User talk:Tangerineduel

"Proper" wiki Merges
As an aside, things like Border Princess and Border Princes should be merged properly in order to merge the histories into one place. Have you ever done this before? If not, the process is as follows:
 * 1) manually copy the information from the destination to the source article.
 * 2) delete the destination article
 * 3) move the source article to the destination (this creates the redirect too)
 * 4) undelete all deleted revisions of the page

And voila... you're done. You have all of the history from every instance of the article in one location. :) -- Sulfur 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Right (didn't know how to do it, or probably thought about it and did the easier way). Will bare it in mind for the future thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who theme
I just made a major move and revision, taking the article called "Theme Arrangement" and changing it to the more-likely-to-be-searched Doctor Who theme. I expanded and reorganized the article thoroughly. The only catch is that there's a ton of "What Links Here" artifacts where Theme Arrangement is still linked.

I'm prepared to spend some time (when time allows) removing the redirects, but if you happen to have access to a bot that can do this, please feel free. (Alternately, if you don't mind redirects - they make Wikipedians antsy which is why I'm asking here - then we can just leave it be). I put the word "theme" in lower case for the renamed article, but I wonder if it should be "Theme". Do you know if the piece of music is actually called "Doctor Who Theme"? 23skidoo 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just realized I accidentally posted the thread to your userpage instead of your talk page. Apologies. I think keeping everything together in one article is probably best. Someone looking for information on the theme music and its various versions would probably just want to go to the one article. Spinoffs related to specific versions such as Pertwee's vocal version might be feasible later, but for not I was able to turn it into a general article on the theme by just adding a few paragraphs to what already existed regarding the different arrangements. 23skidoo 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub templates
Hey, thanks for your message! I find myself sorta changing my approach to these stub thingies as I see them in place on various pages. So the main reason the TV stub is oriented differently than the others is because it's almost universally used on a page that has a big, centered navigational block at the bottom. It'd be nice if they were all oriented the same way, but the other TV templates don't seem to want to oblige.

As for these things having or not having borders, personally I'm a fan of the no-border look. It a) makes the stub message stand out and b) is the way stub messages are on Wikipedia proper. Another point I've noticed yesterday is that if you put a stub message on, say, a character page without an image, the stub will appear out of alignment with the character info box. Having a border around the stub message fixes it firmly at 260px, due to padding and cell spacing. That's fine on a page where an image exists in the infobox, because adding the pic bumps it up to 260 as well (for instance: Tobias Vaughn). But if you look at, say, Harper, you can see that the fact of having a border falsely makes it look out of alignment. Since many stubs will be on pages without a pic, I think it makes sense to 86 the border.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Real World
I note you've just reverted the real world template. Please note that I'm actively working on it, for reasons stated in Template_talk:Real world. The original format of the template does work in Monobook, but not at all in other skins, as far as I can tell. Floating it with the "absolute position" command actually covers up the text in the lead. See, for instance, Doctor Who theme or Tony Dow (when viewed in say Slate or Brick). You said that my latest revision "mucks with page layouts", but I'm not seeing evidence of that in several different skins. How specifically did it muck with page layouts? Thanks for your help!  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What skin are you using?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see the problem you're describing. Thing is, though, should we be making a template that looks best only when an article is empty?  I mean, surely we want to be able to read the lead of a proper article more than we want the format of an absolute barebones stub to look right?  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, near as I can tell, across multiple skins, I've got it so that even on the ridiculously short articles, it's not crossing the line of the subsequent headers, as with Jasmine Breaks. It seems to look fine on genuine articles.  Although one might quibble that it's wider than it was before, it does at least conform to a standard 250px width, which means that it'll match the width of the wikipediainfo box, common to these sorts of pages.   And you can read all text on any page using the template.  Because it's a transcluded template, it may take some time for all pages to use the new format, so you may encounter some pages which are using older versions.  You can wait, or see the template as it currently looks on the page by performing an "empty edit"  (edit, then save, without changing anything).   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Myths sections
It might be worth considering changing the "Myths" sections in the episode articles to something a bit clearer such as "Rumours and speculation" as that's what I understand these sections are supposed to include. A user removed the Myths section from Forest of the Dead with the rationale that the speculation and rumors listed were "not myths". I reverted this change and said I'd made the suggestion in your direction. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Myths and Rumours works for me. I'll change them as I see them. Hell of an episode this week! 23skidoo 04:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth
Just a heads up, the new episode seems to be attracting a fair number of clueless edits. I've made some corrections, such as properly describing the ending. They seem to be good faith errors, but it might be worth keeping an eye on this. 23skidoo 06:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)