Talk:Kerblam!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kerblam! article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)#Presley, Sinatra, Banksy. DonQuixote (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fez and Laters

DonQuixote, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]