User talk:The Librarian

Re Tangerineduel's talk page
I went through the page with a critical eye and made notes along the way, so if the following seems a bit on the critical side (sorry). Leave me a message with any comments clarification or anything else.

Okay, going through I'll just note what was there and what I've changed (so you can easily compare if you go to the edit history.

Infobox first.

Series: Generally speaking it should just be Doctor Who - Tenth Doctor Comic Strip Stories. The Doctor Who bit still links to thecomic strip stories bit, but repeating it twice within the infobox just makes it cluttered.

Image: I see you've updated the image. The battles in time header is okay, not too sure about the caption at the base of the image. Ideally the image should have a pane from the actual comic rather than some generic picture. (Much like the TV stories, the comics should have a pane or series of panes from comic story).
 * I've been updating the various copyright tags on the TARDIS wiki, but the one's you're most likely to use would be:
 * , which is on the current Image:BIT10dr.jpg.
 * There's also which you may or may not use dependning on whether all the DWA covers have been uploaded.
 * There's also a full list at Tardis:Copyright tags

Enemy: If you put the page's name in wikilinks, it will become bold (as it can't link to itself), I've changed it from 'Growing Terror' to Montodon Sleem, which is what's in place around the iwkilink.

Lettering, or other unknowns. A dash is fine if the information isn't known or not provided. I've replaced 'unstated' with 'not stated'.

Main article:

Summary

The Summary doesn't need a continuity link within it, it should just be there to surmise the story.

References

I'm not sure what the Tenth Doctor checklist if referring to, is it referencing something from within the story or something from the magazine outside of the comic strip. If the latter it shouldn't be there.
 * So it should be something like (if it's from the story), the Doctor has a checklist of...or something like that, how were these items referenced in the story?
 * Additionally the references should be wikilinked.

Publication Details


 * I'm not sure why this needs to be here, the issue could just go after published in in the info box and could read something like Doctor Who: Battles in Time (Magazine) - 1 (which would actually look like this Doctor Who: Battles in Time (Magazine) - 1). But if it's really necessary to have it should be under something less wordy like like Publication details, and have reprints (though if there aren't any on the books it could really be left until there are some, rather than having an empty header in the page, which would suggest to people reading that there will be or are planned to be reprinted).
 * I've restructured a bit, but you can revert this bit, this part is more a suggestion. It's now under the Notes section.

Continuity: the story titles should be italicised. (The way to work out references from continuity is. References are in-universe and if there's a lot of them organised under category headings (see...Alien Bodies for an example), continuity is out of universe.)

External Links: The external links website title is too long and non-specific. The web link should make reference to the site's name it's linking to, with brief explanation. The The Millennium Blag page I edited slightly, so now it reads 'Doctor Who - Battles in Time official website, with trading cards details', less wordy, still all the information, it also doesn't need a full stop at the end, it's a weblink in a list (even if it's the only one there, it's still bullet pointed.

That's about all (sorry about the large body of text, I tend to ramble along many lines) for the most part I'll leave it in yours and others capable hands as Battles in Time isn't sold here and my subscription to DWM is enough for me magazine wise. --Tangerineduel 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re, reply
Yeah...for the most part more right than wrong. The series bit is the only one that I think needs to be changed back to what I suggested, partly to keep it in line with other others, but also because it says everything twice (the comic stories bit). Though if you don't want it linking to the top level Doctor Who comic strip stories page, you could have something like the Doctor Who Magazine comic strips page see something like Claws of the Klathi, the link takes you to a more specified though still general 'Doctor Who' page, without saying it twice. It's really the saying twice bit that I'm concerned about, it's okay if the link goes somewhere, but it should state clearly without repeating the series and then the specifics, when reading it it looks odd saying comic strip stories twice. --Tangerineduel 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On tagging images, just edit it and put it in the text box as you would any other page, or when initially uploading put the info in the summary box, it'll then add it to the page. --Tangerineduel 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re categories and stuff
I've changed and removed some of the categories from the Doctor Who Files page, so it just goes into the Category:Doctor Who Files category. This is within the Category:Book series category, I undid your edit as I think you had the category structure back to front. (The way I got my head around it is if you imagine the categories as boxes with string attached, putting them inside one or the other way around changes how they're linked) (on second thoughts that's just more confusing).

I've also created a template for you Template:BIT copyright, it's not a solely 'cover' template like DWA/DWM, so it can be used on images either for covers, cards and whatever else BIT related. --Tangerineduel 07:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)--Tangerineduel 07:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Books
Glad you were able to work that out. Do let me know if I accidentally orphan any images, though! I've been doing a bit of work on the general books listings. Some of my major work included more strongly establishing the origins of the three Muller novelisations, correcting where possible anything that indicated they were Target originals and uploading Muller edition covers. I also created a series of articles on the Sarah Jane Adventures novelisations and I also created articles on Decalogs 4 and 5 to complete that set. I switched around some Target images if I found earlier editions either in my own collection or online. I think all first-edition Targets are now accounted for in the infoboxes. I haven't put all the information up on the Pinnacle Books, yet. I've also integrated release dates (per the book articles and the On Target website) into the chronology lists. If you spot any inconsistencies, please let me know. 23skidoo 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BIT
Ok I see you have been offended by my statment (which was not the intension) through i am a little confused over such a large response to a simple question

obviously i haven't read the discussion on the main BIT page but my view is (in order to keep things interesting and me sain) that we have a picture from the comic in the top of the info box if this is not possible then leave it blank. or use a better quality / verity of images instead of the single grainy image through all of the articles

This is my opinion, i understand you have put a lot of work into these articles and its only fair to defend your work but it was only a question

Hope you continue your good work --Dark Lord Xander 06:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Mention it, your doing a geat job. I am glade that you are not offended as i know what its like to spend alot of time on something to have someone criticize it in some form or another --Dark Lord Xander 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image change
Umm...I just did it in a random piece of clearing up (literally, occasionally I just constantly hit the 'random page' button, doing various edits along the way). I (vaguely) remembered the conversation, but when I was looking at the page the image just seemed a little off, so I though as an experiment in how it looked I'd put it in the infobox. I didn't mean any offence (and the edit can easily be re/undone). It just seemed (on that particular edit) that it was a nice odd interesting image. I didn't mean to cause any offence. --Tangerineduel 16:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)