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)