User talk:Tangerineduel

Zoom
Thanks for the pics. All I can do is share them with Wikia. It's nothing I'm doing in CSS. 14:41: Thu 04 Oct 2012
 * I assume this is in Firefox, though? I'm not seeing the same results in Safari or Chrome. Firefox has never reacted very well to zooming on the edit box — though its problems heretofore have been with zooming out more than in.  14:45: Thu 04 Oct 2012
 * Yep, you did say Firefox. Sorry.  The thing about this new design is that the editing window has a fluid height.  Firefox is apparently not liking that fluidity as much as other browsers.  I will say, however, that on pages that have a lot of text, it's not quite so noticeable.  15:02: Thu 04 Oct 2012

DWTV Eleven pic
Hi! I already asked CzechOut about this, but seeing as he's "checked out" for the past few days, I was hoping another mod could help me out. I noticed that the DWTV template's Eleven pic is getting to be too small for how many episodes Eleven has now and was wondering if you could replace it with this: Memnarc  ☎  10:17, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Memnarc ☎  20:07, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Theme
I know. I just made a joke. 139.55.12.139talk to me 11:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Back soon
Sorry for being away for a couple of weeks. I'll be away for a couple more weeks. I've decided that I can't just stand by in the current election, and am therefore using my free time to support the candidates of my choice. Hope you don't mind holding down the fort for a bit. 17:37: Wed 24 Oct 2012

Update question
I posted a question over at the Panopticon (Forum:Wantedpages), but didn't get any responses. Might you know where better to ask the question, or mayhaps you might know? Thank you muchly. Ebyabe  (talk)  19:01, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

New fixed width
Just to let you know that the 'floating' article templates are misaligned thanks to the now-slightly wider Oasis skin. I'd fix it myself, but it's a CSS thing.

Orphaned pages
Hi! I have a couple of questions about orphaned pages. How many links need to go to an orphaned page for it to be no longer considered orphaned, that is, is one enough? And do I need to remove the orphan tag from the page and remove the page name from the Special:Lonelypages page? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  22:24, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've only done a handful so far, so I'll remove the tag from them and get to work on some more. Shambala108 ☎  13:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Unintentional Oops
Sorry about the talk page fix. I was just browsing and somehow forgot I wasn't on a formal page anymore. It won't happen again. Jay JLOM Things turn out for the best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out - John Wooden 01:36, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Helloooooooooo
Hi there Tang! I'm back! I've a question. What's happened to the blog???? 09:22, October 27, 2012 (UTC). PS sorry for the nickname.

Hi tangerinduel. Sorry that before my absence I was just messing the wiki up. Can we say that, well, I'm a new user? 14:18, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Stubs
I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be confusing me for someone else. Or at any rate, I don't remember marking something as a stub. Could you refresh my memory?

Past tense
I don't have a lot of time until November, but let me first apologise for not having finished the MOS rewrite yet. Had I done so, I would have already rectified this tense inconsistency thing, of which I was obviously aware.

Since I didn't, let me tell you where I was going with it.

I think there's a case to be made for always going with past tense, period. After all, we're not trying to provide general biographies of people. We're just interested in their career as it intersects with the DWU. Most of our articles on real people begin with something like "David Tennant played the Tenth Doctor", not "David Tennant plays the Tenth Doctor". When we go on to characterise their career, we're talking about their past roles, since our spoiler policy doesn't allow future tense. Any content about current roles should obviously be pre-emptively written in the simple past. Even natural-sounding lines like "Steven Moffat is the current executive producer of Doctor Who" can easily be past-tensified by the equally naturalistic, "Steven Moffat assumed the executive producership of Doctor Who in 2009."

It helps future proof articles if they're all, consistently, written in the past tense. Otherwise, you end up with the annoying chore of having to go back and rewrite articles once the subject is no longer currently working in the DWU, once the fact no longer is true, or once someone feels that a "sufficient" amount of time has passed to classify a new story a "past" story.

I've increasingly come to believe that T:POV doesn't really work as a rationale for tenses. T:POV is a legacy of founding admins' love of Memory Alpha, where they basically say the same thing: "We're all fictional archivists living at the end of the universe looking back on the fictional universe that we cover". That construct is very hard for new people to grasp. Indeed, Memory Alpha administrators like Sulfur have to periodically fend off challenges to that rule. They've actually been far less successful at getting their articles to be in past tense, which can be seen by editing almost any in-universe article. They have to fight back people who argue that some things are "universal concepts" which would be true even of these hypothetical, end-of-the-universe archivists. The vocal opposition at MA says things like, "Even archivists at the end of the universe would be living in a universe so therefore the article about 'universe' should be written in present tense because it's a constant." Therefore, current arguments by admin like Sulfur have taken to admiring our harder stance on the matter, which just says, "past tense, period."

I therefore think it's probably wiser to completely cut the ties with the MA position altogether and delete T:POV. Writing in past tense isn't a matter of perspective. It's just a choice. It's better to just say "use past tense cause that's our stylistic choice" and then demonstrate why using past tense just saves time in the long run. In much the same way that T:SPELL is just us picking a form of English to use here, we can and should simply choose a tense and stick with it. I honestly can't think of a case where using past tense would be at all awkward, even for living people. Conversely, every use of present tense immediately dates our writing. 15:45: Sat 27 Oct 2012

Tense Trouble
Hi. I just have a question about the usage of past/present tense. If I understand the rules properly, all articles should be placed in the past tense, such as story plots and character bios, etc, though excluding articles on real life subjects such as actors, directors, etc. My question is, why shouldn't the intros to articles on stories (episodes, novels, comic books, etc) use the present tense, since they've covering a real-life aspect of the story? I'm asking this mainly because my edits to change the tense of some of the CON episodes from past to present were almost entirely reverted by you (along with a minor grammar fix, for some reason) without a message to me or even a line in the edit summary explaining exactly why I shouldn't change the tense. I mean, I had changed the tense of a couple of articles before and even pointed out I was changing the tense in the edit summary, and Tardis:Point of view seems to say that the present tense should be used for stories instead of the past tense. If present tense should just never be used, I'd just like an explanation as to why.

Vandalism
Looking for a mod to help stop the vandalism of the following page: List of BBC DVD releases. A mod locked out unregistered editor for a two week period a few months ago and that sent the vandals away, but now that they've realised the lockout is gone they are back to ruining the page with nonsense. Help please!Gallicus ☎  18:25, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the article talk page link you've given me. I didn't know it existed as a policy before now. Thank you! :)  Jay JLOM Things turn out for the best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out - John Wooden 05:06, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

WHA-?
Why did you delete MY pic from MY user page? Oliver 18:09, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Infobox at the Doctor
I know you were largely opposed to the idea of there being rotating images at the Doctor's infobox. It's sometimes hard to imagine what any final product will look like based merely on description. Now that I've finally crossed that one off my to-do list, I hope you'll find that's relatively elegant and harmonious with the way our infoboxes normally look. 05:31: Tue 13 Nov 2012
 * Good call on increasing the animation duration. Much more elegant and even a bit dramatic at 10s intervals — with a longer linger on 11 at the end. (You might have to clear your cache to see the change.)  14:11: Tue 13 Nov 2012

Tenses, perspectives, and the like
In line with our earlier discussion, I've now moved all the POV stuff out of T:MOS and into its own short chain of articles, branching from T:POV. As you'll notice, I've kept it to a bare minimum. It seems pretty clear to me, and I'm not detecting any particular inconsistencies between T:POV, T:IU and T:OOU. I've softened my stance on OOU articles from what I said, above. Now I've gone for strongly recommending past tense, but noting that there might be times to use present tense. In particular, I've recommended using present tense in BTS sections, so as to draw contrast with the past tense of the IU part of the article. Lemme know what you think. 05:53: Thu 15 Nov 2012

A positive list of sources
Yes, we do have such a list. If you'll recall, when I was first re-writing canon policy — back in the days when we were still clinging to that dirty five-letter word — you made a similar request of me. The concept of a positive list of sources has therefore been a part of the rewrite process ever since. There's a link to it within the highlight box at Tardis:Valid sources. The more direct link is Tardis:Valid sources/Detailed list.

That said, the list does need a bit of cleanup, post prefix restructuing, as it was based on using the old prefixes. So these all got converted to the new prefixes, which means the list doesn't say much. I'll be cleaning that up now ... 15:01: Fri 16 Nov 2012

New forum
I wasn't trying to make a major change without consultation. Honest! I tried playing around with the new forum feature on two other wikis and I soon realised I was going have to do some serious tinkering to get it up to speed before we could even evaluate it fairly.

I attended the webinar on this one, and have been a part of discussions at w:c:avatar and I honestly think that — on balance — you're going to love how this improves our communication. I'll give further updates as I craft this thing into place. 23:54: Sat 01 Dec 2012

The thing at the bottom of every page
Yeah. If you're wondering about this thing that (currently) says "feature under development", well, Wikia are currently insisting that it's a TOU violation to remove it, as I had originally done. I'm kinda holding off styling it too much, because it's catching a lot of flack from other Wikians, and Staff seem happy to engage with us for the time being. It might well disappear so I don't want to waste a lot of time on it, given how much else there is to do with these new forums.

Oh, yeah, I've not explained what it does :) It's meant to create a link between an article and discussions in the forum. You can see it in better action at the bottom of Blood of the Cybermen (video game).  (One) problem is, of course, that very, very few pages (<.01% of pages on a big wiki like this) will actually have anything at the bottom of the page.  Plenty of discussion about it over at the CC blog page about the new forums.  06:55: Tue 04 Dec 2012 06:55, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Tangerineduel. I am not sure how all this works, to be honest. I am the author of the Señor 105 novella 'By The Time I Get To Venus' - I'm not particularly concerned whether the book is included in this wiki or not, but I am concerned by your accusation that Paul Hinder (aka 'Paul Leonard' in Doctor Who fiction circles) had not granted permission for the use of his Venus in the story. I can assure you he most certainly did and I would never have included his concepts had he not been happy for me to do so. This was a paid gig, not a work of 'fan-fic'. You should read it. I'm proud of it. Please retract the accusation. Paul Hinder's blessing is verifiable. It might be an idea for you to do so, as for some reason, you don't seem believe the acknowledgements in the book or on the Manleigh website. Cheers. BB X

Señor Dilemma
I don't see what's so offensive about the current statement, because you're stressing that it's your opinion and that you personally can't find evidence of a connection. There might be one — but you can't find it. You haven't libelled anyone here, as far as I can see.

But if you wanted to make it clear, you could go back to the thread — since you're an admin, you can edit it — and just say that you've been contacted by someone who may be the author, and that they claim they had permission from Paul Leonard to use the characters. Then you could state that this doesn't really help us in the inclusion debate, because an anonymous post on a talk page doesn't prove that the work meets our standards for inclusion.

If you wanted to be extra cautious, I suppose you could also clarify that you weren't actually saying that it was fan fiction, just that it felt like fan fiction. The whole point here is that the lack of evidence is part of what's causing the inclusion debate in the first place. 15:57: Wed 05 Dec 2012