User talk:DonQuixote/Archive 3

Oathkeeper RfC filed
Since DRN was largely a bust, we are advised to file an RfC, and so I did. I've notified Diego Moya and Darkfrog24, who were thoughtfully chatting about the matter on Diego's page as to how to strategically handle it. I look forward to your comments. I suggested to DM and DF that we all attack the problem and not each other, and to post our positions succinctly before allowing others to weigh in. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be of interest
Hello DQ. With no new episodes we don't bump into each other as often so I want to say that I hope you are well and thriving. You might be interested in this thread User talk:Redrose64 regarding some info that I recently discovered. Of course, you might have known about it for some time but I thought it might be interesting anyway. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch
I completely missed the circular linkage back to Wikipedia. I do not miss that the GEOS site is - by their own admission - " "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run"." Apart from Darkfrog's snarkiness, I respect her tenacity in holding onto the idea that there is a reference that fits her view of the chapter/episode importance. I do hope she finds some (I've looked, and found none that were usable), and I feel kinda bad that there are problems with the ones she keeps adding. If she discussed them first, we could help her along. I guess its like that old saw, "better to ask forgiveness than permission". While I have my suspicions about the Albert reference, I think its up to more experienced IT guys than I to figure out whether my suspicions are warranted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, sweet baby jeebus - that comment was so on point that if she doesn't get it, she never will, and might not be suited to working in the Project. Exceptional post, DQ. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am delighted that the matter has finally been set to rest. Now maybe we can move on and get some work done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who Regeneration Stories
If he regenerated in the last episode, The Time of the Doctor, then it only makes perfect sense that the next episode will be POST Regeneration. The proof is the information from BBC that Matt Smith WILL NOT be in the episode, rather it will feature Peter Capaldi.

Soccersalvatore (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Soccersalvatore
 * It might make perfect sense, and it might be true, but it's not verified. Someone challenged your text so you should find a source that verifies your text (see WP:CHALLENGE). DonQuixote (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I verify it above with the BBC Webpage. Soccersalvatore (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That source says nothing about the episode being post-regeneration. DonQuixote (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you...
... on the "Holy Grail" talk page. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's ok. That's what the talkpages are for. DonQuixote (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
As ever DQ many thanks for your reverts on Moffat's article. Since the edits are now daily I filed a new RFPP. Who knows how long the article will be protected - if it gets any at all. I think it is funny that the keep adding "Rory killer" when Rory wasn't killed he was sent to the past. Just over three week until we get to see Peter's version of the Doctor!! Woot Woot. I hope that you are having a good summer on WikiP and, especially off. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

re: Oathkeeper
It would appear that Darkfrog24 has been posting requests for comment at all the GoT articles, seeking input on her latest attempts to include fanblogs to support her pet phrasings in the article. I am quite surprised she didn't drop you one. Perhaps, if you aren't too preoccupied elsewhere, you might wish to stop by and weigh in on the RfC? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Doctor Who (series 8)
Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Have fun
Just wanted to wish you a happy and fun New Doctor day tomorrow. I find it amazing that we are closing in on the tenth year since the show returned. That is just about as long as when I first started watching in 1981 - although the original series ended in '89 those episodes didn't air on our PBS station until late '90 early '91. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you take these lyrics and substitute in the line "A new Doctor tonight" I think you get something that works pretty well as a theme song each time we get a regeneration episode. BTW Jon Pertwee was in the London cast of the play that this song is from in 1963 and he also had a small role in the film!! Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian FAQ
Ain't working for A3 - A5. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. added them without any answers. They're working. Feel free to add answers. DonQuixote (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't even sure the questions were appropriate. Figured I throw something out to see if it was worth answering. BusterD (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
(DF24 forgot to send this to you, as you were deeply involved in the discussion. I am certain that was a simple, uncomplicated and totally innocent oversight on her part...) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:


 * RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?


 * If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can enlighten me?
Can you explain your removal of the clarification tag? If there's "the rest of" something there needs to be "the first part of" the same something, but the article doesn't say what is "the first part her Kickstarter money". Diego (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You should have been clearer with your question. As "the rest of what?" is what I answered. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the rest of the passage, production of the videos. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Casino Royale
I understand that the info I added is not specific to the topic, but it is nonetheless relevant enough for a footnote. that is one purpose of footnotes. I plan to restore (and correct the formatting as well).Verne Equinox (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant at all? They just happen to share the same name, so what? Unless the previous film had any effect on the later film, it's pure triva--an interesting one, but trivia nonetheless. DonQuixote (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy anniversary
Hello DQ. Last year we were celebrating all things Dr Who. This year things are much quieter but that doesn't mean the day should be ignored. Happy 51st!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On another note how funny is the blocked IP and their obsession with Bewitched and Super Girl?! Thanks for your work in correcting their errors. Cheers MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning
This is your 3rr warning on the Power Girl article. --evrik (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 * I can't wait to see Nick Frost as Santa (well a Dr Who version of Santa anyway). BTW The Curious Case of Santa Claus is a holiday treat. As Jon Pertwee is in the cast it is a double treat for us. There is a wonderful insider joke about his time as the Doctor towards the beginning of the show. Looks like it is available on YouTube if you are interested. Wassail Cheers to you! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Time Lord shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Michig (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment (Doctor Who)
Hello DQ, I have concerns about an editor-created table on the Doctor Who page. I've detailed my concerns on its talk page decided to be bold and remove the table. Alex reverted it, saying we should wait for consensus. So far I've only had one other person respond to the page and they agreed. How long should I expect to wait? Alex himself has not said how he feels one way or the other. If a significant number of 'adjudicators' is required, I'd appreciate your opinion, and if you know anyone else who'd like to take part please feel free to ask them too. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A grin from the past
Thanks for the revert here DQ. I do have to say that, as someone who lived through the travails of the show in the mid to late 80s, that was a funny edit. It could be a candidate for WP:BJAODN but only a few readers would get the joke. I hope you are well and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fan sites
Why are fan sites not valid sources? Surely they are the sites most likely to be accurate, to them the slightest error would be apparent and loving the show are not going to make lies about it. However, non-fan sites are in my view to be less accurate (as evidenced by the frequent and possibly somewhat minor mistake of such sites by their referring to the Doctor as Doctor Who) and less likely to write about Doctor Who, especially older or spin-off stuff, thus we would be limiting our knowledge and pool of resources considerably by ignoring them. Thanks. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:SPS: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. DonQuixote (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining!
 * Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Hello DQ. I hope that you are having a pleasant summer. I wanted to let you know that I removed this thread. This person has been going on about this stuff for months. Several of us have been tracking them and have noted the unhealthy nature of their obsession. This articles edit history and talk page history will show the extent of the problem. is aware of the situation as you can see at this thread User talk:Ponyo. If you see their posts again please feel free to remove them and report them to Ponyo. Thanks for your time and only two months until new Dr Who episodes! Woot Woot. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Doctor Who Christmas Specials
Hello DonQuixote,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of Doctor Who Christmas Specials for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.  Human 3015  knock knock • 16:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I put an tag to show that it was being worked-on at the moment. DonQuixote (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already removed tag. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Flash / Legends edit
That is the acceptable, only name to be used. "Fan-jargon" would be calling it the "Arrowverse" or some other amalgam of Flash/Arrow with "-verse" added to the end. See also Draft:The CW's shared DC Comics TV universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not because it's a title that you made up. The acceptable words and phrases are the ones used in the literature and the media. Currently it's "spin-off" and "cross-over". If your made-up title ever catches on in the media, then we'll start using it. DonQuixote (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All these shows exist in a shared TV universe. You can't deny that and can't say that is made up. So follow this logic: Just saying a "Shared TV universe" is too generic. Well, it's based on DC Comics, so it's a DC Comics shared TV universe. But DC Comics also has a shared animated TV universe. Ok. All these shows air on The CW so it's The CW's shared DC Comics TV universe. We're only describing what it is. Made up, as I mentioned above would be putting "Arrowverse" there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Shared universe" is a recent fan-jargon. Most people won't know what you're talking about. However, most people understand what a spin-off is. And that's the point. And thanks for detailing how exactly you made up the name. As that's original research, that definitely isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Shared universe isn't a fan-jargon term and is a better description of the shows, since spin-offs don't necessarily mean they all exist in the similar universe. And the name is not original research in the sense of the policy. It is created based on all known, unquestioned facts about the universe, because there is no current name to describe it. I highly doubt anyone else would constitute that name as OR. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have to create a name to describe something, then it's original to you. Encyclopaedia editors can't go around creating names for things (that by itself is original research). Unless the producers start calling it by your name or your created name becomes widely used by media, we can only quote what reliable sources are calling it, which are spin-offs and the like. DonQuixote (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't create a name, we came up with a descriptive term to be used as a title for the page until such a time as there is an official name for us to use, just as we did with the DC shared film universe before we learned that it would be called the DC Extended Universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Shared universe" is fan jargon in that, currently, it's fringe. Unless it's used more widely, then it can't be used by an encyclopaedia. It's descriptive to fans but not to the general reader--that's the point. Look, if you have to explain to someone why something is true or why something isn't original research rather than citing a source, then it probably is original research. "The CW's shared DC Comics TV universe" is an editor created name and shouldn't be used because no one calls it that. Descriptive or not, the reliable sources describe them as spin-offs and such and that's how an encyclopaedia should describe them--using the terminology that's used by reliable sources rather than creating our own. DonQuixote (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Jackie Tyler
Where can her full name be stated, pray tell? It's nowhere else in the article and stating a full name does not mean one is suggesting a character isn't fictional, something which is unequivocally and explicitly stated in the same sentence, which is surely enough to demonstrate that the character is fictitious? Who do think's reading these articles? Baldrick? Honestly, reverting that edit was pathetic. Gotha &#x262d; Talk 09:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see you've done the same with Ace. Sorry, that's the characters name! You've left Dorothy there for some reason! What do you mean she's a fictional character? She's got a full name! She must be real!
 * Gotha &#x262d; Talk 09:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fictional characters are known by their common names. Names revealed later in episodes/books/comics/etc. are mentioned as such in the relevant sections. That is, Ace, also known as Dorothy, is a fictional character. In the novels she's given the name McShane...and this is already mentioned in real world terms in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year
Hi DQ. I hope you are well. As ever I hope that you enjoy the new episodes of Dr Who that start tomorrow. BBCA is airing a ten minute prequel tonight. I haven't checked but it is probably available online in case you miss it. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Magician's Apprentice
Hello, DonQuixote.

I have to disagree about the removal of my Continuity entries for "The Magician's Apprentice", at least partly.

Most Continuity sections for Doctor Who episodes, both Classic and New, have no citations, and they have been accepted and left alone for years without dispute. Too, similar entries like my entry for Davros' showing the Doctor his past talks with him dot the entire Wiki Who article landscape. As user AlexTheWhovian notes in the History, "Such reappearances are extremely important and also sourced". As examples, just look at the entries for "Evolution of the Daleks" and "Death in Heaven".

As for my other entry about the Doctor's mentioning his prior selves' fashion choice, that, I concede, is just trivia, something any fan of the series would pick up on.

Please review my examples and other Who articles, and you'll see I'm right. Not all Continuity entries need outside sourcing, but can be considered sourced as long as the proper prior episodes are cited, as was mine.

Ooznoz (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz
 * From WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style
 * This section should discuss relevant links to the show's continuity in a verifiable, unsynthetic and neutral manner. Special care must be taken to limit redundancy between the continuity section and other sections[cont 1] and original research;[cont 2] if possible, try to limit the extent of these sections by incorporating the text into other sections and limiting inclusion of continuity points to matters discussed by sources, preferably secondary ones; the existence of these sections often encourage unexperienced editors to include unsourced information or original research. (emphasis mine)
 * So, you need to verify what you want to add to the Continuity section by citing reliable sources whilst avoiding synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Time and the Rani
I can see your argument on the reference - but the fact of the matter is that it's a 'regeneration' story (6 --> 7) and therefore McCoy's Colin Baker surely has to go in the infobox? Spa-Franks (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? There's no "surely" about it. It's just fan-wanking at the moment. DonQuixote (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There wasn't really any need for a personal attack like that. I reiterate that it's fine to take the explanation out of the infobox, but the simple fact is that if you're not going to include McCoy as #6 then you have to take #4 out of Planet of the Spiders and #5 out of Logopolis. It's consistency more than anything else. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to attack you...just wanted to illustrate how trivial it is. And it's really not consistency as Baker and Davison's appearances were on the same level as cameos and listed in an equivalent tone in the infobox. McCoy was playing one character (the Doctor) in Time and the Rani. Stating that the character changed his appearance in the infobox is trivial. DonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To my mind, it's no different a regeneration as Pertwee into Baker or Baker into Davison. It's presented to the viewer as though it were Colin Baker doing the Sixth's scene. This is the only regeneration story that sticks out like a sore thumb. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, from a real world perspective, the infobox is for the actors. It's a shame that Colin Baker didn't appear in Time and the Rani, but it doesn't change the fact that McCoy was only playing one character. DonQuixote (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the Doctor(s) who is/are listed in the infobox, not the actors. The Sixth Doctor clearly 'appears'. Ergo, he should be included. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy is that all infoboxes should be written from a real world perspective. What you're proposing is in-universe. In-universe perspective is discouraged. DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it really isn't in-universe. In-universe would be things such as McCoy's jacket changing colour in Series 26. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to but in, but just to clarify, if Baker was not involved/credited, then you can say that in-universe the last doctor appeared, but from a real-wrold perspective Baker did not and so should not be in the infobox. The situation can still be explained somewhere on the page, but the infobox credits are for people that were actually in the episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Real world perspective is that Sylvester McCoy, the actor, appeared in the episode. He played a character called "The Doctor". That should go in the infobox. The real-world fact that Colin Baker didn't reprise his role can be mentioned in the article proper, which it already is. This is because the infoboxes are for quick information geared towards a general audience. DonQuixote (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Impossible Astronaut
I only keep coming to your talk page because I consider myself above edit warring. "The Doctor begins to regenerate" is both misleading and missing a full stop, as well as not being detailed enough. Practically every other article features as much detail as I've put in, if not more. All of the following are GA class or above. For example: The Wedding of River Song ("by means of the Teselecta"); Let's Kill Hitler ("into River Song"); The Fires of Pompeii ("inside Mount Vesuvius"); Doomsday ("in Canary Wharf, in the first Dalek–Cyberman encounter and conflict forty-three years after the show's premiere."); et cetera. So to revert my edit to The Impossible Astronaut is completely unnecessary unless you are going to go and alter all of these examples. Doomsday is even FA-class - and it has the said detail in it! Spa-Franks (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an image caption. It doesn't need to detail plot points that are covered better in the articles proper. DonQuixote (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument still stands. Unless you're going to go about altering all of the examples above, they need to be more than a five-word caption that doesn't actually explain everything. To clarify what I mean by misleading, it implies that the Doctor completes his regeneration - and hence, the Joe Bloggs who looks at it will take this inference - that the Doctor completes his regeneration. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding plot points from other episodes that aren't covered in the article in question will be confusing to the general reader. It serves no other purpose than fannish trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but how is the fact that the Doctor doesn't complete his regeneration relating to other episodes? "Seemingly" wasn't referring to The Time of The Doctor. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're just talking about the episode by itself, then he does begin to regenerate--there's no "seemingly" about it. So, in that context, it's grammatically wrong. DonQuixote (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One can take out 'seemingly' - in all honesty, that's not my main gripe, nor is 'by the astronaut'. My main issue is having 'after being shot' removed. It's not unnecessary detail, and describes the picture. Obviously I'll stick by my original caption, but even "The Doctor begins to regenerate after being shot" is far, far better than the Twitter-esque non-caption we have currently. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Doctor begins to regenerate after being shot", is good. DonQuixote (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Girl Who Died
I'll be brief. I don't want a long futile argument, but I dislike the way you've done something.

Why revert my edit adding an "unsourced" continuity item? I referenced the episode. I stated only two facts, related, in the same sentence. What I said is verifiable (I have the DVD in my drive right now).

To my understanding, Wikipedia is supposed to be an organic, evolving set of information. I'm familiar with WP:NOR but why couldn't you just add a "citation needed" comment - thereby allowing somebody to notice that, and add a citation - instead of removing it entirely, so that nobody can even see the comment's existence without "View history"? Cosmogoblin (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The burden of citing the source is on the person who wants to add material. It's not the responsibility of other editors to find citations or even add a cn tag--especially when no such secondary source exists. DonQuixote (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You imply a secondary source doesn't exist, when it does. Further, BURDEN states "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." And finally, you marked your reversion as a minor edit, clearly in breach of several rules, and certainly poor etiquette.
 * Actions like this put people off becoming Wikipedia editors; have a look at my edit history after 17 May 2010 for an example. Please consider whether this should be a community work, or whether you consider yourself an owner of the article. Cosmogoblin (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit - As I said I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm trying to improve this website to make it more friendly and collaborative. Re-reading what I wrote earlier, I apologise if it comes off as snarky - that was not my intent. Last time this happened to me, the other editor wrote a snarky message on my user page, which you did not do; and (s)he did not respond to my own message, which you did do, and I appreciate that. Cosmogoblin (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to the minor edit checkbox mechanic. I was unaware of its full meaning.
 * As for the burden of citing a source, adding personal observations after an episode airs and before secondary sources are published constitutes original research. That's why you should wait until there are secondary sources that you can cite before adding the material in question rather than expect everyone else to wait for your citation. DonQuixote (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arrow subsection proposal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arrow_(TV_series)#New_subsection_for_Arrowverse Thought you might be interested in putting in your 2-cents worth, if not that's fine too. Thanks! LLArrow (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

user page
Hi, this is OrionPax2309 and I was wondering if you could help me create my user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionpax2309 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size DonQuixote as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really looking forward to the DW Xmas special. This will be the first time that Alex K is acting with an actor playing the Dr who (see what I did there :-)) is older than she is. Should be fun. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced content
Please do not remove content that has been correctly sourced as you did at Companion (Doctor Who). GimliDotNet (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not correctly source as it doesn't support your claim. DonQuixote (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC which you may be interested in
Hello. This is just a notice that an RfC has been created for the discussion regarding alternate titles with Star Wars: The Force Awakens in which you participated in. If you would like to participate in the RfC, you can find it here. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who story arcs reaction
Hi DQ, if you wouldn't mind, please have a look at my talk page. I'm not exactly sure if I've been left messages by one nutjob or two. But if it persists, what is my recourse in terms of getting someone to cease and desist? (Yes I sort of anticipated this, but ...). I have a feeling best thing right now is to just ignore it. Besides the weird meandering message they've vandalized my welcome fro WP, removing my username. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just ignore him unless it gets worse: don't feed the troll. Also, you can start here WP:HAR. DonQuixote (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks old man. :) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Power Girl, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Please stop edit warring. This is your 3RR warning.'' --evrik (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, we've been through this before at Talk:Power Girl, and you've been told that your sources are not up to Wikipedia standards. The fact that you're ignoring that means that your edits are disruptive and you are in violation. The consensus is against you and thus you have to prove your point on the talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a breakdown of what you're doing wrong. User-generated-content, blogs, and wordpress aren't citable. Also, misquoting sources is academically dishonest. Given that, moving these things from the article proper to external links is even more dishonest. Please stop it and find actual citable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was never any consensus. In fact, I've tried three different ways of inserting the content, and you have removed them all. --evrik (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, all three ways were against wikipedia policy of verifiability, notability and no original research. If you can cite a citable source that actually says something like what you're trying to say, then that's great. But right now, you're not up to par for editing an encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and the image? That directly relates to popular culture. The links are wholly appropriate as external links. --evrik (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in using images on wikipedia, so I'm going to be neutral on that. But the external links are 1) non-notable (review WP:EL) and 2) you're just using it as a way to include things that were rejected from the article proper, so you're painting yourself as being dishonest through this move. Please stop that. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rejected, hardly. There were three people involved, and their wasn't really consensus. I can change the article one more time today. You have reverted me three times. A fourth and I'll report you for 3 RR. --evrik (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that you would at least need to cite a reliable source. Others went even further and said that what you wanted to included wasn't even notable enough. You're the only one who wants to include it--and with uncitable sources to boot. So in that regard, there's no consensus for your POV. DonQuixote (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials
Hi DonQuixote. I wanted to alert you about the List of Doctor Who serials discussion as I know you have been involved. Those of us left in the discussion feel we are coming to a consensus - we appear to have agreement on the direction of change - but the exact layout is still being worked on. However before we proceed wanted to get in touch with some more editors and commenters to make sure consensus has actually been reached - and if so hopefully gain further advice on the layout. Your input would be valued - from re-reading all your comments you seemed impartial to the matter as long as it was reasonable - so I am wondering your point of view on our current reasoning. Thank you. Dresken (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Two edit conflicts
In a row from you on Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. I guess you really do like causing me misery eh? Anyway, I'm almost feeling like we're falling into WP:LISTEN territory here. What do you think? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But I don't drink beer! Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL! DonQuixote (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Signpost
Hi! Would you be interested in being interviewed for the Signpost? I'd like to write about WikiProject Doctor Who. Please ping me if you're interested. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)
I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, only 3 editors including myself have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to again invite you to contribute to the discussion, it has been days with no response with anyone and the discussion is nowhere near complete. Fan4Life (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sony deleting comments
Apologies for the inaccurate source, I accidentally grabbed the wrong one. This is the source I meant to use: http://www.inquisitr.com/3294139/ghostbusters-reboot-receives-mixed-reviews-critics-called-sexist/ Just above the official trailer embedded in the article, it reads "When a trailer for Ghostbusters was released in March, it received a record number of dislikes. Sony immediately went into damage control and deleted some of the negative comments. However, the fact that comments with very misogynistic language were left up made people question Sony’s PR tactics and if they were using the “Sexist” card to garner sympathy for the film." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who story arcs
Good morning DQ, it appears that Fan4Life's OCD is now being directed at this article. After being warned on the talk page some time back not to revert again, went and did it several times, being reverted by Sro23, all without consensus, obviously, but not even deigning to explain the action on the talk page (where the user had been explicitly called out for this once before and admonished to seek consensus and/or explain before doing so again). At first I thought it was a 3RR violation, now not quite sure--the editing history is a bit weird. Could you have a look and see if this is something we should report? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has turned that article into a redirect for the serials article. Good riddance. Things like that are a magnet for OR and disruption. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop the edit war you have created on the article The Faceless Ones, a Doctor Who story broadcast. Wikipedia's page regarding the character Polly verifies the addition as does the BBC's own website, which is included as a reference. Plus, there are 8 other sources provided. You may not consider them 'reliable' so although unlikely, they must all be wrong. Regardless, the BBC's own website is reliable. You are picking on this article, but not demanding similar verification on the 'Polly' character page. Plus, video exists of the specific scene referenced. You are clearly determined to war over this edit and you are asked to stop or risk being prevented from editing.4.15.121.251 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument--it might just mean that the Polly article might need to be made better than it currently is. Also, the sources you're trying to cite are unacceptable as they're either not considered reliable sources (WP:SPS, WP:USERGENERATED, etc.) or don't actually say what you're trying to cite them for...the BBC telenovel you're trying to cite doesn't actually say what you're citing it for--it can be inferred, but that strays into synthesis. Also see WP:IRS.
 * Also, you would need to cite a source that says that this is in any way notable and not trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary
Happy 53rd DQ!!! I'm sure you remember that 33 years ago The Five Doctors aired here in the US 2 days before it did in the UK. It was fun to get to see it first. I didn't have a VCR yet so a friend recorded it for me. Two days later I got on a plane to Chicago to be a part of the huge DW convention. So many great memories. 25 years ago I was living in Ketchikan, AK and spent the day watching my video tapes most of which I had recorded from our local PBS station. Only a few stories had been released on VHS at the time. Today everything is on DVD (and CD for the missing stories) I wonder what technology will replace these in ten or fifteen years time. Enjoy the rest of your day and have a nice turkey day tomorrow :-D Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi from snowy Colorado DQ. Thanks for the reverts of. Most of them are hilarious - can you imagine Lee Marvin taking a miniscule amount of money to be on the show? OTOH it would have been a treat to see him :-) I watched my DVD of Power of the Daleks last night. I find the animation to be a mixed bag of things that work (creating the alien landscape among others) and things that don't (the animation of the people is kinda dodgy) but overall I enjoyed it and I would be happy to see them proceed with the other missing stories. Thanks again and cheers!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

For your enjoyment
Hello DQ. I think you will get a kick out of this. So if you have a friend over and they see this on the wall and then run screaming from the room you know they are a Dr Who fan and worth having as a friend :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: List of Doctor Who Planets
What if I changed it to "The planet was the subject of a study by student Dee Dee Blasco?", and kept "The Lost Moon of" in the title? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 18:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That still changes the meaning. You're swapping the two nouns. It's like having the sentence "A was mentioned in an episode and B was the subject of a study" and then changing it to "B was mentioned in an episode and A was the subject of a study". DonQuixote (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But they are the same thing. It seems rather odd to have the title in separate parts of the entry for the planet it's self. Surely one cannot get confused by "it", or "the planet" being directed preceded by the title? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 18:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not the same thing: one's a planet and one's a moon. And it's not a question about confusion but it's about you switching the planet with the moon and changing the meaning of the text. It's like changing "Sam appeared in an episode and the lost dog of Sam liked dog food" into "the lost dog of Sam appeared in an episode and Sam liked dog food". DonQuixote (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, stupid error on my part. What about "The moon was the subject of a study by student Dee Dee Blasco?", while keeping the original title intact? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Writing "It's moon" would probably be better. DonQuixote (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed it just now. Thank you for the help. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Source
As far as I'm aware you don't put sources on categories. So I'll put this video and article here. -Madbane54 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One source about the episode makes it WP:FRINGE. You would need to cite a source or sources that says that it's a defining characteristic of the character. DonQuixote (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the problem is that this occurs in one episode. Unless a majority of the sources mentions this as noteworthy, it's inappropriate to categorise the character as such. It's about not cluttering the categories with indiscriminate collection of information, and thus it should be limited to defining characteristics. For example, Jack shouldn't be in the fictional chefs category either just because he's been shown to cook food--that's not a defining characteristic. DonQuixote (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying that cooking food is the same as killing a kid? (Also I would think that he would be listed as a chef if he was employed as a chef), and your logic seems ridiculous, plenty of fictional characters have only killed people/kids in one appearance and still fit the definition. For instance Carl Grimes and Sandor Clegane only killed one child and they're still categorised as such, same with most of the characters is recognise in that category actually and with some of them you could easily forget they did it. Madbane54 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: Your argument doesn't make sense to me and I don't trust your motivations so would you mind getting someone more senior to verify your claim? Because I really don't want a page being sugar coated because someone likes the character (I like Jack btw, but I still want to be objective). Madbane54 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is a weak argument. Aside from that, if you can't find reliable sources that say that killing children is characteristic of the fictional character Jack Harkness, then he probably shouldn't be in the category. It's your responsibility to find sources when challenged. It has nothing to with me "liking" or "disliking" a character--it's about representing what reliable sources have to say, and no reliable source mentions that it's a big part of his character. That is, context matters and we can't put undue weight on a single scene in one episode unless the majority of reliable sources do. DonQuixote (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As for "cooking" being the same as "killing"--in terms of works of fiction, yeah. They're not real people or real events. DonQuixote (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Pilot (Doctor Who)
Hi. I've made a draft article for the first episode of series 10. Feel free to edit it, but only move it into the mainspace when it has enough info and a consensus to move it has been achieved. Thank you. T ed E dwards  19:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeking advice
Hey DQ, terribly sorry to bother you. I find myself in an editorial argument with someone over at the Earth's Children's pages. I don't know if you're at all familiar with the series of novels by Jean M. Auel. Basically they are set at a time when Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon walked the Earth at the same time. I noticed that the novels were being described as historical fiction so I removed that and left them with the more neutral 'novel'. Someone began reverting me on just one page, and there was back and forth, finally I asked to talk on the page and opened a discussion. Nothing happened for a while, so I did some research and added sources to make the novels epic (term used on Auel's site) and prehistoric science fiction, sourced to Encylopedia of science fiction which struck me as pretty reliable. I included the reasons on the talk page. Tonight the other editor has made everything simply historical fiction again, accused me of making WikiDrama, removed my sources without discussion, accused me of going against 'consensus' (when there had been no sources) and basically is doing all the things he's accused me of doing IMO. I'm not asking you to weigh in, I know that's against the rules. I would appreciate it though if you could read the discussion and let me know if I am wrong in my assessment of the situation, how to call an RfC myself, how to find people who are appropriately knowledgeable about literary genres etc. for this purpose. (I don't want to spend the rest of this year arguing one on one with someone like this). The discussion is here
 * Thanks for the two bits the other day (succinct as ever). Unfortunately the editor is digging deeper. Not only is he ignoring anything he doesn't like, he's even claiming I never brought sources, even though a link for one of them is on the talk page. I'm quite puzzled by his behaviour (his talk page doesn't make you think he'd act like this).

At long last
Hi DQ. Well, we had to wait awhile but a new season gets going tomorrow. Have fun watching it and have a pleasant weekend as well. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Last Christmas Incomplete CD Track Listing
Hi DonQuixote,

My problem is after extensive searching, my primary and only source is a track listing on a CD I own.

Slade's "Merry Xmas Everybody" is promnate in "Last Christmas", but is not on the CD. After extensive searching I find nothing, not even on CD publisher Silva Screen Records website. Who did not want to publicize that their soundtrack for "Last Christmas" was incomplete.

Incidentally, under the Last Christmas wiki Soundtracks is "Further information: Doctor Who: Series 8 (soundtrack)", which takes you to a wiki page with the track listing. But the citation takes you to a Silva Screen Records page with an incomplete track listing that does not support the information on the wiki page. I imagine somebody else copied the track listing off of a CD

DonQuixote, I would like to add how there is a missing song on the CD. But I have no citation. Just the CD I own. How do I do this? KenJacowitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenJacowitz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that you can't...at least in an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are tertiary text and are summaries of what's published in secondary text. You can publish your original observations on fan sites or fan wikias. DonQuixote (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

DonQuixote, thank you, I have reverted the page. KenJacowitz (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)KenJacowitz

For your eyes only
I'm already guve the sources.--23.247.147.5 (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those sources actually mention what you're citing them for. DonQuixote (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read the sources? NO, Then GO F*CK YOURSELF.--23.247.147.5 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. None of them mention Ogilvy. None of them mention Moore considering retiring by age. And although it's mentioned that Dalton thought himself to be too young for the part, none of them mention that he didn't like the direction the series was taking. So, no, none of those sources say what you're trying to say. DonQuixote (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

List of minor DC Comics characters
Good lord. Thank you for correcting that! My closure of the redirect at Afd had an unintended result, which I did not think to check. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I realize what happened. The nominator had already done the redirect. So checking "redirect" on the non-admin closure window had the effect of doing it a second time. I should have just closed it, period. I'll remember for next time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who the Unicorn and the Wasp edit
How is mentioning that Felicity Jones, a famous actress, is in the cast of this episode irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NarniaCode (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How did that affect the production of the episode? DonQuixote (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Season colour
Hi User:DonQuixote, do you know if the season colour for SpongeBob SquarePants (season 4) should borrow from the Volume 1 & 2 DVD covers, like it does now, or from the complete fourth season DVD (File:SpongeBob S4FV.jpg) instead? I'm asking because the Volume 1 & 2 covers are used in the infobox.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. From my limited understanding, the consensus is to match the season box set. DonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Regeneration (Doctor Who)
Hi there,

This article is inconsistent regarding the formatting of episode titles. It seems generally that titles of single episodes are enclosed with speech marks while titles referring collectively to several episodes are written in Italics (including the New Who story, The End of Time). Is this intentional or just coincidental? However even if this is the rule the article is following it isn't itself uniformly adhered to, as many classic series serial titles are themselves enclosed with speech marks, such as "Destiny of the Daleks". Whatever the case I just think the article should at least be consistent with itself.

Thanks - 81.106.25.114 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Short works, like single episodes, are in quotation marks. Long works, such as multi-episode serials, are in italics. It's a common rule for works of fiction (such as poems, short works, and novels, long works). Works like Destiny of the Daleks should be in italics, but some people keep changing them to quotes because they're ignorant of the rules. They should be changed back to italics. DonQuixote (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A treat
Hello DQ. Have you seen this yet? Some delightful drawings by Russell T and a wonderful message for all Dr Who fans. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)