emailconfirmed, Administrators
15,041
edits
Talk:The Parting of the Ways (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:The Parting of the Ways (TV story) (edit)
Revision as of 03:25, 16 November 2017
, 16 November 2017final reply
(grammar) |
NateBumber (talk | contribs) (final reply) |
||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
* Time Vortex may or may not appear blue while travelling back in time. Even if [[Ace]] observed blue Time Vortex while travelling back in time, it would not have established that Time Vortex is blue in such situations because we have seen in other stories that it need not be blue. All one could say would have been: "Ace once observed the Vortex being blue while travelling back in time". In Nate's preferred OOU way, one could say: "The first time Time Vortex was shown to be blue during travelling to the past was in PROSE: ''Lungbarrow''". But even these less general statements would have contradicted the novel where Ace observes both blue and red in the Time Vortex. And if the text wasn't clear enough on this point, the novel provided a picture with both colours. | * Time Vortex may or may not appear blue while travelling back in time. Even if [[Ace]] observed blue Time Vortex while travelling back in time, it would not have established that Time Vortex is blue in such situations because we have seen in other stories that it need not be blue. All one could say would have been: "Ace once observed the Vortex being blue while travelling back in time". In Nate's preferred OOU way, one could say: "The first time Time Vortex was shown to be blue during travelling to the past was in PROSE: ''Lungbarrow''". But even these less general statements would have contradicted the novel where Ace observes both blue and red in the Time Vortex. And if the text wasn't clear enough on this point, the novel provided a picture with both colours. | ||
Dear Nate, I sincerely apologise for my misguided attempt to save you the embarrassment. I hoped that you would remember my recent comment to you "Context is everything" and would correct your own statement. Sorry, my bad. In reality, you have misread the novel and added incorrect information to this page. That is really why I deleted it, while simultaneously trying to guide novice editors towards uniform editing habits. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:56, November 15, 2017 (UTC) | Dear Nate, I sincerely apologise for my misguided attempt to save you the embarrassment. I hoped that you would remember my recent comment to you "Context is everything" and would correct your own statement. Sorry, my bad. In reality, you have misread the novel and added incorrect information to this page. That is really why I deleted it, while simultaneously trying to guide novice editors towards uniform editing habits. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:56, November 15, 2017 (UTC) | ||
Dear Amorkuz, I completely agree: This is a very sad situation. I'm very interested to learn that you had a secret magnanimous motive this whole time; I can certainly be forgiven for not intuiting that, since | |||
# Your edit summary was "In-universe perspective: there is no Lungbarrow novel in the DWU". It clearly stated that your problem with my edit was how it was written rather than anything to do with what it said. | |||
:* It probably comes across as annoying that I keep mentioning that, but how can I move past it when you're still faulting CoT for reverting your edit "just because he didn't like [your] edit summary"? Your edit summary ''explicitly and unambiguously'' stated that you removed my info because it broke a rule that '''does not exist.''' If I reverted one of your edits for the reason "comics are not canon", would you take that as me telling you to reevaluate your understanding of the source of your edit, or as me misunderstanding the rules? (That's a genuine question, by the way -- this might be the root of some of our misunderstandings here.) | |||
# Your initial message on this talk page includes quotes from [[T:IU]] and [[T:OOU]], as well as several paragraphs focused exclusively on the issue of in-universe vs out-of-universe writing in Continuity sections; the only part that mentions the content of the entry itself, rather than the way it was written, was when you almost parenthetically asked CoT to tell you where the red blue bit was in ''[[Lungbarrow (novel)|Lungbarrow]]'' so you could look for yourself. | |||
If the whole problem from the start was just that the information was inaccurate ... why begin and pursue a wild-goose chase about IU vs OOU writing, instead of just saying that? | |||
Thank you for trying so hard to save me from embarrassment, and I accept your apology, but in the future, please just spare me from the personal attacks and just tell me what you mean from the start. I think that'll go a lot farther toward improving the wiki -- a goal we share, I might add. The whole reason we're having this conversation is that I was a part of a discussion elsewhere where fans were discussing [https://twitter.com/blairbidmead/status/914225777163546624 this tweet] and complaining that the wiki didn't have that information! You've also accused me of "preventing uniformity on the wiki within the bounds of written policies", but I'm a huge fan of uniformity, as you might guess by my pending merge request on ''[[Interference - Book One (novel)|Interference - Book One]]'' and ''[[Interference - Book Two (novel)|Interference - Book Two]]''. In fact, I'd really love to see all Continuity sections uniformly written in OOU format, for a lot of the reasons CoT highlighted above. But then again, I don't think the status quo is enough of an issue to pursue an official policy about it, so what do I know? | |||
: But here I go again with my "desire to be right"! Let's set the scene for that section of ''Lungbarrow'': | |||
:* Ace is riding her bike through the Time Vortex back in time from 2001 to 1887. | |||
:* The book says the Vortex looks "Red to come, blue behind." | |||
:* The picture shows blue in front of her, and red behind her. | |||
: What's a more obvious conclusion, here? That "to come" and "behind" were relative to her bike, and the illustrator made a stupid mistake, as you have posited? Or that "to come" and "behind" are relative to the flow of time, and the illustrator was accurately portraying that she was traveling backwards? | |||
In reply to another accusation: I find no embarrassment in being wrong. For a recent example, I thought it was within the wiki's rules to move [[The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors universe)]] to [[The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors)]], but readily admitted my mistake when I found out about [[T:DAB OTHER]]. Or here's another: I freely and fully admit that my original phrasing was too close to a universal statement, and it didn't properly reflect the changeable nature of the Time Vortex's appearance. That's why I dropped that bit when, while trying to reword the entry by your request, I realized it wasn't correct and reformulated the statement -- which I did do, in case you skipped over that part of my reply. I even tried to run it past you before putting it on the page. But now, I'm left feeling a little ... well, bamboozled, since you're claiming I have no "wish to compromise for the betterment of the wiki" in your reply to my attempt to find a compromise! | |||
I think that's the last I'll say on this topic. I still think the entry is supported by ''Lungbarrow'', but it's not an edit I care particularly much about. Definitely didn't mean to start some huge argument by adding it. Hope everyone's having a good day. – [[User:NateBumber|N8]] [[User_talk:NateBumber|☎]] 03:25, November 16, 2017 (UTC) | |||
