| ||This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.|
Thanks for your recent edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!
We've got a couple of important quirks for a Fandom wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.
British English, please
Spoilers aren't cool
We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details.
Other useful stuff
Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
- the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
- our Manual of Style
- our image use policy
- our user page policy
If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! — you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?.
Your input is needed!
Your input is needed!
Historical features and events Edit
Heya Gus :) Thanks for your recent help in updating pages that have to do with historical events and people. However, I must ask you to please be careful about pulling information from real world history. I note, for instance, that you've recently added birth and death dates to Richard I of England. These dates cannot be supported by the episode (or novelisation) in question. You should only add information which is explicit (or easily calcuable) from info actually given in a story. Take a look, for example, at Marco Polo for a clear example of why we should use dates given in stories rather than real world historical info. Thanks!
- I, Davros and Genesis of the Daleks date.
- I'm a bit puzzled where you're getting 15th century from? There doesn't appear to be anything noted on the story pages to indicate they should be in this category. So, I'm just curious as to where this date has come from? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:17, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
Unbroadcast stories Edit
Hey there, sorry to bother you for a kind of trivial thing. The Tardis:Spoiler Policy states that we should not add information from a story that has not yet been broadcast so your recent addition of the Curse of Davros to Davros' appearances, however innocent the edit breaches that policy. On another note, your edits to Big Finish related articles recently has been superb, keep up the good work! --Revan\Talk 21:52, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:A second look at wiki achivements.
Hey, just thought you might want to know that prefixes aren't actually necessary when your not sourcing. In most cases they actually have a negative effect as they break up sentences.--Skittles the hog - talk 20:35, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Human Time Travellers Edit
I've noticed you've been adding a lot of pages to the category "Human Time Travellers" that are already under "Human Companions". "Human Companions" is a sub-category of "Human Time Travellers", so you don't need to add pages to "Human Time Travellers" if they're already under "Human Companions". Aliyoda 17:58, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, this is a good idea for a category, but seeing as it encompasses many thing it would have been a good idea to raise it at the forums first. Do you think you could start a post on it, asking for a consensus on the idea? In the meantime, please remove all the non-canonical individuals (e.g Eleventh Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death)) from the category. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 16:13, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
Don't add the same category multiple timesEdit
Each unique category should only be on a single page once. I can quite appreciate that you're enthusiastic to play the Game of Rassilon, but please make sure your edits are actually meaninguful. Placing category:Stories released in 1973 twice on The Amateur does not constitute a meaningful edit. In fact, it's a tiny bit destructive. It makes it slightly harder to use the bot, as the bot expects only one instance of each unique category. This is espcieally true of categories that are added by template. Never add a category to a page which is automatically added by template. To give an example from the Third Doctor comic stories editing track, never directly place category:stories with unknown or disputed Doctors on a page; the template will take care of it for you. Putting it once directly on the page and then again with the template totally confuses bot operations.
If you have been placing other multiple instances of categories on pages, I'd ask you to remove your duplicates now. And in so doing, I've just authorised you to take more easy points in the Game of Rassilon! Is that a deal or what? You get a scolding, and yet you get easy points out of the deal. Can't ask for better than that!
- Oh i wasn't accusing you of cheating. God no; you've been making a heck of a lot of great edits lately! Just advising you of an obscure but sorta important point having to do with wiki maintenance. As for whether you actually added the category twice, well, you at least added the second instance. The 73 cat was already on the page when you added the 73 and 74 cats. But on to more substantive matters. Beyond the technicalities of category placement, my real question is when was it released as a Fourth Doctor story? I can't quite remember off the top of my head. Was that in 74 as well, or maybe in 75/76? Cause I suppose that category should go in there too.
Your input is needed!
Congratulations on being top of the leaderboard. How much time do you spend editing?
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.
Just to note Edit
To anyone who is new and who may not understand how the infobox is laid out - they might think that the episode takes place in all these locations - not just in Cardiff.
Putting anything beyond where an story is set - the Earth, UK bit can be blown out of proportion by someone who adds Europe, Sol System, Mutter's Spiral etc - other wise known as 'added on dribble'. The only needs to have the exact place and date - a few exemption would be other planets.
Speaking of date - there is also no need to add the month and date or era unless it is specific and plot essential to the story - in case of the stories set on Gallifrey, there is not need to say that the part of the episode that takes place on Gallifrey takes place in the Rassilon Era when it is unessential information.
The only time a date should be added to the location is when it is essential to the story - i.e. The Impossible Astronaut and The Wedding of River Song. Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 20:21, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
Stop adding UK, Earth to every story that is set on Earth - you only need the location on Earth. Continue to ignore this and you will be blocked for a short period of time. MM/Want to talk? 20:37, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
Your input is needed!
Please do not add categories to actors page when they have not appeared in that franchise yet. This includes adding things like Mark Williams to the category 'Doctor Who guest actors', Noel Clarke to the category 'actor who appeared in the Star Trek franchise' since they have not appeared yet. Once Mark William's episodes airs, then we can add the category and once Star Trek 2 comes out, we can add Noel to the category. This is all part of our Spoiler policy.
Please can you undo all you edits to the infoboxes which state 'introduction, joins, departs etc'. It has been decided that these will be removed from the infobox, since a forum discussion. Apart from that, keep up the good work! Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 20:01, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- It's fine, it was just a small discussion with myself and a few others. It includes everything, cameo, regenerates, dies, departs, flashback etc. You are welcome. MM/Want to talk? 20:13, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
http://www.kasterborous.com/2012/04/the-doctor-and-amy-face-classic-daleks/ Guess what? CLASSIC DALEKS RETURNING TO DOCTOR WHO!!!!
-Hill Nothing fan
Your recent MA edits Edit
Hey, please don't wikify headings. I know people do it, but our manual of style clearly says to avoid it. Moreover, there's no need to manually add disambiguation terms to story titles. There's no particular plan to, for instance, delete the redirect at The Romance of Crime, so you're kinda just wasting your time to change the link to The Romance of Crime (novel).
Hey, I've just been editing through various MAs (I know some edits are from early this year). But you seem to have jumped the gun information wise in the continuity sections. Adding a lot (too much) information. The continuity section is to show a link between that story and another story, not every instance of a link. For instance this edit, the fact that Barbra mentions the Great Fire should be in references (she referring to the event) it's not a direct link out to a specific story. It's certainly way too much info to mention the First Doctor's trip around Andromeda. At first reading it I couldn't even work out how it was relevant to The Plotters. Other stuff like "The First Doctor and Vicki would meet James I for a second time in 1609, though Vicki failed to recognise him on that occasion in PROSE: The Empire of Glass." Just leave it there, it doesn't need to go further and mention Polly's meeting with King Charles and James II again I wasn't sure of the link aside from royalty between the two stories.
- Thanks for adding to your admin request, although by re-editing your request rather than just adding to it underneath I did have to look through the page's history to work out what was changed.
- During discussions we don't really take into account admin status, everyone's views are weighed equally. Two notable examples are CzechOut, who for a very long time wasn't an admin. But he engaged in discussions on the forums, user talk pages, talk pages and had edited heavily. Tybort is another user who edits heavily and engages in discussion, but isn't an admin and I value his input as highly as other admins. In fact I value anyone's input in discussions equally, admin status doesn't really enter into who I'm willing to listen to, the same I think can be said for the other admins.
- You can see across many of the discussions on the forums that relate to policy that many of the people who weren't admins (or weren't admins at the time of the discussion) have participated in the discussion.
- I noted when having a quick look at your contributions that you've not participated in many discussions in the forums. Is there a reason?
- You can leave any responses to this on my talk page, rather than on the rights request page, I'm asking these questions here on your talk page, rather than there. I usually reserve posting there for final notes. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:11, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Could you give me an example of a large body of text you've contributed it can be in-universe, a real world page or an addition to a story page of significant text like the plot.
- Also which articles show case your skills and knowledge, and which articles are you most proud of?
- I really encourage you to engage in discussion, differing points of view are what the discussion's for. Even admins don't agree a lot of the time (CzechOut and I for example have disagreed, argued and compromised on several topics).
- Also, just something to note. When adding info to the references section it's helpful to break them into sub-headings based on category. Here's Invasion of the Daleks (audio story) where I've done this for the info you've added. Or take a look at any of the Virgin Missing Adventures or Virgin New Adventures articles which have also been formatted like this. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:16, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to drop you a message RE your admin request.
- I knocked back practically all the current admins; Mini-mitch, Skittles the Hog and Revanvolatrelundar on their first request.
- Also I didn't intend to put you off wanting to be an admin, just give it some time that's all.
- I hope this experience hasn't completely put you off wanting to continue to edit on this site and I hope that when you feel you're ready you request adminship again. You can always drop a question onto my or any other active admin's talk page regarding it, prior to adding your name to the admin nomination. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:34, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
Of particular note:
- Promotional images cannot be used to illustrate in-universe articles
- Minimum natural aspect ratio is 4:3, but infobox pics should be cropped to 16:9 dimensions (widescreen) if possible — and a widescreen of Gilmore is certainly possible
- Your pic of Ian and Rachel had odd width compression, making the figures obviously too "tall and thin". For classic series images, keep the base aspect ratio 4:3 but attempt to crop to 16:9. You appear to have somehow "scrunched" the base/natural aspect ratio to 3:4, thus making the subject matter unnaturally thin.
X century individuals Edit
Please do not assume that the 'X century individuals' is to do with age. It does not (unless we find out thier year of birth), it is basically what era they were active in (in other words what century we see them in (recorded adventure). So Toby Silverman would only go into 21st century individuals since that is the only era we see him in. Unlike Sarah Jane, who we saw active in the 20th/21st century as well as Owen Harper, who we only saw in the 21st century but we find out he was active in the 20th century (we learn his year of birth). Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 20:06, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
Adding Other Languages Edit
I'd like to write articles in Welsh (Cymraeg) if it is possible, but I don't know how to add the other language. Being a small language, Welsh might not exist already. Any help will be appreciated.
Redirects are okay Edit
I've noticed that you've been systematically changing, say, Planet of Giants to Planet of Giants (TV story). This isn't necessary. When the move to auto-disambiguated names was made, a part of the consensus agreement was that the un-disambiguated name would remain as a redirect. It is thus equally "correct" to link to Planet of Giants and Planet of Giants (TV story).
The only time we get rid of undisambiguated redirects to the dabbed title is when there's an in-universe thing of the same name. So, Castrovalva will always mean the city, not the story, and The Five Doctors will always mean the in-universe video game, not the story.
If there ever becomes a need to get rid of a redirect, a bot will fix all references on the wiki much faster than you or I could do manually. In the meantime, please fix only the truly incorrect links. So if you come across a Paradise Towers when the editor meant Paradise Towers (TV story), feel free to change that.
Federation universe Edit
I don't think we should assume that the planets and species introduced in the crossover, like Aprilia III or the Dai-ai exist only in the Federation universe. Given that the reality that the comic takes place in is a result of the two universes being joined together, these planets and species might actually exist only in DWU or (more likely) in both universes.
Hey, do you think adding the "unknown dates" makes the articles more accurate to read? I've generally considered that an intro, any intro is good for an article, and the date articles, especially the year and month articles with information that's vaguely placed is perfect for an intro because it's vaguely dated yet interesting. But placing things under "unknown dates" as a subheading of events is sometimes inaccurate. Often it's not an "event", and stating it's an "unknown date" doesn't give any more information than just leaving it as an intro or a lead in paragraph. Just curious on your thinking behind these placements. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:03, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
Pages about years, decades, centuries Edit
As explained at T:LEADS, all articles — even those about years, decades and centuries — require a lead. That lead should embolden the page name and summarise the most important in-universe facts about a particular year.
Your recent editing pattern on pages like 2573 has run precisely opposite to that mandate. Yes, I know that there are a lot of older year pages where you'll find no lead an just a wall of subsection heads, but these pages are incorrect. Please bear in mind that all pages need leads, and that articles should be written in "plain English". Where possible, sections and "bullet-point English" are to be strictly avoided. Certainly, if there's only one fact on a year page, it should just be written as a simple sentence. Thanks :)
- Because I've just reverted most of your work for today, I wanted stop back by. It's unusual for the administrative staff to so quickly tamp down on an editor's work. Thing is, Tangerineduel and I have been trying to impress upon editors the fact that year pages are real articles. They aren't just places that contain a list of events. You would never just bullet point your way through Rose Tyler or Eleventh Doctor, so there's no justification for doing so at a year page. I hope this mass deletion of your work doesn't dampen your enthusiasm for working on year pages. We need a lot of help there, but we need it to be going according to our policies and style guides — not away from it. I've rewritten a few of the pages you touched today in order to give you an idea of the kind of format we're seeking:
- Note that historic years — what we might call "real" years — can have bulletised sections. But they still need leads.
- Hope that helps. And please don't think you're the only one who's having their work destroyed this week. The prefix system was largely of my construction, so its destruction means that hours and hours of my own work has been flushed down the toilet. It's simply a truism of wiki-editing that sometimes your stuff gets hacked.
- By the way, you mentioned Wikipedia year articles as your model for working here. That's fine — but look at those articles. wikipedia:2000 has a four paragraph lead. If year articles here looked like that, I'd be happy. But people forget to write the leads.
Looking at your recent contributions with regard to Continuity you need to understand the difference between Continuity and References. See Winter history diff.
The mentions of those companions on its own is not a Continuity point and not a reference to those particular stories. How do you know the Doctor isn't referring to Earthshock when mentioning Adric, Snakedance when Tegan, Kiss of Death when Turlough for instance?
The mentions of those companions is a reference and should go in the References section.
I'm sure I've seen this method of continuity naming the first instance of everything appearing for the sake of it. Is this something from another wiki or Wikipedia?
Unless it's a direct reference, call back or some sort of connection to that story don't put it in. For instance the fact that the Daleks pop up Death and the Daleks (audio story) is not a continuity link to The Daleks (TV story). Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:14, November 17, 2012 (UTC)