User talk:Tybort/Archive 2

Individual Rutan
If you think it better without, that's fine. However, when I typed "Rutan" into the field, up popped a half dozen categories, including "Individual Rutan" Boblipton talk to me 00:56, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Promo shots
Sorry for the delay in the reply - been kind of distracted. Promo shots are not allowed in any articles, it should only be screenshots. There is a small expection and that is with characters who do not appear in any visual media, i.e. books and audio, but are depicted on the front covers of the audio/book they appear in - in this case, the cropped image can be use. That as close to a promo shot as you can get. MM/ Want to talk? 15:28, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Disambig roundup

 * The following things have been sorted:
 * The Gallifrey Chronicles, Placebo Effect, The Alliance (The Pandorica Opens), Project Infinity (audio story) [though I have no clue why you moved that title around so much], The Flood (comic story) and Fragments (TV story)


 * The following things are more questionable, and have not been done:
 * The Flood (The Waters of Mars). This is not "needlessly disambiguated" as you presume.  There's a valid question of naming here.  See Talk:The Flood (The Waters of Mars).  I'm not at all prepared to give the name The Flood to the antagonist of The Waters of Mars.  As far as I can see, it's not an in-universe term at all.  So if you've started doing manual work in that direction, I must ask you to undo it, until the naming question at the talk page is definitively settled.
 * I don't really understand what you're talking about with Bad Blood and Sins of the Fathers. Is there work to be done there or not?  And why would you have attempted any manual relinkage, given the ease with which the bot can do it?  You'll have to advise me further if there's work to be done with these two titles and why.

As for your other query, the few instances of a Hartnell episode also being the name of a story are storted by appending (episode), as in An Unearthly Child (episode) and The Web Planet (episode). 01:14: Fri 09 Dec 2011

in youth?
Yes, it is grmmatically correct, but if it makes you uncofortable, expand it. Boblipton talk to me 00:53, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could theoretically mean in the doctor's youth, but that doesn't make any contextual sense. Boblipton talk to me 00:57, December 12, 2011 (UTC) 07:23: Wed 21 Dec 2011

New Earth and other stuff

 * Please see Forum:Renaming New Earth.
 * Hartnell eps - basically changed over but I think I have to redo The Traitors cause I had a power failure mid-run. Not sure.
 * Iris Wildthyme - best to include User:Revanvolatrelundar on this discussion, as he knows a lot about stuff on the fringe of the DWU. How bout raising it in forum:reference desk and Please see-ing him and whoever else has recently edited IW stuff? There was a recent IW question in the forums; may want to look that up, too.
 * It's now fallen angel not Fallen Angel, with all links moved. The title case version still exists but goes elsewhere. Dab notes should make it all clear without need for a dab page, though one is very technically justified at present.
 * I honestly haven't forgotten Wales crew, so please keep using template talk:wales crew, if you're the one that does the Christmas special crew and you find missing variables.

21:59: Fri 23 Dec 2011

What? No geronimo?
I understand your reasons for being annoyed at the page for "Geronimo" and expect you to be annoyed at "What"  and "Allons-y". However, I think that the contributor has an interesting point. What do you think about of a page on "The Doctor's catchphrases"?Boblipton talk to me 22:54, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Utopia
I think I was ahead of you this time. Your request was handled, pretty much as you wished. However, I've retained Utopia (planet) – even though I've moved all the links — because it points to Utopia, which is now a dab page. It seems reasonable to leave it in place, since Utopia now dabs between two planets of the same name. 21:13: Fri 30 Dec 2011

Stuff
What's your opinion about category:Actors who worked in the Sherlock Holmes franchise? There is no Sherlock Holmes franchise. The beauty of Sherlock is that he's public domain. So anyone, at any time, can make a Sherlock adaptation. You got an idea for a better name for the category? Actors who have appeared in a Sherlock Holmes adaptation, maybe?

Also, what sort of problem could you have with a page on Allons-y! or Geronimo, as implied by Bob, above? Gordon Bennett! They're fair game for articles! 01:09: Sat 31 Dec 2011


 * Hey! Hey! I have problems with every aspect of every frame being subject to analysis, especially something so marginal as a catchphrase, which is less a matter of characterization than a sort of marketing device. Are we to have a page for "Matt Smith's follicles" because his hair varies so much in The Time of Angels,  goes long with bits of white in The Wedding of River Song and is accompanied by a beard in two episodes?  I think not.  On the other hand, in my other life, I have been an English major and a part-time professional editor and am fascinated by the details of my trade. Asking about a page called "The Doctor's Catchphrases"  is an indulgence on my part. Do not judge my motivations by my actions.  If you want to know my motivations, ask.  You may be more confused after I explain, but them's the risks you take. In the meantime, Tybort, my apologies for taking up your space. Sorry for forgetting to sign earlier. Boblipton talk to me 01:38, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving back to Sherlock, I don't think it's possible for there to be a franchise anymore, now that the property is in the public domain. I mean, there's such a thing as an actor being on the Jeremy Brett version, and the Basil Rathbone, and the Tom Baker, and the Benedict Cumberbatch — but there's no overarching "franchise", because it doesn't come from a single source anymore.  I mean, we could debate whether it might be useful to further subdivide this category into the various "runs".  But I dunno.  I really haven't given it that much thought.  It just caught my eye in passing that it was an awkwardly-worded category.   04:18: Sat 31 Dec 2011

"Franchise" is the wrong word. I tried an online thesaurus for "franchise" and "series" but couldn't find the right one. Boblipton talk to me 04:53, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Moves: Francine, Angela Price
No problem with Francine (The Maltese Penguin). All sorted. But the Angela Price thing is trickier. We have no canonical or even out-of-universe spelling for Price. For all we know, she could be spelling it Jonathan-style: Pryce. She's only credited as Mrs. Moore. I really had no idea that the page had been moved to Angela Price in the first place, as it originated as Mrs Moore.

If we're going to spell it Price, we'll need a forum discussion, because there's absolutely no canonical or end-credits indication of that. My feeling is that it, strictly, should be Moore (Rise of the Cybermen), thus obviating the need for dab at Angela Price (Lost in Time). 23:56: Tue 03 Jan 2012

latest changes to amy pond
I see you've made some placement changes to the amy pond page. I'm sure you know that this is fine-point editing and a matter of emphasis. As it was it slugged the reader with the sense of betrayal. Now it does not. Unsurprisingly, I prefer the way it was shaped before -- otherwise I would have changed it -- but you think there's something superior this way. Could you explain why you think it's better? Boblipton talk to me 03:50, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I agree that your prposed rewrite does make sense in terms of a straightforward recitation of events and that would speed up the reading. However, in order to have it make sense, the section about the Doctor promising to returning in five minutes would have to be removed, changing the narrative impact and should be removed. Since I se thtat up, I am understandably fond of it and so feel my opinion would be compromised. I hterefore leave the decision up to you:: leave the structure as it currently exists and  I'll remove the now irrelevant sentences -- which will make it read even faster -- or restore it. It's a tough decision and I'm passing the buck to you. I've you want to retain the new structure but can't figure out where to chop, let me know and I'll do it. Boblipton talk to me 21:34, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

16:00: Mon 09 Jan 2012

Bane
No problem with that move, but please remember not to move the page before I get to it. It helps out my work flow pattern a lot if I'm the one who does the actual page moves. 18:00: Wed 11 Jan 2012

About my photo.
I apologize for the cruddy image I uploaded, I have a crappy camera, and an old television that is not camera friendly.

I actually thought that was pretty good for what I had with me. But if it's not up to standards then fine.

It was the best out of seven photos. Sadly...

But thank you for telling me why you removed it :)

Moogleknight24 talk to me 19:45, January 12, 2012 (UTC)Moogleknight24

My talk page
Please read the message at the top of my talk page. Unless you are using it on a post that you yourself signed, please do not use unsigned. I know you had good intentions, but it gets in the way of easily determining whether young editors are beginning to learn the importance of a signature. AngelBill is now blocked because of his unwillingness to sign posts, and it'd be better just o see a completely unsigned post than one on which he might have later added unsigned, himself. In other words, I'd rather not have to do a history search to see who left the late sig. 19:39: Fri 13 Jan 2012

Father Gregory
Father Gregory should go to Gregory (Tsar Wars). Gregory still goes to Greg (but see the next paragraph). Common names, especially first ones, should always be "future-proofed" by disambiguation. The fact that there is not now another Gregory doesn't mean much. We're hardly a complete encyclopedia. Besides, I'm wondering a little bit about the quality of your search. Without even pressing "page down", I can see an in-universe Mark Gregory, for a start. And don't forget that he's credited as just "Gregory" in The Invasion roll-up. So people might be searching just for "Gregory". Going a bit lower, I can see that The Banquo Legacy makes Pope Gregory IX canon, so that's three in-universe Gregorys without even trying hard. Remember that searching should be done through Special:Search, not just the search bar that appears at the top right of most pages. Special:Search searches through the entire text, not just the titles.

Because there are so many Gregs, there might be a point to splitting Gregory into its own disambig page, just to highlight the Gregorys over the Gregs. But Gregory should definitely not go this Father Gregory person. 19:39: Fri 13 Jan 2012

TitleSort
Oh, no, that's a very good question! There's certainly no restriction on using TitleSort on in-universe pages. In fact, it can be quite useful, given the ridiculous tendency of DWU characters to name themselves with titles.

In many cases, the effect of using TitleSort is not that much different from NameSort.

For instance, both templates will sort The Master in exactly the same way. The sortkey for both templates will begin with "Master".

However, {[tl|TitleSort}} (hereafter TS) is superior to NameSort (hereafter NS) when a character with a prepending article is also disambiguated.


 * If you TS The Master (Bruce), the "The" gets lopped off and the sortkey becomes "Master". Which is what we want (in most cases).
 * If you NS The Master (Bruce), it gets sorted under "(Bruce), The Master". NS goes for the last word of the page title, then places a comma, then uses the first 10 letters of the title.  This isn't what we want at all.

Just so you don't screw it up an accidentally use the wrong template, it's probably a good idea to use TS any time you have any article name that begins with a, an or the. 20:29: Fri 13 Jan 2012
 * You've totally lost me. How are the Master's pages "very complex"?  They're easy.  Slap a TS on them and be done with it.  Nothing hard there at all.  We can only take any effort up to the limit of the underlying software, and we don't currently have a way to alphabetise but by a single term.  Thus, sure, The Master (The Fallen) will be alpha'ed under "Master (The F", but that's the best we can do. It's not that big an inconvenience, surely?  I mean, I suppose we could consider a change to dab policy which made it so that dab terms omitted prepending articles.  I don't know how that one would fly, though.  Do the benefits of alphabetisation outweigh the simplicity of "use the whole name of the story"?   I dunno.  I guess that might be worth a discussion.  Might cause some slight confusion with stories like "The Daleks" and "The Invasion".


 * As for sort keys defined by individual category, nope, that's not against the rules and is often necessary. Thing is, though, it can cause a bit of a nightmare if it's not been done consistently.  For instance, in that category:Slitheen you asked about in the forum, I had to strip all the DEFAULTSORTS and category sort keys out to make NS work smoothly.  In most instances, happily, the fact that someone has set manual sortkeys for a particular category doesn't cause a problem, because they're usually sensible enough to sort it exactly how NAMESORT would.  If you encounter a particularly thorny category, though, you might want to turn it over to me.


 * I think in general the thing you have to remember is that DEFAULTSORT and manual sort keys predate the existence of these two templates. There was also a time where it was super-easy to do manual sortkeys. You didn't even have to edit the page to change the way it was sorted. (That might still be the case in Monobook.  I forget.)  Thus, you're  going to find an awful lot of this sort of thing all around the wiki.  Mostly, it's a lot of extra work that doesn't have any net effect on anything.


 * (But then, I've also turned error messages off. If I hadn't, you'd see a lot of these pages with big, ugly, red error messages, because you can only actually have one instance of DEFAULTSORT on a page.)  21:17: Fri 13 Jan 2012

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:22, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Pipe tricks inappropriate on dab pages
As a general rule, pipe tricking is a beautiful thing that saves tons of time. Nine times out of ten, if I've got something like Reunion (ST short story), I'm gonna wanna lop off that dab term without giving it a second thought.

However, the very point of a disambiguation page is to give readers and editors a guide to the true page. So we don't want to mask the dab term on dab pages. Take a look at any wikipedia dab page and you'll see dab terms proudly exposed. And this is an instance where we absolutely follow Wikipedia's lead.

That's because the primary goal of a dab page — since wiki editing began — was to get editors to make links to the specific instance of that name. Although it's nice that readers can type in Andrew and find this whole big list of Andrews, the main thing a dab page does is to show editors that they can't just make a link to Andrew and be done with it. So we should do anything we can do to make it easier for editors to see how they're supposed to link to things. 15:46: Sat 21 Jan 2012

Torchwood software
I was wondering if you could help me by offering any advice for the torchwood software page? --

23:51: Fri 27 Jan 2012

Toy Story
It's no problem. The only reason that the story is included on the wikia is because it came from an official source, therefore we cover that version and not the charity version. Hope that clears some things up. --Revan\Talk 09:48, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Cite Web
Thanks for that, I was going to get back to it, probably. I checked the template page, it was a bot that removed some stuff, I've undone it and it all seems to be working now. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:10, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Unsuitable imagery
Yep, delete is the way to go. Just make sure you specifically cite the bit of policy you think the pic is violating in the deletion rationale. 16:15: Thu 09 Feb 2012

Image categories
Yeah, it's a massive project, but I just couldn't stand the lack of organisation anymore. Plus, I feel like we're losing a ton of great images simply because they've been temporarily removed from a page, making them temporarily orphaned, making some feel that they are not "useful". Hopefully by creating a genuine, searchable library of images, we'll be able to make images work better for us.

At this stage in the game, I'm just laying down the framework, really. Here's what I'm doing initially.
 * Using the bot to check the pages of the characters and species, then dumping those photos directly into the appropriate character or species folder. So, I'm going to Dalek and saying to the bot, put all these images into category:Dalek images/
 * Using the bot to check the pages which begin with the character/species names and then putting them into the appropriate category. So, I'll look at any image that begins with "File:Dalek" and dump it in, too.

These two, simple bot runs will give us a starting point for the categories. But this approach tends to miss out on most images that are on story pages. This part requires hand editing (or, at least, very slow semi-automatic bot editing), and it's where you can definitely help out. I've done all the images on the Fourth Doctor televised stories so far, and I'll be doing the Davison television stories today. I've randomly done a few other stories so as to let me start other categories.

Although there's no harm in putting the same category twice on a page — it's extremely unlikely you'd screw up the bot by manually editing around my edits — it would obviously be a waste of time. If you want to pick a Doctor and meticulously go through each televised story in the era, categorising each picture on the page, that'd be helpful. For the moment, let's just say I'll take care of Docs 3, 4 and 5. If you wanna tell me which Docs you'll do, we might be able to coordinate our efforts better. You might also check user talk:Tangerineduel as he seems keen to help. If we have three people working on the TV bit, it'll all be done within a day, tops. Just remember when you're doing them to add categories for every (main) guest character, recurring character or species in the pic.

Future (and I don't think far future) plans for this include categorisation by story. But that won't really require manual help, I don't think. By and large, the hard part about that is generating the master list of all episodes and putting it into a form that the bot will understand. Generating this list will finally let me bring standards to the naming of story articles, too. But the list, obviously, will be HUGE, running well into the thousands of entries, even if we're talking just visual stories (comics/TV). <span style="">18:27: Sat 11 Feb 2012
 * Well, we can't be editing in different ways. Not yet at least.  If you edit according to license, but we're editing according to story, then we're going to partially duplicate work  Our initial priority is images that are actually displaying on pages.  These images are far more likely than any others to be clicked.  This will introduce editors most quickly to the notion that we are rolling out new organisational schemes for our images.


 * As for the context, it's an out of universe category, so it is kinda "whatever". But clearly, the priority must be on getting all the in-universe pictures into these categories. Certainly I've added a few action figures to these cats, and the odd book cover is admitted by the bot, but the primary focus for now is just those pictures on story pages that appear in the plot section and infobox.


 * The key to this is just to be methodical, and for us all to be editing in the same manner. One round for any files beginning with the name of the character, one round for all the images on the character page.  One round for all the images currently on episode pages.


 * Editing by broad license category is and must be the last step. In the first place, that's pretty easy for the bot.  In the second place, the cat run(s) will largely pick up on images that aren't currently placed anywhere.  If it's the last step, I can do some "fancy" work with the bot to make it a more automated run which will quickly pick up on the images that haven't been categorised a particular way.  But if you're doing it by that method, and we're doing it by another, I won't have that luxury.


 * So, which Doctors' television stories are you going to do? <span style="">18:58: Sat 11 Feb 2012
 * Teselecta is broadly an object. We might later do some more organisation and put it into something like category:Vechicle images, but moving subcats around is easy and can be done later.  <span style="">19:35: Sat 11 Feb 2012

Silurian/Sea Devil images
Let's start out with them being in the same category, called category:Silurian and Sea Devil images, just to make the nomenclature match the others about those species. <span style="">20:29: Sat 11 Feb 2012

John Hart
While I have moved John Hart to John Hart (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang), I'm gonna leave Captain John Hart as a redirect. Don't mind people taking a bit of a shortcut given the rather ungainly "proper" title. Going to soon be moving Captain Jack Harkness to be a redirect to the person, too. <span style="">18:52: Sun 12 Feb 2012

Gangers, clones, autons and other duplicates
Remember that image categories are out of universe, so we shouldn't get too awfully precious with them. Basically if the image looks like the character, then it goes in the character's image pile — even if it's, narratively, a duplicate. It can then also be put into the category of the "duplicating species or technology". So, if you've got the clone Martha Jones, that could logically go in Martha Jones, Sontaran and Clone image categories. If you've got the Auton Mickey, that can go in Mickey Smith and Auton/Nestene categories.

Point is, we're not looking for the same kind of rigorous exactitude that we might be with in-universe categories. The audience for these categories is very much the average person in the street. Basically, if you want to "split hairs" over whether you're looking at a picture of Sarah Jane, or Adnrovax-as-Sarah Jane, put it in both categories, not just the more obscure (and technically correct) one.

So, with Gangers, it's not just what you see in the Matthew Graham eps, necessarily. If they're narratively a Ganger, put 'em in the Ganger category. But also put them in the character image category (provided they're a major enough character to have a character image category of their own). So Eleventh Doctor (ganger) images go in both Eleventh Doctor images and Ganger images. <span style="">20:35: Sun 12 Feb 2012
 * Yah, I think it might help to remember that we're effectively building a library of images, with the object being "findability". So the distinctions between clones, gangers, androids and the "real deals" can certainly be noted with the appropriate category, but they should also be in character image categories for the benefit of those editors whose minds don't think in those precise terms. <span style="">21:49: Sun 12 Feb 2012

Captain Jack Harkness
Yeah, this one is an admitted exception to dab. In a very strict sense he should be "Jack Harkness (The Empty Child)". But c'mon he's a headline character. So he gets the undisambiguated term. In changing over to Captain Jack Harkness (TV story), I discovered that most links to Captain Jack Harkness were contextually meant for Jack Harkness, the character. People just assume that link should work. So why not give this one violation of T:HONOR and T:NAMING? I have a feeling that even if we did the absolutely correct thing in this case, moving Captain Jack Harkness (disambiguation) to Captain Jack Harkness, we'd just end up with an unacceptably high number of links to the disambiguation page, rather than Jack Harkness. Cause that was what was happening already — tons of links to the TV story in lieu of the character. Bowing to the inevitable on such a major character seems reasonable enough, especially since it's just a redirect and the proper page title is breaking our rules in only one tiny aspect. <span style="">21:49: Sun 12 Feb 2012

Slitheen images
Sorry that you've wasted your time, but I thought you said youw ere doing Eleventh Doctor and Torchwod, so I didn't expect conflicts over Slitheen. It might save us both time in the future if we both remember to check the current state of the meta categories before creating a new subcategory. (Remember that it takes about 24 hours for a newly-created category to show up in autosuggest.)

I'm afraid in this instance I'm going to overrule you. I know that, in theory, there are non-Slitheen Raxacoricos. But, as far as I'm aware, we've never actually been shown one. The Blathereens in The Gift obviously don't count, because the narrative point of the story is that they're actually Slitheen.

The reason for my "clunky" category name is that it future-protects us. Maybe there will come a day with non-Slitheen Raxacoricos are finally shown. In the meantime, the longish name has the advantage — in a way that it didn't when you created your categories, but does now — of working in autosuggest with either the word "Slitheen" or "Rax". Thus it's easy to find no matter what your understanding of the species is.

Since there's no practical reason for the categorical split, I've just deleted them. Please remember, though, that it will now take at least an additional 24 hours for these categories to clear the autosuggest system. So you've just prolonged the time it should have taken for the original category to clearly display as the only valid category in the autosuggest system. <span style="">02:17: Mon 13 Feb 2012
 * Oh yeah, just remembered a question I had for you. Why are you dealing with Slitheen right now?  I thought you were doing Eleventh Doctor/Torchwood.  Hav eyou finished all that?  If so, what are you actually doing right now.  Btw, I've also finished the Sixth Doctor's run, and am nearing completion on the Third Doctor's.  <span style="">02:20: Mon 13 Feb 2012

I can't remember why, possibly to stop the "upload new version" vandalism that was going around at the time. I've unlocked it. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:34, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Again, stick with the plan
Please do not go to editing by species. Again, the plan must be orderly category adds by televised story first. Please either go to SJA, First Doctor, Second Doctor, Seventh Doctor, Tenth Doctor or K9 stories. Thanks. <span style="">15:58: Mon 13 Feb 2012
 * For the moment, the priority is images on televised story pages. As for locked images, don't worry about them; I'll take care of them in one fell swoop.  <span style="">16:35: Mon 13 Feb 2012

Troughton
Okay, I went there since you said Tennant. I've gotten through The Faceless Ones. You start with The Evil of the Daleks please. I'll hop back to Hartnell. And just so we're clear: you're doing McCoy next, cause I hate the man. <span style="">18:26: Mon 13 Feb 2012

Images by story categories
Please be aware that images by televised story and images by comic story are now completely filled out with subcategories for each and every story of that type. So if you have an image from say, Thinktwice, you'll want to make sure that you put it in Category:Thinktwice comic story images. Or if you have something from The Mind of Evil, please ensure it gets into Category:The Mind of Evil TV story images.

These images by story categories are, of course, in addition to any other categories which may be appropriate, such as ones from Images by character, Images by object, or images by species.

Images by story will continue to grow over the coming weeks to include other media, but comics and TV were deemed the highest priority, since the vast majority of images will come from these two visual media.

Also, if you haven't noticed it for now, TV story pages now all have a little tab at the top left labelled "images". Clicking it takes you to the relevant category, so that you can quickly view our repository of images from that particular story All stories will eventually have this sort of link. Longer term, individual charactes might also have such a link. <span style="">02:36: Mon 20 Feb 2012