page. Please don't spam, troll, waste my time, be a hassle, all that bad stuff here. Thank you.Snivystorm ^_^

Welcome to the Tardis:About Snivystorm

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:

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 on my talk page. Doug86 ☎ 19:57, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion and chit-chat

If we are to discuss the contents of an article, we use the talk page to talk about it. The summaries are not used for chit-chats. The summaries are used for brief descriptions of what you've changed on the pages. --DCLM ☎ 16:28, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realise there was a talk page for every single article. I will ask there then. By the way, would you prefer I kept replying to your messages here or on your talk page in future? Thanks! Snivystorm ☎ 17:12, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Edit on your user page

Hi! Your recent addition to your user page had to be removed for violating our spoiler policy. Please take some time to read about our spoiler policy here and here. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 14:19, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Christmas cheer

Happy holidays!

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!

TardisDataCoreRoadway.png


Edit summaries

Hi! Please don't mark an edit as "minor" when you've added content. Please see Tardis:Edit summary for details. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 20:50, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about, I wasn't tinkling straight ahah sorry ^^ Snivystorm ☎ 21:26, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi! Thanks for adding a delete tag to a page that violated Tardis:Spoiler policy. One small thing, if you see something that needs to be deleted, all you have to do is add the tag. Don't remove all content from the page, see Tardis:Deletion policy for details. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 14:11, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of service ^_^ I just figured deleting it all was safest since then no one has anything spoiled at all in the meantime, but I'll do otherwise in the future. Snivystorm ☎ 14:57, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

Block

You're blocked for a month for your comments at Talk:Friend from the Future (webcast). If you had insulted any other user besides me, I would have given you a permanent block. Please carefully read Tardis:No personal attacks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:51, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I didn't mean to offend you; if I did, I wholeheartedly apologise. What I meant by my comment was that the guy I was talking to said there was no discussion and I appear to have misinterpreted your message as that the admins will vote on it, hence I was defending what you wrote, not insulting you. I apologise once more for this misunderstanding. If you want to take this matter to neutral ground rather than here, I'm happy to do that; I just want to understand what my attack actually was so I know to avoid such in future. Also, the Red Cross thing tells me to tell you my Block ID is 6635. Once again, I'm deeply sorry. Snivystorm ☎ 16:34, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

I honestly just want to be able to edit and improve articles again on here. I will ever avoid discussing anything with anyone on here again. I just want to help out here, not cause destruction or bring harm to others. Snivystorm ☎ 17:50, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi, I wanted to ask that you cease reverting edits on such pages as TV: Thin Ice. You removed a worthy production error and a continuity point, and in both cases there was nothing wrong with the actual edits. Thanks. OS25 (Talk) 17:48, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

I believe I left the valid question just desiring confirmation about our certainty that it was the exact same instruction. If it was wrong of me to want complete validation, then I will refrain from such in future if I'm (hopefully) allowed to return to editing. I apologise. By the way, what was wrong with the ones I put in that you removed? I'm failing to understand the difference between mine and yours, perhaps you could enlighten me? Snivystorm ☎ 17:53, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmorris7777 (talk • contribs) .

You did, I put it back. Snivystorm ☎ 15:29, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you note

Hi! I wanted to thank you for showing restraint in today's discussions. While it is preferable to achieve a consensus, it is not always possible. Since the page in question is now stable and you chose to cease the argument that wasn't leading anywhere, the matter is essentially resolved. Thus, I commend you for the ability to agree to disagree. It is to everybody's benefit. Amorkuz ☎ 19:42, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, sorry for the trouble but I don't suppose you could tell me how to rename the page I set up Corsair's TARDIS to read The Corsair's TARDIS? I want to do it by myself. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Saint2 (talk • contribs) .

Hi again Saint2. Only admins are allowed to rename pages. --DCLM ☎ 15:26, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Regeneration energy

Hi, it's more than alright to create the page. It would be great if you do. The problem with the version I deleted was that it provided very specific information that two editors including me did not recognise the source of. And no source has been given. So sourcing was the problem. Thank you in advance if you take care of it. Amorkuz ☎ 07:44, July 9, 2017 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. And thank you for asking. It is always a good idea. I just wanted to clarify that a deleted page does not automatically require a special permission to be restored. Essentially, if you try to create a page and the reason for its deletion has nothing to do with the reason you want to create, it is probably okay to recreate it. Though asking the deletor can remove any danger of repeating the same mistake. Pages that should not be recreated at all are likely to be protected from creation, meaning that you will not be able to recreate them anyways. Amorkuz ☎ 18:49, July 9, 2017 (UTC)

Active vs. Passive

Hi, I've noticed that in the past few days you've been making edits by remove what you think is passive voice from the wiki and replacing it with active voice. You haven't be changing from passive to active you've been changing between different forms of the active voice.

|My boss is giving many assignments" is in the active voice "Many assignments are being given by my boss is in the passive voice.

"The Doctor says Clara is always acting teacher-y." is in the active voice.

Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:38, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, it's one of the strange quirks of the English language is that there are three versions of the present tense in the active voice.
  • I read
  • I am reading (for continuous actions)
  • I do read (for emphasis)

Which one you use depends on the context of the sentence. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 20:54, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for defending the wiki from overly aggressive users. In order to improve our coordination in the future, a couple of points. It is more efficient to notify an admin on their talk page than to continue undoing edits or calling for admin attention in an edit summary. If need be, the edits can be reverted at any time. So, unless the new state of the page makes babies cry in their prams and birds fall from the sky, it is not necessary to return the page to the original state right on the spot. What needs to be done is to suggest a discussion on a talk page and notify an admin. What should be avoided (and was avoided in this case, which I am very happy about) is replying in kind and making too many undo edits. Note that if one user makes 4 edits and the other user undoes them 4 times, then both have engaged in an edit war and both are likely to be blocked. As I said, it did not happen this time, so let it never happen to you. Thanks for keeping a cool head. Amorkuz ☎ 23:03, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Sycorax invasion of Earth

I created that page and am currently in the process of building it. Hence why I put that Inuse thing up. I'll remove it when I'm done. You didn't give me the chance to do more than create the page's outline before you went to work on it.--WarGrowlmon18 ☎ 17:11, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know about that policy thing but last time I created a page like this someone told me to put that thing up if I wanted everyone to leave it alone. I think it actually says not to edit for 72 hours while that thing is up. And yeah, I removed your stuff because as I stated, I'm currently writing the page. Hence its not complete yet. Also, there were glaring errors such as the Doctor being taken care of in Rose's "other's flat." I assume you meant "mother's flat." I actually fixed and kept that part but there was other stuff like that. Just leave the page alone for the next few hours while I build it. I'm watching the episode and writing the damn thing at the same time.--WarGrowlmon18 ☎ 17:32, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi, how are you? I was just wondering if you could tell me why the image I uploaded for the page "Roscoe (Flatline)" was deleted? Did I do something wrong? LauraBatham ☎ 01:10, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

"Main enemy" is often the enemy

Yes, I will happily confirm and deny your views. Formally, there is no restriction to just one enemy. You can clearly see it in the documentation for the {{Infobox Story}}: for instance, {{Infobox Story/doc/TV story}} and {{Infobox Story/doc/novel}}. But editorially, there are very few situations where two main enemies would be warranted. If one puts three or more main enemies, they are probably doing it wrong.

Let me premise a more elaborate explanation by the mention that this is a bad variable. Bad because it causes an enormous amount of back and forth in direct opposition to Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. Everyone has their own ideas of what an enemy is, how to compare them, etc. What if a character is the enemy the whole episode and then saves the Doctor's life? What if the Doctor is tortured by one character but the commands are secretly issued by another, as we learn five episodes later? We did manage to codify exactly what "doctor" means and when another doctor is a "secondary doctor". With the main enemy, the situation is a bit hopeless. There are only guidelines and no firm rules.

So let me try to explain the guidelines, which I formulated for myself after interacting with other admin.

  • This is not Game of Thrones. It is virtually never the case that everyone is the enemy. I do not doubt that there are stories with three main enemies (mainly because there typically are stories with any given property), but they are exceedingly rare and definitely require a discussion.
  • This is actually a show about peace. It is completely fine not to have a main enemy in the story. It is certainly much better than invent an artificial one or elevate a mere nuisance to the status of the main enemy.
  • The main enemies need not be individual persons. It is much more informative to give a collective noun than to list all the names. Think Cybermen vs. Krail, Krang, etc. for The Tenth Planet.
  • In all cases, try to find one ultimate enemy (be it one person or a group thereof). That's what the form "Main enemy" in the infobox hints at. Usually, just one. It's very easy to list everyone who stepped on the Doctor's foot or called him names, but it's not very helpful.
  • Once again, Doctor Who is a show about second chances, reconciliation, compromise. It is not about searching for enemies. If someone acts in their self-interest without morally compromising themselves, they are not the enemy. If someone follows orders according to the chain of command, they are not the enemy. If someone committed a horrible act unknowingly, they are not the enemy. I can't give you an exact definition, but the rule of thumb is: if the Doctor would not call them an enemy, they are not the enemy.
  • Another view of this is akin to criminal justice. The main enemy should have a sinister motive, explicit intent and realistic opportunity to hurt the main characters. Daleks in The Pilot are not given the opportunity to hurt the Doctor. Instead, he is using them against someone else. Hence, they are not the main enemy (it was explicitly discussed on the talk page).
  • For me, the model is The Chase. It is an "anthology" story with multiple settings, each with its own dangers. There are Aridians, Mire Beasts, robots, robot duplicates and Mechonoids. They are all antagonists to a certain extent. But only Daleks are considered the "main enemy". In other words, find someone who persists throughout the story rather than only in parts of it, who really intends to harm the characters, whose motives are not pure and who is actually dangerous.
  • And to have two main enemies, one needs two equally powerful but independent threats, which does not happen that often (though Doomsday might be one of such cases).

Does this leave space for equivocation? Sure. But it certainly excludes goons, mindless robots, comic-relief characters, as well as those who repents at the end of the story (you wouldn't call your partner the enemy if you make up in the end, would you?).

Television stories typically get enough editors to have settled the question a long time ago. So changing things there is usually not needed. Novels often have missing information for sure. I have not read these ones, so cannot judge for myself. But there definitely should be fewer enemies. If there are so many enemies in one story, they are either completely pathetic and easily defeated, in which case they need not merit a "main enemy" label, or some of them command the others and are, thus, the "main", or they form an alliance that then can be the main enemy collectively. Hope this helps. Amorkuz ☎ 23:39, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

Starship of Theseus

Hi Snivystorm why do you think my recent edit on the Eighth Doctor page be vandelism. I listen to the story last night and changed the text to be accurate to the story. He aims to lead them back to the time lord ship however on the way he spots a Dalek Ship and uses that instead. Other clues it is a Dalek ship is that there is a Dalek on board and he isn't sure of how to work the controls. Also the sound design as the Dalek heartbeat in it. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 08:21, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

No Problem, I was a bit tired when I wrote it so it probably that why it might have been broken. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 11:25, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

Helping others

Hi! I definitely appreciate your enthusiasm and your desire to help others. And if someone directly asks you a question, you can answer to the best of your knowledge (but it's best to make clear that it might be helpful for them to ask an admin). But if someone specifically asks an admin a question, like User:JMC Red Dwarf did about videos, it's best to let the admin answer the question. User:Amorkuz and I (and a few other admins) do try to get back to a user within two days, which is a very reasonable time for answering user questions. Therefore it's not necessary for a non-admin to answer questions asked directly of admins. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 20:10, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

infobox

Hi, I just noticed the infobox you are using on your main user page is the "Infobox Individual". That one is only for DWU characters. For user pages, you would use the "Infobox User". Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 23:43, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Series 5 story count

Hi, I wasn't the one who made the edit, but was just wondering how you got the story count of 14 instead of 10? I thought 2 partners made 1 story, and am unsure where these other 4 stories come from, especially since there aren't even 14 episodes. Thanks for your time, 0003c9fe ☎ 21:24, January 30, 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, please make sure that in your edit summaries you don't mark other users' edits as "vandalism" unless you are 100% sure it is vandalism. New users often don't know our policies and some don't even know much beyond the basics of wiki editing. As Tardis:No personal attacks states, always assume good faith. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 14:03, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages

Hi, please do not post the {{unsigned}} or {{Unsigned-anon}} template on user talk pages. Users get a notification when there is a post on their talk pages, and it's frustrating to receive a notification and attend to it only to find that it's just a template being added.

There is no problem with adding the templates to article talk pages, however. Thanks for your attention, Shambala108 ☎ 02:15, May 29, 2018 (UTC)


Thanks

Hi Snivystorm, Thanks for editing the article on hacking I created, I was struggling to get things right (It is my first ever page).

Rheneasfan22 ☎ 08:44, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Citation

Sorry for the need for you to put up that citation. I've added in Cass who reacted to the Eighth Doctor's identity as a Time Lord as an example. --Saint2 ☎ 11:48, August 4, 2018 (UTC)

Leads of TV stories

Hey hey! Thanks for your recent edits!

Just wanted to stop by to give you more info about my edit that removed some stuff you added to The Woman Who Fell to Earth. Thing is, leads should include notable information. In general, crew and cast members aren't notable. I know there has been some confusion about this lately, and we've fallen into the habit of starting episode titles with something like:

This episode was the Xth episode of series Y. It starred these people, was written by this woman, and directed by this person.

But these are basic, ordinary facts already located in other parts of the article. As we determined through forum discussion many years ago, the point of a lead is to grab the reader and contextualise the story in the broad sweep of Doctor Who — and sometimes socio-cultural — history. One example that our guideline gives is that of Planet of Giants, which is still worth emulating.

With the great volume of Doctor Who stories in all media, I know that proper leads aren't always possible. A lot of times, we create articles in a skeletal fashion. The "cast and crew listing" approach is vital to getting an article started for this month's Big Finish audio, or a book that's only just been released. But with television episodes — except the very earliest revisions that might be made by an admin in order to lock the page immediately prior to broadcast — it's not as hard to go a little further and offer our readers a little more.

I see that you've already started removing some of this basic info in other stories' leads. I really appreciate that, and I think our readers will too!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  13:00: Mon 08 Oct 2018

Question

Hi, I am not familiar with the tv story Rosa. Am I to understand from your edit summaries to White people and Black people that those terms never occur in-story? Also, Thin Ice? Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 00:36, October 23, 2018 (UTC)

K, thanks a bunch. Shambala108 ☎ 00:44, October 23, 2018 (UTC)

I LOVE Doctor Who as well. Do you have a favorite Doctor and Companion? Mine is Rose Tyler and David Tennant.

Multiple edits

Hey man, could you try to limit the number of edits to the same page by nailing all your edits in a single publish? Micro-editing like that to the same page can make it really difficult to keep track of the changes made. Thanks. Also, I'd like to point out that usually responses to your talk page are left on the other person's talk page so that the other person gets a notification. When you leave the response on your own talk page, they might not see it. I made the same mistake at first, just wanted you to know. Masterpwn (Do you hear the bones too?) 19:29, November 5, 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, try to avoid lengthening the link when wikifying. For example, your recent edit took this wikifying: "((web))bing" which is a perfectly acceptable wikifying, and changed it to ((web|webbing)), which is also an acceptable wikify, but uses more data. Try to avoid editing wikifications solely, and definitely avoid lengthening them. I'm not gonna undo the edit, because you made an edit to something else at the same time, and its better to leave reviews to mods in my opinion, but like I said, try to avoid that in the future. Masterpwn (Do you hear the bones too?) 19:36, November 5, 2018 (UTC)
In response to your question of a little exta data being harmful: Yes, according to a few mods. I have been editing a long time, and I can appreciate the neatness, but once you get used to it, the short versions are simpler and just as neat. I did something similar when I fist started editing and was scolded by Shambala.
Also, in regards to a couple other of your edits, please be sure you're using correct grammar. If you're unsure how this wiki handles its grammar, be sure to check out the relevant guide pages. Masterpwn (Do you hear the bones too?) 19:45, November 5, 2018 (UTC)
Just pointing this out: User:Masterpwn's first request is not policy. There are often times when it's easier to make multiple small edits (for example, users having slow connection or small screens, or just too much info to put in one edit). Previewing an edit is always a good idea to catch little mistakes before publishing, but there is nothing inherently wrong with making multiple successive edits to a page. Shambala108 ☎ 19:47, November 5, 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. It makes things a little easier, but I don't know you were on mobile, so it's all good. I usually wait to do my editing when I'm on my computer just because doing it from mobile can be such a pain. Masterpwn (Do you hear the bones too?) 19:51, November 5, 2018 (UTC)

Re: battle of ranskor

Hi, you left the following edit summary at The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos (TV story): "Why remove? " I will answer that question.

The IP user who added the plot and images is one of two or three unregistered users who keep adding images (and sometimes text) to pages with image size changed from thumbnail. This is against policy, of course, but there are a couple of reasons why I just undo the entire edit. First of all, they have been doing this repeatedly, and having other users clean up after the hasn't changed their behavior. And it's not possible to leave them messages on their talk pages because unregistered users may never realize they have a talk page message because they don't receive notifications. So there isn't a very effective way of correcting their behavior (short of blocking) except for removing the entire edit and hoping they notice and wonder why. The other reason is that I don't expect any user who is cleaning up to have to search painstakingly through the long text of the page to find the mistakes made by others. For myself personally, if I'm using my Ipad, it's difficult to find all the mistakes in a long page. In addition, this ridiculous white on dark lettering makes it really difficult to search through the long text to find the mistakes.

To sum up, sometimes the best way to correct user behavior is to remove their edits entirely so they can learn what they're doing wrong instead of making the same mistakes over and over for others to correct. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 23:29, December 10, 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snivystorm, sorry for the quality of the image I posted. It's the best angle I could find to prove that the Second Doctor's sonic was in The Pilot. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalekdylan (talk • contribs) .

Response to your query at Thread:248287

Hey. I'm responding here because your first question at Thread:248287 is slightly off-topic to the discussion at hand. We're using that thread to reach out for new solutions, and to make sure voices are heard, not to revisit the recent past.

To provide context, since you asked, though, one editor made some very good edits to fix deadnames in infoboxes -- something which I had started working on myself, and was in talks about behind the scenes, trying to get everyone to agree on the best solution. For context, a deadname is the name assigned at birth, and since very much abandoned, for a trans person. It's really not okay to reveal someone's deadname without their express consent. As I know I would never stand for any of my friends' or kids' (that I work with) deadnames being used in any capacity, I have been pushing this issue quite a bit in the last while myself.

Anyway, that user was banned by one admin for engaging in an edit war -- which was really that user doing the right thing, but we had not yet formally established best practice, so this led to some confusion. Then a different admin misunderstood the reason for the ban, and reverted their (constructive) edits. Basically, it seemed as though these actions meant that this wiki's admin team opposed the removal of deadnames. This could not be further from the case. I cannot speak for the other admin, but I sure as hell have wanted these changes for quite a while.

The discussion at Thread:248287 comes at a point where some users have spoken out, but I don't feel they were given enough credence the first time around by those who responded. We want to give people the platform to talk about these things, because letting trans voices lead when it comes to trans issues means a lot more than "Assume SOTO can speak on behalf of everyone in their community". Hope this clears things up.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 22:31, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just didn't want to derail the thread. Changes may well come from that discussion, but T:ACTOR does not need changing, as far as I'm aware. The expansion I wrote in is really just a matter of basic respect for trans people, so I really don't think we'll be removing any of those protections.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 00:10, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Re:quotes template

Hi, honestly I don't really know what's going on there. The {{Simplequote}} template is "newer" (having been created in 2013 while the {{Quote}} template was created in 2008).

I'll just say you can use whichever one you want, and play around with them, and if one seems to you better than the other, then maybe we can see about changing Tardis:Quotes. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 01:22, September 19, 2019 (UTC)

Here's a funny thing...just by coincidence I think I found the answer to your question. There exists a category called Category:Quote template doesn't work on this page. The description on the category page states:
"Quote template doesn't work on this page" contains pages where the current styling of {{quote}} just doesn't work, largely because {{quote}} is in conflict with the table of contents. They are, therefore, candidates ripe for using a different quotation template.
There is only one page in this category, Lance Parkin, and if you look at the source code, the quote given is using {{Simplequote}}. So now we know the answer: {{Simplequote}} was created to cover pages that don't work with {{Quote}}.
I don't think I would have found this answer if I had been specifically searching for it; I just happened to be looking through maintenance categories and was curious about this one. Shambala108 ☎ 01:37, September 19, 2019 (UTC)
I brought your question to User:CzechOut, since he created the template, so we'll see what he has to say. Shambala108 ☎ 01:12, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
T:QUOTES exists primarily to tell when and where quotes are allowed on pages. It codifies a discussion from the past where we decided we weren't going to have quotes at the top of articles or sections. It encourages users to prefer {{quote}} as the means for allowing graphical quotes. It deliberately doesn't mention {{simplequote}}, as that was a largely experimental alternative that wrapped better in some layout situations. — mainly when you wanted to quote right next to an infobox or image. A good modern example of usage is Vinay Patel. You couldn't put the quote that high up in the article using {{quote}}, so {{simplequote}} could be an alternative. Personally, though, I think this is overkill. Since the infobox already gives you a graphical element, you don't need a pull quote to the left of it. A simple, normal, quote is almost certainly better.
And today in examining this issue on other pages, I've actually pulled a few uses of {{simplequote}} in preference for an ordinary, non-templated quote. Christmas present, for instance, works just fine without a pull quote because it's a relatively small page, dominated by a helpful graphic.
I basically wouldn't use {{simplequote}}, but just sorta remember it's around in case you have some odd text flow situation around a real need for a pull quote. Still, I've cleaned up a little of the CSS surrounding it and {{quote}} so that we should better see links in quotes now.
Hope that helps!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  03:08: Fri 20 Sep 2019

Check on

Hello, User:Snivystorm. I just wanted to stop by and check how you were doing in these trying times of self-isolation?BananaClownMan ☎ 09:56, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Can't really complain. Sure, it's a bit of a downer that my job got closed down and all the applications I made for temporary work never accepted, but my application for paid leave from my permanent job got approved, so I can still pay the rent. My family is also buzzing around me, it's one of the reasons I took my computer off the family desk and hooked it up in the garage. I've been keeping myself occupied by trying to fill in the stubs on the Doctor pages as best I can, as well as my daily exercise on my bike. The LOCKDOWN releases have been a big help in fighting of boredom. Have you seen Farewell, Sarah Jane. I cried.BananaClownMan ☎ 18:42, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

Francine Jones

by the way Francine Jones Is acally a member of The Children of Time. EthanSmith12 hello 16:58, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying Invalidity Rationales

I don't believe (thankfully!) that either of us has engaged in anything like an edit war yet — you made one edit, I reverted it, we're now talking out via talk page messages; all civil and above-board. And very good too.

Now as to the meat of the matter — the line is only necessary for potentially-contentious things. If a casual reader could plausibly wonder why on Earth we don't consider X or Y "canon", then we should probably explain, rather than make our validity policies appear arbitrary and impenetrable. Since there is already a debate at Talk:The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) on why it is invalid, I do think this is one case that very much warrants the notice.

However, I do think a lot of invalid stories should, as best practice if not as strict obligation, have an invalidity rationale somewhere. If the lead already mentions that it's a parodical story, or otherwise make it clear to the reader why we don't consider it valid, of course, it's not necessary to spell it out in so many words. But again, best not to seem arbitrary and impenetrable, but rather to invite readers to investigate and learn about our policies.

Though not all pages have the rationale by far, this isn't the exception either. You will also find it on Strax Saves the Day, United we stand, 2m apart (webcast) or The Universe Marathon, to take a few examples off the top of my head. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:59, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

Punchline

Hey Snivystorm, I'm not sure if you know this, but Punchline isn't actually a Seventh Doctor story. It's part of the BBV's ripoff Doctor Who-lite series, that isn't licensed or part of the DWU. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 19:10, May 31, 2020 (UTC)

It's all cool! We all have our bad days. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 19:22, May 31, 2020 (UTC)

J&R

I saw it on one of their pages and just added it to the other's. It later transpired that they married in the R&J audio story.BananaClownMan ☎ 13:39, June 4, 2020 (UTC)

Eddy vs Eddy Currents

Eddy Currents are named after eddies, which aren't a person, but are instead something found in fluids. So the page is currently called "Eddy" after the fluid dynamic concept, instead of "Eddy Current", the E&M analogue of the fluid dynamic concept. Najawin ☎ 00:07, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Eddy Currents

Hi user Snivystorm my apologies, by 'eddy" I meant the physics concept "eddy" and "eddy currents" found in fluid dynamics and electromagnetism. We created a new page for it earlier but I was concerned because I had a feeling this problem would come up since (I guess I guessed correctly) that there may already exist a character named "Eddy" in the Doctor Who universe and it was why I wanted to delete the original, I wanted to add a little note in brackets, sort of like "Eddy (phenomenon)" for the title of the page. I forgot to check if it was the proper link. Would you be able to correct this now and link to the "eddy" page that has to do with the fluid dynamics/electromagnetic/scientific concept? Thank you, sorry for the confusion! DoctorQuoi ☎ 00:24, June 14, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Merry Christmas

Hello, there. I just wanted to stop by and wish you the merriest of Christmases, and a Happy New Year. BananaClownMan ☎ 14:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Forums

Hey, Snivy, while you're here, could you check out Forum talk:Index when you have the time? There's a discussion going on that it would be nice for active users to comment on, and you weren't here when it was in recent changes so you couldn't have seen it. Najawin ☎ 21:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody involved has said anything, is all. That's the place to comment. Najawin ☎ 20:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Just as an update, Tardis:Temporary forums are now live. Najawin ☎ 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Cite source

Thank you for asking! Tardis:Citation definitely needs updating. The current policy is to prefer {{cite source}} when possible, we've just not finished converting everything yet… because the tricky thing is that citesource doesn't work unless the story page has itself been modified to use {{Infobox Story SMW}} instead of {{Infobox Story}}, and we haven't yet found a way to automate that change, so it's up to editors to gradually update all infoboxes and citations to the new templates. In the meantime it's not against policy to use the old style, but recommended to go the extra mile. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct! (But only if you also make sure to check that the linked story page is using the SMW version of the infobox.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Trying to locate a missing thread

Hi. I'm not Shambala, but I know the answer to your query. The thread in question is not available in its original form but, thanks to an increadible effort by SOTO, is available at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon IV (as part of a project to recover missing threads and, eventually, give them their own pages again). Since then, the resolution of the thread has been expanded upon slightly in Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0, specifically Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0#/Biography. Bongo50 ☎ 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Missing thread

Hi! Unfortunately I'm not able to help you with your question. The archiving of old forum posts and the start of the new ones occurred during the time of year when I'm very busy at work, and I never really had a chance to catch up on all the changes. There have been many changes to longstanding policies, and this one in particular was very unpopular with editors who don't have to worry about long page-loading times, so I assume that it no longer applies. Sorry I can't be of more help, but thanks for your efforts! Shambala108 ☎ 03:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes — as User:Bongolium500 indicated, the change to the prior thread is simply that if a given main-page biography is trimmed to the three-sentences standard, the full-length version should be moved to a /Biography subpage, not deleted. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Using Talk pages as forums

I think the source of this is that a link to the talk page is included in {{subpage tabs}} (as decided on at Forum:Subpage tabs), making the pages much easier to find and giving more of an impression that they're for readers as well as editors. Perhaps it would be worth revisiting their inclusion in the template? In terms of immediate action, I will message this user and also give them a short block with a note as to where to find the message. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Bongo50 ☎ 14:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's subpages that are causing the issue. It's the fact that the talk page is also included in the {{subpage tabs}} template at the top of pages, making it much easier to discover. Bongo50 ☎ 14:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Seeking clarification

Sorry for the late response. I've been abroad and so away from my computer from Monday to Wednesday and was ill on Thursday.

  1. Adding {{unsigned}} is correct inline with T:SIG. However, I do not believe there is any policy or consensus on what to do if the signature is added retroactively. If forced to make a ruling, I'd probably lean on the side of keeping the retroactive signature, although this does lead to inconsistent timestamps. Perhaps this would be worth opening a small forum discussion to discuss further?
  2. I think that it would be fine to chip away at it over time. I actually feel that it's easier to review larger changes when they're made gradually in smaller edits over time. Yes, the "/Biography" subpage is a straight copy-paste of the current "Biography" section, allowing the main page to be trimmed down to within the 3 sentence ruling.
  3. I'll take a look at the discussion now.

Bongo50 ☎ 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not feeling the best, but I'm ceraintly a lot better.
  1. I don't have anything particular to say to this. I just want the numbers to line up.
  2. That sounds like a good plan. I'd say that it probably doesn't apply to the Fourteenth Doctor, at least not yet. He probably will have enough stories to justify it at somepoint (particuarly when Big Finish get their hands on him), but I don't feel that there's enough yet. It's similar for the Fifteenth Doctor, apart from he absolutely will have enough stories to justify it. However, like Fourteenth, his subpage can probably wait until those sources exist.
  3. I like the ranked system because it aligns better with my way of thinking through this kind of thing (e.g. I ranked every image, not just 3, when I left my reply in the discussion), but I do see how it could be considered unecessary. However, I do feel that it could change the outcome in a more contentious debate.
Bongo50 ☎ 22:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
As the first 2 points are now concluded, I'm going to stop with the numbering and just respond to the third directly. The only policy that I know of which touches on this in any way is the third bullet point at Tardis:Forum policy#Things to avoid, which is not at all relevant here. I don't really think ordering 3 top choices is that complicated, and it's not that hard to explain if people don't follow it. I'll have a look at those other talk pages, likely tomorrow. There are a number of forum threads in a similar state. The backlog grows ever longer. Bongo50 ☎ 20:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

re:Fourteenth Doctor

I'll have to keep this quick, as I'm heading off to bed for my night shift tonight. I don't know what the "Stand Clear" template is, but if you're talking about the Thread:264489 header, it wasn't on the Fourteenth Doctor page before, but I've added it now. I'm planning on making a Biography subpage for the information and shorting the biographies on the main pages to finally deal with Thread:264489, but it's gonna take time.

The rest of your message is about ofg a blur at the moment, since I'm a little too tired to response properly, but rest assured I edited the pages in accordance to my edits with the other Psychological profiles of the Doctors, as I am nothing if not a stickler for consistency (one of my biggest gripes at the moment is how everyone seems to be consistently inconsident with their edits).

I;m afraid this will have to do for now, but I will reply with more detail at the earlirst connivence, as I'm falling asleep at the keyboard. Sincerely, 10:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I try not to computer before leaving for work, and I had to catch up with the EastEnders I had skipped while doing my Fourteenth Doctor retrospective rewatch on my week off last week. Now, to dive deeper into your messages. As for why some information was removed and accidently restored, I tend to do this big write ups on a Word Document so I can keep saving it routinely, while keeping an eye on any edits made to main page via Gmail. It's not a full proof system, as some information does go by unnoticed, but I try my best.

As for why the information regarding his skill with the TARDIS and regeneration were removed, was because he doesn't really do anything skilful with them; his bi-regeneration was pure chance without him needing to contribute any additional work, and his TARDIS flying is pretty standard, with no additional need to note on it.

As Stand Clear template, I still think we're talking about the Thread:264489 header, which wasn't on the article beforehand, but I did add it on upon your feedback, but I see User:Epsilon the Eternal has removed, so you're have to talk to them about that.

The thematic paragraphing was actually my invention. You see, I always wanted to be a psychiatrist, but I was denied to chance to take the GCSE because the school mistook my Asperger's syndrome for stupidity, and told me it would be a waste of time to study it, but I still keep studying it out of interest now and again. So, in 2019, I put my amateur studies to use by crafting a more detailed phycological profile for the Doctors. After a while I noticed a few titbits reoccurred, so I used the "invisible ink" feature to place some pointers on where to jumble certain quirks to prevent repetition. But, back to your question, sure you can re-add the information. It is your right as an editor to contribute where you want. If I have personnel gripe with it, I'll just leave a reason in the description as why I feel it should be removed, we're probably go back and forth until we reach a middle ground or sone of us sees the others' perspective.

And thank you for wishing me a good sleep. I haven't actually been sleeping to well. Not just due to the stresses of real life, but also the stresses I've been finding on the wiki, which had previously been something of an escape from the pressures I get from my job, my family and the people in-between that seem to exist just to make things more difficult than they have to be. I've noticed recently that there's been a lot of hostility around here; edits being inconsistent due to recency biased, new policies that only come to light after they've been broken (I was updating all the Doctors' galleries so I could easily find images for some updates I'm planning and noone told me about the Gallery policy until I made to Dr. 14), overuse of the revert button for minor problems in big edits, editors hiding behind the letter of the rules and policies in a compromise of their spirit (I mean someone reverted a page I was editing while the inuse tag was still up!). Early last year, if you scroll up a bit from your message, someone even left self-harming messages on my talk page, reawakening some dormant thoughts I used to have when I hit a low point. It's been a long road, but I'm almost at the point where talking online again doesn't spike my anxiety. But you have reminded me communication is not to be feared, and I thank you for that.

Sorry things got into a bit of a tangent at the end there. I guess I had a lot to get off my chest.

I hope you have found my reply satisfactory, but feel free to message again if there's still anything that needs hashing out. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 10:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going over your edits right now, so I wanted to offer my counterpoints in Realtime, to save having to summarise them in the limitations of the description box.

Regarding Donna finding him unattractive in a sexual way, and Shaun saying he wasn't worried about the Doctor stealing her from him, I don't really see it in a sexual light. Donna says only 35-year-olds at most can pull off his look, maybe I'm out of touch with "sexy talk", but it sounds more like a cheeky comment on his fashion sense at most. As for Shaun, I've always interrupted his, "Not him", remark to be more about the Doctor's character than any sexual appeal. Like, he can tell that their relationship is pure friendship goals than lovers.

Meanwhile, topis on skills such a being bad at cut and post-regeneration come down more to luck than skill; Cut involves getting lucky with a card, something the Doctor had no control over, as he could have picked the highest card on his first go by pure chance. Your message on post-regeneration being very smooth for him is also more chance than a skill. Consider babies, some are born with several complications and some are born just fine, but it's not really down to anything the baby can control. 14 just got a lucky deal in the same vein as 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 13 in that he got right into things, with his lacking a need to rest being on par with 2, 4, 6 and 7, all of whom got right into the thick of it once they awake due to their predecessors passing in their sleep. His TARDIS piloting is also rather standard, even with the context of post-regeneration; 10 was able to land his TARDIS at his intended destination, only crashlanding due to sudden spasms that were more poorly timed than a comment his piloting.

His pockets and item usage are likewise a standard for the character; unless there's something unique to comment on, like if he pulled out a hat stand from his pocket, it's not really worth mentioning. Same with the voice changing, since all voices change in pitch and tone, and it's only worth bringing up if it's comment on in-universe.

Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 02:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wild Blue Yonder numbers

Hello. Don't let the merge templates keep you from editing the pages any further!

So I added them because, in my view, another language's word for something isn't deserving of its own page. We don't have separate pages for wolf and blaidd (Welsh for "wolf") for instance, because they both mean the exact same thing. Other people might disagree, though.

As for how to merge them, yeah, I think they should be redirects and the content potentially copied and pasted over. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 14:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snivystorm&oldid=3695358"