User talk:Tangerineduel


 * For the archived portion of this talk page see User talk:Tangerineduel/Archive - Wiki formatting
 * Please leave new edits at the bottom of the page''

Cleanup Template
Ok. It is done. At the moment, it says: It needs to be cleaned up in these sections: as I couldn't think of anything better but if you can think of something better, feel free to change it. 16:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops. Sorry, I thought it was you who left my the message. I don't know why. Anyway, it needs rewording I know but can you think of anything better? 16:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I was saying about it was that, for example, on River Song's page, it was in need of a clean-up. But it didn't need it for one section, it needed it in the the whole thing, but most people wouldn't know that the cleanup needed all spoilers removed. If we add this section to the cleanup template, it doesn't always need to be used, but it is there for necessary times when specifics need to be removed such as the spoilers on River's page. I've cleaned her page up since asking for the template to be modified, but I still think it will be useful for the future. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Patroller
I know that some people have requested to become Admins on the wiki, but I don't think I'd like that level of control. On Heroes Wiki we have this thing called patrollers, they look through as many edits as they can and basically patrol them and make sure they are acceptable for the wiki, if not, undoing them. Is there something similar on this wiki... I'm not sure if that's what a "sysop" is? Could you help? The Thirteenth Doctor 22:32, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what is considered a "rollback" user in general. -- sulfur 22:49, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Pages
I agree with you that i should reply here, rather than the Tardis:User rights page. So I have gone though my edits and picked out the pages that I am most proud of and what I think shows my most creative skills.

The pages which I am proud of are: my heavy edits to the Series 3 (Torchwood) page, before it was released. On this page I turned it into a proper episode pages, and sorted out all the headings and put the correct information under them. I am partially proud of turning the Series 5 (Doctor Who) page into a proper series page where as before it had only the cast and rumours. I turned it from that into a proper series pages, and thinned out the rumours and adding the correct headings, and it has since then grown to what it is now. Thirdly, I am proud of the pages where I have been involved with the removing of the discontinuity and the adding of production errors, which I myself brought up the subject again. I am also proud of the Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles page, which I created, and even with your heavy edits to it, I feel that some on my work I did while creating it is still there, and I feel that by creating that, I helped with making this wiki even better. Lastly, I am proud of the navigation templates I have created, especially the Time Lord stories, Torchwood Novels and Audio and Christmas specials

The pages which I feel show my creative skills are: Many of the actor pages I have created and also my edits to pages that have the wrong layout. Many of these are the audio adventures, and I have recognised this and changed them to how they should be laid out, and put the information under the correct headings on when they are not. Many audio adventures have wrong or incorrect headings on them, and I have gone though some some them and changed them to how the manual of style says they should be laid out. I am also proud of my early edits to the 2009 Specials (Doctor Who) page, it was here I spend most of my early edits, as I joined this wiki just prior to Planet of the Dead aired, i know I have had some daft edits with them, but now fell I am a more experienced user. Thanks. Mini-mitch 17:!0, June 19 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a three pages that I feel will show you my creative skill (all in-universe): They are one of my edits to the Alonso Frame page, linked to my edit version here - |here. Secondly, my edit to the Lucy Saxon page, showing my edits here - |here. Thirdly, is my lastest edit to Pete Tyler (Pete's World) here -.


 * I will also take what you said about Panda into account. Cheers :) Mini-mitch 17:00, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Face Tendril
Can you help me move the Multi-Form back to Face Tendril. Face Tendril is the correct name and is even acknowledged by the BBC Doctor Who website as the species name. Multi form is just another name that it is refered to. Thanks -- Michael Downey 20:41, June 19, 2010 (UTC).

The Pandorica Opens
I draw your attention to Talk:The Pandorica Opens (TV story). When the bot gets finished checking every damned page in mainspace, I'll need you to move The Pandorica Opens (Painting) to The Pandorica Opens.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  02:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, it appears you've already made the switch before the bot finished its work.  The switch stopped the bot in its duties, so I've got to go back and figure out where precisely it got to.  There's a chance that the automatic switch won't ultimately be as complete as I would've liked, but I did get the vast majority of them before you made the switch.  For some reason, there's a "ghost image" hanging around of linkage to several un-related stories (thanks to the link being in a template), but these are "false" links.  Probably just have to wait a few days for the system to adjust.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  15:09, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that big a deal. I just wanted to tell you why we might still have a few (<30) stragglers.  The job went from just saying "Okay, look at everything in Category:Time-Space Visualiser to having to figure out which individual categories the stragglers are in.  Basically the job isn't really for a bot anymore — it's down to a manageable hand-edit job, which, frankly, I just don't want to do — but I'll keep going for a bit and let you know when I've gotten to the point where I'm, rather lazily, over it.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  15:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay the bot's work is done. And I don't mean by that, "I'm done working with the bot on this issue."  I mean, it's actually finished.  There are a ton (>50) of "ghost links" still persisting, but when you actually go to the articles, they are properly linked.  These links will hopefully fall away after a while.  The only problem I have is that I don't actually remember what the legitimate links to the painting were.  I think there were only a few, but the premature deletion of The Pandorica Opens (Painting) makes it harder to assess what might have originally been there.  The only links persisting there are to pages not in mainspace.  I guess I could go through the creating editor's contribution history but — oh, what the hell, I'll do that and hope that's all that should be legitimately linked to the painting at present.  Anyway, job done.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, CzechOut, you missed a few, specifically the ones that used the DW and DW 2 templates. There were a couple of other links you missed for some reason.  Not sure how, but they're all fixed.  I also forced refreshes on all of the other pages to clean up the cached links too. -- sulfur 17:55, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight, related, followup. The DW template does something we used to do on Memory Alpha with the #ifexist calls.  We found that the use of that template call actually made the Wiki software think that the link did exist for "what links here" and the "most wanted" pages.  Just fyi. -- sulfur 18:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, of course. Totally forgot about DW. Thanks for catchin' that.   So did you guys find a fix to the "what links here" and "most wanted' false links?   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  21:27, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. We moved all episodes to "XXX (episode)", and had redirects pointing there when there was no in-universe article to put there. Not the prettiest, but it works. -- sulfur 21:58, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Community involvement with the italics/quotes issue
I obviously value discussions and consensus decision-making too. That's why I use the fora and talk pages with great frequency. You keep making the point of seeking discussion as if it's something I'm not doing. But is that fair? We're talking about a change that I clearly want to make, that I have the tools to make with relative ease, and about which I actually don't think there is any logical resistance. To me, this is like arguing over whether the sky is blue. And yet. . I've made no substantive moves on the matter in the 18 months the discussion has been open. How much more dedicated do you want me to be to using the fora? Even by our standards, this discussion has been ongoing, unresolved, for a ridiculously long time. Let's face it, if you were on board with this idea, you wouldn't be behaving so cautiously. And reluctance and caution are both fine things. But please don't shade the issue as if I'm trying to do something improper by seeking closure on an 18-month-old discussion. Most of my major actions on this wiki have only been made after at least some period of discussion on the fora or talk pages.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  06:46, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a 18-month discussion and not just two spurts of activity. It's significant that no one else has posted in that time.  I think it indicates that they don't care, and that they want us to settle the matter.  You can't make people interested enough in a topic that they'll post.  Some things attract attention; some things don't.  You can't force people to use the fora.  If you wanna try the canvassing thing, cool.  For me, canvassing has produced mixed results in the past, but what the heck.  Again, though, let's not make this out to be a question of failing to involve the community.  That's wholly unfair.  This topic has been out there, and several times at the top of the list of topics at the Panopticon.  It's not like this has been buried on your talk page.  People have read it, and chosen to ignore it, just like they did the K9 discussion.  Arguing the finer points of punctuation isn't gonna set the world on fire, but somebody has to bring it up and take a stand on it.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  07:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad you've gotten more input at the forum thread, but I do think the precise language you've used to drive people there was a little less than neutral. Instead of saying something bland  like, "Could you please come to this forum thread and give your opinion", you went further than I would and said, "I'm not comfortable with . . . " — which kinda suggests that something "fishy" was going on.  People will have naturally gone to that page with greater suspicion than was necessary.  I'm not angry or anything. I don't think you were actually trying to "load" the discussion with people "on your side". And I absolutely understand what you were trying to say in the full sentence.  You were saying that you were uncomfortable with just two people having the discussion, which is a perfectly valid point.


 * But I do think some people might have focused merely on the fact that you said you were uncomfortable rather than parsing the whole sentence. And as you're viewed as the senior admin who tends to "close" these discussions, such word choice can have a devastating effect upon genuine conversation.  It's a bit like one's boss saying, "I'm uncomfortable; aren't you uncomfortable, too?"  And that feeling of discomfort could be then applied to the thing being proposed, especially as you are uncomfortable with the proposal.  Again, I'm not suggesting intentionality or anything like that, but that's a subliminal vibe that's possible to infer.  It's so important to consensus building that people be alerted to a discussion in as neutral a way as possible, as is suggested at the Wikipedia guidelines on canvassing.  In the interests of avoiding anything like this in the future, I have therefore brought over a simplified version of Please see from Wikipedia.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that my words upset you. I thought they would reassure you.  After all, having the tools to do something, but not doing them, surely shows restraint and responsibility.  In this instance in particular, where I really don't understand the community response, I think it shows a demonstrable respect for the community-building process.  You seem to start from the position that I'm a loose cannon or something, and that baffles me.  Given that you've had other admin around here saying things on talk pages like, "Nah, don't ask anybody, just do it," I'd have thought the amount that I talk about things before doing them a refreshing change.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Formatting the Doctors
Hey. You were part of the discussion above. I was wondering if you could have a look at the discussion as I have given a new reply including an example page, and maybe we could start discussing it again now that we'll have time before the Christmas special. Also, I think it'd be good to get the rest of the community's opinions if you could ask them to join. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

User signatures in template space
Would you mind checking this out and soliciting a decision from the masses on the matter? -- sulfur 23:36, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

The Time Field
As we Know the Finale has aired but yet nobody has made a decision. So Please Could you move the Time Field to the Time Crack! I am Only asking to change this because in the big bang the doctor says amy is not a ordinary girl because she grew up with a Time CRACK in her wall not time field. so please could you move it? From Liamhenney 18:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Premature page creation
With the new episodes of SJA and one title released for series 6 of Doctor Who, there are a lot of articles being created prematurely. The titles are subject to change and the pages are absolutely bare. Is there any way that you can delete them, and protect them from being recreated so many times? If you can't, I'd suggest that they just be made into redirects to the series 4 (for SJA) and 6 (for DW) pages, then protected. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 18:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

PREMATURE PAGE DELETION - I object to Thirteenth Doctor's constant adding of deletion tags to pages where there is no consensus in favor of deleting. Given that discussions were still ongoing as to whether the pages should be deleted, and as many people had spoken in favor of keeping the pages as had asked to delete them, more if you count the people who had created (and then recreated - different people each time) and contributed to the pages (people contributing obviously feel the pages are valid), coming along and deleting the pages was premature. There is no policy that I can find that supports Thirteenth Doctor's desire not to create pages for episodes until the episode has actually aired, and he's clearly ignoring the majority opinions of people editing the site. 94.6.83.73 12:43, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant the fact that there is little available information on the episodes yet. However, (1) what annoys me is that a small handful of editors seem to want to lay ownership claims to the site. They ignore the lack of consensus for their deletionist preference, wanting no pages created until the episodes have aired in case details change, which isn't site policy - and besides, this is a wiki, so it's simple enough to amend things, plus the nature of a wiki means the viewpoint they espouse is unenforcible unless you block every user but them; (2) that while there was little information, what was there outside of thie rumors sections was verifiable and cited. What is wrong with stub entries? More info can be added as it comes to light, but only if there is a page there for it; how long do you keep the page deleted and locked that way? What level of information is "enough information"? 94.6.83.73 13:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)