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)

Additional semi-protection suggestions
(I seem to recall you weren't aware of a couple of spoilers the last time I brought this topic up so I guess I'll just preface this with spoiler alert!) Given recent media coverage of the filming I'd recommend considering semi-protection of River Song. I just had to do a little cleanup over on that page from folks adding stuff willy-nilly. I'm not saying it needs to be protected right away, but I think the article needs to be policed since I get the feeling some people are editing without thinking. I don't think we need to lock down Alex Kingston yet. 23skidoo 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Template advice.
Hi, just been adding some quiz books using the infoxbox from another page as its far less complicated looking than the one at Template:Infobox Reference Book, but...I can't seem to spot why previous and next doesn't work. I know these lines were added later to accomodate a series of reference books, does this mean earlier pages need to be updated? or have I been careless again? Thanks. The Librarian 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PS How about a new colour and/or template for Activity Books? The Librarian 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About the user Doctor - 904
I don't have a problem with him, I'm not complaining, but I have a feeling someone's going to block him soon. Now if you must block him, block him, but don't indef block him because one thing that frustrates me at the Muppet Wiki is that they indef block me and they refuse to answer any of my messages, so I have no other choice but to go under disguise as a sockpuppet. If you look at their block log they frequently indef block users and with a user named "Fuck you admins of Muppet wiki!", pardon my language, they also never reply to any messages left by the blocked users. So if you have to block The Doctor 904, block him, but only for a little while, give him time to think about what he's done and how he can improve this wiki. --AKR619 10:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Page deletion
For the wiki's purposes, I think a list page is a fair compromise, although for the subject's purposes I fear it will have the same problems -- Wikia sites have high search engine rankings, and I'm afraid any page here that mentions her name is likely to outrank her other online profiles. Perhaps it would be possible for the site to list her as "Claudia D." or something similar instead? — Catherine (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand why you don't want to remove it from the magazine pages, and I tend to agree with your position, at the same time that I sympathize with hers. If we can delete her individual page, I think I will leave it to the community here to decide what the best course is regarding other mentions, now that you know her wishes.  Thank you very much for your patience and cooperation -- we are really pleased to have such an active, mature community, well on its way to becoming one of our biggest wikis.  I look forward to seeing it continue to develop with new Doctor Who material in the future!  — Catherine (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

'Future DVD releases status'
Hello,

Where available, I will work on getting on getting sources.

The purpose of this page is not to speculate on what DVD's are due to be released, but to clarify what information is just speculated and what has been confirmed.

In reply to your suggestion that all speculation may only appear on certain pages, the original purpose of this page was to tidy up the 'List of BBC DVD releases' page. I believe that the speculated information at the bottom will work much better as a separate article, which is able to give the status on each individual possible release.

You see, we have people who are convinced that The Tenth Planet has been animated and is soon to be released, when this is only a rumour. Or there are people who are expecting the supposed 'Myths and Legends box set', when this too is only a rumour.

No place on the internet (That I'm aware of) has a list detailing the status of each and every possible release.

To sum up the defence of this article: This article is not speculation. It is clarification.

I hope that we can soon resolve this in a way in which both sides of this debate are satisfied.

Kind Regards,

D.M.J LongD.M.J 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The website for the Doctor Who Restoration Team has a fairly comprehensive list of all Classic Who stories that are being restored/animated/prepared for release. I don't believe they have release dates mentioned, but if something along the lines of The Tenth Planet being animated or a Myths and Legends box set were being released, it would be moving through their hands.  --Raukodraug 16:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made an ultimatum that is available on the discussion page for 'List of BBC DVD releases'.

I realise the need for sources, and I will include them once given the go-ahead from you on this matter.

As I stated before, this is not a list of speculated titles, but a list of titles, followed by what has been confirmed for them, and what has not.

I hope to hear your reply in due course.

Kind Regards,

D.M.J LongD.M.J 16:34, 11 August 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)