User talk:Sclera1

Articles - Past Tense
Please make sure when you create articles they are in the past tense. Thank You --Bigshowbower 10:02, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Recent article talk pages
I'm somewhat puzzled by your recent article talk page edits. The information for example on the Dreams of Empire article talk page would be perfect for the Notes section on the talk page. But as I said I'm somewhat puzzled by you placing it on the talk page. It means for much of the (often useful and interesting info) has to be copied and pasted to the main page from the talk page, and whoever does the copying and pasting is recorded in the page's history as contributing the information (rather than you). --Tangerineduel 12:33, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sclera1
My thoughts exactly, unfortunately I'm a new user and have only just started using the talk and blogs. I'm hoping to get in touch with more loyal Doctor Who fans who can help edit the page, but as for blocking I have no idea how to do such a thing, and I am currently reading through the TARDIS Index Files to see how to do such, but even if there is we'll need a talk page for every single one of them.

Glad to see I'm not the only one in the fight,

Aldurnamiyanrandvora 06:10, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Lucy Saxon
No problem. I hate stupid spammers and vandals. I just wish I had the power to block them rather than having to wait for an admin to do so. Mc hammark 00:56, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

yep, agreed Sclera1 00:58, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with a discussion on the forums
Hi, I'd value your input/discussion on this topic in the forums Forum:Italics or Quotation marks?, I'm not comfortable making a ruling solely based on a running conversation between myself and CzechOut and would value other regular editors' points of view on this issue. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:53, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Matrix
No sorry, I've never seen any of the matrix films.--Skittles the hog 10:17, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

o ok, thanks anyway =) Sclera1 01:36, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

lol
No sorry, he is a bit weird ain't he! I'm just trying to get use to this wiki again as I use to always come on this.--Skittles the hog 12:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

hes not wierd, he means well and hes not bad on the wiki, depsite not knowing about Monkey island Sclera1 12:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Design
Monaco was good but was getting dull. The new design is...sleak, I guess.--Skittles the hog 09:17, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor linking etc
Just a heads up really, there has been discussions on the wikia to change all links to the incarnations of the Doctor to e.g. "Seventh Doctor" instead of just "the Doctor" with a link to the Seventh Doctor. I thought it was best that you know for future reference. Also good work putting more info onto the Mycroft Holmes page, I knew that Sherlock and Sheringdon had appeared in All Consuming Fire but I didn't know about Mycroft and if you could help with the expansion of Mycroft's article it would be welcome. Thanks --Revan\Talk 16:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) 23:16:33 Fri 01 Apr 2011

Okay, there is one thing that is SERIOUSLY wrong with this article: WHY DO THE Y ONLY FEATURE THE CRAPPY NEW DALEKS AS THE MAIN IMAGE? Seriously, though: the Doctor's main picture shows ALL his incarnations. Ditto for the Master. Heck, even the Cybermen have side-by-side images of Mondasion and Parallel-Earth versions. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!

Seriousy, though, if you could just find images of the Daleks' previous incarnations, that'd be great.

BBV??
Uh...why are we discussing The Dalek Chronicles? There's never been a discussion to get rid of the articles concerning them or Iris Wildthyme as far as I'm aware.

As for the BBV articles only the ones that have nothing remotely to do with Doctor Who or those that were designed to jump over the BBC's licence this topic has been well and truly discussed at Forum:BBV and canon policy so I'm somewhat confused why you're mentioning it.

Also please remember to sign your comments thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:09, December 20, 2011 (UTC) 22:33: Tue 20 Dec 2011

Timeline
Please note that timeline pages are just like any other in-universe page. This means that they must obey T:LEADS, T:TENSES and T:BOLD TEXT. Please note my changes to 1862 article you created. The "events" subhead is non-standard, and should only appear on pages that have an exceptionally long list of events (typically, years in which DW has been produced). Thanks :) 13:20: Mon 16 Jan 2012

Story title disambiguation
There was a discussion in the forums Forum:Story names should be automatically disambiguated where CzechOut laid out his argument for the change and the reasons why we should change. And as I note on that discussion I believe I have been on the other side of the discussion in the past. But that was when the wiki was smaller and had less editors. Now with a higher editor / user base, and through time and experience I've found what makes for a smoother editing experience is logic to editing. So all stories are now disambiguated, redirects remain in place to the stories that have been moved. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:10, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to throw in a couple of points —
 * Long term editors are the ones who'll shake their heads the most at this. Newer editors are often confused by which stories get disambiguated and which don't.  By changing all of them to a standard disambiguation nomenclature, new editors will be less confused.  They'll always know that if it's a short story, you can safely add (short story) and get a proper link.  Another way of looking at it is that Castrovalva (TV story) is the rule and there are no exceptions.
 * Another reason is for easier coding. Since all comic stories are disambiguated (comic story), all TV stories are (TV story) — and so on — it's much, much easier to program templates.  I'm not sure how much coding experience you have, but if you take a look at something like dab away or StoryImages, you'll see how easy the coding to deal with titles can be.  Before, as you can see in earlier revisions of discontinuity, you had to program rather complicated exceptions to take care of titles that were disambiguated.
 * A complaint made a couple of years ago about disconuity was that it created false redlinks unter Special:WantedPages].  Some editors use that page a lot to focus their editing.  Finding titles that were disambiguated (when generally they weren't) meant using a parser function called -ed form, there's no longer a need to use #ifexist, and thus WantedPages is more accurate.
 * As Tangerineduel says, most redirects have been retained, so that you can still make a link to The Edge of Destruction, for instance, and it'll take you to The Edge of Destruction (TV story). However, the disambiguated form should always be used in templates, or the template won't "sense" that it's on the right page, and therefore embolden the word.  (Currently, DWTV, for instance, needs to be changed over, as can be seen when viewing it on Castrovalva (TV story), where it works fine, and The Edge of Destruction (TV story), where it fails to embolden the name.)
 * Although many non-dab-ed names have been retained, they cannot be guaranteed to remain in place. We have no intention of removing the ability to use the un-dab-ed form, unless it turns out that the title has an in-universe use.  Thing is, though, over the past year I've moved literally hundreds of titles for good cause.  So it's better that you get in the practice of using the dab-ed name, and just pipe switched the dab term away.  Type , for instance.  You'd be surprised how necessary disambiguation of old, traditional titles is.  For instance, we've recently discovered The Five Doctors is actually an in-universe term, which is about the last title I'd ever have expected to need disambiguation.
 * I hope that helps to explain things better. Amongst other things on my plate at the momnt, I am working to improve coverage of this change in our help and policy files.  However, this change occurred only within the last month, so I'm a bit behind.  20:21: Sat 10 Mar 2012

Assimilation-related issues
Hiya :) I thought I had responded to you, but I guess my earlier reply must have been lost in a Safari crash.   At any rate, I do share your concerns about exactly how much ST we can allow on the site.  This is why I opened the Forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover thread almost immediately upon the announcement of the series.  I think what I'm seeing from that debate is that there's general consensus that we do have to allow in some stuff.  If a character or concept is explicitly named by the comic then we have to treat it like an ordinary part of the DWU.  I think, too, that we're moving towards adopting a pragmatic approach towards stuff that's not specifically named by dialogue.  Like, if phasers are used or we see the act of assimilation, we can write an article about that.  But species seem a bit trickier as the STU delights in its hybrids, so we can't assume that just because we see poiny ears that we're necessarily looking at a Vulcan.

I think the important thing is to not go beyond the borders of the story in front of us. For instance, we do have the Borg, but i've had to edit away references to the Delta Quandrant, because so far that's never been mentioned in the story. I've specifically created a number of templates —, , and  — to encourage linking off site. This hopefully will allow us to write up to the boundary of the comic book and then quickly pass off to other wikis.

It seems to me that no one has an interest in allowing the whole of the STU to be covered by this site, but merely those elements which appear in Assimilation2. I think it would be a mistake to believe that Data and company are actually in an unconnected universe, when quite clearly the Doctor is seen in the same room as the android. Assuming for the moment that the comic eventually tells us that the TARDIS slipped into another universe, this series seems to be clearly establishing that it is a universe nevertheless connected to the Doctor's "home" universe. We're looking at a Pete's World situation here, really. Or at worst it's a dream, like we saw in Amy's Choice. In any case, it is something that forms a part of the Eleventh Doctor's experiences, at some level, and thus is a valid topic of coverage for this wiki. 19:08: Mon 04 Jun 2012
 * Assimilation is a fully licensed story. The non-BBC Faction Paradox stories are set in a totally different universe, unconnected to the DWU.  The independently-published Faction stories are a deliberate reaction against Faction's usage in the BBC Books range. Lawrence Miles wasn't happy with how Faction had come to be used by the BBC, so he created his own universe to make Faction behave the way he wanted it to.  Assimilation is merely the licensed crossover between two franchises, with both owners giving their blessings to the stories.  The situations are in no way analogous.   04:10: Tue 05 Jun 2012

Canisians
Reply given at Talk:Canisian. 14:08: Tue 07 Aug 2012

Jolodex
Why'd you put Jolodex up for deletion, it seems like a well written page. Also when placing a delete tag please put a reason <nowiki. I've undone your edit blanking the page and removed the delete tag as I can't find any reasons in the edit summary/history. But if you can explain why it needs deleting I'll do something about it. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:22, August 31, 2012 (UTC)