User talk:Tangerineduel

Aberystwyth
Sorry if my changes caused confusion, but it does get a tad confusing. In the episode, the flyer clearly states Aberystwyth University, hence the page being named Aberystwyth university. I'm assuming thats what you wanted to know, so if the following confuses you, just ignore it and remember that it is "Aberystwyth University". (I've just ordered the season one boxset and will add screenshots when it arrives)

At the time the episode was originally aired however, the official name was the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, but was generally shortened to Aberystwyth University. The producers presumably heard it being referred to as Aberystwyth University, and just hadn't realised it was not the university's official name.

Still with me?

Then, during the year between the time that the episode was aired, and the episode was set (thanks to the one year gap established in the new Who season 1) the University became independent from the university of wales, and thefore changed its name from The University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Aberystwyth university. This change in name therefore effectively nullifies the producers mistake, as the name is now correct, given that the episode is set after the name change.

I hope this makes things understandable, and again I apologise for confusing the issue. I really enjoyed my time at Aberystwyth, and in an effort to make the relevant pages, may have got slightly ahead of myself.
 * Geek Mythology 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Briefly
Just wanted to compliment you on this Wiki. It's one of the best I've seen, and the only one outside of Wikipedia I use regularly. (Memory Alpha is a distant second, but it's far too cluttered.) Monkey with a Gun 05:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a potential bit of major deleting
A few months back we shared a rant over the inability of some contributors to spell. I've also noticed of late many entries under "Myths" and the errors sections that seem to be stream-of-consciousness comments with no punctuation, no captialization ... and of course bad spelling. I haven't bothered to look at who might be putting these in but I bet they'll be anonymous IPs. I think based upon the way these things have been added, they should be considered suspect and removed from the articles. I've already removed a few that have been patently dubious or just outright wrong (I can't remember the detail but in one case someone added one of these sloppy notes to the Discontinuity section for an episode, pointing out something that was clearly stated throughout the episode. It's almost as if they were EUI - editing under the influence). I don't want to start pulling out stuff willy nilly without checking with someone first so I wonder what your thoughts are on this. Or should we just correct the spelling and capitalization and add periods, etc. and let things stand? (On a related note, if IPs are the cause of some of these problems, maybe Tardis should follow the lead of the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and restrict edits to registered users?) 23skidoo 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example of what I'm talking about, please see The Deadly Assassin. Check the edit marked "delete useless" in the history and see what I removed. There is in fact a registered user attached to this, Assassin of Death, though I've yet to link him/her to the other edits I'm referring to above. I checked the contributions and they appear to be a mix of properly formatted additions, and stuff like what I deleted. 23skidoo 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, when I see something like this, first I see if I can figure out what they were trying to say. If not, cut. After that, if it's a valid point, I try to clean it up. If it's just pointless, I cut it.
 * I'd be against requiring edits only for registered users. Mainly because I got into this wiki as editing as an unregistered user. (Of course, depending on how you feel about my edits and my OCD, this could be a good thing or a bad thing.) Monkey with a Gun 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment on this reply: Also another thing I don't think we should have is retroactively applying continuity to the discontinuity section should also be removed. That is calling out an old story as having incorrect elements because of a newer story. (I recently edited The Five Doctors which had some stuff in the discontinuity section relating to Last of the Time Lords. It's not really The Five Doctors' discontinuity, it's Last of the Time Lords'.)

I don't disagree with that, however I think it works if we use a newer story to cover off a potential discontinuity in an older story. For example, in Five Doctors there's the question as to why Susan would recognize the Cybermen. Based on what was known in continuity in 1983, she shouldn't have. However from 2009 perspective we now know she could have heard about the events of Doomsday or any of the other Cybermen invasions that happened at other points in history. So mentioning this in the rationale is fair game. I agree, however that if something established in an older story is contradicted by a later story, then that's mostly the fault of the later story (unless it's a key point of contention, such as a UNIT dating issue, or something like the "mystery Doctors" in Brain of Morbius). I think doing the retroactive game (which is often played with Star Trek, too) can be fun -- as long as we keep the order of things proper. 23skidoo 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dead article
The Planet of the Dead (TV story) article might need to be monitored. There are a few anonymous users that have been adding speculation and nonsense to the article, as well as indicating not only their guesses as to the broadcast date (which seems to change edit-by-edit between the 11th and the 12th) but the exact time. This despite the BBC having not yet made an official announcement. (Presumably one will be made within the next few days). The broadcast date issue is minor, but we should keep an eye on the anons posting apparent rubbish. One even posted their guess for what Special 3 will be called! 23skidoo 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the POTD article accordingly now that the BBC has posted the official date (and the fact at one point 12 April was listed as the broadcast date pretty much confirms our need for due diligence on this). Now we need to keep an eye on the 2009 Specials article. We've got people posting information as fact in the Casting section which should be in the Rumours. I love how two actors could be spotted on set for Specials 3 and 4 nearly 2 weeks ago when production of Special 2 (the one with Adelaide) didn't even start until last Monday. 23skidoo 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think semi-protecting from anonymous editors is a good idea, at least temporarily. Most of the bogus (as opposed to premature) edits on POTD, for example, came from IPs, and while I didn't check who posted the Cribbins casting in the Specials article, I'm willing to bet it was an IP. i say go for it, and perhaps add some sort of banner to the article (which could be used elsewhere) indicating why the protection was put on. 23skidoo 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unknown swarm creature
What was the reason behing deliting that page?Kingofall42 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Don't worry. I wasn't going through all the profiles. I don't have the time! Just ones where I've used quotes, and someone else has come along afterwards and changed them to italics. (For some reason, it's usually Doug who does it...) -- solar penguin/(talk)/(contribs) 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)