User talk:Dalek194

Please feel free to post here if there is anything you want to talk to me about - one of my edits, Doctor Who in general... anything really

13:59: Tue 20 Dec 2011

Hi
Your own creation of this page inadvertently prevented you from being officially welcomed, so I hope you don't mind if I slip on the welcome template just a few months too late. It contains a lot of useful links which you may wish to explore, if you haven't already. 18:10: Sun 19 Feb 2012

Images
Hey, thanks for your great images from Spearhead from Space. You've started contributing at a time of some transition with images. We're just beginning to categorise them a bit more usefully. All the supporting documentation hasn't been written yet, because I'm literally in process of doing the major restructuring necessary.

However, if you could please put your uploads into at least categories that identify the story from which they came, it would be a big help. I've gone back and relabelled all the Spearhead images for you.

The basic format of a category is:

so

We also have several other ways of organising files — by object, by character, etc. Please take some time to explore the super-category, Category:Images, to get a feel for the organisation we're attempting, Then place as many categories as are logical for the picture you're uploading. For instance, if you had a pic of Pertwee and Liz from Spearhead, you'd add, category:Third Doctor images, category:Liz Shaw images and Category:Spearhead from Space TV story images.

This effort will help us build a much more searchable, user-friendly collection of pictures. If you go to Spearhead from Space and click on the "images" tab at the upper left, I think you'll see what I mean.

Thanks again for your great pics! Please do keep 'em comin'! 18:10: Sun 19 Feb 2012
 * Heh, no worries. Just to clarify — you didn't add the wrong tags.  You got screenshot, the most important one, on there.  This business of fully categorising pages is literally a week old, so there's no reason you should've known about it yet.  Hell, I don't even have the help files written yet!  It was more a "head's up for the future" kinda thing than a "you done wrong" issue.


 * And as for the welcome thingy, well, consider yourself a "highly unusual" user. You have to be very fast indeed to create your talk page before the bot creates it for you.   When the bot's working, only about 1 of every 250 users is able to create their talk page before the bot gets there first.  So congratulations for beating the system.  Too bad there's no money in it for you . . .  18:39: Sun 19 Feb 2012

Handbook images
I'm so busy creating categories and laying down the basic structure, I haven't had a chance to look at individual cases. I'd imagine the rationale of whoever did that was that there are indeed images of the other Doctors on, say, The First Doctor Handbook. I see your point, though, that the overwhelmingly dominant pic is of the First Doctor on that particular handbook. I'm not really at a point where I've thought too much about the nuances of policy on this new feature. Could you perhaps ask Tangerineduel and user:Mini-mitch what their opinions of such images are? Exactly how dominant a person has to be in a pic in order to qualify to be put in that character's category isn't something we've actually defined yet. 22:46: Sun 19 Feb 2012

Images and categorisation
Hi, it's not exactly and just an image policy question, it's more image categorisation policy question.

As CzechOut has said we haven't quite got the specifics worked out. But the in these circumstances I think it's better to over categorise than under. The reason is it's difficult to define terms like "predominately", "relevant" and "significant" when musing on an image.

Your First Doctor Handbook example would at first seem clear, so we apply that rationalisation to everything? Everything under a certain amount of space on the image can't be included, but then things like the sonic screwdriver might only take up a very minor piece of the image but is still relevant. So then we have to set up a set of rules defining the primary/secondary focus of the image and what is a tertiary focus of the image...and then you still need a threshold to work with.

I wouldn't even want to say that the image has to hold an immediately recognisable image of the category name, because there are images like File:Japan The Daleks illustration 2 with text.jpg which isn't immediately recogniseable as an image of the First Doctor (or Ian and Barbra), but is still relevant to the subject matter.

So at this early stage in the development in this categorisation process I think it's best to categorise everything on the image. As at least then it's all in the categories and we can see it for what it is, if need be it can be culled of the categories first. Hope this answers your questions, but feel free to question me further. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:44, February 21, 2012 (UTC)