User talk:Revanvolatrelundar

Adding categories
Hiya :) Thanks for your recent efforts in adding categories to pages. Please remember to sort the pages onto which you add categories, so that they're properly alphabetized on the category page. There are two ways to do this. Either you can add the template at the end of the article proper, or you can manually sort each category. DEFAULTSORT is rock solid. Add it once to a page and all categories are sorted that way. So for instance, let's say you wanted to make sure "Jo Grant" was sorted under her last name, not her first. You'd chose to edit the page, and then at the bottom you'd place this language:

Then you'd save the page, and all categories added would then sort Jo by her last name, not her first.

You may, however, choose to manually edit each category. It can be done without fully editing the page, and may be more appropriate if you're adding only a single category. To do it, click on the leftmost of the two symbols you see in the right corner of the blue category bubble that's created by pressing "enter" after you input the category name. From there, the wiki software will walk you through the process.

Either way, please make sure that when you add categories, they are properly alphabetized: people by their last names (if known), and things and titles by the first word which isn't an article ("a", "an" or "the"). Note, too, that sorting is case-sensitive, so "G" is a different thing from "g".

Thanks :)  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 19:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up, was wondering how to do it anyway. have a nice day Revanvolatrelundar 20:08, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Adding proposed deletions
Hi, thanks for your recent edits. It would of assistance to add which adds the prop delete banner as well as the prop delete category to the article, rather than just adding the category. As the banner both alerts us to this and is more noticible than just the category. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:18, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion tag
Please do not unilaterally remove deletion tags, where an explanation for that tag appears either in the revision history or on the talk page. If you wish to contest the deletion rationale, you may do so on the disputed page's talk page, and then an admin will eventually close the debate by deleting the page or removing the tag. In the case of years in the 2020s, the rationale for deletion is a solid one, that deserves debate. These years are too near for most stories to be set {only two "near future" years have ever been settings for BBC Wales adventures: 2012 and 2059. The near future is not a particularly good time to set a DW adventure, because its events can so easily be proved wrong in the lifetime of the viewer. But the 2020s are too far away to be of use for "Real world" chronicling. Dates upward of a decade hence can wait for inclusion until the time they actually become relevant. Furthermore, the timeline template is being adjusted in the near future to "skip over" empty years, and it can't do that if there are a ton of "blank" year pages around. The standard for inclusion of ANY page on the DWU side of this database —and timeline pages are in-universe articles —is that the article must be about something that happened in the DWU. We don't, for example, have articles about books that have never been featured in Doctor Who in the hopes that they might one day be featured on the programme. No, that way madness lies. We wait until a subject actually has relevance to DW or one of its sister shows. Then we create it.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 14:20, April 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * The prop delete tags are valid. Basically those pages have no content, when people go looking/clicking through links the links should lead to pages with content. Currently these year pages don't have anything (other the next/previous year and the collective years page for that year) linking to them.
 * Whilst I do understand the desire to have all the years 'complete' and created, we need to serve the content and if there's no information on these then it doesn't make sense to have them.
 * In any case, as this is a wiki when or if content comes around the page can always be created / restored to its previous state before it was deleted. --Tangerineduel 14:34, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia plots
Please do not copy wikipedia plots, especially without giving credit. And there is no need to add a link to the page on the page, this just makes the link bold and serves no purposes. Thank-you. The Thirteenth Doctor 12:44, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

i didnt add the plot, just fixed the crazy box error Revanvolatrelundar 12:48, August 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * In defence of Revanvolatrelundar it was an IP editor who added the plot from Wikipedia, not Revanvolatrelundar, Revanvolatrelundar just happened to be the next user to edit the article. --Tangerineduel 12:50, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I just saw that he made a large edit and assumed it was him. You have no idea how much of an ass I feel now. Sorry again. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:15, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Past tense
Going over some of your recent edits to the eighth Doctor's page, I noticed you sometimes put in information in the present tense. Please remember that because the article is in-universe, everything should be in past tense. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 14:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

if you look at the edits im going over some other contributors edits and cealning up what they say, and i must say its poorly written and some may have rubbed off on me Revanvolatrelundar 14:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

just had another look and the section your talking about was written by another user that ive been trying to clean up Revanvolatrelundar 14:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did check the histories. In this edit it was minor, you replaced "materialized" with "materialises". In this and this, however the tense is is more noticeable. Do you mean you were you just copying the paragraphs that were written by other users? --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah thats what i meant, ive been getting summaries from various sites and putting them in my own words from the original text one those last couple of edits and some words must have skipped my attention when i wrote them in wrong tense. Revanvolatrelundar 17:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I just like to check up and make sure that users know so they don't end up doing it all across the wiki. Better to be safe and sorry than simply sorry. :) --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Politic
Hi, I've created the Spiral Politic redirect. It didn't appear turn up anywhere when I did a search for it, if you're trying to create a re-direct that doesn't have any redlinks you can either put it in somewhere in an article, use the sandbox to create a redlink and then follow it and create the redirect or use the community portal (which has the new page creator box on it) and create the page that way and create the redirect. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 15:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Unused sections
Please don't remove sections from infoboxes as you did with the Blood of the Cybermen Cybermen in this edit. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:36, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

didnt realise i did Revanvolatrelundar 11:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

in fact dont they get automatticaly deleted when not being used, i think i heard tangerineduel say that once Revanvolatrelundar 11:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

it was in rich text so that would explain it, it can do some crazy things to edits... like that blue quote box thing when you paste certain things. i just edit things in the mode it gives me, perhaps its time ot start using source mode now :) Revanvolatrelundar 11:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they? Oh well, never mind then. I've never seen them, or heard of them, being removed automatically before, so that's why I mentioned it. If you didn't then that's fine. Do you not use the source code, or do you edit the template in the Rich Text editor? I think it only removes it if you edit it there, so perhaps it would be better to edit it in the basic mode. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:44, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

no problem, im just glad you spotted it, cos i sure as hell wouldn't :) Revanvolatrelundar 12:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah... well, even when it's regular users, I just like to make sure they know not to remove the sections. Sorry for the inconvenience. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes used to not work if you removed sections, in between now and then code has been added to most of the infoboxes so that they do work, but it's usually better to keep them in just in case info comes along later that can go into those sections. --Tangerineduel 15:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)