User talk:Tangerineduel

Admin
sir may i be a admin i have been watching doctor who since baker and i believe i could be admin material thank you--TheLastTimelord 05:24, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Talk Pages and Infobox additions
A few things I have been thinking about regarding to the above two. I though I would sound them out to you. --Bigshowbower 13:24, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Talk page Can we implement some sort of warning when a user creates a talk page saying something like "This page should be used to discuss relevant edits - not to discuss plot holes, rumours and speculation" or something along the lines. For example (you've probably seen it already) but the various discussion on The End of Time page, another user has commented on the discussion saying how they should be in the forums. I have asked various users to discuss in the Forums.

Infobox addition The infobox regarding individuals could it have another section added called "Mentions", just like other infoboxes.


 * I've actually had a go at using the same clean up template but modifying the the text, it is on my user page. Please feel free suggest any changes. --Bigshowbower 03:36, January 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks a lot better, thank you --Bigshowbower 03:34, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Rich Text Editor
I've been noticing lately that it's been causing a lot of issues, specifically in that it adds random &amp;nbsp; spaces all over the place and a large number of blank lines after every simple template that it finds. In fact, one of the recent series of edits to the article on the latest special made it so that the 6 templates at the bottom of the page took up over 3 full screens of blank space and scrolling. Is there anything you can do to request that it get turned off along the way? -- sulfur 19:16, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Template boxes for every Doctor Who novel
Seeing as you have a template box for TDA and EDA I think we should have one for every doctor and maybe even Torchwood Novels. --Catkind121 10:47, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

The new editor tools
I'm not a big fan of the changes (someday a website will make "improvements" that actually are improvements). In theory the WSYWYG (what you see is what you get) approach isn't bad, but I just had a minor trainwreck on Century House trying to fix a wikilink. It took me far longer than it should have and I'm a little concerned what might happen if I try to insert a "pipe" (i.e. the Doctor ) into an existing link. Have you been having similar problems? 23skidoo 14:26, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware it could be turned off. One problem is that, while I can work out most of the new icons for myself, with this new format launched suddenly (I was editing at 11 PM last night and it wasn't there; at 6 AM it was) you'd think Wikia would send out some sort of user guide. It's not a huge deal, just an annoyance, but I am concerned it could negatively impact our efforts to standardize and correct formatting. For example, it is rather obscure how one can insert an italicized note (i.e. one that starts with : to indent) admidst a list of bullets. I ran into that just now while editing a timeline item. I agree about the spacing - if the earlier version was causing this, that might explain why so many articles have had extra spaces added, as opposed to editors doing it intentionally or unintentionally. 23skidoo 14:39, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes + CSS
FYI, check out my additions to this discussion about infoboxen... -- sulfur 16:13, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Human Companies
Thanks for the nice words.

You'll notice that where pages about a company exist, there's a Main Article link to them. Human companies could I suppose be reworked as an expansion of Category:Human businesses, with the minor background companies like Fusion Corp being entries above the "Pages in this Category" section, but that strikes me as inelegant and clunky.

I also hesitated to call the page Minor human companies because just because a company is only mentioned as background colour to a stroy doesn't mean it is unimportant within the setting: for example, a character could make a passing reference to the Dutch East India company, a vast and powerful corporate entity but technically a minor company if no further detail is supplied about it within the story the reference came from. -- Koschei 22:18, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating a plethora of stub pages when you've only got a sentance or two to say about a subject seems quite wasteful; there's a reason why Wikipedia makes a point of consolidating smaller articles in a single large one. It's a simpler, more elegant solution. -- 12:20, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Howling
I'll be honest I've never actually looked at the Howling. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have an OG-style forum only because Wikis do become a bit of a community and if there isn't an outlet for discussion then people start doing it on the talk pages, which is of course what we want to avoid. Problem is, of course, you do need to have a monitor for such a thing because people will inevitably misuse it, either by posting stuff that isn't allowed on the wiki (like libel) or personalities will clash. It might be too late to close the barn door on this, but it may be time to try and find an admin dedicated to keeping an eye on the thing. And yeah, setting firm ground rules is never a bad idea. As far as the alert box, remember once you change a template they all change, so if you want to darken it a bit or even remove the color entirely, that's easily done. I support the idea of the box - Wikipedia uses something similar, for the same reasons - it just needs a little tweaking and maybe some ground rules as to when it should be employed. (I really sound like I'm advocating "rule creep" aren't I? For the record I don't believe we need hard and fast rules for everything, but in some cases it's not a bad idea). 23skidoo 13:32, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Alert tag
I'm actually going to add some wording to the Alert tag - "...or personal opinion regarding characters or actors" or something like that. Check the talk page for The Doctor and you'll see people starting to grip that they don't like Matt Smith which has nothing to do with the price of tea. 23skidoo 19:43, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style additions, too
I also took a few minutes and added some sections to the Manual of Style. See what you think. I've added a section on Talk Pages, as well as ones on "acceptable sources" and "neutral point of view". I was inspired to do this by someone who posted a link to a tabloid article on The Woman in order to further the opinion that she's the Doctor's mother. I remember when Kylie was supposed to be a Cyberwoman according to these same sources. The Talk Page section ties in with the new tag. 23skidoo 20:21, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaah! I forgot we need to discuss changes on the Discussion page first. I'm going to revert my changes and post them there first instead. 23skidoo 20:29, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll give the MoS a look when I have some time (just about to jump into a bunch of real-life work). BBS means "bulletin board system". It's a slightly outdated term used to refer to forums (dating back to the days before browsers when BBSes ruled the Internet), but it's still used by a few sites most notably the Trek BBS. 23skidoo 13:21, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a very well known term that's still in wide use. Usenet is also still used, as is newsgroups. 23skidoo 14:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of terminology, it might be worth adding to the MoS a decision on how to refer to the revival seasons. Moffat apparently has muddied the waters in the latest DWM by suggesting Series 5 be either Season 31 or Season 1, which means we might have people unilaterally moving articles. Personally I'd be quite happy to renumber everything from Season 27 in 2005 and move up (and maybe call the Specials year Season 30 1/2 or something). But I can imagine the tons of links that will need to be changed. 23skidoo 19:47, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: the TV movie. Well, considering it's such a standalone, I wouldn't think it appropriate to consider it part of any season. And it's in good company, because for all people's attempts to make The Next Doctor part of Season 4, it and the four specials are pretty much going to be set on their own anyway, so it's in good company. There's also a school of thought that suggests the other Christmas specials not be included in any season, and there's also the mini-episodes. I'm a little annoyed at recent DWM articles which seemed to be advocating for the mini-episodes to not be canon. I can understand with Music of the Spheres because it breaks the fourth wall, and the Attack of the Graske game. But Children in Need and Time Crash should be part of canon, and I'd go so far as to say the same goes for the Comic Relief Sarah Jane mini-episode, too. In any regard, I agree that time will tell what ultimately becomes the standard definition for the next season, though we may have to wait till the DVD/Blu-Ray box set to find out for certain! 23skidoo 12:48, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a random tangent at all. I agree there should be a way of better integrating the TVM. One possibility is to do what Virgin's "Handbook" series did and roll the TVM into discussion of the Seventh Doctor (since it's a Seventh Doctor story, too). One possibility might be to incorporate the TVM in some way into the Season 26 article. Not declare it part of 26, you understand, but just include a subsection like "after Season 26" or "interregnum" or something. Sort of like how I inserted a brief section about The Next Doctor into the 2009 Specials article. Alternately, we could launch an article on the "Wilderness years" and place it between Season 26 and Series 1/Season 27 so people following along through the infoboxes can find their way there. I like that idea, because not only could such an article cover the TVM, but also the numerous independent productions like Downtime and Shakedown and Big Finish audios -- things that, in my opinion, were as important in keeping the franchise alive as the novels and anything else. It would also be a handy spot for people unfamiliar with this era of the franchise. 23skidoo 18:20, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Please undo a page move
Someone moved The End of Time (TV story) to The End of Time which now leaves the book high and dry. I love how people try to seek consensus. I've tried to find the user who moved the page, but the History for some reason doesn't seem to record this. Can you do me a big favor and move it back? The reason why I can't is because if I do it I get the feeling someone will just ignore me and change it back. This needs the touch of a superior hand. I bet whoever moved it didn't even look at "What links here" and the dozens of links that are now outdated because of this. If you do move it back, I suggest protecting the page from moves (I think you can do this without preventing other edits). 23skidoo 05:36, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was moved 10 days ago:
 * 20:07, 17 January 2010 Doug86 (Talk | contribs) m (154,735 bytes) (moved The End of Time (TV story) to The End of Time: only one other article with this same name) (undo)
 * Just FYI. -- sulfur 11:55, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see a real problem with its location, especially since the novel is disambig'd at the top of the page. The lks to the old name redirects there, and aren't exactly "outdated."   But that's just me. -- sulfur 11:58, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

I only just noticed the move (and yeah I know I've edited the page since then). My concern is we need to be consistent and the first use of a title is the one that gets the undisambiguated version. This sets a bad precedent because what about, say, Dreamland which was a Big Finish audio before it was an animated story? Or, for that matter, the two Human Natures? 23skidoo 17:14, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Writers Comics
(Facepalm). Thanks for the heads up. I've made my case. If those guys want to start making this place elitist like Wikipedia I'm out of here. I assume they'll want to delete The Last Doctor and Doctor Who and the Silver Spiral next. I appreciate your support for it, though! 23skidoo 14:07, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree 100%. Last Doctor was written by Paul Cornell. The other is a short story that has been reported in major media (unless you don't consider Scientific American major). If ever there was a case for exceptions this is it. I only create articles after due consideration of their appropriateness and this is supposed to be a Doctor Who wiki which covers all aspects of Who fandom. Fanfic done in an informal fashion is one thing, but neither of these examples fall into that category. If we delete those then frankly ALL the novels must be deleted as well, because there is a widely held definition of fanfic that includes spin-off novels. I ran into that in Wikipedia when an attempt was made to delete all of the Star Trek novels. And what about things like I Am the Doctor: The Unauthorised Diaries of a Timelord, Farewell Great Macedon (book), The Doctor and the Enterprise? By rights deleting those short stories renders those releases invalid, along with Campaign. Actually, that's a great example. If we delete The Last Doctor then we have to delete Campaign and all the charity book articles, too. And then we can start on Downtime and Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans which are also technically fanfic. It's a slippery slope. And frankly if I'm going to be forced to second-guess my contributions to this place, I might start having second thoughts about contributing in the future.23skidoo 15:07, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because in my opinion once things like Last Doctor disappear into other articles that's just it - they disappear and people won't find out about them. Doctor and the Enterprise was a book I purchased at a local equivalent of Barnes & Noble -- where no other Doctor Who books were even being sold. I think exceptions are warranted, considering, for example, The Last Doctor has been described as a sequel to the two newspaper stories Cornell published. And I'm not sure what musicians have to do with the argument because I wouldn't include them just because of the name - though if there's a major Doctor Who influence I do mention them in the timeline, just for interest's sake. I'm probably just going to stick with editing the Timeline for awhile - admin requests notwithstanding - because I really do disagree with disqualifying these particular stories - and once again I'm talking about items with extenuating circumstances such as being written by an established writer, being professionally published, or receiving media attention, not stuff just written by fans -- and I'm including in that, for example, individual episodes of Audio Visuals which were at the time they were made completely unofficial audio fanfic; I wouldn't support individual articles. Nor would I, say, go for individual issue articles for fanzines like Enlightenment. Rolling the exceptions (back to the short stories) into a catchall article no one will think to look for, or handing them off to another Wiki I didn't even know existed, is the same as ignoring them. 23skidoo 15:43, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuity; Plot Holes and Errors Sections In Episode Pages
I was wondering about the discontinuity, plot holes and errors sections and if we could introduce dividing them into discontinuity, plot hole and error sub-sections. As some are particually large and are quite hard to read, such as the End of Time's one, which I have already attempted to divide up, but people keep reverting back to the mass list of points. lottie01 23:10, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. But there should be criteria as to what constitutes a discontinuity vs plot hole, etc. 23skidoo 15:43, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Google maps
Not sure if I have the right person, but ya seem admin-y enough for me. I'd like to request that you request Google maps to be enabled on the wiki. It'd be helpful for the studio/location pages. For instance, BBC Television Centre currently has to do this clumsy footnoting thing to Google maps, which it doesn't technically have to do for rights reasons. Google does in fact allow Wikia to use its maps, but the wikia owner has to request it.

Here's the info from the Help! wikia. Thanks!  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  15:40, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me!
You really misunderstood me,sir!Of course I wasn't going to make any articles for my story!I didn't even thought of it!I was going to post it at my user page and create a blog telling people to see it if they wanted!But, when I post it, I would appreciate it if you told me your opinion.Thank you!--Jimmy10101997 12:13, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Infobox
I think that we should add another section underneath "Enemy" with a list of appearances from other aliens and/or races just so it highlights them out. I think it may help readers as well who are looking for say something in particular and if they see they appeared in such a such it would be easier to be spotted out. The reason why I think this is beacause looking through species etc I came across quite a few that I'd never seen before and didn't even realise they where in such a such an episode. What do you think and how would I find the means of going about this? -- Michael Downey 14:08, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah I see what you mean and I think all pages should be like that which I will try and look into doing it on all of the televised episodes but I still think there should just be a little section with bullet points of others for example in the episode Planet of the Dead the tritovores where not enemies but should be in pointed out just to have appeared as its to the top of the page so it gives a quick reminder to viewers that they appeared in this episode. (That episode was just an example but there are many more) -- Michael Downey 14:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see but it is a quick summary itself it will literally be bullet points of what others appeared like the enemies. Not all of the characters just for example a race or species that appeared but where not an enemy. If it is done properly and put in a form that makes it still a summary I don't think it will get out of hand. We could try out some system and if it does then we can easily revert it but I think it may benefit a bit to narrowing it down as a summary. -- Michael Downey 14:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I know but thinking about it, it doesn't really matter how long it is for example on Wikipedia they list all of their entire cast on their infobox and page so they don't really need it but they still do because its the first thing you see on the page and it stands out that's why I think there should be a list because it catches the readers eye of to who appeared in the episode instead of looking for it because some episode pages are not detailed and/or labeled properly so some pages don't even say a species exist until you come across them randomly and they say they appeared in such a such a episode. -- Michael Downey 15:10, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Thanks for noticing :) I have to say, though, that's probably the hardest thing I've ever done here, in terms of amount of thinking versus quantity of material to show for it.  I hate doin' categories as a non-admin because I don't have the power to simply move things.  I find there are more changes I would make if I didn't just have to accept category names that were already there.  For example, Category:Creatures is a name that provides little definition (every living thing is a creature), but I'm not gonna change it because I'd have to individually change 60 or so pages. And that's a silly waste of time.   Also, I have to think forever about a new cat title, so that I don't clunk up the works with a lot of failed efforts.   Even then, though, I find I make the occasional mistake.  It would be so helpful if I could just move cats and delete the old cats left behind.  I don't guess there's a way to channel the limited power of deleting just category pages is there? It would make the process so much faster.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  14:53, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, can a category be deleted even though it has members? Or do the members have to be purged of the cat before the cat can be deleted?  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  16:56, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

New license for K9TV pics
Hey, I just noticed that the license for Template:Screenshot really won't work for pics from the new K9 series, as that series isn't © BBC. Yeah I know the language gives the wiggle room of "though not limited to", but that's kinda lazy since we know the copyright holders of K9. Therefore, I created template:K9-screenshot, but I don't know how to get it in the drop-down list. Any guesses how to do that?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  22:52, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, when you say "screenshots from spin-offs which the BBC don't have ownership over", what are you talking about, exactly? BBV stuff?  In placing the non-canonical template on most of these pages, I noticed that there aren't more than a handful of these pics around.  In fact, most of the BBV pages just had a picture of the video cover — which would be template:Promotional — not something from the show itself.  Surely it'd be better just to create a BBV-screenshot template for these tiny few.  Though, come to think of it, there's already template:film-screenshot which could be repurposed for that, since technically they are direct-to-video films. Far as I know, there are no television screenshots, except for maybe a few station idents, which aren't under the BBC's control.  And these could be just as easily classed as template:promotional, anyway.


 * Point is that there are really just three major types of screenshot. There's stuff from the BBC, which comprises something like 99% of the screenshots we have.  Then there's like 10 or so BBV shots.  Then there's currently 10 K9 shots.  The K9 stuff will likely grow quite quickly, whereas the BBV stuff will quite possibly never substantially increase.


 * I strongly feel that, from a legal standpoint, we definitely need to have a separate tag for K9, because the "and/or original owners" thing (which now reads "other parties may have ownership rights as well") doesn't sufficiently address the ownership rights of the K9 producers.


 * So the question is, how do we make a change most efficiently? I think we keep template:screenshot instead of changing it to template:BBC-screenshot, because there's almost no distinction between screenshot and BBC-screenshots.  Then if we repurpose film to include language that mentions BBV, or make a new BBV-specific template, we cover that base in a matter of minutes.  Then, we keep the K9 tag, which has already been applied to everything currently on the site.


 * Then you add them all to the drop-down, change the titles so it's obvious, and there we have it. I mean, it's obvious the title of the template in the drop down is not the same thing as the title of the template page itself.  "Screenshot" could be retitled in the drop down as "BBC screenshot".  "K9-screenshot" could become K9 TV series screenshot",  and "film-screenshot" could become "Other screenshots".  The only thing I can think of that might not be covered in this would be stuff of which we don't even have screenshots, I don't think.  I suppose it would be possible for someone to upload a picture from one of the 31 Who segments, notably the one included on The Three Doctors DVD, or maybe from a documentary that wasn't produced by 2 entertain or BBV, but you're into the realm of fan video and footage from news interviews there.  We could make a separate template for that, too, but I doubt there's even one photo on the site from that sort of very marginal material on the site,  so there wouldn't be anything to "undo".  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  09:14, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Navigational sidebar on the left
So. Yanno that that box on the top left underneath the search bar? The one that acts as a quick navigation to major categories and articles? I've just noticed that there's not a single link to anything having to do with behind-the-scenes information (unless you count stories as behind-the-scenes). Is there any way we can add to that menu so that we can quickly find, for example, the actors, producers, directors, writers, merchandise, production info cats?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  15:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. I need to have some downtime for a bit, but I'll get you a list shortly.  Basic thought is, though, that it definitely shouldn't be under "stories".  It should be under its own category called "Behind-the-scenes".  Some other wikis for franchises don't necessarily cover merchandise, so it's probably important to make it clear that we do.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  09:19, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted/salted
Just a heads up, a few minutes ago an anonymous IP created Doctor Who Tour of Locations which was nothing more than an ad for some tour a guy is organizing. I deleted the article (it certainly met the criteria of quick deletion) and since the IP might just try and recreate it, I placed a block on it (I think the Wikipedia term is "salting"). Just a heads up that the IP might try and create it again under another name. I left a message on the IP's talk page recommending he go to Gallifrey Base or some other forum to put up his ads. I actually thought IP's weren't allowed to create articles. It might be worth changing that setting as articles created by unregistered users often end up being stuff like this. 23skidoo 15:47, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * All the same, it would be nice if there was some way (I don't believe there is) for IP-created pages to be approved by an admin before going live. There wouldn't be so many as to impractical (I'm just talking full-out page creation, not individual edits). I just happened to spot that one by chance. While I agree with your view of IPs on general terms, having had to deal with a nasty situation at a Wiki dedicated to a children's show where an IP uploaded illegal porn to the site, plus the hundreds (possibly thousands) of vandalism clean-ups I had to do at Wikipedia (99% of which were done by IPs), you'll forgive me if I default to suspicion whenever I see an IP edit. 23skidoo 15:09, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Create Page popup
Hi there! You were very passionate about not liking the new Create Page popup on the Central blog last week. I put in a ticket to allow for people to turn it off individually, but I'm not sure exactly when that'll get done -- so for now, I turned off the new popup for this wiki. I like you and this wiki, and I hated the idea that you were unhappy. :) We're trying to build features for new users, but it's important also not to punish the contributors who have made 36,000+ edits and counting...

So I hope that makes the situation better. I can turn the feature back on, once we've got a preference that allows you to turn it off individually. Let me know if there's anything else you need! -- Danny (talk ) 13:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)