Talk:Kerblam!

Continuity or Outside Reference? - Agatha Christie & Fez
Okay. We'll need sources for these when possible, but which would these fall under?


 * Agatha Christie and wasps, mentioned by the Doctor when hiding in a cupboard.
 * A Fez, amongst the package delivered to the Doctor with the cry for help.

GUtt01 (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agatha Christie and the wasp would probably fall under trivia as it's a throwaway line. The fez would probably go under continuity as a secondary source will probably mention that the 11th ordered it or some such. DonQuixote (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reference to Agatha Christie should be ignored. It may be trivial, but after thinking on it, I would say that would fall under continuity, as a reference to one of the 10th Doctor's episodes.GUtt01 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably not being ignored since some sources will probably mention it in passing, but it's probably not encyclopaedic. See Talk:Rosa (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * How can the Fez not be left in the continuity section?!? Lost count how many time Matt wore it. djk44883 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger Wilco
Dear DonQuixote, obviously you don't find my arguments convincing. But instead of addressing your issue, e.g. by adding a [citation needed], you prefer to slap me in the face by simply deleting everything I wrote. And when I disagree, you just delete everything again. Fine, be that way. As you seem very keen in pointing people to Wikipedia guidelines allow me to recommend Revert only when necessary. I'd have loved to contribute, however I have better things to do than to play "revert wars" with you. Have fun. --93.221.221.99 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:BURDEN
 * The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]
 * 2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[12]
 * 3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.
 * DonQuixote (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Fez and Laters
, I was torn between removing Fez, which had somehow slipped past you, or starting to pile on with my own stuff. Had a little bit of fun there. Thank you for cleaning them both. ;) Jmg38 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No probs. Just be aware that in future some (for lack of a better word) busy bodies will likely tag these or delete these as being trivia/intricate details for a limited audience, even if they're properly sourced. DonQuixote (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)