Due to persistent vandalism, account creation has been suspended. If you would like an account, please contact Charlie Reams on Apterous.
Difference between revisions of "User talk:The Doctor"
Launchballer (talk | contribs) (→Mike Brown: +comment) |
The Doctor (talk | contribs) m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | It is | + | It is currently {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}. |
− | 2010-15: [[User talk:The Doctor/Archive (2010-15)]]. | + | *2010-15: [[User talk:The Doctor/Archive (2010-15)]]. |
== [[Pete Cashmore]]'s age == | == [[Pete Cashmore]]'s age == |
Revision as of 15:03, 6 February 2020
It is currently Wednesday 5 June 2024.
- 2010-15: User talk:The Doctor/Archive (2010-15).
Pete Cashmore's age
By my maths, if Cashmore was 24 on 7/4/97, that means he would be 46 on 7/4/19, so there's a roughly 1/121.7475 chance he could have turned 46 on either 5/4/19, 6/4/19 or 7/4/19. What makes you think his birth year would change?--Launchballer 20:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're right, actually, it's just the 1997 date implies he was born 1972-73, and the 2019 date implies born 1973-74. The Doctor 21:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Tie-break conundrums
Should Episode 3959 also be filed with an asterisk?--Launchballer 18:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, because that was shown on screen as being a TB. 6157 was a TB in the studio, but not on screen. Hence, it needs to be separate. The Doctor 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Mike Brown
Sorry, I got halfway through typing this and hit a wall. The current Mike Brown, with numerous co-event appearances and several wins, is (in my opinion) clearly the primary topic for people searching for Mike Brown. You can argue whether or not Stephen Howe constitutes a primary topic, but as I was doing one, I thought I may as well do the other.--Launchballer 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's not right, for me. It should be the case that both Browns, Howes, etc. are treated equally. The Doctor 18:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I don't believe there is such a notion as "primary topic", and indeed that is what Disam pages are for. The fact we had two Mike Browns in the same series is irrelevant; your logic would imply that the likes of Chris Davies need to be re-done, and I don't think that's appropriate at all. The Doctor 10:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'll change them back. I can't be bothered to sift through Category:Disambiguation pages, I'm in the throes of assessment season.
- On a completely unrelated matter, are you an actual doctor, because I hit my head on a low ceiling yesterday morning, and I've since been dry heaving - both of which are symptoms of concussion.--Launchballer 11:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- No. It was just an awful Doctor Who reference when I made this account nearly 10 years ago. The Doctor 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have a horrible feeling I may have to go through that category anyway given that a random sample of disambiguation pages shows a complete lack of consistency. Possibly a job for a template?--Launchballer 14:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- No. It was just an awful Doctor Who reference when I made this account nearly 10 years ago. The Doctor 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I don't believe there is such a notion as "primary topic", and indeed that is what Disam pages are for. The fact we had two Mike Browns in the same series is irrelevant; your logic would imply that the likes of Chris Davies need to be re-done, and I don't think that's appropriate at all. The Doctor 10:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)