User talk:Tangerineduel

Well done!
You've managed to complete all the EDAs! Now just the MAs, NAs, NDAs, and don't forget the TDAs! And once you've done the novels, there's the BFAs, BFBSs, the DWMs... 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I fogot the PDAs and TWNs... :) 14:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't listen! Slack off instead! Azes13 14:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I will...at some point soon be starting the Bernice Summerfield (Virgin) New Adventures. Haven't read all the MAs (haven't got most of them), same with the PDAs, so someone else can have that job. All the NAs are done (I think), but I may go through and clean them up / add to them.

I'll consider the Big Finish Audios...maybe.

I'm sure there's enough interest in the New Series for someone to do the NDAs and TDAs. --Tangerineduel 14:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Novels

 * Hi, sorry, about that. yes I know about the titles bits (and the TV movie), I wanted to save what I had done before being called away, rest assured they will be tidied up in the next day or so before linking to the correct pages. My printers playing up now and it was time consuming to keep going back. I do have a question, (so as not to disappoint you!). Is there a way of locating and renaming some of the images I uploaded without having to re-upload them, just for convienience and ease of use later!(I got a bit careless, sorry, in the naming typing. Not used to using`_` yet?
 * Oh and I'm well pleased I found out where and what the `|` is and does!! Clever thing this wiki really. Never ceases to surprise me, yet. Apart from the vandal yesterday. I wasn't sure what to do, but I did manage to undo the wiping of the Main page, hopefully it didn't put anyone off. 82.29.184.175 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Actually I'll do that now!


 * As far as renaming the page...I don't think so, I think we either live with the image names as they are or alternatively if you want mark them with a (and I'll delete them) if you want to re-upload them. I think as long as they're around (somewhere) there aren't too many problems with however they're named (I mean as long as there's an example of them being used so people can see it it doesn't quite matter what they're called).
 * There's usually someone around that deals with the vandals (but yes re-editing the page is usually what's best to do). Most likely an admin will block the offending user. --Tangerineduel 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the bits done. OK I probably did get over excited by the `|` symbol, still QUITE good though! I need to get my head round using the tree bit and categories when I've got time. By the way when I went back and rechecked, I was surprised that I wasn't as clumsy as I thought I was, it was simply some gramatical errors in my page edit, nothing to do with the image bit, so thats was fine. Look out for additions to novels soon. Thanks again The Librarian 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as far as the category listings within the pages, each category has to be listed separately, the | just lets you order the page in a way different to the title. --Tangerineduel 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi sorry about the odd formatting bits, this bit with the novels was proving trickier than I thought. Not much to work with on the wiki entries, hit and miss and not much continuity, so I looked to see what I'd already collated as a guide.With the new Target reference book out soon, and various UK magazines recently having given away a free Target book, I thought if the pages were there it might help others add to the wiki if they had something to contribute. I am planning to revisit the pages with more content very soon. The First Doctor novels were sparse so I started there first. I'm not planning to overwrite the existing pages, (I have checked), but do people really want `Chapter heading`? I can`t see what they contribute beyond helping someone to count in most cases, unless the titles are themed in some way or are of note that could be put under writer/publisher notes.
 * I also haven't forgotten the TV pages will need to be revisited to include a specific link to the novelisation!
 * Checking up on other references I couldn't find the point when 'Masterplan' became 'Master Plan', and in relation to the novels there seems to be concensus in other references to use `-` where the DW `and the` is dropped thats why I decided to adopt it, I know I'll have to change some of the DWM On Target pages as well, anyway hi, ho! I'll look at the changes you made and work on from there, Thanks again
 * On a side note, I liked the Cookbook page, it reminded me, even at that young age of thinking "Why?" !! And as for the one on knitwear Classic!! Oh the shame!
 * I was going to ask about the page removal bit, so I will, where does the (sorry about the picture bit coming up) go?  The Librarian 11:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The generally just goes at the top of the page, as with the  template it automatically ends up in the Proposed Deletion category (which I and others occasionally check and clear out).


 * What just insert the line in editing like with stub?


 * Target Novelisation is/should be the template for Target Novels. I'm not against creating pages and all that. It's just the 'do it first' and then go back and fix it is a little counter-productive in some cases, especially when it's something like the title (which in order to change and fix the links means someone has to Move the page, then go through and change all the links that link to the original page, before then deleting the original. So there isn't any re-directing). In the case of the pages you've already created it means there are three or four separate edits to do (Novel covers and the novels on either side of the page in question).


 * Sorry didn't understand the last bit, working on the former to sort it out asap with a bit more practice I should be able to get it right the first time, sorry thats the bit that frustrates me. I try not to do many pages at a go for that reason The Librarian 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The pages that exist currently, are just a guide, keep the sections or don't have them depending on what the book needs, obviously not all Target books won't have Chapter headings, so there's no need to include that section in the articles which have nothing about that.
 * Also, some of the Target novel pages are quite old and haven't been updated in a while (Terminus (novelisation)) for example needs the infobox replacing and other stuff like that, and is just one of those things which has been a low priority for many people on here.


 * If you're ok with it I'll poodle on, the template I used was the latest and neatest I could find, streamlined infobox and all that (yours I believe!) and Im redoing the edits taking into account what you said. A note to my talk while Im making the mistakes would be helpful if you were online!


 * Also, I'll probably add the Doctor Who Pattern Book at some time in the future to add to the weird Doctor Who books. --Tangerineduel 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Had a thought on the "(novelisation)" tag before you delete them all. I can see what you were saying about titles being unique to the novels, but, had you considered there may be a need for a distinction of the same title being used (not necessarily with videos, lack of detail depth) but certainly for DVD's with all their added extra content as well as BBC Audio recordings and readings which increasingly seem to be having extra content? If it is not stated then mention will automatically and with the DW prefix be assumed to be tv only. The Librarian 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm will change the ones which have Doctor Who - and just leave them as Story title/Novel title (novelisation). The others which are Doctor Who and the will have the novelisation dropped also, as they are titles which won't be repeated (except Doctor Who and the Silurians, which is Doctor Who and the Cave Monsters).
 * For the BBC Soundtrack/BBC Radio Collection releases (if at some time in the future there is a need for individual pages) then they will be Story title (BBCR or whatever) but as those releases follow what the BBC calls then on the DVD/Video releases.
 * As for behind the scenes information I can only assume that you're talking about referencing this information, if you're referencing it in an in-universe article then I don't think it counts as a primary source (may have to run thsi by the Forum), if you're talking about referening behind the scene info in a out-of-universe article, perhaps just go with something like DW: Remembrance of the Daleks (DVD feature) (don't take my example as how to do it, it's just some idea) again maybe run this by the forum.
 * If I've got the wrong end of the stick on anything you've said could you please clarify for me, thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see the above when i just got the latest new message, gosh you're quick!
 * I wasn't aware it is was a discussion, I thought you were giving me some pointers which I have implemented in the pages I did yesterday and yes they do look better.
 * I was unclear what you meant about some of the points you made above, which I have indicated.
 * However your keenness on the Target Novelisation page (by date) is flawed, firstly it only includes first paperback editions, doesn't feature hardback editions or reprints which had revised covers for the 12 articles of varying quality that are linked to it I think its importance as it is, is over rated. I envisage in the not too distant future to be expanded and/or to include an overview of the publishing history itself.
 * With regards to the book titles themselves, you will see that on EVERY title page the words "Doctor Who" is used as a prefix to the remainder of the title (where "and the" isn't stated in the title.
 * While this is still a largely uncovered area of the wiki, perhaps you would like to think ahead a bit.As the links are not yet there I don't see a big problem outside of the TV pages at this stage, If I'm wrong tell me!
 * Surely the article pages could include `(novelisation)` if they were led to by the `|` thing so as not to distract from text which would be explanatory by its context?
 * Yes I would propose a tie-in page for every DVD release, because I believe the content is there to be at the very least listed, unlike the Videos, which add little to already existing material and are worthy of limited comment.

This is a better discussion The Librarian 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I presumed it was a discussion, with pointers and suggestions (as generally have been our previous communications).
 * The list might be flawed in some ways, but the Novelisation covers page is just, in fact it is even more flawed than the list as it displays a mix of articles in TV order (which aside from which order to read them in doesn't have any bearing on the Target range).
 * I'm more keen on then list as it lists the Target novels with their names in what appears to be written the correct way.
 * Also while the list might not take into account all the various editions, is there anything preventing all the editions (which presumedly are only different by the additions, not the actual story) being covered in the one page, unless there's something radically different.
 * On Doctor Who as a prefix, you will notice that none of the Virgin Missing Adventures/Virgin New Adventures/BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures etc do not have a Doctor Who suffix, so why should the Target Novel range, I concede if these pages were on the main Wikipedia site then perhaps it would be nessacary to have Doctor Who as a prefix The Ancestor Cell (wikipedia) but even that is not the case often.
 * So I'm more questioning the necessity for 'Doctor Who' as a prefix.
 * I'm not against a tie-in page, in fact it's been proposed somewhere, I think in the Forum.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by using the | in the article pages, as previously stated it's only for wikilinks within this wiki as a form of renaming certain links.
 * For the time being I won't alter anything further, except the Doctor Who and the...titles which I feel really don't need a (novelisation) after them, as they're most likely going to be linked from the story title's page as something along the lines of: The story was novelised as 'Doctor Who and the Claws of Axos'. Or whatever. --Tangerineduel 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about all that I know you must have other things to do as well, I was just being thick again and not sure what I was doing wrong and what you wanted me to do! I get it now the `Doctor Who prefix` and (novelisation) after a `and the`!! At some point I want to put ALL the pictures in their publication order (including the reprinted covers which really only need to link back to the main novelisation page for that title on the Target Novelisation page but thats later. Hence the `associated images' line.

Interestingly the 1978 reprint of `The Face of Evil` (Shown on the cover and spine) reads `Doctor Who AND the Face of Evil` on the title page and inside! Damn!! The Librarian 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Annuals and other things
hi, thanks, just to let you know some of the gaps I've marked I hope to be able to confirm , but I will stub them shortly. My note under discussion is simply that I'm watching so many pages at the moment for updates ? changes that, where on the few occasions, I'm missing something, I'm hoping someone will make me aware that they have added additional info and might be able to answer any more specific questions I have on that article or reference. Is it ok to do this if not I'm sorry and will stop it?! Thanks for doing some of the links for me when I split the USA up.
 * Yeah that's fine, just thought I'd make you aware of it. --Tangerineduel 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh a question (surprise!). I've been looking at the recent trend to split the Annual concept up into separate books (fiction and activity) each with a year date, I was wondering how you felt about adding `and Yearbooks` to the Annuals category as this is a trend likely to continue, and offers a one-stop link for the Marvel Yearbooks (which were Annuals by a different name) and the Pannini Storybooks (reminiscent of the early 1960's ones) as well as the BBC's own `Annuals`. They could of course still be listed under Anthologies and/or activity as fitting. Just a thought! The Librarian 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't any simple way of changing the name of the category, aside from directly creating a new category and then going through each article and manually changing the name from the old category name to the new one.
 * Could you point me in the direction of a page where it's split (do you mean two pages on the same annual?).

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. No. I meant where a title falls into more than one category. Take for example the Doctor Who Storybooks. The BBC license to produce an Annual has changed from the old format of yesteryear (regarding Doctor Who anyway, the Teletubbies one is much more traditional!). With the new `Doctor Who Annuals` being aimed very much at the DW Adventures Magazine market for younger readers, while for older readers the Storybooks provide illustrated anthologies aimed at the older readers of DWM with significant contributions from many current writers. As both titles are produced annually around September, and have a specific, short shelf life they (like the Doctor Who Yearbook's) fit the definition of what constitutes an Annual while not always stating it, but the implication is there. I saw a reference to `merging articles (or pages)`, but I've no idea what it meant, seemed a good idea if it could be done, rather than creating separate articles linking of one or two titles. I could be getting confused here just tell me "muddled thinking" and I'll drop it! The Librarian 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think a Yearbook category might be useful then it might be alright to create a category (and place it within the annuals, making it; the Yearbook category a subcategory). --Tangerineduel 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohh-Kay... but I don't think I'm ready to do the category thing just yet! If you can keep an eye on the Annuals page and let me know, you might see what I mean. I was planning to do some graphic novels next week, but the link on the Doctor Who Magazine page takes me to a category page. Do I just rename the heading and create a new link (using what article are already there of course!). Then I was going to try and get the Second Doctor's novelisations started hopefully right this time. The Librarian 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah just change the link in the page...in fact I just changed it so it's a red link, so you can write your page now from where it is. (Here's the link to the category just in case you can't find it now that I've removed it Category:Doctor Who Magazine graphic novels
 * The only thing which is slightly contentious as I see it is that the Abslom Daak and The Mark of Mandragora (and I think the Age of Chaos) aren't actually marked out as Doctor Who Magazine Graphic Novels...I mean that's the banner they come under, however, The Mark of Mandragora was published by Virgin and Abslom Daak just says 'A Marvel Graphic Novel' on the front, the new Graphic Novels, I think are marked out as being graphic novels from DWM...
 * Just thought I'd bring up this issue...but they all originated (more or less) in the Doctor Who Magazine, so there isn't any problem with having it under that banner, just I think maybe a note between to show the difference between publisher and originally published in. --Tangerineduel 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea! What about a Doctor Who Collected Comic Strips (including Graphic Novels page? The Librarian 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Way too long of a page and the including phrase makes it sound like it's been tacked on as an afterthought.
 * I say just go with Doctor Who Magazine - Graphic Novels and just note in the page something along the lines that this article something something, for all graphic novels which have comic that originated in the Doctor Who Magazine, I think that's fine, it's simple and it's to the point, anyone looking around would acknowledge that.
 * Once the page is established we can even put in a redirect from Marvel Graphic Novels to that page. I think that will be fine.--Tangerineduel 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment footer
Hi there -- I'm working on a project for Wikia to help link the science-fiction wikis together, and encourage people to see this as one big site, rather than a lot of little wikis. I'd like to post this footer at the bottom of the main page.

The gaming wikis have started a similar project, and they've seen a lot more cross-traffic. Would it be okay to post this at the bottom of the main page here? You could also feel free to edit it, to fit in better with this community. -- Danny (talk ) 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see too much of a problem with the footer, I'd just suggest that maybe the Hitchhiker's Wiki also be included in the footer.
 * Also where exactly is it located (so it might be edited in the case that other members wish to)? Thanks. --Tangerineduel 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)