Talk:Whoniverse

message: I was looking through Your Guide to the Whoniverse and came across: 
:"Five Whovian Things That Exist In Real Life
::These five things exist as fanciful astonishments in the Whoniverse, but could also easily (and in some cases DO easily) exist in the real world."
:::The full article is is promoting is ‘Doctor Who’ Science Fact: Five Whovian Things That Exist In Real Life
Which seems to suggest that the Whoniverse is not "the real world". In this article the "Your Guide to the Whoniverse" is used to support the "alternate usage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does this discussion keep popping up here again and again?  Isn't it accepted by all that the word has been used in both senses?  However this article is about only one of the uses. Mezigue (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe if you actually read anything you would understand. This article is about only one of the uses, but a)you can't use the word when it is being used in the other sense to "verify" this use, b)this article's use is the less used version, and c)this article's very concept is not agreed upon as being generally accepted. And of course, this article is almost entirely OR. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you actually provide sources to support those claims?  G S Palmer (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I have already. But you kept reverting them, and even nominated the author of one of the cites for deletion. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC America  guide 

message: Has been tagged "Failed verification", been un-tagged, and tagged again. There is obviously a difference as what people think Kistler says about "Whoniverse" in his work. So let's work through that. I don't have that book, but that enables me to try and mediate without being influenced by what I think the text says. If we could start with some things that should be largely devoid of nuance of interpretation.
#I'm told that page 224 has a section entitled "Expanding Whoniverse". Is this agreed by all or is this disputed?
#And that the section mentions (among others) Doctor Who Magazine comic stories, tie-in novels and Big Finish audios. Is this correct? (and what BBC and licenced - or even unlicenced - media is mentioned by name?)
#Does the text, as opposed to the heading, use the word "Whoniverse"? 
As these ought to be simple matters-of-fact, can we keep the responses brief. I wouldn't want the next stage to be either clouded by getting ahead of ourselves or by not having found the footings first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kistler (2013) Page 224 

message: I have semi-protected the article for a week due to ongoing edit warring. This is not to endorse either side in the content to dispute, but to protect the article from disruption as the dispute is resolved. The last several times revert wars have flared up, they have been one person reverting two others. While not a strong consensus, this is a showing of consensus, which is the reason the page is not fully protected. If revert wars resume, the protection may be extended or blocks may be issued to reduce collateral damage to uninvolved unregistered editors. 
Apologies to any uninvolved unregistered editors for the complication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is endorsing one side. The article does, and always has, contained Original Research. In fact, the article is mostly Original Research. If you go to WP:OR, and read what it says there, that's about as good a description of this article as you are likely to find. And a majority of one can never be considered "consensus". If Admins actually looked at the disagreement, rather than protecting one version without any analysis, than maybe this could have been solved peacefully long ago. The article as it stands now is not only almost entirely WP:OR, but now it is protected with the "Original Research" tag removed! So, that clearly is endorsing one position. And as long as Admins would rather simply protect articles, without actually analysing the dispute, then the majority of one will persist, and this article will always be a hopeless mess of WP:OR. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection for ongoing disputes 

message: This talk page has grown large, making it slow and unwieldy to load.  General talk page guidelines suggest setting up archiving when a page “exceeds 75 kb or has more than 10 main topics”; this page is now about 217 kb and has almost 40 main topics.  Would there be any objection to setting up automatic archiving here, so that some of the older and inactive discussion topics can migrate to the archives?   Unician ∇  08:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, archive this headache-inducing monstrosity! Mezigue (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Seconded.  (Also, if you look, its actually all one long debate!)  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:    Unician ∇  02:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Whoniverse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/23/anglophenia.jsp?bc_id=76
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified