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.

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