Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,423
edits
Talk:The Power of Three dating controversy: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:The Power of Three dating controversy (edit)
Revision as of 18:57, 14 December 2023
, 14 December 2023no edit summary
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:: This is obviously not what I was talking about. I mean the age reference in ''Dinosaurs on a Spaceship''. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 02:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) | :: This is obviously not what I was talking about. I mean the age reference in ''Dinosaurs on a Spaceship''. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 02:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: "Obviously"? I'd hardly say that, especially given that I'm not sure the ''Dinosaurs'' reference has relevance to this page. It was a recurring plot point in series 7 part 1 that Amy and Rory were spending so much time traveling with the Doctor that they were aging faster than calendar years, hence Amy's gray hair and glasses in ''Angels''. So I don't think professed ages should be used as evidence for the calendar date. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 13:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Excessive information == | |||
We do NOT need a full laundry list of ages and how far in the future and past Venice and Starship UK are to note that Amy's time is simply described as 2010 and 2011. Especially when the point of contention is about series 7-9, not series 5 and 6. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Wholeheartedly disagree that huge removals after an arbitrary limit of words or bytes should be prohibited in of themselves. This isn't page blanking or even removing any section, it's reducing redundancy and/or speculation and/or waffle. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Thorough listing of all possiblities permitted by the text is not "waffle" and every edit I have seen from you which you have justified using that word has been wrong-headed. Please reexamine your notion of relevance and understand that it does not correspond to this Wiki's much more inclusive standard. Information which is not actively fictitious/misleading should ''not'', as a general rule, be removed from a page, even if it's not ''crucial''. | |||
:: I don't have time to read through all your edits just now, so possibly ''some'' of your removals were justified, but I have seen enough wrongful deletions to see that not all were, and it's much much more serious to have some missing information than some redundancies, hence the reversions. Feel free to defend individual points you think should be removed here, but please do not edit the page yourself again to make such changes until this is resolved. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I'll pretend that I haven't just had that discussion about the Wife in Space while you mention removal of misleading and fictitious subjects. But I'll get to this another day. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: And here it is. Another day. In no particular order: | |||
:::: The literal entire point is that the controversy is about the date Mike Bond provides in [[DWM 447]] for the end of ''The Power of Three'', namely July 2016. Early 2011 + two years of Christmases later + April through August + 10 months + July through July. July 2016. With reasonable rounding down for the "two years" bit, July 2015. | |||
:::: Series 5 consistently giving 2010 without a single contradiction (barring the briefly seen ID badge I guess? But that has nothing to do with what the initial dispute was.) is unnecessary to point out in depth. Honestly, series 5 and 6 aren't vague AT ALL, besides maybe the dropping off in ''God Complex''. The wedding is 26 June 2010, the astronaut shoots the Doctor on 22 April 2011. Over and over. Counting later episodes from 19 or 22 April 2011 is perfectly acceptable, what came immediately before may be the least disputable part the of series 1-7 timeline. | |||
:::: As for ''The Hungry Earth''. The scene of the waving is obviously overwritten by any one of Rory's several deaths, and in ''The Power of Three'', Amy mentions "We think it's been 10 years. Not for you [the Doctor], or Earth but for us [her and Rory]. Ten years older. Ten years of you. On and off." Which also, along with Amy's implied ageing to the point of needing reading glasses in ''The Angels Take Manhattan'' means that there's no reason to consider Rory's age in ''Dinosaurs on a Spaceship'' to be a mistake, nor is it unambiguously feasible that the waving in 2020 likely still occurred after the Big Bang Two. | |||
:::: Usually by my understanding "it is unknown" is by and large a delete on sight. Which I have no apologies calling "waffle". -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 18:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Your understanding, then, is faulty. | |||
:: The wave is mired in the ambiguities and conflicting opinions about the degree to which history can be written, an ever-contradictory and contentious subject within ''Doctor Who''. It's certainly a ''possible'' piece of the puzzle and it should be present for the sake of presenting all available evidence for those it may interest. ''You or I'' might be happy to say "eh, time is rewritten, no biggie" but there are theorists who prefer to make everything a self-consistent fixed-loop until explicitly shown otherwise. Such people would want the wave to be there, and we must cater to them as well. | |||
:: Regarding all instances of 2010 in Series 5, I think those are there to tell theorists who would be willing to ignore one set of data for the sake of affirming another just how ''many'' sources for "Series 5 is 2010" they'd have to mentally overlook if they tried to find leeway that way. Seems sound to me, if inessential; and that's, as I said, no cause for deletion. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
