User talk:Skittles the hog

Admin request: Granted
Your user rights have been changed to admin! Feel free to ask me or the other admins any questions you may have concerning anything wiki or admin related. You can also add your user name to Tardis:Administrators, this page is fully protected meaning only admins can edit it. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Allies
Allies are not members. If they are, then they are not allies. By its very nature, allies cannot be members. Do we need to take this to the page's TP? -- Bold  Clone  21:53, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

CVE and other unlinked redirects
Hey, I brought CVE back from the dead because people will actually search for that. I mean I don't always remember what CVE means (rather depends on how recently I've watched season 18), so it's good to have it searchable. And it's not improper to link it in articles, either, as the acronym was used in-narrative. Please don't fall in the trap of believing that no links=reason to delete. That's just not true. There are some redirects that are made purely because people should be able to search for them — for instance, Hartnell episode names or common alternate names for behind the scenes personnel.

Feature
Yeah, I never thought about doing it really but I would like to nominate it. Thanks. --Revan\Talk 09:58, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Guide for new admins
I've created a guide: Tardis:Guide for new administrators it includes a few things I've learnt along the way and some useful information which you may already know or find out as you work your way around as an admin. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:04, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Delete blue humanoid
Do you agree with the deletion tag on the Blue Humanoid page? Is it sutable? Ghastly9090 14:15, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

So you want to delete it? Ghastly9090 14:17, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Multi-colored humanoids
Thanks for putting delete up at the other-colored humanoids articles. :)
 * Um, it's not possible to plagiarize within the same wiki. Not even really possible to legally plagiarize across Wikia.  We're all bound by some form of "share and share alike" CC license.  Copy away :)

X categories
I created categories for Rassilon, Omega, Weevils, etc, basically recurring characters/enemies/species that should have stories categories (in my opinion). I though, by looking at the page that Terrible Zodin had appeared. My bad, it turns out he has not. I think a major look through of the articles to fix apperances and mentions will need to be done in the near future... Mini-mitch\talk 19:42, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'll remember that in future! Mini-mitch\talk 19:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

How to float
Sorry, I was lost in Bot Control, so I didn't really answer your question usefull. Here's a more thorough answer. This text is floated to the right. It doesn't have to be text. It could be a pic or anything you want to include in div tags. If I were to type:

''' This text is floated to the right. . . '''

I'd get something like what you see to the right. Note that the text here wraps around our little box to the right. The "margin-left" command tells the system how far away to keep the text from the left edge of the box. (We could put in margin-top -bottom and -right, if we wanted to.) The "border:" command sets the nature of the border. And the padding tells the box how much of an interior margin to set. "10px" means we want the distance from the border to the interior text to be 10px.

There are other ways you could set up the appearance of text wrapping, such as through a table with no visible borders. And there are other commands that can ensure positioning of items to the left or right, such as the various "clear" commands. For additional reading, you may want to go to wikipedia:template:clear, whose instructions neatly show the effects of clearing. And you might be interested in wikipedia:Help:Table. You might also like this basic primer on floating at a non-wiki site (the code works out of the box on wikia wikis): http://www.elated.com/articles/css-floats/.

Generic job (ep title)
Let me just cut and paste what I said at user:mini-mitch's page: I note that you've just deleted a lot of properly disambiguated generic character names — like Secretary (Frontier in Space) — on the basis that there's no other character at that name now. Please stop deleting things on the basis that "nothing else of this name exists" or "nothing links here". What you're failing to consider is that something else might link there in the future. For instance, the category, human secretaries and category:secretaries, implies that a generic article about the job of a secretary could easily be written. More to the point, it's absolutely conceivable that another character named "secretary" could come along. So the future-proofing of this article by naming it Secretary (Frontier in Space) has now been lost. Just about any characters who take their name by their job title should be disambiguated so as to allow for the possibility of other characters similarly-named in the future. There will be other thieves than the one at Thief (13 O'Clock) (and with the presence of Lady Christina, Rayne, and this new first Doctor companion that Big Finish are doing, there's a need for a generic article about thieves). There might well be other cell guards, desk sergeant, cashier, car salesmen, and American sergeants in the future. Indeed, there might already be such characters, but we just haven't written the article yet. We only have 21K articles. We're nowhere close to having an exhaustive catalogue of all characters in the DWU yet. Please take the long view and allow room for us to grow our coverage, rather than creating work for people to undo later. Point immediately made with Waitress (Vincent and the Doctor). He assumed there was no other waitress, but of course there was. There's also Waitress (Random Shoes), but there's no article on that character yet. He'd have figured it out, if he'd just bothered to search for "waitress 1". That's a cool little trick. The reason Peter is such a big article is because I searched for "Peter 1". That reveals every page that has the name peter and the number 1 — which is a hell of a lot of pages. That shakes all the red-linked names out of the tree, too. Especially if you follow that with "Peter a". Then you'll get everything. But it's simply a lot easier if you just always disambiguate generic title pages. If there's a "desk sergeant" in 1970, there'll be another one 40 years later. Or in a book somewhere. Or in a comic. We're simply nowhere close to a complete catalogue of characters, and it's arrogant in the extreme to just say, "Well, the [hairdresser]/[cell guard]/[thief]/[waitress]/[sergeant]/[cook] I'm looking at now must be the only one which exists in the DWU, or that there might not be a fascinating article that could be written about the job itself. Seriously, that doesn't allow us to grow at all.  For instance, it's good that nurse leads to a disambiguation, rather than to any one of the nurses we've seen.  That allows people who are not as familiar with DW as perhaps we are to find Curtis (Doctor Who) or Xanxia or Lythia or whoever they might be thinking of as a "nurse" without realizing they actually have a name.  I can easily see a utility in an article at thief, sergeant, corporal, waitress, secretary and tons of other generic title names.  Deleting properly disambiguated names on the mere basis of "I couldn't find any today" is quite inimical to the basic goals of the wiki. We should be making information super-easy to find, not making it so that you have to be an expert in DW to find stuff.

Real World
The pages arn't written entirely from the real world, the reference and continuity sections for example. No othr story pages have them, just these companion chronicle ones for some reason. --Revan\Talk 14:09, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Compromise
All I want is for it to display the full date (i.e. 20th century - 21st century). Is it not a compromise to have 20th century - 21st century, instead of 20th-21st century ot 20century  ?It has what you want which is to show that they are not separate dates, and It also allows for the full date to be displayed, which is what I wanted. I now see that putting them under each other using  does look like they are separate dates. If we can't come to an agreement, I sense another Howling Halls coming on... :S. Mini-mitch\talk 00:19, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Random Shoes
Nope sorry. That's why I never created the pages for them after I created Linda. My plan was to watch the episode in the near future, so that the page could be created with even a sentence. Mini-mitch\talk 20:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Company names
Company names are rarely italicized in full. Well, never, in fact. In very high and antiquated form, they can sometimes be partially italicized if the name is based on something that would've been italicized. For instance, if there were a company based on Doctor Who, then it would be The Doctor Who Company. (Actually, if memory serves, that is the technical legal name of the "legal shield" production company that protects BBC Wales from lawsuits.) It's indeed quite common for there to be production companies based on the name of the thing they're producing. The company that produces Outcasts, for instances is named Film Afrika Fourteen — Outcasts (Pty) Ltd. Technically, Outcasts should be italicized in this case. They almost never are, because the emphasis in a copyright tag is to get the letters/spelling/punctuation precisely right, and they don't often mess with style on screen, especially with TV credits. It'd be surprising on their letterhead, however — which of course we're never going to see — if they didn't do something stylistically around the word "Outcasts".

All of which is a terribly longwinded way to say "no". The Happy Cook is the Happy Cook.

Erm...
It's not really about a matter of age, but it used for era we see them in i.e we see Eugene in both the 20th and 21st centuries, so he gets both. the Waitress, was only seen in the 21st century, so she only gets 21st century put next to home era. It's very unclear what 'Home Era' means, but it should be changed to Era active (or something similar), which would mean the Era written down is the era(s) we see them in. (If that all makes sense) Mini-mitch\talk 21:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were to read this, it says that Home Era should be changed, to something like Era active, which would be the century we see them in. As you said in that argument, it would overload the infobox if we put the century they were born in. We don't know a character's past, so to put in another 'Home Era', rather than one we don't see them in would be to speculate. The infobox is a basic summary of the article. If that person was in a story that took place in the 21st century, that's their home era, in the case of Random Shoe, we don't see these people in the part that takes place during the 20th century, so we can't add it, if we did, then we could. Mini-mitch\talk 21:18, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Right. It is. You have to have your way, and I want mine. Let's leave the Home Era till we reached a discussion. From now until then, we do not edit, change, undo the infobox, the home era, etc. agreed? Mini-mitch\talk 22:00, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will raise a discussion for the Home Era in the forums. Until a decision is reached, let's not add any home era or change it for any character. Mini-mitch\talk 22:04, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's something that should be discussed in the forums, it can change the MOS. I hate the fact I've been a complete prat, and hope once we have a conclusion, there will be no hard feelings? Mini-mitch\talk 22:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Mini-Mitch
Hi. Its seems mini-mitch has rolled right over my opinion and blocked my non user account when he doesn't like what I have to say. I hope you can be a bit fairer. He's acting like a complete child right now, but I think this whole home era thing is pointless and he cant stand to lose an argument. Sorry for having to bother you with this. Fan555 22:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Home Era argument, actually is not pointless, it can help this wiki to grow, change and become better. Mini-mitch\talk 22:20, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Saying "the n-th Doctor" is actually in-universe
Hey, I've noticed you've been occasionally changing my indications of particular incarnation numbers (third Doctor, for instance) into just "the Doctor". I know there was a time where that was encouraged around here, because people (rather erroneously) thought it was somehow out of universe. But now that The Lodger has actually had the Doctor referring to himself as "the eleventh", and Death to the Doctor has had the Doctor say "every Doctor, every me", it's pretty clear that the terms, "the second Doctor" or "the seventh Doctor" are actually perfectly valid, in-universe terms — even if your only frame of reference is the TV series. And it helps people who don't know as much about the DWU as we admins to actually include the incarnation number. If you've come to Doctor Who via the Matt Smith era, you won't know that it was the fifth Doctor who traveled with Nyssa and Tegan, for instance, so it's helpful to have that incarnation number in the visible text.

Why did people get bees in their bonnets about using the incarnation numbers in the first place? I don't really know. As far back as at least The Five Doctors, it was clear that the Doctor did think in terms of numbering himselves, though there the fifth and first Doctors were counting regenerations, as opposed to incarnations. And The Eight Doctors really must use the incarnation numbers to tell the story. I know a lot of people don't like The Eight Doctors, but it does at least enshrine the use of "nth Doctor" in canon. And that book was published long before this wiki ever started. So why we were ever tip-toeing around the use of the terminology is baffling to me.

Australia
Nah, it's a good enough temporary pic. No need for a re-upload of the the wider shot. I think my revision note referred to the fact that I was hoping that somewhere there was a better representation of the country than a deliberately aged photograph.