User talk:Tangerineduel

Aberystwyth
Sorry if my changes caused confusion, but it does get a tad confusing. In the episode, the flyer clearly states Aberystwyth University, hence the page being named Aberystwyth university. I'm assuming thats what you wanted to know, so if the following confuses you, just ignore it and remember that it is "Aberystwyth University". (I've just ordered the season one boxset and will add screenshots when it arrives)

At the time the episode was originally aired however, the official name was the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, but was generally shortened to Aberystwyth University. The producers presumably heard it being referred to as Aberystwyth University, and just hadn't realised it was not the university's official name.

Still with me?

Then, during the year between the time that the episode was aired, and the episode was set (thanks to the one year gap established in the new Who season 1) the University became independent from the university of wales, and thefore changed its name from The University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Aberystwyth university. This change in name therefore effectively nullifies the producers mistake, as the name is now correct, given that the episode is set after the name change.

I hope this makes things understandable, and again I apologise for confusing the issue. I really enjoyed my time at Aberystwyth, and in an effort to make the relevant pages, may have got slightly ahead of myself.
 * Geek Mythology 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a potential bit of major deleting
A few months back we shared a rant over the inability of some contributors to spell. I've also noticed of late many entries under "Myths" and the errors sections that seem to be stream-of-consciousness comments with no punctuation, no captialization ... and of course bad spelling. I haven't bothered to look at who might be putting these in but I bet they'll be anonymous IPs. I think based upon the way these things have been added, they should be considered suspect and removed from the articles. I've already removed a few that have been patently dubious or just outright wrong (I can't remember the detail but in one case someone added one of these sloppy notes to the Discontinuity section for an episode, pointing out something that was clearly stated throughout the episode. It's almost as if they were EUI - editing under the influence). I don't want to start pulling out stuff willy nilly without checking with someone first so I wonder what your thoughts are on this. Or should we just correct the spelling and capitalization and add periods, etc. and let things stand? (On a related note, if IPs are the cause of some of these problems, maybe Tardis should follow the lead of the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and restrict edits to registered users?) 23skidoo 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example of what I'm talking about, please see The Deadly Assassin. Check the edit marked "delete useless" in the history and see what I removed. There is in fact a registered user attached to this, Assassin of Death, though I've yet to link him/her to the other edits I'm referring to above. I checked the contributions and they appear to be a mix of properly formatted additions, and stuff like what I deleted. 23skidoo 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, when I see something like this, first I see if I can figure out what they were trying to say. If not, cut. After that, if it's a valid point, I try to clean it up. If it's just pointless, I cut it.
 * I'd be against requiring edits only for registered users. Mainly because I got into this wiki as editing as an unregistered user. (Of course, depending on how you feel about my edits and my OCD, this could be a good thing or a bad thing.) Monkey with a Gun 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment on this reply: Also another thing I don't think we should have is retroactively applying continuity to the discontinuity section should also be removed. That is calling out an old story as having incorrect elements because of a newer story. (I recently edited The Five Doctors which had some stuff in the discontinuity section relating to Last of the Time Lords. It's not really The Five Doctors' discontinuity, it's Last of the Time Lords'.)

I don't disagree with that, however I think it works if we use a newer story to cover off a potential discontinuity in an older story. For example, in Five Doctors there's the question as to why Susan would recognize the Cybermen. Based on what was known in continuity in 1983, she shouldn't have. However from 2009 perspective we now know she could have heard about the events of Doomsday or any of the other Cybermen invasions that happened at other points in history. So mentioning this in the rationale is fair game. I agree, however that if something established in an older story is contradicted by a later story, then that's mostly the fault of the later story (unless it's a key point of contention, such as a UNIT dating issue, or something like the "mystery Doctors" in Brain of Morbius). I think doing the retroactive game (which is often played with Star Trek, too) can be fun -- as long as we keep the order of things proper. 23skidoo 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another possible notice box idea
I just added a small disclaimer to the "real world" section of the 2009 article here. I think it's worth noting this considering some events and dates do change. I think having a real world chronology is quite important though - and I think the day-by-day chronology for earlier years is one of the best things about this wiki. I think having just the bold line of text is OK, but if you think a boxed notice would look better (or if in fact one exists), please feel free to replace it. Ideally this notice should be added to all real world calendar date sections (2010, 2011, etc) and of course removed when the year in question has ended. What do you think? 23skidoo 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I'll go ahead and add that one line at least for the 2010 and maybe 2011 articles when I have the chance (I don't see the need to do 2012 as from that point and beyond it's pretty much guesswork anyway - within reason, of course!). Incidentally, I've now cut ties to Wikipedia pretty much for good. I've been weaning myself off that project ever since the atmosphere over there got too unpleasant and I saw the writing on the wall that pop-culture-based articles were not long for this world (i.e. individual articles on DW episodes, for example). I was doing some editing on the sly and got slapped down for adding some material to a TV show article based upon episodes of a particular series (not Doctor Who), but because it wasn't published in some book somewhere they wouldn't allow it and were rather snarky in their responses. Not saying I agree 100% with every call for sources on this project, and looking at things like the discussion on The Doctor and the Enterprise there are some users who don't believe the Tardis Wikia should be "inclusive", but you guys are far more even-handed about it from what I've seen than the tin gods at Wikipedia. Pardon the digression - just had to rant a little! 23skidoo 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually
I was about to launch an attempt to make character portals common use on the wiki, one for each episode to better show the cast and characters. This would require the cropped down images to work with the portals. If you think this is not a suitable idea, then I will not need any of the images, on the other hand, if this seems like a reasonable possibility I would much appreciate it if you could direct to me to some kind of suggestions page. Many thanks, Mr. Garrison 08:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Mr. Garrison 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup of the Timelines completed
I've spent the last few days working on a pet project to standardize the years articles -- at least so far as the "Real World" sections are concerned. I just went through 1963-2010 and even a few others going back to the 1930s, adding story prefixes, removing some duplicates, and so on. I haven't touched the "in-universe" sections yet, though those are next on the list. I think it looks good, and hopefully no one will mess things up too much with later additions. Speaking of prefixes, just FYI I've created K9TV for the new K-9 series as I just noticed we're starting to hear about story titles for the spinoff... 23skidoo 17:53, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder image created
Just a quick note, I have created a placeholder image which I've added to a gallery page where blank spots were messing up formatting. It's only intended to be temporary until someone tracks down an applicable image. Is there a stock image already in place for this? I can't find one. If one's already been created, then I have no objection to replacing the one I made. Thanks. 23skidoo 17:47, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Manual of Style
I have just added two sections to the MoS that I'd like to make you aware of. Of course please change them or move them as you see fit.

The first is a section I've started on Spacing and Formatting, in part to address issues such as folks thinking there needs to be 5 spaces between paragraphs and the like. It's just a start - there are other things you can probably add to it. hanks I've also added a section under Out-of-Universe addressing the issue of articles on living persons, and basically directing people to the BLP policy at Wikipedia. This section I invite you to reword or revise as you see fit. I'm not trying to connect us to Wikipedia or try and set up their system where virtually every word needs a citation, but I think we should have something to address the importance of citing claims with regards to living people (the dead and the fictional, of course cannot sue). 23skidoo 15:40, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio issue
This past week I obtained a copy of "The Television Companion" by Dave Howe and Steve Walker. I immediately recognized a number of trivia items and "Discontinuity" items that have been copied verbatim into the wiki. Even some of the rationalization is word for word. Before I start engaging in major surgery on 150 articles (to at least reword things so we're not having copyvios all over the place), I need to check if in fact the information might have been added with the OK, or even participation, of Howe and Walker. Would you happen to know? 23skidoo 21:49, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * The trick with Trivia sections (as well as Discontinuity and Myths) is that it can be very difficult to source a lot of these because in many cases the sources are print sources that aren't online, or the information came from live sources such as convention presentations, etc. I agree sources should be used where possible, but I wouldn't want to see this wiki go too far down the road of Wikipedia and disqualify sources that aren't online or (as seems to be increasingly the case) from a source of Encyclopedia Brittanica calibre. That said, I myself have pushed for sources other than tabloid media to be used, but that's due to the fact they've been demonstrably wrong on so many occasions. Of course anything that might be libel or otherwise run afoul of the guidelines found in Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policies should be sourced or removed. I do think the TV story articles, at least, need a bit of spring cleaning. Some stuff that's been added over the years amounts to irrelevant nonsense, and some stuff is just plain clueless (I can't remember the exact item, but I deleted something from a Tennant story article recently that was clearly put there by either a vandal or someone who had not watched the episode). The trick here is to find balance. I do think it's probably too much of a job for one person, so what might be worth looking into is establishing a Wikipedia-style "task force" in which a group of reliable editors divvy up the stories (maybe by Doctor or by Decade) and take on the task of vetting information, marking things that should be cited, removing obvious garbage, and adding citations if possible. 23skidoo 16:59, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't discount non-online sources in terms of policy, but it's become an attitude among a lot of editors there (even though "link rot" is a huge issue as we've experienced here regarding any links to Outpost Gallifrey or the original Doctor Who News Page). It was one of a number of frustrations that led me to abandon Wikipedia (where I was an administrator). I had added some print sources to an article and I was challenged because they couldn't be found online. In theory, I can understand because one could just make up a source, but an encyclopedia should be inclusive of all sources. That's OK - it's actually impossible to add new titles to IMDb, or add missed names to a cast list marked as "complete", if you're only working with print sources, as I discovered first-hand. Regarding the task force thing, to some degree we already have them in place. There's "The Librarian" who works on book articles, and I've taken on the job of maintaining the Real World sections of the timelines, plus I also did a big format clean-up regarding the novelisations a few months back. I am quite happy to jump in and start working on the episode articles, though I wouldn't expect it to be a quick job. 23skidoo 14:14, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tended to have somewhat "non conformist views" as an admin at Wikipedia. What spoiled it for me was I'd worked on a project to create a bunch of articles on the James Bond novels, and one of the articles made it to "Featured Article" status, but was then removed from that category because a) someone changed a guideline somewhere and b) someone with different tastes decided it wasn't good enough. That pretty much ended my day-to-day interest in the place. I still edit there occasionally, but usually I don't bother logging in except to clean up my talk page (same user name if you want to check it out). Re: the episode revamps, I'll start plugging away at it shortly. My first priority will be to reword items taken verbatim from the book. 23skidoo 19:12, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Images
Im sorry if this covered elsewhere but are photos of the TV screen, accepted as images for use? Bigshowbower 06:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * A user has been uploading low quality photos of the TV scree, mainly photos that relate to Dreamland, you've probably seen it Bigshowbower 07:45, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dreamland
Sorry, I didn't realise it meant that much, I had no idea about the correct method and assumed that was it, sorry and thanks. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 07:09, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Series 5 - Episode Names
A user has added the episode names to the page, I deleted it. Just thought you would like to be informed Bigshowbower 10:19, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Series 5 Talk Page
Cheers mate. I placed it on the talk page because I believed it would have been removed from the actual page and these haven't been confirmed by BBC only their set reporter so whether this source is correct or not is to be revealed. Michael Downey 10:53, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, can you delete the following subpages of mine please? Thanks.


 * User:The evil dude/episodes
 * User:The evil dude/MUE races
 * User:The evil dude/MUE timeline
 * User:The evil dude/gallery
 * User:The evil dude/lego
 * User:The evil dude/Book
 * User:The evil dude/Book2
 * User:The evil dude/episode settings
 * User:The evil dude/cards
 * User:The evil dude/A to Z
 * User:The evil dude/WHDW
 * User:The evil dude/Index

The evil dude . 16:48, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Becoming an admin
I just noticed that I've now gone past the 10,000 edit mark on the wiki (woo-hoo!). And I was thinking perhaps it might be time for me to look at becoming an admin, certainly to help out with vandalism, not to mention odd stuff like that Evil Dude thing above. As I think I've mentioned, I'm an admin on Wikipedia already so I'm familiar with the tools. Likely as more details emerge about the new season there may be need to protect/unprotect pages and End of Time has the potential to stir things up a bit, too. What is the process for becoming an admin on Wikia? Cheers! 23skidoo 03:28, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to your questions re: edits I'm most proud of and edits that show my creative side, it's very hard to keep track of such things because I do so many edits and I might tweak an article off and on over a long period of time. In terms of projects I'm proud of, I would say my work on the Real World timelines. I consider this almost a publication-worthy venture, a day-by-day timeline of not only Doctor Who broadcasts (which was already in place), but other events happening away from TV, including book publications, TV interviews with casts, and even a few "real world events" that happened to coincide with broadcasts. The other strength I offer is that while I don't believe a site like this one needs to be so bogged down in "every single word must be sourced" the way Wikipedia has to the point where it has become almost unworkable, I do keep a close eye out for additions that really need a source, whether it's a claim or comment about an actor or writer (at which point I often defer to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy) or someone adding rumors as fact. For example I was the one who caught - and fixed - a user's utterly wrong airdates for Season 3 of SJA. And I recall holding the line on people proclaiming Paterson Joseph as the Eleventh Doctor. Sometimes I get a little anal about it - like the airdate for End of Time - but that's only because past precedent has held that until the BBC or a trusted source like DWM announces something, we can't take it as gospel. You're experiencing this I see with people wanting to add story information for Series 5. Another strength I offer is I'm a magazine/book editor in "real life", so I do strive for consistency in the articles. That issue you cited re:World Game is an example that probably came about because not all the articles follow the pattern that "References" are for in-universe only. So just as I've volunteered to (eventually, when time permits) start an overhaul of the TV story articles, so too it probably would be good to go through all the novel articles and sort them out, too. Long answer to a short question, but please feel free to followup! 23skidoo 14:38, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: format. I agree the articles should have been following the same format, but over time as more users have contributed to them, I think the lines have become blurred a bit, with References, Continuity, even Story Notes becoming interchangeable. I'm guilty of doing this a bit, myself, though I usually do try to find the most appropriate place to add material and sometimes if I add a comment I might be approaching it from an out-of-universe, "this is a production tidbit" point of view, as opposed to something in-universe. This gets especially complicated with the articles on episodes and books because they are de facto Real World articles (so much so it's redundant to put the Real World tag on them) so everything is out-of-universe anyway. As opposed to character articles which of course are supposed to be in-universe except for the Behind the Scenes sections (which probably would be better named "Real World" but it's probably too late to change them). One thing I tend to do is if I spot someone going out-of-universe in a character/concept article I usually try to edit or reorganize the piece accordingly. I know there are skilled Wikipedians who can create "bots" that go around looking for these things (or automatically changing "References" headers to "Footnotes") but that's something I never got a grasp of. So it's left to us to manually make the repairs as we see them or, as I proposed to do with the TV episode articles, methodically go through each one and sort them out.
 * Regarding the "not being bogged down" issue, what I mean is of course when adding information about a character a source should be cited, and fortunately in this wiki that doesn't mean spending hours going through books trying to find chapter and verse in some third-party publication -- you just need to put (DW: Genesis of the Daleks) and you're usually covered. If the information is particularly controversial, or comes from a source most people won't be aware of (such as, say the Master's real name) then you have to put the source of that info. What I was meaning was I don't feel information should be deleted out of hand simply because an exact source hasn't been provided yet. For example, I have approximately 300 boxes of old magazines and other material stored away; in one of those boxes is a copy of CBC Times which gives exact date and time for when the CBC began airing Doctor Who in 1964 -- the first broadcaster in North America to do so. I am unable to find this right now, but I am confident enough to mention in several articles that the CBC began airing Doctor Who in 1964 for about a year. In Wikipedia, that information would be deleted and lost because I couldn't quote chapter and verse. In Tardis Index File, I think we can afford to be a bit more lenient, and perhaps push for a source if the comment is controversial. And, of course, if someone posts something like "Matt Smith is only staying for one season." then they better have a source to back that up. Another example of where Wikipedia gets too bogged down, but we can be freer. Nick Courtney recorded a voiceover as the Brig for a new version of the independent film Wartime around 1995. In Wikipedia I'd be required to provide preferably an online source for this statement; just citing the film itself wouldn't be accepted. Here, it should be fine to state this with the understanding that the credits of Wartime will confirm if anyone needed to check. Does that make sense? Wikipedia has also begun being very picky on what sources are being allowed, in fact disallowing sources in some cases that are as major as, say, DWM is to us because it's not a distinterested third party of scholarly source. And forget websites. Granted, it's not considered good form to cite IMDb or some guy's casual fan site. But we have sites like the late Outpost Gallifrey and the Doctor Who News Page which are considered news sites of record, so we should be allowed to cite them; Wikipedia makes that difficult.
 * One last thing: I notice the Questions mentions that being an admin is more than just being able to block and rollback and protect. I agree, and certainly at Wikipedia I spent a lot of time dealing with disputes and the like. I am less kind to people who are obviously around just to vandalize. I'm experienced enough to tell the difference between a mistake - newbie or otherwise - and someone just in to make trouble. To be fair this wiki has seen less obvious examples of this than other wikis or Wikipedia itself, which is a good thing. But sometimes you do need someone to go in and tell a user "hey now" if they're making edits that are messing things up (like that guy with the spaces), or they aren't paying attention to the MoS, or they're posting rumor as fact. They may well be doing so in good faith, and I always assume good faith unless, as noted above, it's obvious to the contrary. 23skidoo 15:07, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful - many thanks! Incidentally, just for your interest, I've just created articles on Farewell Great Macedon (book) (a great release) and am about to create one on the Christmas Idents. 23skidoo 15:43, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles
I was just wondering where do I vote for featured articles? I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 06:25, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for pointing that out, I couldn't find this such option originally, but I am glad you could. Thank you so much. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 06:43, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Concern regarding a new user
I have concerns regarding edits by a newly registered user, Special:Contributions/Dalekcaan14. They appear to be messing up the formatting of some articles, and the fellow is also moving stories around between the different seasons. Unfortunately (and I know this is a heck of a thing since I just got admin powers) I can't do anything about it right now because I have to go offline due to "real world" commitments. I did revert his changes to Runaway Bride which were messing up that article's formatting. I'll try and get back to this when I can, but if you get there first, maybe you can check his edits in case maybe I'm missing something. 23skidoo 17:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Canon
Yeah, I use the "one account suggests" line a lot. I also introduced the use of the phrase "a possibly apocryphal account" on occasion to refer to sources that even by the "gray area canon" definition could be debatable (or that are openly contradicted by an episode_. In the case of Just Another Thursday, however, Cornell's use of the TARDIS was so far out there that I just couldn't assume that it could be seen as canonical given the rather informal nature of these stories. That's why I added the reference to this ability to the Doctor's TARDIS article, but in a behind the scenes section only. (That said, I did solicit comment on the talk page for Doctor's TARDIS in case another novel or comic actually includes this ability, in which case I'd say it's fair game.) I'm generally not one for "selective canon" - you'll note I removed a reference in the Season 4 article to "some fans" thinking Time Crash isn't canon (for one thing Moffat says its canon) - but this one was just so weird that I made an exception (especially since it causes a ton of continuity and "why didn't they do that?" issues with past stories). Of course if you or others disagree I certainly don't have an issue with being corrected! 23skidoo 14:16, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think where I was approaching the "grey area" thing from was in part to be consistent with how Wikipedia has handled Doctor Who canon. In fact as I recall the "grey area" term was devised by and sanctioned by the Doctor Who WikiProject, and as a result the fact a number of articles on the Tardis wiki originated as Wikipedia articles, it's inevitable the term would have been ported over here, too. Also, folks coming into the wiki could start making edits without realizing that the material they're "correcting" comes from sources that this wiki treats as "canon" but others (like Wikipedia) might not. For example, the articles that reference the Master's name being Koeshi or whatever - a piece of info taken from the novels but not, to date, supported on TV. So someone could turn around and say we're wrong to include it as part of the "history". Therefore in Behind the Scenes (or the italicized editorial notes) it is helpful to points out that the information comes from these "grey area" sources, just to head off potential arguments or wrong-direction edits, if that makes sense. 23skidoo 22:24, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little too late, of course, but one way to address the "this isn't Wikipedia" issue is to discourage the cutting-and-pasting of Wikipedia articles here. There aren't too terribly many, but the fact we have a tag used to identify such articles suggests there are enough. I forget whether the MOS mentions it - but of course most editors won't bother reading other articles and just jump in. As evidenced by how many times we've had to fix formatting and wording and in-universe edits. And of course many people edit without registering. Perhaps the admin's "to do list" can be expanded to include de-Wikipediafying articles when the opporunity arises (I don't like the idea of us having material that's copied from another source anyway, so this would make the articles more "ours" than material beholden to another source.) Some wikis require registration before people can edit (the Battlestar Galactica wiki, for example); that might be something worth considering if unregistered edits become a problem (is it? I couldn't say from my limited experience). I agree we don't need qualifications on every article with multiple sources - I was only referring to the major articles, meaning The Doctor, the TARDIS, and maybe one or two others. For example, if, say, IDW Comics for some reason publishes a comic that reveals the Doctor's real name (it won't happen, of course, but I pick an extreme example). I wouldn't want to see the main Doctor article changed to that name. Under our rules we'd have to and lead off with the name, etc. We would need to make it clear that the comic strip is not supported by the TV series. It's an extreme example, but in many ways no more extreme than the Cartmel Masterplan (Lungbarrow, etc). I'm just saying there should be exceptions to the general rule when something major of this nature is encountered. An example of something that is not major is, say, Polly's last name being Wright (though I thought it was Lopez). It's not that important in the grand scheme of things, so no qualification is really needed except in this case noting that sources differ and as a matter of trivia pointing out in behind the scenes that the name was never uttered on TV. 23skidoo 13:19, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should get unregistared users to sign up before they can edit. A lot of them do not read the manual of style and completly mess things up. --Catkind121 13:48, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note
A few weeks back I installed the latest update to Firefox (I'm on a Mac). It's turned out to be a bad update as the browser crashes on almost every page, and for reasons unknown as of yesterday it was rendered incapable of accessing the Wikia sites. So I had to switch browsers to Opera. I just found out that Opera doesn't show italics on the Wikia or Wikipedia pages! Which means this text comes out as normal, even though I've formatted it as italics. The reason why I mention this is I had no idea there were browsers that don't accept elements of wiki markup, and I think this should be mentioned in the Manual of Style. Something like "just because you can't see it, doesn't mean you shouldn't use the formatting". I can imagine someone coming in on Opera or similar browser and being totally unaware of such formatting issues. Bolding, however, seems to work fine, as does the general layout coding... Weird. 23skidoo 13:34, December 15, 2009 (UTC)