User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2010/June

Rory question...
Hi U-Mos!

I gather there's been a development in the quest for sources to answer the Rory=companion question?

I've lost track over the past couple of days, and haven't kept up with the various talk page debates. Is there any chance you could point me to the latest sources? I want to comment, as I gather there's pretty much consensus now (and I don't want people thinking I'm holding out against consensus) but I haven't seen the latest sources (and I'm way too lazy to trawl through the talk pages to find them ;-)

Cheers, TFOWRis this too long? 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the Adventure Games
I think that was taken from one of the sources in the references of the article which said that. --Victory93 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dalek variants
Further to your edits to the Dalek variants article, most recently here, I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the following points:

Listing of New Paradigm Dalek casing colour role attributions. 'Dalek variants' is an encyclopaedic article in the English language. The use and arrangement of commas and semicolons in the listing prior to your edits correctly followed the rules for English grammar and punctuation. Following your edits it does not. I thus believe that the list should be edited to correct this issue. Use of the semicolon to separate units of a series when one or more of the units contain commas refers, see, and , amongst others.

Your use of plurals for the names of the Dalek roles is grammatically incorrect. There are five identified roles (plural), with each individual role being named. Within the sentence structure each role must thus be singular. As an example, there may well be many soldiers, but when naming this role in our societal structure it's 'soldier' and not 'soldiers'. Further, I can't find any source indicating that there will be more than one Supreme or Eternal Dalek at any one time, making the use of the plural noun in these instances even more problematic. In fact the very source which you have cited to support your editing of this list makes it clear that there is only one Supreme and one Eternal. Again, I believe that the list should be edited to correct this issue.

Reference to yellow Dalek hemisphere colour. Your edit summary rationale for the changes you have made to this entry, that "…hemi colour is NOT notable when it's total OR…" does not stand up to scrutiny. Were this OR then your moving it within the article would not alter the fact; the remedy would be to remove it. Critical commentary in simply referencing what are plainly visible Dalek design elements in a broadcast television programme watched by over 7.8 million viewers,  and photographs in associated licensed widely disseminated promotional and advertising material, does not constitute total, or even partial, OR. If you consider this matter to be at all contentious then why not simply cite the episode "Victory of the Daleks"; the primary source? Also, why excise reference to the significance (if any) of this variation being unknown? This hardly falls within the scope of interpretation, analysis or synthetic claims. Further, moving the entry has rendered it disjointed. Previously the listing of the Dalek roles and colour details, including the Eternal Dalek, segued seamlessly into the entry regarding the different Eternal hemi colour. Now the entry has been tacked-on to text above regarding the New Paradigm Dalek general design, introducing mention of the Eternal Dalek before an explanation has been provided to the reader as to what this is. Stylistically that's unhelpful, and I believe it should be reverted.

Excision of comments by Steven Moffat regarding the function of the Eternal Dalek. In your edit summary you say "…the detail is in the source, it's better to have an actual sentence, yes?", but I regret that I can make no sense of this in relation to the removal of this information. The fact that the Executive Producer of Doctor Who has decided to introduce a named Dalek role without, by his own admission, having any idea as to its function has not passed without comment in the media or various Doctor Who forums around the internet. In terms of the Dalek variants article I would suggest it's of sufficient interest and significance to warrant a more detailed entry and attribution than the curtailed version and simple reference to DWC 5/3 which your edit now provides. The text prior to your edit was an actual sentence including both detail and the source, so it would appear that it already met the criteria which you mention without requiring change. I this believe this material should be reinstated.

If you wish to respond to any or all of the above points then please do so at Talk:Dalek variants, where the finer points of editing the Dalek variants article are most frequently debated. Thanks. 80.41.183.27 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)