User talk:Skittles the hog

Admin request: Granted
Your user rights have been changed to admin! Feel free to ask me or the other admins any questions you may have concerning anything wiki or admin related. You can also add your user name to Tardis:Administrators, this page is fully protected meaning only admins can edit it. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Allies
Allies are not members. If they are, then they are not allies. By its very nature, allies cannot be members. Do we need to take this to the page's TP? -- Bold  Clone  21:53, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

CVE and other unlinked redirects
Hey, I brought CVE back from the dead because people will actually search for that. I mean I don't always remember what CVE means (rather depends on how recently I've watched season 18), so it's good to have it searchable. And it's not improper to link it in articles, either, as the acronym was used in-narrative. Please don't fall in the trap of believing that no links=reason to delete. That's just not true. There are some redirects that are made purely because people should be able to search for them — for instance, Hartnell episode names or common alternate names for behind the scenes personnel.

Feature
Yeah, I never thought about doing it really but I would like to nominate it. Thanks. --Revan\Talk 09:58, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Guide for new admins
I've created a guide: Tardis:Guide for new administrators it includes a few things I've learnt along the way and some useful information which you may already know or find out as you work your way around as an admin. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:04, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Delete blue humanoid
Do you agree with the deletion tag on the Blue Humanoid page? Is it sutable? Ghastly9090 14:15, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

So you want to delete it? Ghastly9090 14:17, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Multi-colored humanoids
Thanks for putting delete up at the other-colored humanoids articles. :)
 * Um, it's not possible to plagiarize within the same wiki. Not even really possible to legally plagiarize across Wikia.  We're all bound by some form of "share and share alike" CC license.  Copy away :)

X categories
I created categories for Rassilon, Omega, Weevils, etc, basically recurring characters/enemies/species that should have stories categories (in my opinion). I though, by looking at the page that Terrible Zodin had appeared. My bad, it turns out he has not. I think a major look through of the articles to fix apperances and mentions will need to be done in the near future... Mini-mitch\talk 19:42, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'll remember that in future! Mini-mitch\talk 19:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

How to float
Sorry, I was lost in Bot Control, so I didn't really answer your question usefull. Here's a more thorough answer. This text is floated to the right. It doesn't have to be text. It could be a pic or anything you want to include in div tags. If I were to type:

''' This text is floated to the right. . . '''

I'd get something like what you see to the right. Note that the text here wraps around our little box to the right. The "margin-left" command tells the system how far away to keep the text from the left edge of the box. (We could put in margin-top -bottom and -right, if we wanted to.) The "border:" command sets the nature of the border. And the padding tells the box how much of an interior margin to set. "10px" means we want the distance from the border to the interior text to be 10px.

There are other ways you could set up the appearance of text wrapping, such as through a table with no visible borders. And there are other commands that can ensure positioning of items to the left or right, such as the various "clear" commands. For additional reading, you may want to go to wikipedia:template:clear, whose instructions neatly show the effects of clearing. And you might be interested in wikipedia:Help:Table. You might also like this basic primer on floating at a non-wiki site (the code works out of the box on wikia wikis): http://www.elated.com/articles/css-floats/.

Generic job (ep title)
Let me just cut and paste what I said at user:mini-mitch's page: I note that you've just deleted a lot of properly disambiguated generic character names — like Secretary (Frontier in Space) — on the basis that there's no other character at that name now. Please stop deleting things on the basis that "nothing else of this name exists" or "nothing links here". What you're failing to consider is that something else might link there in the future. For instance, the category, human secretaries and category:secretaries, implies that a generic article about the job of a secretary could easily be written. More to the point, it's absolutely conceivable that another character named "secretary" could come along. So the future-proofing of this article by naming it Secretary (Frontier in Space) has now been lost. Just about any characters who take their name by their job title should be disambiguated so as to allow for the possibility of other characters similarly-named in the future. There will be other thieves than the one at Thief (13 O'Clock) (and with the presence of Lady Christina, Rayne, and this new first Doctor companion that Big Finish are doing, there's a need for a generic article about thieves). There might well be other cell guards, desk sergeant, cashier, car salesmen, and American sergeants in the future. Indeed, there might already be such characters, but we just haven't written the article yet. We only have 21K articles. We're nowhere close to having an exhaustive catalogue of all characters in the DWU yet. Please take the long view and allow room for us to grow our coverage, rather than creating work for people to undo later. Point immediately made with Waitress (Vincent and the Doctor). He assumed there was no other waitress, but of course there was. There's also Waitress (Random Shoes), but there's no article on that character yet. He'd have figured it out, if he'd just bothered to search for "waitress 1". That's a cool little trick. The reason Peter is such a big article is because I searched for "Peter 1". That reveals every page that has the name peter and the number 1 — which is a hell of a lot of pages. That shakes all the red-linked names out of the tree, too. Especially if you follow that with "Peter a". Then you'll get everything. But it's simply a lot easier if you just always disambiguate generic title pages. If there's a "desk sergeant" in 1970, there'll be another one 40 years later. Or in a book somewhere. Or in a comic. We're simply nowhere close to a complete catalogue of characters, and it's arrogant in the extreme to just say, "Well, the [hairdresser]/[cell guard]/[thief]/[waitress]/[sergeant]/[cook] I'm looking at now must be the only one which exists in the DWU, or that there might not be a fascinating article that could be written about the job itself. Seriously, that doesn't allow us to grow at all.  For instance, it's good that nurse leads to a disambiguation, rather than to any one of the nurses we've seen.  That allows people who are not as familiar with DW as perhaps we are to find Curtis (Doctor Who) or Xanxia or Lythia or whoever they might be thinking of as a "nurse" without realizing they actually have a name.  I can easily see a utility in an article at thief, sergeant, corporal, waitress, secretary and tons of other generic title names.  Deleting properly disambiguated names on the mere basis of "I couldn't find any today" is quite inimical to the basic goals of the wiki. We should be making information super-easy to find, not making it so that you have to be an expert in DW to find stuff.

Real World
The pages arn't written entirely from the real world, the reference and continuity sections for example. No othr story pages have them, just these companion chronicle ones for some reason. --Revan\Talk 14:09, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Compromise
All I want is for it to display the full date (i.e. 20th century - 21st century). Is it not a compromise to have 20th century - 21st century, instead of 20th-21st century ot 20century  ?It has what you want which is to show that they are not separate dates, and It also allows for the full date to be displayed, which is what I wanted. I now see that putting them under each other using  does look like they are separate dates. If we can't come to an agreement, I sense another Howling Halls coming on... :S. Mini-mitch\talk 00:19, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Random Shoes
Nope sorry. That's why I never created the pages for them after I created Linda. My plan was to watch the episode in the near future, so that the page could be created with even a sentence. Mini-mitch\talk 20:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Company names
Company names are rarely italicized in full. Well, never, in fact. In very high and antiquated form, they can sometimes be partially italicized if the name is based on something that would've been italicized. For instance, if there were a company based on Doctor Who, then it would be The Doctor Who Company. (Actually, if memory serves, that is the technical legal name of the "legal shield" production company that protects BBC Wales from lawsuits.) It's indeed quite common for there to be production companies based on the name of the thing they're producing. The company that produces Outcasts, for instances is named Film Afrika Fourteen — Outcasts (Pty) Ltd. Technically, Outcasts should be italicized in this case. They almost never are, because the emphasis in a copyright tag is to get the letters/spelling/punctuation precisely right, and they don't often mess with style on screen, especially with TV credits. It'd be surprising on their letterhead, however — which of course we're never going to see — if they didn't do something stylistically around the word "Outcasts".

All of which is a terribly longwinded way to say "no". The Happy Cook is the Happy Cook.

Erm...
It's not really about a matter of age, but it used for era we see them in i.e we see Eugene in both the 20th and 21st centuries, so he gets both. the Waitress, was only seen in the 21st century, so she only gets 21st century put next to home era. It's very unclear what 'Home Era' means, but it should be changed to Era active (or something similar), which would mean the Era written down is the era(s) we see them in. (If that all makes sense) Mini-mitch\talk 21:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were to read this, it says that Home Era should be changed, to something like Era active, which would be the century we see them in. As you said in that argument, it would overload the infobox if we put the century they were born in. We don't know a character's past, so to put in another 'Home Era', rather than one we don't see them in would be to speculate. The infobox is a basic summary of the article. If that person was in a story that took place in the 21st century, that's their home era, in the case of Random Shoe, we don't see these people in the part that takes place during the 20th century, so we can't add it, if we did, then we could. Mini-mitch\talk 21:18, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Right. It is. You have to have your way, and I want mine. Let's leave the Home Era till we reached a discussion. From now until then, we do not edit, change, undo the infobox, the home era, etc. agreed? Mini-mitch\talk 22:00, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will raise a discussion for the Home Era in the forums. Until a decision is reached, let's not add any home era or change it for any character. Mini-mitch\talk 22:04, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's something that should be discussed in the forums, it can change the MOS. I hate the fact I've been a complete prat, and hope once we have a conclusion, there will be no hard feelings? Mini-mitch\talk 22:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Mini-Mitch
Hi. Its seems mini-mitch has rolled right over my opinion and blocked my non user account when he doesn't like what I have to say. I hope you can be a bit fairer. He's acting like a complete child right now, but I think this whole home era thing is pointless and he cant stand to lose an argument. Sorry for having to bother you with this. Fan555 22:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Home Era argument, actually is not pointless, it can help this wiki to grow, change and become better. Mini-mitch\talk 22:20, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Saying "the n-th Doctor" is actually in-universe
Hey, I've noticed you've been occasionally changing my indications of particular incarnation numbers (third Doctor, for instance) into just "the Doctor". I know there was a time where that was encouraged around here, because people (rather erroneously) thought it was somehow out of universe. But now that The Lodger has actually had the Doctor referring to himself as "the eleventh", and Death to the Doctor has had the Doctor say "every Doctor, every me", it's pretty clear that the terms, "the second Doctor" or "the seventh Doctor" are actually perfectly valid, in-universe terms — even if your only frame of reference is the TV series. And it helps people who don't know as much about the DWU as we admins to actually include the incarnation number. If you've come to Doctor Who via the Matt Smith era, you won't know that it was the fifth Doctor who traveled with Nyssa and Tegan, for instance, so it's helpful to have that incarnation number in the visible text.

Why did people get bees in their bonnets about using the incarnation numbers in the first place? I don't really know. As far back as at least The Five Doctors, it was clear that the Doctor did think in terms of numbering himselves, though there the fifth and first Doctors were counting regenerations, as opposed to incarnations. And The Eight Doctors really must use the incarnation numbers to tell the story. I know a lot of people don't like The Eight Doctors, but it does at least enshrine the use of "nth Doctor" in canon. And that book was published long before this wiki ever started. So why we were ever tip-toeing around the use of the terminology is baffling to me.

Australia
Nah, it's a good enough temporary pic. No need for a re-upload of the the wider shot. I think my revision note referred to the fact that I was hoping that somewhere there was a better representation of the country than a deliberately aged photograph.

Named Hartnell episodes
Please do not change citations from specific Hartnell episodes to more generalized serial names. This is an insensible reduction of the accuracy of citations.


 * It's not a "system". It's accuracy.  Dodo's not in The Massacre; that's completely misleading.  She's in the last two minutes of "Bell of Doom".  Similarly, it would be completely wrong to say Donald Tosh wrote The Massacre, when he's only (apparently) credited on "Bell of Doom".  I've been citing specific episodes for a long time, so long as that information is specific to an episode.


 * Of course, there's not much information that is episode specific.  But the fact that "no one else does it" is hardly an argument for me to stop.  If every single thing around here depended upon "the majority", this place would be considerably less organized than it is.  The general level of spelling and grammar around here is fairly low, as I'm sure you've seen.  If we took a vote on narrow grammatical issues, I'm sure we'd find that some of the most basic English rules would be overturned by "the majority".  I know this is going to sound terribly posh and arrogant, but the majority doesn't always produce the best rules, especially when it comes to the narrow, technical issues that are the essential glue of the wiki.  As is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, consensus is not the result of a majority vote.  Sure, there are some very arbitrary things where a vote is good enough, but by and large, majorities can't overrule good sense or established rules of grammar.  If twenty people logged in today and started the argument, "We should be able to call the First Doctor 'the Hartnell Doctor' in in-universe articles", would you allow their voice to change the MOS?  Would you allow a vote of 25 for to 3 against to change the name of Frontios to The One Where Turlough Teases Tegan?    Of course you wouldn't.  Likewise, I don't care what the vote is:  Dodo appeared in "Bell of Doom", and there's no reasonable cause for an encyclopedia, whose goal is accuracy, to say she was in The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve.


 * But back to this point, specifically. You'll find that the MOS allows for the use of episodic names, so long as they redirect to the serial (see tardis:Manual of Style, point 6).

Short story
According to my review of the history of the template, the infobox has never had the "enemy" field. No biggie though. It's been used on between 500-1000 pages and nobody's noticed this. Must indicate just how infrequently people fully write short story pages that no one in all this time has cared. I'd advise you just put in the field. It won't show up just yet, but I'm going to be collapsing all these infoboxes together anyway.

Handle
The text of the article makes the very point you just did. And it is a working door ... to the telephone, as we see functional in The Empty Child.
 * I understand your reluctance, but, not to put too fine a point on it, you are wrong. Here's the definition of "door" from the OAD:
 * a hinged, sliding, or revolving barrier at the entrance to a building, room, or vehicle, or in the framework of a cupboard.
 * Doors are definitely not just to rooms. Besides which, as we see in the very first episode of the new series, you can push both doors open by putting your hands where the handles are.  That's how Rose first enters the TARDIS.  So, if you pull on the left handle, you'll open the phone cubbyhole.  If you push on it, you'll open the whole door.

Prefixes
Prefixes aren't real world pages, strictly. They're administrative or TARDIS wiki pages. They should have a banner which is on my to-do list.

Leela
I'm sure Big Finish appreciates the implication that the information on its website is bogus. Either that or if you're not allowing the Jago & Litefoot series to be mentioned in the Leela article then we should delete the material relating to Big Finish's Gallifrey series, too. Please confirm if that's the case and I'll go ahead and make the appropriate revisions. 68.146.64.9 20:16, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Hollow Men
Yeah. I hate ones like this, because some editor or other is always unhappy by the decision. Still, we already have a ton of pages in category:Songs from the real world where the name is never explicitly stated on screen, but the song is obvious from what our ears tell us. Auditory information is canonical, just as visual info is, though it can be overruled by dialogue. If there's a sign that says "Welcome to Honolulu" then we don't need dialogue to tell is we're in Honolulu. Likewise, if "Paperback Writer" is playing, we don't need Jamie to say, "Hey, it's the Beatles singing "Paperback Writer", Doctor." If we have a helicopter shot of iconic Paris, it's Paris — unless the dialogue calls it, for instance, New Paris.

Thus, the Doctor quoting familiar poetry, with the author's name being spoken in dialogue, is more the enough, I'd say to unambiguously name it "The Hollow Man" in the DWU.

So, yeah, the current The Hollow Men needs to go to The Hollow Men (novel), and the Elliot work gets the un-disambiguated name.

Chameleon
Heya :) Just noticed this in passing.  If two things from the DWU have the same name, then neither gets to go naked, as it were.  Both things have to have disambiguation.  So the sentient species, Chameleon, needs to move to Chameleon (humanoid), now that we've got Chameleon (reptile).  Chameleon would then become a disambig, since there's Chameleon circuit, giving us the requisite minimum number of items for a disambig page.
 * Cameo in The Ark maybe. I'd be willing to wager at least a few dollars that a chameleon pops up in a book somewhere, and we just haven't run across it yet.

"By media" companion cats
Yeah, I debated that one yesterday myself and I did see the utility of such cats. People will find those categories useful. I debated moving the cats to the real world super cat, but whether it's there or under the in-universe supercat, it's still mixing the two in a way that should normally be forbidden. At the end of the day, I just decided that it wasn't causing actual category recursion. So I left it alone until such time as I or others can give it a proper think.

[My current obsession with cats has everything to do with recursion. I'm not methodically going through every cat and weeding them out on the basis of adherence to the "four cat" rule seen at Floor 500.]

Now that you've gotten me thinking about it again, though, all that info could be conveyed through a single page, or charts on companion. As long as as the companions are broken down somewhere by media, then we've given people something they can use. Yeah, sorry for the stream of consciousness writing here, but those cats could go in favor of adding the info in a tabular way to companion, though obviously to the BTS section.

Bold Clone block
Could you explain why you blocked Bold Clone please? I've looked through the history of The Doctor's TARDIS and can't see what he did wrong. Did he do something at another page that, when added to his changes at the TARDIS, created a broader offense? And, are you sure it was for a reason covered by our blocking policy? What I see is that he took some pictures down, and he left a rationale in the revision note. What's wrong with that to cause you to block him without warning him on his talk page?
 * Not it's not the hastiness that bugs me. It's the fact that what he did isn't listed as an offense in tardis:blocking policy or tardis:vandalism policy.  The closest thing is the line about "bad faith edits" or "edit wars", but it's hard to see bad faith when he left a revision note that said there were too many pics.  And, if it's edit wars, you're kinda stuck right there with him.  But if it is edit wars, you know the policy seems to suggest a lower sorta block.   Yes, you can do more than 2 hours, but 24 for what were probably good faith edits seems harsh.


 * Look, of course I disagree with him, and I honestly do thank you for defending my work.

But I just don't see how you can block someone for 24 hours for what he's done so far at that article. If the block is really about only his editing at that page, I'd ask that you lift it. Blocking him from editing his own talk page is especially harsh in this circumstance.


 * Hmmm. Sorry to keep hammering this, but it's important that we admin don't give the wiki a reputation for "blocking at will".  What specific rule of the blocking policy are you alleging he crossed?


 * I am going to now slightly revert your block to allow him to post to his talk page. There really is no cause to completely ban him from speaking on the wiki.


 * Cool, I'm glad you see my questioning as an attempt to rectify actions against rules, rather than a personal attack on you. Because, again, I am incredibly appreciative that you'd defend my work here.  But I also don't want to lose editors because of unfair administrative practice.  Now I know what you may be thinking.  BC is a sometimes difficult editor and maybe it'd be okay to lose him.  But I think we're defined by how we treat the editors with whom we have conflict more than by those who go along with everything we say.  So it's important that we use our powers in accordance with the rules laid down, or that we talk about changing the rules.  In this particular case, BC can only be judged according ot the rules as they currently stand.  And I'm not seeing "repeated removal of content" anywhere in the rules.  The closest is tardis:editing policy, which prevents more than 4 reversions in 36 hours, which he didn't do.  So, I think you do have to let him off.  Note, too, that tardis:editing policy requires you, as much as him, to discuss things.  That is, you think he reverted you, but you were reverting him too.  Determinative in this situation is this quote from the editing policy:
 * In all situations discussion should be the norm, not an edit war or admin action (in the form of protection or blocking).