User talk:Mini-mitch

'''Please leave all new message at the bottom of the page. Also, please take new heading for each discussion. Please sign all message as well. Comments that are: unsigned, rude, a personal attack, vandalism will be ignored.'''

Tooth and Claw
So, before you moved Tooth and Claw to Tooth and Claw (TV story) — which was fine in itself — did you give any thought about what you would do with the couple of hundred links to Tooth and Claw? Have you verified they're all meant to link to the TV story? Were you taking care of the re-linking yourself? What's going on with it? I'm getting questions on my talk page about it, so I need to know whether you're taking care of it, or whether I should be gettin' the bot ready. 14:03:13 Sat 23 Jul 2011
 * Well, here's the thing. The moment one makes a name change to an article — especially one as heavily linked as a TV story page — it's no longer an academic discussion on a talk page.  The move requires additional action.  And we, as admin, have to make sure that a core page like this is re-linked properly.  We can't just leave it to others to take care of, because it's part of the basic "spine" of the wiki.  And what's happened here is that Tybort has "taken care of it" — by just asking me to make the changes.  And I don't mind doing it.  But I would like to do it on my own schedule, rather than having to stop what I was doing and do it now. So in future it would be great if either you personally take responsibility for the re-linking consequent to a big name change like this; or you say, "You know, that's gonna require a bot to do it efficiently. Please put your request at user talk:CzechOut."  That way I can have some control over the timing and the way that it's done.  For instance, I would never have acquiesced to Tybort, no matter the validity of the request, before I knew that every single link to Tooth and Claw was meant to go to the TV story.  Once you establish that, the bot changeover is a snap.   14:42:47 Sat 23 Jul 2011

Typos on Doctor Who Series 7
You're probably dealing with them as I speak, but here goes. On the (naturally locked) Series 7 (Doctor Who) page you've been working on, you've got "annoounced the new of the new series" instead of "announced the news of the new series". -- Tybort (talk page) 22:21, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Potential Edit War in A Good Man Goes to War
User:Bold Clone is reverting good faith edits made by me to A Good Man Goes to War, and is claiming they are unneeded but is not citing anything else. How should we resolve? Primarily, behind the scenes information of the episode. TIA Cowbert 03:32, July 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * You had a transient ischemic attack? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 17:18, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Creating template talk pages
Why? I had this conversation with another user. Why? It makes it look like there's a discussion already happening when clearly there isn't. I know we had a discussion in the forums about talk pages already having the talk template on them, but I don't think we agreed about creating a talk page for ever single page, especially as there's nothing to talk about on many pages. I also seem to recall we didn't come down on a plan of action specifically for all sorts of article pages. I also really think it gives a false sense of something being discussed, especially on those templates which provide a link to the talk pages, which obviously appears red when there's no talk page, and therefore nothing to be discussed. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:07, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the rationale using the wanted pages as a reason for creating stuff that shouldn't be created. It was basically the same rationale used in the Timeline discussion.
 * Creating pages before they're needed as a means of controlling random questions / vandalism is an extremely weird way of going about it.
 * I really think the benefits of not having the talk pages existing and therefore allowing people to start talk pages as they're needed is a far better way of doing things. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:24, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or if we're going to make policy of creating talk pages for your reasons we need to work out a policy for it – in the forums where we can work out if we're going to tag every template page with a separate talk page tag or the same talk page tag or other things like that. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:27, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Please take care in restoring timeline pages
I've noticed in the past few days that you've restored a number of year pages that ought to have remained deleted. There are a number of year pages — 1509 being as good an example as any — where someone created the page without any good DWU facts. 1509, for instance, was created on the basis that The Sensorites mentions Henry VIII. The creating editor then said, well, if Henry VIII has been mentioned then it's safe to mention 1509, since that was the (real world) date he assumed the throne. But The Sensorites doesn't establish 1590 at all. Unfortunately there are very many pages in category:timeline which have been created with this sort of faulty logic. Please actually read the last deleted revision before you decide to resurrect, and determine whether the page really should be restored. Many timeline pages were prop deleted by me prior to my becoming an admin, and the prop deletion was based on actual research. If the final revision prior to deletion has a delete tag in it, please do not resurrect it. 12:57:21 Mon 08 Aug 2011

My edit to Series 6 (Doctor Who)
Why did you undo my edit. It was sourced. So why was it removed? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 17:17, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * You never gave a reason. It was just: Reverted edits by BroadcastCorp (talk | block) to last version by Mini-mitch. Are you sorry? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 17:46, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I won't...
But this photo really suits to be Gwen's main photo. is it ok to add this photo after the episode's broadcast? DuduDoctor 11:42, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

User image policy
Hey, as you're the one who's been most involved in enforcing this policy over the last six months, I'd appreciate your feedback on the rewrite at project:user image policy. Thanks. 21:25:01 Sat 20 Aug 2011
 * Thanks for your proofread.


 * The fact that a picture is unusued has never been a reason written into any policy as a cause, in itself, to delete a picture. The difficulty with setting such a policy is that there's no one reason that a picture becomes unused.  Sometimes, it's because it's just a bad picture, or someone feels that they have a better one.  Other times, it just gets temporarily displaced and the editor who did that forgot to replace it.  In such cases, the editor isn't saying they won't use it in the future, or that it's a bad picture.


 * In still other cases, pictures are uploaded with every intent to use them in the future, but maybe they get sidetracked. I myself often do this latter, as I'll upload a picture of a behind-the-scenes personality long before I've written the article for him.  The pic of John Bennett (assistant director), for instance, was uploaded almost a year prior to the article being written.


 * I think this third case applies especially to user pages. People trying to decorate their user page don't necessarily move at a fast pace.  Why would they?  I've certainly noticed that sometimes people upload personal pics and wait weeks before deploying them.


 * As long as they're not over the "rule of 3" or the size limits, I don't think we should auto-delete them. After all, if they've followed the other rules, we're only talking about a maximum of 500kb of "unused" space. That's hardly gonna break us.   20:07:06 Sun 21 Aug 2011

Untitled message 1
Sorry.Vikster 18:26, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

17:10:31 Mon 22 Aug 2011

Gallery images and licensing
Thanks for keeping me informed. As I said to CzechOut it was in part driving me to frustration, so I've stayed away from that element for a while, lest it drive me to do something irrational. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:20, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comic category move
Your requested moves are well under way. Please check tomorrow (Friday) to ensure that all categories you originally listed have been deleted. If you need any further work done on these cats by the time of the US airing of the latest ep of Torchwood, please let me know. 17:51:04 Thu 25 Aug 2011
 * Okay, I finished up the move about an hour ago, and now I'm seeing all redlinks on my user talk page. So I'm guessing things are satisfactoily completed. One thing I noticed that was a bit troubing was that there were some stories in the parent cat — that is, within X Doctor comic stories.  I fixed the ones in cateogry:Eighth Doctor comic stories and category:Seventh Doctor comic stories, by correctly placing them in either the IHP, DWM or RT categories.  But we're still left with The Forgotten, which should be categorised as being in a First, Second . . . Tenth Doctor IDW comic stories.  So if you want to handle the manual task of making an IDW category for all the Doctors that don't have it yet, then changing the cats on The Forgotten to reflect those new cats, we'll be golden.  Also, if you'd just take a peek in all those X Doctor comic stories cats to make sure there are no other uncategorised stories, that'd be great.  In this regard, I noticed there was a reluctance to put stories in either the DWMS or Doctor Who Yearbooks in the X Doctor DWM comic stories category, so you may find a few of those Marvel-UK-but-not-DWM-proper stories out there.  All these should just go into DWM stories, I think, cause none of them would've happened had it not been for DWM.

I haven't vetted the categories for genuine annual comic stories either. It may be that we needed to have a cat for X Doctor comic stories in annuals, if it's not already created. We have to go with awkward language for that right now because we're still doing this ridiculous thing of having DWA be the official prefix for annuals. We really need something better on that front. But we can categorise the annual stories now and worry about better naming later, if there aren't already annual comic stories categories. 21:02:54 Thu 25 Aug 2011