User talk:Epsilon

	Archives: #1, #2, #3

Adaptational exclusive information

Hello, there. I wanted to expand more on the brief explanation I gave on the Merridew page concerning the unofficial precedent on how novelisation information is handled, as it felt unfair to offer a quick summarisation in an edit description box.

So, going over what I wrote in the edit description, citing novelisations is rather similar to citing a second episode to the first source, with the example I gave being how mavity is handled by citing the two episodes that reference it, but only the episode that goes over its origins is cited to avoid confusing readers on where the concept came from:

After the TARDIS took off again, Newton grew confused and misremembered the "delightful word" they had said as "mavity", (TV: Wild Blue Yonder ^[+]Loading...["Wild Blue Yonder (TV story)"]) causing the term "gravity" to seemingly be retroactively erased from history and replaced by the word "mavity", though the Doctor seemed to retain some partial memory of the original word. (TV: Wild Blue Yonder ^[+]Loading...["Wild Blue Yonder (TV story)"], The Church on Ruby Road ^[+]Loading...["The Church on Ruby Road (TV story)"])

The same approach is employed with adaptions like novelisations, in which information the book expands upon, like backstory or internal monologues, are cited separately so readers know where this new information origins. I'll use an example I recently encountered on Shervan Singh's page for clarification: This was the original version

He was later alerted to fact that the aforementioned squadron was under the control of the Meep, and headed to the road on which the the Nobles' home was located, (TV: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"], PROSE: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"]) Bachelor Road, (PROSE: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"]) where a battle between the Wrarth Warriors, Singh's squadron, and the possessed soldiers commenced. He then arrived once more at the Millson Wagner Steelworks, where he witnessed the Meep being arrested by Captain Zagran. He then left with Colonel Chan and Shirley Anne Bingham, after having said goodbye to the Fourteenth Doctor, and accumulated enough information for his report. (PROSE: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"], TV: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"])

And this was the altercation I made, after pointing out I was not violating T:NPOV and pointing out why both cetins were not referenced at the bottom if they were going to break off anyway.

He was later alerted to fact that the aforementioned squadron was under the control of the Meep, and headed to the road on which the the Nobles' home was located, (TV: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"]) Bachelor Road, (PROSE: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"]) where a battle between the Wrarth Warriors, Singh's squadron, and the possessed soldiers commenced. He then arrived once more at the Millson Wagner Steelworks, where he witnessed the Meep being arrested by Captain Zagran. (TV: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (TV story)"]) He then left with Colonel Chan and Shirley Anne Bingham, after having said goodbye to the Fourteenth Doctor, and accumulated enough information for his report. (PROSE: The Star Beast ^[+]Loading...["The Star Beast (novelisation)"])

As you can see, the revision singles out the address of the Nobles' home as being information revealed only in the novelisation, while the information that debuted in the episode is credited to the original source. The ending citations are also separated to showcase what occurred only in the episode, and what was expanded upon in the expanded universe.

It is also rather similar to the McGillop conundrum you brought up; a second source is cited even though it just recaps what occurred in the first source, making it look like there is some sort of discrepancy to the accounts. If the second account does not deviate from the information presented in the original source, then it is best to just cite the first source until the point the second expands on the original, allowing readers to know where to look for the information.

I hope you found this description enlightening, though my communication disability might have hindered some of the points I was trying to raise, and id there is any confusion, please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will try my best to answer your questions in a satisfying manner. Until we speak again, BananaClownMan ☎ 23:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Credit crunch of 2008 merge query

Just curious on the switching of the merges from Financial crisis of 2007 to Credit crunch of 2008. As "Financial crisis of 2007" is based on conjecture and "Credit crunch of 2008" is actually stated in dialogue the previous way around that the merge tags were arranged should be better. It would be best to keep the actually named article rather than the conjectural title.

The merge tag should go on the page that will be merged into the existing page, effectively getting rid of it, or for titles like this it'd be turned into a redirect through the merge process. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Cursor

Yeah, I had it then too. It's gone now. Really no idea what was happening. Najawin ☎ 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Re:SB

I think it embodies the worst aspects of RtD1 while having none of its strengths. It's juvenile, moreso even than SJA, jettisoning "family entertainment" for, well, entertainment for the titular group. It's overly sure of itself, running through near identical iconography and story beats as parts of RtD1. And much like what Chibnall was criticized for (as well as others), it toys with political iconography in haphazard, careless ways, ultimately having a very messy, muddled message. (I think it's far more clearly anti abortion that KtM ever was, and the people I watched it with felt the same.) All in all, the worst possible start for the new era, and I cannot imagine why Gardner and Collinson didn't wrestle the script out of his hands. I know the people I watched it with said that had Devil's Chord not been on as well, and not been as good as it was, (as well as the implicit promise of the coming episode) they simply wouldn't have continued with the season. It was disastrous. Najawin ☎ 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it's intentional, I think it's confused. But if I criticized Chibnall for muddled messaging (and I did, oh boy did I), I think it's only fair to do the same for RtD. I just want good, conceptually clean Doctor Who, with clear themes, a clear message (like, a real one, not just "guns bad"), good acting and good writing. Is this too much to ask for? Why haven't I gotten it in over 5 years? But yes, Gibson and Gatwa were fun. They're not the issue. It's RtD resting on his laurels. Devil's Chord is substantially better here, but even still I think there's stuff you can trim up. This reminds me far too much of RtD1 S2 as opposed to S1, and that's... just kinda disappointing, really. I'm almost dreading this coming week, because I've hyped it up too much in my head and worry that it can't live up to expectations. Najawin ☎ 01:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh crap! (An apology)

Hey, Epsilon, I know this is really out of the blue, but I was looking back through my talk page, and I noticed two old messages you left me that I don't believe I'd ever seen before nor responded to! Both messages are pretty old now (one was over a year ago!), but I still wanted to apologise profusely for never following up on them. I hope you were able to eventually do what you were asking of me through other means. If not, I'd be happy to do it now, even this belated!! For clarity, the notes I'm referring to are this and this. WaltK ☎ 00:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is the image you're referring to?

For future reference, The Birthday Boy can only be found in Titan's third omnibus volume. WaltK ☎ 14:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Annual contents

Hello Epsilon. Re: this edit, if you actually engage in a conversation at the talk page, we might be able to come to a solution which represents the contents in a satisfactory way for all. Instead, your my-way-or-the-highway approach to reversion is making this incredibly difficult to achieve. For example, you're concerned that the contents section as proposed by me inaccurately represents the order of the contents of the annual. Fair enough. Maybe we could add a column for page number, or alter the numbering in the first column somewhat? All while preserving my wish to provide an actually readable list which conveys information in a palatable format. I would appreciate if you were to keep in mind this basic wiki etiquette in future. Danochy ☎ 12:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

For future reference…

Hi Eps. Can you clue me in on what these "nwlh" things are? WaltK ☎ 19:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh! That's great! WaltK ☎ 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

History Proofing

Just relevant stuff I remember off the top of my head. The City of the Saved remembered and kept individuals who were removed from history. Believe that's in BotW. Not sure how much you want to count Warring States (novel), because that's a time loop. But that entire thing could be relevant. Daughter event and Alex Bendo are relevant pages. In Against Nature (novel), Todd can remember his old life, and Yaotl can, but nobody else can. Sorta The Book of the Enemy (short story), but turned into fiction as well as erased from time. Marticide (short story). Najawin ☎ 02:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Bruce Forsyth (in-universe)

Honestly, those were my thoughts exactly halfway through making the edit. WaltK ☎ 21:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

UNIT HQ

With a lot of merge pages we work with what has been cited on the talk pages / on the merge tag and if it's been there for a while. For that particular page there wasn't a link to the on-going Talk:UNIT HQ, City of London, hence I based removing the talk page on the info presented on its talk page, and if there are other similar examples, as noted in the edit summary. I have undone my edit, and added a link to the talk page you cited. --Tangerineduel / talk 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Dirk Gently

I would ask that you bring your issues with the "Dirk Disclaimer" to talk:Dirk Gently (series). Your rewritten version strays so far from the original that I find it becomes the very contentious claim that the "Dirk Disclaimer" is meant to mitigate. In particular I refer to "this novel is placed firmly in the Doctor Who universe and the franchise's repertoire of spin-offs.", which is a statement I find easily arguable, unlike my statement which is objectively true. My intent with my version of the sentence is to position Tardis Wiki as a sort of publication which has made a somewhat non-intuitive editorial choice. It is often more informative/less obfuscationary for encyclopedias to discuss themselves as existent finite entities which make choices. There is also the matter that terms such as "Doctor Who universe" and "spin-off" are fluid and our main interest in them should be as to how they are used by sources outside of our wiki. I will now revert your edits. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 21:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Re:Trump Tower

Yeah, it can get a bit confusing. There are five Trump Towers in New York City alone, including the "main" one (used to be six, since one changed its name in 2017). I wonder how many of them have actually been seen in DWU shots of New York... BlueSupergiant ☎ 04:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Re:Pronouns

No worries. Wasn't sure, not like they've been identified yet. (We could have Piper identified as masc. Or, hell, technically they didn't even call Piper 16 yet.) Najawin ☎ 20:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Re:Bafflement

Yeah it was a mess. And, well, I don't envy you having to square away "despite every single other time the Doctor has been shown to be sensitive to changes in the timeline, he was in fact, completely oblivious this time because plot" there lol. — CodeAndGin 🗨 22:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Backscratching

As in, I scratch yours, you scratch mine. I would appreciate yays, nays, or indifferent sighs on my proposal at Forum:Filming location infobox variables, but I figure I'd be a hypocrite for asking for that while ignoring other people's projects (as I am wont to do). Is there anything I can do as an admin that would be nice to get done over the next week or so (a forum closure, template thingy, complicated page move/merge, etc)? I figure there's always a lot that doesn't get done. All I'd ask in return is the courtesy repaid. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 17:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

T:DAB IU

Ah, hello hello, finally finished Silksong, been a month, that took my free time for a while, and been a bit busy before then. Should be more active now. And speaking of which, I noticed your comment on Talk:Diegesis (in-universe). Would you mind terribly if I went ahead and made a thread on this, or do you plan on doing so? Obviously, if you plan on it it's your prerogative. Cheers. Najawin ☎ 19:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the relevant history, I'm not sure this needs a thread? Talk:Fourth Wall has User:Scrooge MacDuck tweak the wording of the rule to better track the intention of the thread. I think the wording is still too vague/broad, but I'm just not sure we need a thread, since everyone kinda knows what was meant? idk, might now be a T:BOUND issue. I'll leave my draft alone for now until I get input from you and Scrooge as to if you think one is needed. Najawin ☎ 01:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I hope you have a merry time this Christmas season, and a Happy New Year as well. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 05:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity…

What is LEAFLET029 supposed to be? WaltK ☎ 00:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Re:References

Thanks for letting me know that there are open threads on the topic. It seems like we won't really be able to find much clarity in this area until those threads are resolved, so I'll go leave some comments there for discussion.

In the meantime, I obviously don't want to go around messing up the wiki by making changes that will need to be changed again in a few months, but I'm concerned that not using either of the two organisational system's methods to indicate a distinction between the {{Reflist}} and the "Footnotes" header may be a T:BOUND issue. Would you object if I added a === Citations === subheader to the page? Fennel Soup ☎ 18:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)