User talk:Mini-mitch/Archive Talk

Discontinuity
It's a direction we could go, but I think much like the current discontinuity section it would be hard to decide what is a 'major' discontinuity and to stop the page from becoming a huge article of arguments. Looking at the page as it is we'd likely either need to make several pages for each Doctor or have that 'Discontinuity in Doctor Who' page with several sub-pages spun off it. Also as the title stands it could refer to all of Doctor Who (TV, book, audios, comics etc), while in theory this isn't a bad thing (as I'm sure editors could find a bit of discontinuity for every single story) it presents an issue of too much information which may turn into just one large discussion.

Having it all in one place would also probably make editing harder, because people could just go through the page responding to every single thing in one edit (rather than the 500 or so they'd need to do otherwise).

On a side note, the semi-protect tag is just that, it's a tag and doesn't do anything, it's to alert people that a page has been semi-protected, but an admin actually needs to protect the page first. --Tangerineduel 15:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Beast Below
Hi just wondering where you got the synopsis from, It sounds correct and I believe you but just wondering. Website?? Thanks Michael Downey 16:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

User changing stuff
I've seen it. I will go through and hit 'rollback' on his edits, but I do want to give the user a chance to continue the discussion on the forum page as after this (and a warning) my only options will be to block the user (and I'd rather go the diplomatic route first). Thanks for leaving me a message. --Tangerineduel 16:03, March 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * That would have the effect of just moving the discussions (not a huge problem on the classic series pages) but on the new series pages it'd likely have the result of encouraging people to go to town with the debating. --Tangerineduel 16:16, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the confirmed episode titles?Liamhenney 20:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC)Liam Henney

Production error stuff
Thanks for your help in switching over to production error paradigm, but please see Talk:Lost Souls.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 21:07, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Story notes
Just before you get carried away I might note that the TV story layout is actually the odd one out, the other layouts actually just use 'Notes' see Format for Novels, Format for Short Stories, Format for CDs. Mostly because the notes sections on all those articles encompasses other things sometimes not related to the story (the TV layout has all the various sub-categories and other sections). --Tangerineduel 16:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, I just thought I'd better warn you before you went through anything else. --Tangerineduel 16:11, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Whats the matter?
Tonight I keep editing the tenth planet, giving plausible answers for your production errors and you keep deleting them, what gives? I mean aren't the questions there to be answered?

Planets
You wouldn't believe how long it took me to strip planets off those pages. They are already in sub-categories of the planets category and therefore don't need to be in the planets category. It even says "This category is for planets that cannot be classified into further sub-categories. " in the Planets category. I thought that would prevent people from adding the category planets to planets already categorised. --Tangerineduel 14:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, just in case you go looking Category:Individuals and Category:Humans are similarly categories, only individuals and humans that can't be sorted into sub-categories resides in the individuals and humans category. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:54, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why?
'''May I ask, why remove my picture of the Victory of Dalek page, yes it was oversized but it wasn't a bad picture and made the episode more interesting, I'm actually quite annoyed! --I'm-Not-Drifting-I'm-Waiting(UTC)'''

Minor favor to ask
Any chance you might create a link to your talk page in your auto signature? You don't have to, of course, and there's no rule against you not having a link to the page in your sig, but because none of your signature is linked at all, the only way to get to this page is to type in the full address into the search box. You probably already know how to do this, but on the off chance you don't know the code it's Talk. You can find the place to put this code by clicking this link: Special:Preferences. Course, you would have to know that already, because your sig is not in the standard format, which indicates you changed it on purpose. So, again, you don't have to change it, but it would be nice for those of us trying to get in touch with you.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  00:55, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Forum:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes
I wanted to get this page up and ready by the time The Eleventh Hour was broadcast. It's not pretty (probably it should eventually go to a tabular format one of these days), but every story (and episode, if you wanna be picky about the BBC Wales era) now has an appropriate redlink just waiting for information to be dumped onto it from the mainspace article page. Though uglier, I decided to make the backslash visible in the links so as to visually confirm for people that they'd be creating an article at the right place.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  00:55, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing?
Are "Production Errors" not the same thing as "Discontinuity, Plot Holes, Errors", 'cos I thought they were? I must admit I agree with removing the rebuttals. Every single plot hole was given a rebuttal, a lot of which were a little far-fetched...  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  12:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's not what "Tangerineduel" said, 'cos according to him it's been simplified to Production Errors. Anyway, it's good that they've been removed...  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  13:00, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Production Errors
The reason why I had left an answer was to prove that the production error that I was answering wasn't actually a production error at all. -- Michael Downey 19:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)