User talk:Gousha

Hellfire Club
Really good work with the Hellfire Club article i must say however please don't relegate Faction Paradox audios to the notes section as this wikia treats them the same way as they do any other Doctor Who related media.

Thanks,-Revanvolatrelundar 10:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was unclear on that. Thanks!  I'll revise accordingly. Gousha 21:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Good work
Hey there, I've enjoyed reading your edits on the Big Finish monthly range. It is a section that is in need of improvement and you have all but completed some of the Eighth Doctor audios. Keep up the good work. --Revan\Talk 09:01, February 5, 2011 (UTC) 16:32: Tue 20 Dec 2011

Songs
I saw absolutely no point in the category for a number of reasons:

1) What category would it fit into? There was none, so you would have had to create more and more categories so the 'stories with songs' would have fitted into a proper category.

2) What did it cover - stories with songs was very, very vague - if someone never knew what it actually meant - they would have added it to every story in which there was a song played - most of these would have been background songs. What would be the point in known this?

3) What else is similar? By creating 'stories with songs', other users would have been inclined to create categories such as 'stories with dancing', 'stories with drinking' and eventually 'stories with talking'.

4) Creating what seemed to be a random category - it could also look like you were trying to score point on the Game of Rassilon - creating random categories just to get point can get yo blocked by the way.

So by creating a category that could not fit into another existing category could therefore result in a lot of similar categories being made, some of which would be ridiculous, vague or pointless.

However, I do like your think - and everything above was not criticism, it was reasoning. I think you are a very good editor and enjoying seeing your work - I just hope that this has not put you off editing or has discourage you in anyway (some users do feel this way). Keep up the good work and do not hesitate to contact me or another admin if you need to ask/anything. Thanks. MM/ Want to talk? 19:27, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand MM's concerns, and think that the title of this category needed work. But I like the concept of the category.  It does have something to offer the database, if I understand your explanatory text correctly.  You're basically looking for those stories where the characters break into song.  So what you need is a precise expression of that.  I think category:Stories in which a character sings will fit the bill nicely. Then you just put it in category:Stories by narrative characteristic, and then put that into category:Stories.  02:32: Sun 15 Jan 2012
 * I think your text at Category:Stories in which a character sings doesn't fit the title. So now I'm unclear what you're trying to get at.  Why have you limited it to original songs?  What's wrong with Terror of the Autons, where the Doctor sings a song by the Ink Spots? Or Rose, where the Doctor sings a snippet of Sinatra? I'd suggest that the category title you created would admit any song sung by a character . Would it upset you greatly if the text were modified to make it match what the category name actually says?  07:51: Sun 15 Jan 2012
 * Well, I think we avoid the problems that MM has rightly flagged if we stick to the most certain phraseology. If you say "original song", you're left with the quandry of what to make of Pertwee's "Aggedor-calming" song in the Peladon adventures.  The words are sort of original, but the tune is not.  If, on the other hand, we go with the category name as it currently is, that's pretty solid.  Every time a character sings anything, the story gets put on the list.


 * I'm gathering that what you really wanted to do was a category named "Doctor Who musicals". But there's only really one, so that's not enough for a category.  So it looks like you're yearning to try to do something as close to that hypothetical category as possible, and that's where this all becomes quite confused.  It's simpler just to go with category:stories in which a character sings.


 * I think you're looking for something like category:stories in which a character sings a song written specifically for that story. And again, I think you're going to get into all sorts of grey area during the Pertwee era and elsewhere.  It's not just Inferno that he sings when he drives.  And almost none of the Pertwee musicality is "written specifically" or "wholly original" to that story.  It was improv that he came up with.  And because of Pertwee's penchant for putting together songs on the fly, some editors would doubtless want to include the Terror of the Autons bit, even though that actually isn't at all original.


 * When building categories, the central questions are:
 * Is the name easy enough for everyone to understand? This doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be short.  Stories in which the Doctor is on a mission for the Time Lords and People interviewed on Doctor Who Confidential not involved in production of televised Doctor Who are long names, but they're pretty clear.
 * Will the name present problems with future maintenance? If it can be interpreted in more than one way, then it'll probably mean that an admin might be enforcing one interpretation, while users are thinking about it differently.  That's why Tagerineduel and I are pretty lukewarm on these Story arcs subcategories.  People have varying interpretations as to what the Torchwood arc actually is.  Does it actually include Bad Wolf and Love & Monsters, just because Torchwood gets a namecheck?  Or does it require something of narrative import, like Tooth and Claw for it to be in the "Torchwood story arc"?


 * I really think if you try to stress the originally written for element, you're going to have problems with the second point.  You're asking people to prove that the song was both original to and written for the story.  And that's a tall order.  Not only are there cases where some of our editors are simply too young to tell the Ink Spots from a hole in the wall, I think there are instances where we just don't know what part of a song is original.  Did Troughton come up for the tune of the "Tower of Rassilon" song in The Five Doctors?  Or did he, like Pertwee on Peladon, take some original lyrics and fit them to an established tune?  And, when you think about it, what in Doctor Who and the Pirates is original?  I think it's just the lyrics.  Isn't the whole point that it's a riff on G & S/Pirates of Penzance, and that it therefore depends on re-using the music itself?   Does that count as original, or merely parodic?


 * I think I know now what you're going for with this category, but I just don't think it's quite achievable. The simpler phraseology of stories in which a character sings will include more stories than you originally wanted, but it will be less contestable and therefore easier to maintain in the long run.


 * I'd also have no opposition to stories with songs that have lyrics and music original to those stories, but that could include stories with extra-diegetic songs, like The Christmas Invasion ("Song for Ten") and The End of Time ("Vale Decem"), but it would exclude Doctor Who and the Pirates (unless there's a fully original song that I'm forgetting). It's the combining the two notions — sung by characters and original — that seems unmaintainable to me.   17:03: Sun 15 Jan 2012


 * I'm not seeing what's so complicated about a category that tries to organise every story in which a character sings. That seems very straightforward to me, and really doesn't require forum discussion.   21:00: Sun 15 Jan 2012


 * Sounds like you're just struggling with the definition of the word song. The Oxford American defines it as   Humming therefore isn't fuzzy at all.  It has no words, so it's not a song.  21:44: Sun 15 Jan 2012

your comments on the blog
Thanks for the kind words.Boblipton talk to me 02:20, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:23, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Terry Nation
Well over 99% of the time, I try to leave a clear deletion rationale. You can see it at file:TerryNation.jpg. Should I ever have to delete any of your work in future, and obviously I hope that doesn't happen, you'll always be able to get some idea of the problem by clicking on the red link to it.

To spare you the time of clicking, though, the basic deal is this. Though your submission was perfect in terms of style, it was well short of the mark in terms of substance. Yes, it's great that you left behind a source and that you used reasonable copyright licenses. But the source you gave wasn't a source. There's no way that the cardiffan site actually took the pic of Nation. So you can't really cite it as the source, because there's a critical difference between "where I got the pic" and "the source of the pic".

Not sure why you think the the page so desperately needs anything better than the pic that resides there now. Oh, okay, you could get rid of the BBC Wales logo, and generally tighten up the cropping. But I'm not sure there's a particular reason why we need something other than a pic that's very clearly sourced to the BBC. 05:36: Thu 09 Feb 2012
 * I hate to see you waste your time like that, though. I don't understand why you're bothering.  The one that's there presently illustrates him well enough.  Plus there are some shots of him on various DVD special features if you really want it to be different.


 * I think you're largely going to be spinning your wheels if you try to search online for something. He died at the dawn of the internet age, so he never had the opportunity to build his own website or to have pics taken by online journalists.  So most pics you can find online aren't actually original to that site, as they might be with other, more recent celebrities.  What we need, therefore, are pics known to be taken by, or displayed by, the BBC in some way.  13:54: Thu 09 Feb 2012
 * Yeah, there's a reason why there's not a "used by permission" tag. It doesn't work with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.  Please do not post such a picture if all you have is permission by the copyright holder to post it here at tardis.wikia.com.  See, it has to be released to a free license (and it would be best to be released to CC-BY-SA 3.0) to work here.  Please follow the instructions at.


 * And, seriously, you're a Mac tester. As a fellow Mac user, I have to wonder how you're "not set up" to take DVD screenshots?  20:08: Thu 09 Feb 2012


 * So, just to clarify, you've got Terry Nation's son to license that photo to CC-BY-SA 3.0, or into the public domain? Gonna have to ask you to produce the actual note of permission, please.   06:42: Sat 11 Feb 2012
 * It's a great picture. I really appreciate the time you've taken to get it right. I'd love to be able to use it.  But we just don't have our details right on it.  I'm not sure Joel is in a position to actually surrender copyright on it, since he appears to have only a positive of the image, which generally doesn't establish ownership.  There's no mention of who took the picture and for what reason.  But let's assume that he did have full ownership of the pic.  We still haven't gotten him to accept the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or to surrender it to the public domain.  All we've got is permission to use it on tardis, and that's not good enough, since w:c:blakes7 and w:c:survivors would also have a legitimate interest in it as well, and they wouldn't actually be able to take the picture from us.  So for now I'm deleting it.  07:28: Sat 11 Feb 2012
 * How'd you manage to get a screenshot out of an audio documentary? 22:58: Sun 12 Feb 2012
 * Perfect! I'll take it! Restoring now.  (I was going to suggest that you consider the definitely BBC-copyrighted image over at Tom Baker's website, but as long as you've sourced it to something we can get a genuine screenshot out of, I guess there's no need.  Sorry for making you jump through so many hoops.  I definitely haven't enjoyed it any more than you.  It's mildly insane to think about copyright in the context of a site like this, but I'm assured by people wiser than me that we need to at least demonstrate that we've tried.   23:11: Sun 12 Feb 2012
 * Okay, the pic has now been fully locked down cause I don't think you or I really want to revisit this any time soon, and there's absolutely no reason to change this image. At this point, it can't be improved in any way.  Thanks for jumping through the hoops.   23:17: Sun 12 Feb 2012

Infobx question
There is indeed a simple bot fix for the phenomenon of "smashed together links", but it takes place on a second bot run. I thought I was caught up on doing the rounds, but I may be mistaken. Please give examples of where you're still seeing the "smash up".

The bp thing is put on ice for a few days. It will eventually be cleared by either a bot run or by simply changing the nature of what bp does. Please don't make any attempts at manual cleaning, as there's a very simple fix that needn't waste any of your valuable editing time. 03:14: Sun 11 Mar 2012
 * Thanks for the bug report! It made me adopt a more sophisticated post-bullet-removing approach. You should now find in category:species a lot fewer cases of "the squashing problem". I didn't quite realise there were so many different variations on what happened to an infobox after removing the HTML.  Thus, I had to build a "proper" user fix that handled all cases simultaneously, rather than just doing a couple of runs.  If you detect more problems, please let me know.   06:37: Sun 11 Mar 2012
 * Yeah don't bother manually deleting bp. I'm just going to change what it does. A lot more efficient. Might take me a bit of time to get around to it, but it's a simple fix.   <span style="">06:57: Sun 11 Mar 2012

versus
Hi there! i think you give good advice so i wanted to ask if you think Doctor who is better than Red Dwarf? Thanks!