User talk:The Librarian

Hi,
Just to let anyone know I've currently started on Doctor Who Magazine related pages which I hope will be comprehensive (I promise I'll catch up soon).I had to start somewhere but if anyone has suggestions or requests for details they would find useful / interesting or both, please let me know.Hope I can help! The Librarian 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: because of the number of links within the magazine pages I've also turned my attention to; I've still a lot to learn and will be revisiting the pages later at some point to fill in some of the gaps so please bare with me, unless you get there first! and thats before I get to the In-Universe stuff!! Enjoy The Librarian 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Other related releases (including specials, graphic novels, poster mags, American comics, etc.)
 * Listings and coverage of the Doctors comic strip stories (including DW Classic Comics and TV Comic)
 * Doctor Who Annuals and Yearbooks
 * Target novels (which are extensively reviewed and included in features)
 * Oh and big thanks to Tangerineduel

My Useful Links

 * Tardis:Publication Index List
 * Category:Prose stories
 * Category:Novel series
 * Category:Reference Books
 * Category:Target Novels

Reminders to Myself (following clean-up) The Librarian 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Brackets after everything look messy
 * Include ==External links== at the end of every page
 * Have a look at similar pages first!
 * Sets of pages (e.g. TV, Books, CD. Audio and Anthology pages) have an established look
 * Bullet points(*) VS short indentations
 * Dont use too many indentations
 * (` `) italics
 * (` ` `) bold
 * `br` in greater/less than brackets is used to create a new line of the same formatted text
 * REFERENCES relate to in-universe comments and observations.
 * CONTINUITY relates to mainly out of universe comments.
 * Previous/Next boxes in the infoboxes relate to publication order if not sequentially part of a set. Additional terms used could include OCCURS BEFORE / AFTER
 * MINOR EDITS should only be ticked when there is no new or additional information added to a page.
 * Regarding WORD editing:
 * "..." does not translate well!


 * Use the `what links here` on the top left column to explore the topic.
 * Do a search for variants of a missing link (e.g. early episode titles)
 * Article> history> compare edits. Use the compare option to see changes made in the history and pick up tips on punctuation etc.
 * | is used to separate the linking page to what actually appears as text
 * keep the brackets tight!
 * ? little reference numbers
 * (? start and end bit)
 * with a nowiki /nowiki to conceal it!


 * Its probably easier to do than I think!

Comic Infobox
Hey, well I decided to update the current comic infobox, rather than create a whole new one. Take a look at The Power of Thoueris! (as that was the most recent one I created or thereabouts) and has the new infobox layout implemented in there. --Tangerineduel 04:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional (Red) Links
Hi Librarian. The reason to why I have put red links in pages you've written is: I don't know very much about the early Doctor Who stories, but I thought that if I create links to characters mentioned on pages it's more likely that someone who knows more then me will write some info...

By the way I think you're doing a great job! Keep on going! Rufus

Hey Rufus...there's a conversation between me and the Librarian lurking...somewhere, either on my talk page or his or in the forum. The gist is (or my argument at least) is that I left the creation of character pages up to the Librarian (as he does in fact have the Magazines in front of him) and so he would know whether or not there is enough information to create a character page for the characters mentioned (as in many cases the information such as it is can be answered in the comic's own page rather than a one line page). --Tangerineduel 15:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Novelisations
I think that it might be best not to have Doctor Who at the start of all these novelisation covers. As this is the Doctor Who wiki, it's pretty much self evident that it's a Doctor Who story. It may also be best to follow the links laid out on Target Novelisation, which have a much cleaner (and in some cases shorter) titles than your listing. I may start to re-name some of the titles soon. --Tangerineduel 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

not all the novelisation titles have to have (novelisation) written after them, especially the ones entitled 'Doctor Who and the' they definatley do not need novelisation after them.--Tangerineduel 08:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a small note, you might notice that I've been replacing some of the images you've loaded of the novelisations...as they look a little bad with the covering over half. I've been replacing them with clean versions I've found elsewhere on the net. --Tangerineduel 08:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've only replaced the covers which are exactly the same with cleaner ones, where there's a different logo (see Doctor Who and the Day of the Daleks) I've placed them both there...you may want to place the second cover else where, I just put it there so I wouldn't forget about it.--Tangerineduel 08:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a small...thing
It's the very nature of the wiki that there's going to be thing that need to be improved on, you don't really need to put a 'not much info' note in each of the articles where you don't know everything (as there's always going to be things people can add to it), instead mark it out (at the bottom of the article, above the category with a which will mark it out as something needing more attention. --Tangerineduel 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although if it's something very specific add the stub and put a note in the talk page, but if it's just lacking in info the stub will single it out as needing extra info. --Tangerineduel 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DWMP
Does this really need a prefix, from what I can tell it only has four issues...but there are 23 links to it...just curious what that's about, especially within the pages there is a link to the Marvel Premier page...so does it really need a link to the DWMP prefix page (which doesn't exist)...so I'm just questioning the need for it...and why the prexix and the premier page link is in every page? --Tangerineduel 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thought about this and wasn't sure about how to create an abbreviation for use throughout. The reason for its inclusion is simply that although Doctor Who specifically only occupied 4 issues, the abbreviation for Marvel Premieres MAY be useful in developing articles on the comic strip writers and artists who have contributed to other issues of that title, particularly during the period of comic strip crosssovers. I admit to not being too well informed on the US side of things but with the new US comic title announced (see Doctor Who (USA comic) Issue 23) it MAY crop up again. Alternatively I could change the thought and go for an abbreviation of MP, would that be better, open to suggestions. I'm aware I haven't covered those 4 issue yet. The Librarian 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * thought again and have linked them to Marvel Comics for later expansion, less red! The Librarian 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Me again, great work with...everything (thought I should start with praise). Anyway, you might notice in some of your recent new creations, specifically Arnold Schwartzman and Henry Fox, which I removed the galleries, and will go forth in the other pages. Mainly because it's repetitive content. It's perfectly acceptable to have the gallery within the Target Novelisation pages from which they come from. Not so much in the illustrator's pages (as it's plainly obvious if you visit the novelisation page and the author's that it's the same gallery used twice). Perhaps choose a few standout illustrations and seed it with some text within the article (to give examples of their work). Also see other artist's pages for a basic guide to laying out a list of their work. --Tangerineduel 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Notes
Just had a look on the Target (Year) pages, just a few (more) notes. When creating links for actual sites with web addresses, they only need a single [ bracket, (as you can see on Target Books (1982), additionally it needs to have the http:// as well as the rest of the addy to work, all that needs is a space between the end of the addy and whatever you wish to have as the text for the link (again check out the 1982). As for the other reference sources, I don't think it's nessacary to include 'Personal Collection' as the very nature of a wiki the term is very subjective. --Tangerineduel 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The pages don't seem awkward. However the Target Books (1994 and beyond) should be changed to Target Books 1994, as I noted in the discussion portion of the article. --Tangerineduel 06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been having a think concerning categories
Hello... I've been having a think and a look at this category situation...it's not too good from an organisational point of view. Actually it's fine, but it could be better and less messy (as you might notice I've been moving a few things around). All the Target Books (Year) now reside in Category:Target Books, which cleans up Category:Target Novels. Which is what lead me to having a think (and also finding Category:Novelisations, which I'd forgotten about. Anyways...as i was saying, most of the novels in Category:Target Novels shouldn't really be in there (actually it was probably your question about categories that got me thinking about this). None of the novelisations should really be in the Target Novels category, the only ones that really should are Earthlink, K9 & Company and Harry Sullivan...and the Missing stories. Which are all 'novels'. All the rest (ie all the Novelisations) should be in a sub-category called Target Novelisations. As you've done...all of the work and continue to do so, I thought I'd run it by you first (before I go through all 160 or so articles and change it from Target Novels to Target Novelisations). Obviously I'd bung the Target Novelisations category in the Category:Novelisations so it's all contained and easy to find (as a sub-category rather than all in the Novelisations category). --Tangerineduel 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes that was the sort of thing I meant. I looked at categories and how pages used them but my head hurt a little so I stopped, but I will go back to exploring them, just can't quite get my head round them all yet and how best to use them. If I know what you're doing I can add it when I'm revisting them if you want, if it makes it easier otherwise go ahead. I really don't mind, I appreciate the help tidying up.
 * Well I'll alter a couple of the Novelisations categories to what I proposed so there's a starting point (I'll start with An Unearthly Child so there's an visible start point). The categories are a little confusing until you actually play with them and then it's just boxes within boxes, tied with linking string...(or something like that). --Tangerineduel 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On a question of titles maybe you should rethink K9 and Company as it is a novelisation of a screened story, which makes it different from the other Companion stories, more like Slipback really.
 * The only thing is that on the cover I think it says Companions of Doctor Who, that's the only reason I placed it in there, it can be on both pages as it is both. --Tangerineduel 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also appreciate your approval on the Target / BBC Audio Releases bit. It seemed sensible to tie them into the novelisations. What I couldn't do was to structure an infobox tidily on a page with an existing infobox so I hope that was ok as I did it there's not much more to add to the releases as I saw it. And yes I had noticed a red link for BBC Audio (formerly BBC Radio Collection)! If you can point me in the direction of pages that carry more than one I would appreciate it. Thinking the self explanatory titles here like Quiz book, Colouring book and other limited titles.
 * I'm ambivelant towards the Novels/CD versions but how you've done it seems ok so leave it like that (it can always be changed in the future). Also take a look on the Target / BBC Audio discussion page, the slash (/) in a page title does some odd things to how it's positioned within the wiki. I don't think the BBC Radio category exists yet, so just leave it red for now and when it's been working out it'll all be placed somewhere suitable. --Tangerineduel 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I've thought a bit more about making the pages more interesting than just contents particularly regarding Magazines, stay tuned for that one! Would I get in trouble for reproducing 'snipets' that aren't ever likely to be collected together for re-issue?
 * That I have no idea about, I think it's something do do with the...something, something...(there was an idea in my head but it sort of fizzled). Put it to the forums as I don't have an answer to that one. --Tangerineduel 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And finally, just a small, niggly little point really, so small that I probably shouldn't even bring it up ... but did you know the new Doctor Who Encyclopedia (highly recommended!) includes under 'Y' the entry You Are Not Alone!!
 * Which is partially why it's still in the Category:Proposed deletions rather than having been deleted, it's still very badly written, so it really needs a full rewrite and for someone to work out if it's going to be an in-universe article like the Bad Wolf meme or an out of universe article. --Tangerineduel 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, still a bit more to do with Target books then I'll probably have a re-read of some more comicsThe Librarian 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DWA 45
Hi. I was filling in a page DWA Issue 45 and then realized you're working through these numerically... naturally I realized this right after I saved it. I'm sorry - I didn't mean to step on your toes! I was actually copying the format from one of your pages, although I didn't have as much information as you add. So hopefully it won't be too hard for you to edit the rest of the way. Also, I couldn't figure out a graceful way to include both covers, but I don't really think they need separate issue pages... -- Wendy (talk ) 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)