User talk:Revanvolatrelundar

References and brackets
Hi just a quick note. When adding multiple references they should all be within the same round brackets so for instance on your recent Second Doctor edit: (DW: The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors, and The Two Doctors) (EDA: The Eight Doctors) it should be: (DW: The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors, The Two Doctors, EDA: The Eight Doctors). Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:48, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Master images
Good to know I'm not the only one who did all the reverting. It would take a little longer otherwise. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn 17:07, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Iris Wildthyme survived the time war

Adding categories
Hiya :) Thanks for your recent efforts in adding categories to pages.  Please remember to sort the pages onto which you add categories, so that they're properly alphabetized on the category page.  There are two ways to do this.  Either you can add the template  at the end of the article proper, or you can manually sort each category. DEFAULTSORT is rock solid.  Add it once to a page and all categories are sorted that way.  So for instance, let's say you wanted to make sure "Jo Grant" was sorted under her last name, not her first.  You'd chose to edit the page, and then at the bottom you'd place this language:

Then you'd save the page, and all categories added would then sort Jo by her last name, not her first.

You may, however, choose to manually edit each category. It can be done without fully editing the page, and may be more appropriate if you're adding only a single category. To do it, click on the leftmost of the two symbols you see in the right corner of the blue category bubble that's created by pressing "enter" after you input the category name. From there, the wiki software will walk you through the process.

Either way, please make sure that when you add categories, they are properly alphabetized: people by their last names (if known), and things and titles by the first word which isn't an article ("a", "an" or "the"). Note, too, that sorting is case-sensitive, so "G" is a different thing from "g".

Thanks :)  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  19:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up, was wondering how to do it anyway. have a nice day Revanvolatrelundar 20:08, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Adding proposed deletions
Hi, thanks for your recent edits. It would of assistance to add which adds the prop delete banner as well as the prop delete category to the article, rather than just adding the category. As the banner both alerts us to this and is more noticible than just the category. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:18, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strange characters cropping up in some of your edits
Hey, I've noticed this before, but I thought I should alert you to it, in case you didn't realize you were doing it. In your otherwise helpful edits to Don't Step on the Grass, you introduced this: —�and which had previously been seen as — and I'm not sure if you actually tried to type something between the dash and the word "and", or if your browser is just throwing up some funky characters that you don't know about. But you have been responsible for this kind of edit before. If you recall actively making some sort of edit between the dash and the word "and", you might want to stop doing that kind of edit, because somehow your browser is making an undesirable edit that you're not seeing as problematic. I mean, I can't imagine you actually wanted to put a � character there. This kind of character, incidentally, usually means that you typed something that was outside the normal character set in English, and, indeed, outside any character set that a user has on his or her computer. Since I've got several non-Roman alphabets installed on my browsers, you've done something really outside the norm here — like Celtic Runes or some similarly-obscure character set.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  16:37, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion tag
Please do not unilaterally remove deletion tags, where an explanation for that tag appears either in the revision history or on the talk page. If you wish to contest the deletion rationale, you may do so on the disputed page's talk page, and then an admin will eventually close the debate by deleting the page or removing the tag. In the case of years in the 2020s, the rationale for deletion is a solid one, that deserves debate. These years are too near for most stories to be set {only two "near future" years have ever been settings for BBC Wales adventures: 2012 and 2059. The near future is not a particularly good time to set a DW adventure, because its events can so easily be proved wrong in the lifetime of the viewer. But the 2020s are too far away to be of use for "Real world" chronicling. Dates upward of a decade hence can wait for inclusion until the time they actually become relevant. Furthermore, the timeline template is being adjusted in the near future to "skip over" empty years, and it can't do that if there are a ton of "blank" year pages around. The standard for inclusion of ANY page on the DWU side of this database — and timeline pages are in-universe articles — is that the article must be about something that happened in the DWU. We don't, for example, have articles about books that have never been featured in Doctor Who in the hopes that they might one day be featured on the programme. No, that way madness lies. We wait until a subject actually has relevance to DW or one of its sister shows. Then we create it.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  14:20, April 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * The prop delete tags are valid. Basically those pages have no content, when people go looking/clicking through links the links should lead to pages with content. Currently these year pages don't have anything (other the next/previous year and the collective years page for that year) linking to them.
 * Whilst I do understand the desire to have all the years 'complete' and created, we need to serve the content and if there's no information on these then it doesn't make sense to have them.
 * In any case, as this is a wiki when or if content comes around the page can always be created / restored to its previous state before it was deleted. --Tangerineduel 14:34, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Series 6 - The Voice
While it is implied that 'the Voice' will be a part of Series 6, there are no sources that state this so please do not add it to the Series 6 article. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:11, July 14, 2010 (UTC)