Wikia

TARDIS Index File

23skidoo

an admin with a teaspoon and an open mind
14,176 edits here since
April 20, 2008

Before leaving me a message, please read:

  • As an administrator I am happy to assist with disputes and conflict resolution. However my "real life" commitments often take me away from the Wiki and I may not always respond immediately.
  • Please sign your messages. Unsigned messages will be ignored.
  • I will reply on your talk page unless you request otherwise.
  • Please put new messages at the bottom of this page, otherwise I might miss them.

Timeline articlesEdit

Just a note on the timeline articles the story references within the Doctor Who universe should be (TV: The Time Meddler) rather than just ("The Time Meddler"), also the brackets should be after the end of the sentence and full stop rather than within the sentence. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 07:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Novel of Film, Who killed KennedyEdit

Hi, as requested I've added some detail to the novel of the film page. Also, on Who Killed Kennedy. Yes, it isn't technically a Missing Adventure...however it was produced during that era with the Missing Adventure logo for ease of use and referencing it is listed as a MA, with a note on both the novel's page and the Missing Adventure page. --Tangerineduel 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just (another) noteEdit

Just looking at your recent edit to the sonic screwdriver page. On the in-universe pages the Doctor shouldn't be written about as First Doctor, Second Doctor etc. It should be second incarnation, first incarnation, or something like that. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They're allowed, but...discouraged. It's a very rough and ready way of describing it. It's yes we can describe them that way, but for the most part it's better to word it differently. (The idea, or how it was explained...wherever I originally read it) was that if a person within the Doctor Who universe read the page how they'd write it. The X Doctor names are more a sort of bridging term between the in and out of universe, hardly ever are they used in universe. (Sorry if that's a very backwards way around of explaining things, I have a tendency to ramble) --Tangerineduel 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme arrangementEdit

I'm inclined to leave the redirects (for now as I'm on the opposite side of the fence, redirects are sometimes good for illustrating to people, but they'll probably eventually get changed) as 'Theme arrangement' and Doctor Who theme are theoretically entirely different things. Theme arrangement, which doesn't (I had thought does but have just watched through credit sequences from the Hartnell, Pertwee, T Baker and McCoy) and the title 'Theme arrangement' doesn't seem to pop up. Ron Grainer is always credited with the credit 'Title music by Ron Grainer with the RADIOPHONIC WORKSHOP' (in the 60s), then exactly the same in the 70s except Music gets a capital letter. (sorry rambling off topic)

As to the name specifically, according to the 30 Years at the Radiophonic Workshop CD, it's just listed as 'Opening Theme' and 'Closing Theme', while Who is Dr Who? lists it as Doctor Who (Original Theme). As it's listed in the credits as stated above as 'Title Music', Doctor Who theme is an apt enough title.

Do you think it would benefit from having a separate article on the arrangement itself or is it best to keep it all within one article. --Tangerineduel 15:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity vs referencesEdit

It's a layout inherited from (well it was in place when I joined the wiki). It works well in the prose stories, audio dramas and classic stories, and also much of the new series stories. I think it's generally new people wanting to put things in categories or not reading through the whole article. I'm reluctant to make it something like Cultural references, which would imply the Category:Cultural References section.

On my to do list is a complete restructure and re-write of the layout and manual of style guides to make it clear what is what and everything, (which I'll probably get onto in the next few days). Which will hopefully make things clearer, the basic thing to keep in mind is References is stuff that references the Doctor Who universe, Continuity is the interelatedness of continuity and stories.

It's like this, separated to keep the in and out of universe things separate and in many cases there is a continuity link without there being a corresponding reference, or vice versa. --Tangerineduel 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I do usually go through the last couple of recent stories, and when this series ends will go back right through and make sure everything is in some semblance of order. --Tangerineduel 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Myths vs RumoursEdit

This is another of the carry overs from the classic TV series where the Myths are long established by time. How about calling the Myths section 'Myths and Rumours' best of both worlds and keeping the layout continuous through the classic and new. --Tangerineduel 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to change all the classic series 'Myths' to myths and rumours. Rumours more suggests a recent sort of thing (good for the new series), not so appropiate for the classic. --Tangerineduel 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pest Control and adsEdit

It's fixed, the ads and infobox problems, will all be fixed now (have also put a note on the Forum topic regarding this). As you should be able to see Pest Control now looks how it should. --Tangerineduel 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is controlled by wikia central. But the modifications I've done (which I copied from another wikia) just alter and do something to force the advert to be a banner (I only understand vaguely about the specifics, but know enough that it does work). --Tangerineduel 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

responding to User talk:BillKEdit

Hi skid. The discussion about Wikia's New Style has recently taken a turn for the better regarding logged-in users. Please check out the announcement on the Central Discussion Forum. We're hoping to roll out this change in th enext week or so. —Scott (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Christmas 08 TitleEdit

Hi skidoo

If there is no official Source for the title and you had to remove speculation from the plot section i think its likely that the title is fake since i don't expect the title to be released before the prom special. also due to the numerous attempts by Anons to create the Christmas page i think its safe to say its another atempt Dark Lord Xander 05:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted both Christmas Special 2008 and Ghosts in the Machines, both titles are also protected which should stop anyone creating them (though I won't be surprised if a user comes up with another title) Will unlock them if Ghosts turns out to be the name (or when there's a citable source), either way. --Tangerineduel 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted FileEdit

File deleted, you can put a {{proposed deletion}} tag on an image just as you would other pages, it'll chuck it in the prop delete category. --Tangerineduel 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IDW Comics Edit

Hi I was wondering if you could create pages for these individual comics (Classics, The forgotten Ect) I am uploading the covers and cover art at the moment but do not know which stories are in the classics (still waiting to buy TPB) thanks Dark Lord Xander 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dark Lord Xander 06:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinnacle covers Edit

Hi, I was just browsing on here and noticed that you've uploaded a couple of the Pinnacle covers. Nice one!
However they are not linked to a page. As I've done a lot of the work on the Target books and will be returning again to them (when I can break my distraction with Battles in Time and Doctor Who Adventures!!), I was wondering if there was a way of finding out which cover images you've uploaded so they can be put under the appropriate Target page under the 'associated images'.
Either you can do it or if you let me have a list I'll do it. Thanks for the pictures anyway!
The Librarian 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Apologies. I've just found the image to page links at the bottom of the page. I seem to remember that when you had a page open and clicked on the top left link 'what links here' it used to bring up the pages rather than scrolling down! Not anymore it appears. Anyway nice new gallery page! The Librarian 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Future episodesEdit

My response: I suppose. (not the most eloquent). My only concern is that these pages would become a dumping ground/posting black hole for all and every single rumour that people want to post. Then again they could serve as the only place for people to dump their mis-information. Even wikipedia's future TV thing is still referenced properly, so as long as these pages have some grounding in fact and they're labled clearly, then perhaps. I'm unsure as to how a lot of the speculative information would be incorportated into the final article. --Tangerineduel 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Inability to log inEdit

I just had to log in, and there were no problems, hopefully in the intervening 6 hours or so it's worked out. If you're still having troubles all I can suggest is checking out the Wikia Central Forums. There's just been an update of the MediaWiki, which has improved and moved a few things around, but it shouldn't have created any major issues. Other than that if it it still doesn't work...trying to log-in using different web browser, clearing your cookies, that sort of thing. Hope (some) of that has been of assistance. --Tangerineduel 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been having a think and look around re your problem, this forum posting Forum: I can't log in has an email for the community wikia team (community@wikia.com), so that might be of assistance.
I've had a look at the user list and you're still listed as a user (I thought maybe someone had deleted or blocked you), neither was the case.
On a side note, if not Netscape or Safari (and IE hasn't been supported for donkey's years on Mac), why not Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Camino or Opera? --Tangerineduel 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Edit

Thanks for the Billie Piper / Rose bit and alternative covers. I'll keep my eyes open. I wouldn't have thought BBC would reprint the hardbacks too quickly, little of their stuff is reprinted, especially not while they are still issuing new titles. I'm surprised Character Options haven't issued a another new Rose figure yet (maybe they need to remodel the mouth LOL) ... there's still time though!
Ive been talking to the comic artist Lee Sullivan recently and hes very supportive - so look out for more comic strip stuff in the future, Battles in Time incidentally is now extended to Issue 70 I've just learnt so more work their for me to do!!
Where's the talkbox thing gone anyway...thought it was odd that nobody said anything after three days!!!! Shame. Bye for now Keep chatting! The Librarian 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On Target!Edit

Hi, just checked out The Revenge of the Cybermen (novelisation) page and can't see anything wrong with it so I guess you fixed it or it reset itself. So all's well then! Thanks again for the Target edits I'm currently gathering the bits to expand the publication histories bits. I want to see these pages as the most extensive on the web, and so the more the better. There's so much I want to do but not enough time... could do with being off work for a few months with a broken leg or something (like my boss!!)...ah well, "slowly slowly catch the monkey!!" The Librarian 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry been a way for a bit.. regarding the hardback editions of the novelisations. I don't think its a problem as their publisher was W H Allen! The series complete (not all released in hb anyway) is widely known by fans as the Target novelisations. Keep up the good work! I'm re-reading some 'deviation notes' at the moment for a later series of additions - my favourite must be "the Doctor peeing over the laundry" in Delta and the Bannermen! LOL The Librarian 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh DoctorEdit

I have got to start reading the news first, I keep missing stuff, lol (I usually sort out the recent changes first, then everything else. I'll create protect Eleventh Doctor to unregistered users, and then think about create protecting it against everyone if there's a lot of random info being placed on there. --Tangerineduel 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RantEdit

Yes, absolutely yes we are on the same page. As for spelling, I use Firefox which has a built in spell checker, but it still misses tons of stuff. As for grammar, well I'd put that down to all the SMS influenced people missing out on proper spelling, punctuation and sentence construction (seriously I don't get how people can mix up there, their and they're. The way my English teacher taught it was that there has 'here' in it and it's 'here, there, everywhere', they're has an apostrophe in it so you know it's 'they are' and the other about possession...now I'm ranting). I don't even go to The Next Doctor page anymore (partly because of spoilers, mostly because I don't want constantly weed out the rumours). Some users do write up article in MS Word (TheLibrarian does I'm pretty sure), though this introduces other problems, Word formats an apostrophe differently to when you type it in in the text box, so if it's part of any wikilinks it shows up as a different character, (it's also hard to notice unless you're editing the article), Word also causes problems with '...' (when copied in from Word it's one character rather than three). I'll stop here lest I rant and ramble further. --Tangerineduel 16:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Further rants & & major deletingEdit

I've had some experience with the discontinuity problems. You can just delete it if you can't make head nor tale of it, if it's a noticeable mistake than someone else with better spelling and grammar will come along and re-add it in a manner that's readable.

Alternatively you can (try) and edit it, fixing the spelling etc errors.

Another alternative I've been pondering can be found in the Myths section of An Unearthly Child, where a user removed all the myths because they were copied from the BBC's ep guide site. I've since re-added them, with footnotes from the original source (which wasn't the BBC's site).

Attribution won't work for discontinuity, I know, as it's mostly from observation. But for Myths (and on the pages where it's Myths and Rumours) it might work.

Just back to the discontinuity sections, not everything in the discontinuity section needs italicised text suggestion an explanation, anything that has speculative phrases just cut it (that really is people coming up with ideas out of the air).

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'.)

As far as restricting edits to registered users (there are times I've wanted to)...but there have been plenty of good IP editors and there are plenty who edit first as unregistered and then join, it makes it a little bit more imposing if they have to register to edit. --Tangerineduel 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 specialsEdit

With the current ebb and flow or rumours on this page would a semi-protect be useful? I'm not generally in favour them (as previously mentioned), but there is likely to be a lot of rumours floating around in the lead up and off the end of Planet of the Dead, I'm just wondering if if it's best to semi-protect (no anonymous user edits) the page or not. --Tangerineduel 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protectEdit

Hi, thanks for the ideas. I've added a note to both the template (I made the text small, just because having it regular sized ruined the size of the text box, I know I shouldn't worry about aesthetics like that, but it annoyed me having the text big). I've also added it to the page policy. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Announcements etcEdit

I don't mind it being just some bold text at the top of the section. I don't think every announcement needs to be wrapped up in a banner or whatever. I'm sure if another user feels strongly enough they'll create a banner and replace the text, but the text seems fine for now. --Tangerineduel 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Spiral nebula Edit

No worries. I gave up on trying to edit around any edit conflicts anyway, as they were coming so thick and fast. Who'd have thought that such an innocuous li'l article would've generated such controversy. And speaking of controversy, I'd appreciate your views at Talk:Spiral nebula, as you have a lot of experience in these parts. There are actually substantive issues at the heart of the major edit conflicts, and I think we need a diverse perspective. CzechOut | 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Succeeded! Edit

Moved The Stealers from Saiph for ya. Monkey with a Gun 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Room with a Deja View moved as well. Although I should point out, admin privileges aren't required to do a move - just click on the "Move Link" at the top of the page. It's a rather elegant system; I only recently realized it even creates a redirect page automatically, so links from other pages continue to function. Monkey with a Gun 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DiscontinuityEdit

I often leave discontinuity editing to other editors. The general rule of thumb (or at least how it should be written in the MoS) (that's on my to do list) is any vague statements should be removed, so any explanations that have 'could have', 'probably', 'maybe' 'perhaps' anything that postulates rather than actually makes a statement based on either information within the episode or outside information (ideally with a source cited if I was being hopeful). As far as contributions go I think you're above a junior editor. --Tangerineduel 18:09, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Books Edit

Thanks for the explanation! I'm the first to admit I haven't got the hang of categories at all - so I'm lazy enough to leave that bit to others to tidy up for me. I do try though I hasten to add but invariably end up getting it wrong, or people disagree!

Anyway...while on a book theme, I don't suppose you've been able to find a cover image for Boxtree's The Doctor's 30 Years of Time Travel have you! Im not ashamed to admit its the gap in my library (it got so many bad reviews at the time, was totally unofficial and didnt offer me anything of interest, not particularly well designed either.) The Search goes on...I've got another box to go through that might offer hope! I did incidently pick up the DVD release which had its moment/s. Anyway thanks again! The Librarian 22:41, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on various Series 1 and Series 2 pages Edit

A user bigredrabbit, has been leaving vast amounts of spaces on article pages, I dont know if had a chance to look at it but since you are an admin (or well Im assuming) would you mind having a look and reverting because I get a conflict edit message, Ive left a message on the users page as well. Sorry for wasting your time on this matter but Thank you Bigshowbower 02:45, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've left a not on the user in question's talk page following up on Bigshowbower's comments. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:45, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder imageEdit

That's fine for the galleries. The only images that are vaguely similar are File:Example.jpg and File:Default which mainly exist to stop people from using those file names. --Tangerineduel 04:46, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Series 5 (Doctor Who) Post / Page Edit

Just in regards to the regeneration of Tennant to Smith: The regeneration looks like it will occur after the commencement of series 5. Reason being that filming taking place this year shows Smith running around in Tennant's old suit (albeit disheveled and torn) with Karen Gillan running after him - wearing a coppers outfit! There is a link to a YouTube page showing the images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuZnR8f0q2o

Thought you might like to know...

d33j r0j3r5 (aka dr)

D33j r0j3r5 02:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

  • I normally don't post my replies on other talk pages, but just this once...
Please watch Spearhead from Space, Robot, Castrovalva, The Twin Dilemma, Time and the Rani and The Christmas Invasion for examples of stories in which the Doctor wears his predecessor's outfit well into his first story. There is nothing to support the idea that the regeneration won't occur at the end of The End of Time. 23skidoo 12:21, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Discontinuity and Trivia...stuffEdit

This sort of thing came up...a while ago, and a user just deleted all the info. The discontinuity, myths and some trivia for the classic stories is often copied from the BBC's episode guide website, what a lot of people (me included early on before I learnt all this!) is that if you look all the way to the bottom of the episode guide page (see here for example) is that it states where the content comes from either the Discontinuity Guide and the Television Companion. On the An Unearthly Child page for the Myths section (which was what was removed by a user the last time around) I've gone through and referenced everything correctly using the the Television Companion book source.

It's been on my to do list to sort out these pages source/referencing wise. I haven't got around to it for a number of reasons, partially because it's time consuming and partially because I wanted to get more than a single reference for the whole Myths (and other sections), which would involve checking through books like The Sixties etc, Doctor Who The Early Years and other books like that published during the 80s and 90s (while those and others are on my shelf I've not flipped through them in a while).

What do you think? I don't want these sections completely wiped out, but they probably need re-writing/and also source citation. --Tangerineduel 09:37, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia disregards non-online sources?! I didn't know that. I only occasionally make my way to Wikipedia to edit some of the things on there. It made me long for this (and indeed any of the wikis).

Though I would like to avoid having sub-sections called 'Trivia' as they can quickly become dumping grounds for any and everything.

I am fine with sources being book based, even a lot of the fanzines back in the day were well researched and had stuff from authors (I'm now annoyed that I dumped most of my fanzines from the early 90s that contained interviews with authors). So I really don't think we should be disqualifying sources just because they're in print rather than online or whatever.
I didn't laugh, but it did amuse me the idea of creating a Wikipedia style "task force" here. It would probably work brilliantly in theory, we've probably got enough good and dedicated editors around that could be up for the task. But...I'm not enthusiastic about its success (I don't want to come across too cynical about this). I'm happy for it to be given a go.
I'm just saying, for example the previous Tardis:Nominations for featured articles stalled, which I've now rebooted in an attempt to get things moving again, making it very simple and removing practically all the rules, see Feature Article policy (now obsoleted), it works on the same idea as the Quote of the Week policy. Basically because the other system relied on articles being nominated, voted and opposed. That didn't work, as often there was more opposition than votes and things didn't get fixed (or the page wasn't watched as often as it should, or there weren't editors watching and policing it...etc). Now I'm hoping by removing the complexity things will move more swiftly.
How do you want to go ahead with your proposal? As I said I'm happy for it to be given a go, maybe even help out, there are a few things I've been meaning to fix in the TV stories for a while. I think it took me two months to go through all the TV stories (I think I've actually gone through them at least twice), but the last time it took me about 2 months to clear them up to the manual of style/layout and other things. Forum or a Project page to work it all out, just go forth or...whatever? --Tangerineduel 11:37, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I imagine being an admin on Wikipedia would have...interesting.
Any assistance with the task at hand or whatever leave a message and I'll try to help. I wouldn't worry about how long it will take. --Tangerineduel 15:14, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Request for AdminshipEdit

Hello! I am somewhat surprised the question hasn't come up sooner. Especially given your wikipedia admin status. You can check out the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship.

Just looking through your recent edits all seems okay. I'll just point out and grab a few random things; in World Game and indeed all novels/short stories/TV stories etc, the references section is for in-universe references, so notes concerning the psychic paper would go in the notes section (as I've done so). Canon is one article which...reads somewhat like a wikipedia article, and somewhat not.

Also, which articles showcase your creative skills and which edits/articles are you most proud of? These two questions are in the Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship article. Feel free to ask any me (or indeed other admins) any further questions and I (or others) will try and answer them. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 12:04, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Most of the novel articles do follow the same format (or perhaps I say should...they did when I last went through them all...(sigh)). But generally speaking all articles that have the 'References' section should be for in-universe references, the sub-sections all roughly follow the same layout of: Summary/Plot/Synopsis or Publisher's Summary, Cast/Characters, References, Notes, Continuity, Timeline, External Links, Footnotes. Though Footnotes is only necessary if there's actually any citation on the article. This goes for all articles, use the subsection 'Footnotes' rather than 'References'. (I'm pretty sure this is noted somewhere in the Manual of style).
I've been thinking about approaching the way Wikipedia is that everything, or at least a lot of it should be sourced. Perhaps not as stringently as wikipedia, but posting info randomly without info to back it I would think is not something to be encouraged. I am a little concerned about the idea of 'not being bogged down' in requiring sources, as well, the in-universe articles need their sources to support their information. Likewise the real world articles need their sources. Though again not with the maddening amount of red-tape and stringentness that wikipedia enforces.
Looking over your user page, I guess I need not ask about your breadth of Doctor Who knowledge? Should you come across articles concerning Chelonians, Time Trees, the Fortean Flicker, Venusians or Gallifreyan history.
Do you have any questions now (I'm assuming you're perused the Questions for admins article)? --Tangerineduel 15:22, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
The note on questions in the Questions for admins regarding wanting to be an admin to block etc is there mainly because I wrote said article during a time when a few many users were requesting adminship (prior to that there wasn't any article with any rules/questions concerning it) and needed something to point them to explaining why deleting and blocking wasn't the be all and end all of it.
Thanks for enlightening me on the whole sourcing issue, I only venture into wikipedia occasionally and try to avoid doing any citation due to the hoops you need to jump through to do so. But it's better now understanding where you're coming from and that I needn't panic too much about it.
Bots I've looked into and it's generally just been easier (though tedious) to do it manually, but it's something we can discuss in the future.
Anyways, I've just (hopefully) adjusted your status and now you (should be) an admin. Feel free to contact me with any questions, issues, problems, complaints, or...anything like that. --Tangerineduel 15:36, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

CanonEdit

Hey. I've noticed some of your edits you use the word canon in defining what should and shouldn't be "counted". Our Tardis:Canon policy is relatively clear what is and isn't canon. I can see where you're coming from (and often some stuff seems to read as though it's written for wikipedia). We don't really worry about it being canon, you need to worry more about how it fits into what's come already. "One account suggests" is a phrase that I've seen editors use often and that's as good a phrase as any.

Again, looking at your edits on Just Another Thursday I feel I should point out that in-universe references go in the References sub-heading whilst references to stories go under the Continuity subheading. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:44, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

"Grey area" is somewhat of a murky phrase, given our Canon policy is quite inclusive, phrases like "the novels are a grey area" sort of confuses the issue. Also the phrase "grey area" suggests that the on-screen stories carry more weight than other stories. Which isn't the case (on this wiki at least), the only things in the canon policy that are both valid yet carry slightly less weight against others are the novelisations which are canon until they outright contradict the TV stories.
For instance I've re-written the behind the scenes section of Morbius Doctors to be more neutral. I also to the Doctor's TARDIS talk page with all the instances of the TARDIS enveloping the Earth (and other things like it) that I could think of off the top of my head. --Tangerineduel 14:56, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
This wiki it isn't the Doctor Who Wiki Project (who do their own thing over on the big Wikipedia) and we're not all that consistent with wikipedia. I would argue that a lot of the in-universe articles have diverged widely from the Wikipedia articles (if they originated there at all).
It's generally assumed that new editors will have either read some articles on the wiki before they start editing or in fact through the help page (which includes the manual of style and associated polices).
Additionally the point of having the various references is to back up which bit of canon it happens to be including, and as with anything readers can pick and choose which parts they wish to believe. Which is often how fandom tends to work.
These info sources aren't grey areas according to our canon policy, this is an encyclopaedia of all Doctor Who and the DW universe, what one user reads as grey another doesn't, but including the term grey area only leads to implied doubt as to the validity of the information.
My concern about clarifications on the articles is that we would spend an endless amount of time adding notes every article that contains information from multiple sources, and that we would need to add a note stating that there is no reference to said information in a TV story and as this would set a precedent we would subsequently need to add similar notes stating that information in the novels isn't supported by the TV stories and that said information wasn't mentioned on-screen etc.
The view of the novels, audios, comics, short stories as being more or less equal to the on-screen sources has been in place for some time, but if you believe strongly about the "grey area" term I would encourage you to begin a Forum:Panopticon topic to open it up for all users to discuss. --Tangerineduel 06:50, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind IP edits, there are some (ok more than a few) bad IP edits, however no matter the problems there are a lot of casual editors that dip their toes in and fix (often minor things) and then go on to become registered users. Sometimes all it takes is a friendly note (or chucking the Template:Welcome IP on unregistered user's talk pages). Unless the problems get extreme I think a careful use of page protection and blocking of problem editors is the way to go for now.
In the case of the hypothetical Doctor's name situation, we would default to the 'majority rule' that the majority of sources out-weighs the one source.
Basically it goes like this (sort of), the Rani used to be known as Uhsas, the Master; Koschei. These two articles have The Rani and The Master as their titles as those are the titles they were known by following being known as Uhsas/Koschei. The Monk is the same, though he goes from being known with his title as The Monk to being known as Mortimus and uses his name. Now, there might be some case to change the Doctor's page if he used his name through critical mass of medias, but other than that (unlikely occurrence) I don't think we need to worry.
The MoS does have a note about Wikipedia and I've been wanting to make it a bigger thing that we shouldn't be copying anything from Wikipedia. It is in the MoS under "use of material from Wikipedia", and could use a re-write to promote not using Wikipedia content.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the Lopez thing came about because of the audibility issues with the Faceless Ones and how Anneke Wills said her dialogue, something to this effect is on the Polly Wright page.
As for the clarifications...I'm still worried about setting a precedent. There are a lot of "major articles" and adding a clarification to one can quickly snowball to adding it to every article where there's a disagreement.
As for the comic strips not being supported by the TV series (though they are as with all of it being interconnected). For instance (this is just me thinking about it), take something random like Arcadia, it first appeared in PROSE: Deceit, Deceit happens to also feature Abslom Daak who originated in the DWM comics. Therefore you have a suggestion that the TV, novels and comics exist within the same universe. (I could probably come up with a better example if I put some thought and research into it). --Tangerineduel 14:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

OperaEdit

Opera is somewhat of a non-standard browser in my experience and I've found that it doesn't handle a good deal of websites not just wikias. Unless you're wanting to muck around with settings and what not people generally go for the; IE, Firefox or Safari. Does Wikipedia or other Wikias include a note about formatting issues with browsers?--Tangerineduel 14:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)--Tangerineduel 14:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Just thinking on your Firefox Java issue. Are you using the Rich text editor function for editing or not? If you are you could try turning that off (It's in Preferences (in the more tab next to your watchlist and then in editing.) As I'm vaguely sure that runs in Java. I don't have it enabled so I'm just guessing.
Also have you tried Camino? I was just thinking if Firefox is giving you trouble Camino might be good to try. --Tangerineduel 13:35, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

WikipediaEdit

The Wikipediainfo template is pretty much exclusively used for "real world" things or people, stuff like DNA or whatever that is mentioned and detailed to some degree in-universe, but has more info in the real world.

It could also be included on the Tardis:Templates page explaining that this template should only be used for real world objects/people that have more information than...I dunno something like that (I often tend to ramble when trying to explain these things).

We could maybe include this in the revamp of the Tardis:Manual of style#Use of material from Wikipedia section as well. --Tangerineduel 13:35, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia template was created sometime close to the start of this wiki and left to it and not really thought about. I (and probably other regular editors) see it and add it, but don't really read and think about it.
I've not really looked at any big debates going on Wikipedia, I think I got into one conversation there because I removed some in-line wiki-text that was hiding content because it didn't have a source and instead put the a source needed instead, which got reverted, then I went through the kinda complicated process of adding a source. --Tangerineduel 16:42, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

BBC Writer's ComicEdit

Yep, oops, not sure what I did there (most likely doing about 10 things at once). I've just gone back through the BBC news site and found the dates for when they announced them. So I'll add those in. I'll also drop the 'comic went live' and just put the date in. I'll also add the link for each comic announcement to the ext links. --Tangerineduel 11:25, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

New main pageEdit

There's a discussion in the forum concerning a new main page, could you take a look in? I've reverted its addition to the main page as I feel there should be a full discussion (with admin input) before it goes live on the main page. Forum:New Home Page?. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 04:37, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

2011Edit

I will leave the ball more in your court on this as you've been updating the year articles far more than I have. (I'll keep half an eye on them) Though with regards to page protection if you're getting concerned about the edits put a semi-protect on it for a month (or three). Even though most of the edits are signed in users it still is something of a deterrent to new and IP users. --Tangerineduel 15:22, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Saxon Edit

I'm sorry if I've caused you offence, I really didn't mean to. I think Russell T Davies gave an interview saying that Lucy Saxon was dead, and I doubt, even if she is alive, that Steven Moffat would bring her back, so I naturally assumed she had died. Also, dialogue from Joshua and Abigail Naismith indicated that there had been no survivors, until they discovered the Master of course. Once again, sorry if I caused offence. Regards -- Will101 18:22, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, she is intended to be very dead. They said it was going to be a sad story that ends for Lucy in an interview, too. That was it: imprisoned and sacraficed to ruin his resurrection. Right before he death, her last words were "till death do us part." That really says it all.

You can briefly see her ingulfed in fire before the explosion, and it was indeed mentioned that no one survived but the Master- because he isn't human. He only returned because he had been resurrected. But as Dacies says, Lucy's story was a sad one, and it is now over. Delton Menace 18:33, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

You can see her die very briefly, she is ingulfed by fire and you can hear everyone in the basement screaming for a few seconds. Then there is a huge explosion. According to the news in the story, no one was found to be alive, either. Only the Master survived because he isn't human. And like I said, Lucy was ungulfed by fire right before a huge explosion. If she did appear again, you wouldn't even be able to recognise her, and the content of what she would look like if she survived that wouldn't be aloud on a family show. Her appearance is impossible, unless some magical thing healed her. But like I said, if she was alive, you wouldn't recognise her, she was ingulfed by flames and an explosion, and you can hear the screaming. Delton Menace 18:57, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism reportEdit

User:87.102.78.24 is added nonsense information to Sarah Jane Adventure Pages, and I have just undone them all, but they keep on continuing to do stuff. Can you block him or try and stop him a least, its mainly SJA pages he vandilising Mini-mitch 21:02, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Protecting user pageEdit

Just noticed you protected your user page. I've always left my user page unprotected, yes there is the occasional vandalism on it, which can easily be reverted (I'm relatively sure other users have reverted the vandalism on my user page before I've gotten to it on occasion). I just never really decided to protect my page as it seemed a little unfair on other users who have also been hit by vandals who don't have admin rights and therefore can't protect their pages. --Tangerineduel 12:44, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Righty, understand on that. I keep forgetting you're coming from a wikipedia POV. --Tangerineduel 14:48, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

No policyEdit

Nup, there's no policy. I (and others) just delete it. There are a few users here and there who've tried the archiving thing, but my view has always been it existed in the history why double up and make an archive? --Tangerineduel 14:48, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Lake Edit

Yeah that looks fine, it's actually a good solution. --Bigshowbower 03:09, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

WYSIWYG / Rich Text EditorEdit

I don't use it. I think I tried when they first introduced it, but quickly turned it off. So I can't really say. A user did discuss this on his user page (see User_talk:Sulfur#Rich_Text_Editor) about the excessive spacing it causes. Supposedly these improvements that are rolling out will fix the issues. I contacted wikia central about turning it off (over the whole wiki), but we'll need to have a discussion and proved community consenus to do so. I added most of the text on the user's talk page of the reply they sent me. --Tangerineduel 14:35, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean turned off for yourself (which is under More, Preferences and then Editing). According to User:Sulfur on the MemoryAlpha wiki they discussed it and got it turned off by default. I believe you can still turn it back on if you wish, but by default it would be turned off. But we need to be able to prove to wikia central that a majority of editors on this wiki want rid of it. --Tangerineduel 14:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

AlertEdit

Sigh...the Alert seemed like such a good idea at the time. It does seem to be somewhat over used (maybe I shouldn't have used such a bright red...). Anyways, I don't have any problem with just deleting it. Maybe just put the alert tag on the top of the talk page so people see that first so they know what the talk page should be used for.

Just while we're on the subject of The Howling, I'm thinking of getting a little harsher with the rules there, it's meant to be the place for people to pontificate about all the continuity, plot holes and other things that were clogging up the talk pages. But lately it seems to have become a Forum for any vaguely related Doctor Who topic. I mean there are dedicated Doctor Who Forums out there for that (Gallifrey Base springs to mind), and discussion in the forums should still relate back to this wiki. Just curious on your thoughts on this. --Tangerineduel 12:30, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

As I've probably mentioned before our policies and rules mostly get written as we need them. So if you wish to write some feel free.
We may all just have to occasionally drop in and have a look at the Howling rather than have a dedicated admin for the job. I'm not saying we need to close the barn door, just reinforce it with concrete to stop people driving trucks through it.
I know all about templates (yesterday I changed made some changes to the astronomical object infobox and then edited 400 pages because of the pass on change, mind numbing fun that was). --Tangerineduel 13:43, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Edit

Well done for doing loads of edits today, always edit! It's good and it's fun. Everything's fun! - Trikster87 - 14th January 2010

BBC siteEdit

You had me panicked slightly about the BBC's site. Thankfully all the episode guide links for the classic series and in fact all the episode guides I randomly selected (The Daleks, Father's Day, Journey's End, The Waters of Mars) all still work.

I've always been a bit iffy about the Monster Files and other video-based stuff that linked to the BBC's site. The Torchwood site remained geo-locked for quite some time, and accessing a lot of video-related content on the BBC's site quite often has been geo-locked. --Tangerineduel 13:25, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Which is kinda weird, as I just went to The Next Doctor page and I can get to the BBC Episode Guide page (this one right? http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S0_05).
They may fence off a lot of the video content (as they did with the Torchwood site), but I think/hope that it's less likely they'll wall off text based content given that Doctor Who is also broadcasting outside the UK. --Tangerineduel 13:36, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Manual of styleEdit

I wouldn't panic too much about needing to put stuff up for discussion (again this isn't Wikipedia and there aren't any angry admins that are going to swoop in and chastise you).

I've posted some alterations on the MOS talk page, just making the neutral point of view section a little more non-specific. I've added a full explanation on that talk page.

One question, what is BBS an acronym for? --Tangerineduel 13:17, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Re BBS; Oh...righty. Perhaps just not include little acronyms like that just say forums and people should understand it covers all those sorts of things. --Tangerineduel 13:47, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it was just me thinking out loud. I used to use newsgroups and know of bulletin boards, just never really come across the acronym for it. --Tangerineduel 15:31, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Urgh. Moffat and his renumbering.
I have held that we should wait and see what the BBC does marketing wise, considering there were multiple names for the first three stories until the BBC decided to start releasing them on video.
I've never liked the idea of calling Series 1 'Season 27' as it just seems to shunt the TVM into one of those nether regions of season classification. On a similar note if we had to go the continious season route I don't think Season 30 1/2 would be a good way to go (just seems like a messy way to title something).
But as with everything this will incur/is incurring quite a bit of discussion and will continue until there is something concrete we can latch onto (and the follow with more discussion most likely). --Tangerineduel 12:06, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
If the BBC continues its trend of releasing "vanilla DVDs" we should only need to wait until the first 3 stories get their vanilla DVD releases.
I wouldn't be too concerned with DWM, they still (I think) refer to An Unearthly Child as 100,000BC.
Music of the Spheres in my mind no more breaks the fourth wall than "And a merry Christmas to you all at home".
The reasoning behind my annoyance about the TVM is that if you're going through the season article pages from one to the other it just sort of skips the TVM because obviously there isn't a season page for it (though it's been in my 'should think about rectifying that' pile for a while, possibly moving some of the production stuff that's sitting on the sub-page onto a not-a-season page for it). Sorry random tangent. --Tangerineduel 13:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

DWA Edit

Thanks and well spotted! Im going through older Radio Times' at the moment so I'll complete the promotion date soon, hopefully, I'm sure I scribbled it down somewhere...  :) The Librarian 00:35, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Categories and other thingsEdit

Best I think to have some restraint with categories, my general rules for (any) categories is if it has less than 3 things in the category it they can be classified elsewhere.

The season 1 page looks pretty good. --Tangerineduel 06:17, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Special:Log/move log is probably the best place to find these sorts of things. User:Sulfur also left info on my talk page pertaining to the move.
This isn't the first time the user (Doug86, also an admin btw) has done this, I have often seen their point of view, being that the end of time (tv story) is the "more known" story title. Though while I see their POV, I'm not sure if I agree with it, I think this is possibly something we need to come to a consensus on so we can apply it across this wiki. --Tangerineduel 12:04, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
As I said, we need to come up with a consensus that we can apply consistently across the wiki. I'm happy for all articles that have the same title to be disambig pages that lead off to the specific articles. --Tangerineduel 11:38, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

BBC Writers' ComicsEdit

Hey, just thought I'd draw your attention to Forum:Web comics discussion as you created the pages in question, hoping you've got an argument for their case. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'd like the Silver Spiral deleted, and The Last Doctor (didn't actually know about that one till you mentioned it).
Both stories are by their very descriptions fan-fiction, something we can't really start having on this wiki, there are two other wikias out there that handle fanfic. Also I think both would be better placed on the fan fic article. --Tangerineduel 14:20, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


This wiki does cover content related to Doctor Who, but I tend to leave fan generated content to Doctor Who Expanded or other sites.
The Silver Spiral is still fanfic despite being reported in the Scientific American. It deserves a mention yes, but not a whole article. The fan fic article would be a fine place for it to go.
Campaign and others fall into the category of 'Charity anthologies'.
If Cornell is marking his story out as fanfic, then I think we need to treat it as such. These online things are somewhat different from the charity publications which still went through an editorial process to be published.
The difference between Cornell's blog published story and the previous stories were they were commissioned, The Last Doctor wasn't, and it's marked as fanfic, that's the sticking point for me on this one, he himself marks it out as fanfic.
Why precisely must we delete all novels? The novels are licensed.
Downtime and Shakedown are licensed by their copyright holders.
The Silver Spiral doesn't need to be wiped out, it would be a great addition to the fanfic article, the same with Paul Cornell's fanfic story.
As for The Doctor and the Enterprise, I'm relatively sure after a length discussion on the talk page I suggested it be wrapped up into the author's article page (and it was something I haven't got around to doing).
It is a slippery slope and including things marked as fanfic (by the author) is starting down the slope.
We need to be clear on how far into the fan-sphere we cover, we don't for instance have an article on Chameleon Circuit's first album which is relatively notable for popularising 'Trock' and gaining some press coverage, instead have an article covering Doctor Who fan music. Likewise Silver Spiral should be on the fan fiction article.
Also neither of these stories is canon, being as they are fanfic. --Tangerineduel 16:09, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer (generally) in letting the wiki community work out these sorts of things. So perhaps you (or I) start a forum topic so this issue is highlighted for all to have their say on this issue.
Just to add, the 'catchall article' for these sorts of things are/have the potential to be interesting and informative, more so than a stand-alone article as they can give a wider view of the fanfic (for example) phenomena and stretch of it. --Tangerineduel 15:53, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuity; Plot Holes and Errors Sections In Episode Pages Edit

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 23:15, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Things you may not have known Edit

Have you not seen the templates I created? The ones I have created are Infobox Actor, Maker and User. Now I'm gonna make one about a series. Trikster87 20:39, 4th February 2010

IP article creationsEdit

Yes, unregistered users can create articles.

It's not something I particularly think needs switching off either, in the past there have been several valuable pages created by IP editors. I think it's something of a generalisation that IP editors only create stuff that requires deletion. Having IP editors allows them to dip their toes into the waters of editing without needing to sign up (and there's oodles of reasons why people don't want to sign up). I really don't want to go down wikipedia's path or tightening up everything so much against new editors. So for now the occasional bit of spam, random vandalism and advertising isn't that much of an inconvienince if it allows the many unregisters users to contribute here. --Tangerineduel 13:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

As I've often said this isn't Wikipedia.
Approval of pages would be a horrible place for this wiki to go.
If there is a rabid vandal active amongst the wikias and there isn't a 'regular' admin around here often an admin from wikia central steps in and blocks and deals with the edits from vandals who are cross wiki-spamming.
I've seen plenty of vandalism here, and I've been through the process of being suspicious of IP edits and thinking that all IP editors are vandals and being pleasantly surprised when they're not. IP editors play a role in building and creating wikis.
Locking down a wiki really doesn't help it to grow, we want users to feel they can drop in and add things to pages (and make mistakes too, those mistakes are corrected and the good stuff comes through eventually), there's a learning process in all this. --Tangerineduel 15:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Penelope Gate Edit

I'm not an expert on the novels as the vast majority of my information is from websites and not from having actually red them, but this is what I understand: a character called Penelope Gate appeared in The Room With No Doors, the Doctor's mother was named Penelope in The Infinity Doctors, the Doctor's father is widely rumoured to be called Ulysses, stemming I think from the early stages of the project that became the TV movie, in Greek mythology Penelope is the wife of Odysseus (aka Ulysses), and in The Gallifrey Chronicles, Ulysses and Penelope, implied to be the Doctor's parents, exile Marnal and, as far as I know, place him in the care of Penelope's mother, a Mrs Gate. Marnal adopts the surname Gate.

Note that The Infinity Doctors explicitly states that the Doctor's father's name ISN'T Ulysses, but I think Lance Parkin, who wrote it, might have said online something like "Ulysses is no more the Doctor's father's name than the Doctor's name is the Doctor"; in other words, Ulysses is a chosen name like the Doctor. Unnatural History has a character called Joyce: the real James Joyce wrote Ulysses.--The Traveller 08:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

There's also The Gallifrey Chronicles mention. I haven't read it so I don't know for sure, but the impression I got from the Whoniverse website's Discontinuity Guide for it was that Ulysses and Penelope are implied to be the Doctor's parents, Marnal is placed in the care of Penelope's mother, and Marnal later uses the name Marnal Gate. It seems like too much of a coincidence not to be intentional at least on Lance Parkin's part (he wrote The Gallifrey Chronicles as well).--The Traveller 18:00, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Series 5...or whateverEdit

Isn't there already a forum discussion that was started (which I think had a more detailed discussion of this topic)? Here it is: Forum:Season 31 or Series 1, not Series 5 - Steven Moffat, where already we'd come to some sort of consensus, okay that's stretching it slightly, but there's something of an argument that's plateaued on that front at least. --Tangerineduel 13:35, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

View Source Edit

How do you lock a user page to prevent editing? Trikster87, 18:40, 18th Feburary 2010 (UTC)

Is it true? Edit

Hi, do you really think that Amy Pond will be an alien and will the 5th Season really start in March or April? I have seen the inside of the TARDIS (well some bits) and it's HEAVEN! Trikster87, Feburary 25th, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Edit

Very cool, you've seen the new trailer! When's it on like. The only one I saw was when there was a BBC One preview and the Doctor said 'Trust me! I'm the Doctor'! It was just archival footage! I thought the new series woulwould be in arch cause I checked the IMBD for it and so it said (they might be wrong as well). I wasn't asking if you put it in, I was asking if you thought it was correct. I can't wait for the new series! Are you gonna watch it! Trikster87 February 25th, 2010 (UTC)

P.S: I have checked your user pages everywhere! I've seen your wikipedia one! I love it!

Writing on Images Edit

Hi, I uploaded an image of Freema Agyeman and on the right-end says: Freemaagyeman.com. Please answer, shall I get rid of that image if it has writing on it or keep it.

You can find it on

Trikster87, 10:35, March 1st, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline navigation changes Edit

As you are one of the frequent editors to year, decade and century pages, I wanted to try to make your life easier. Koschei got the ball rolling on navigation improvements with his new template, but this will be extremely laborious to implement. Hundreds of pages requiring minute changes also spells the possibility of manual error creeping in. So I'm updating his template into an entirely automated one. As you can see by examining the code at Template:Timeline test, and its dependent subtemps, all that needs to happen is to add {{timeline}} at to the page. The temp will take care of the rest, automatically sensing whether it's on a year, century or decade page, and responding with appropriate output. The bells and whistles of template design aren't yet completed, but that's easily fixed after the hard coding is done. Appropriate categories will also be automatically placed on the page as well.

Best of all, you don't have to do a thing. The template will be placed on every page by a bot. (Ultimately the old HTML table navigation will be removed by a bot too, but that's about a week away yet.) So instead of spending so much time on mind-numbing work, feel free to get back to the greater fun of whatever more enjoyable work you were doing here. Implementation of the core skeleton will happen over the next few days, with the project complete by sometime before the end of April. CzechOut | 03:19, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, to test the template CzechOut's created take Template:Timeline test ({{Timeline test}}) and put it on any of the year pages and his preview (it's how I tested it in any case). --Tangerineduel 12:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
That'll work for showing the core math, but actually template:Timeline test is already deprecated by now. It doesn't, for instance, show you anything about autocategorization. Just place template:timeline on any page. And read the notes at Template:timeline, Template:CenturyNav, Template:YearNav, Template:DecadeNav. Actually, the best test is just to start a completely random year, century and decade page and preview it. Or if you're really lazy you can go to 21st century, 2000s, and 5000000000 to see it in place. CzechOut | 03:04, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the automated process of changing over to the new timeline template has now begun. During this period, which may last up to a week, please do not add any templates or html to timeline pages. Please see Forum:For people working on year/decade/century pages . . . for more details. A note will be placed there once the process is complete. CzechOut | 21:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah simple text editing is fine, but I suppose there's a slim chance that an editing conflict migh arise if my bot and you hit "save page" at the same instant. Hmmmm, maybe that's why I'm having problems with 21st century years right now. No biggie though. The key is just don't touch templates or HTML. CzechOut | 22:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm back! Edit

It's Trikster87, I have been gone for a while but I've come back, liked The Eleventh Hour and created a secret account called User:WikiProductions.com. I have done over a thousand edits so I somehow need to become an admin. Trikster87 20:41, 3rd April 2010 (UTC)

Quote removalEdit

The manual of style wasn't changed, it always said that quotes weren't encyclopaedic. I merely re-wrote the section on quotations to be somewhat clearer.

There was an original discussion see Forum:Quotes where it was decided not to include quotes this was around 2007, then at some point when no one was looking the quote template was created and added everywhere. Then I re-visited the discussion after a long spate of quotes being altered and changed/edit wars that something needed to be done. --Tangerineduel 07:42, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Awareness and IssuesEdit

I did read the Terms of Use quite a while ago when I first signed up, and had a look at it again. (Terms of Use |Wikia Terms of Use) I skimmed through it again, I can't find anything on creating multiple user names. However in the drop down reasons menu for 'block' 'abusing mutiple accounts' is a selectable reason. But I haven't noticed any vandalism coming from the user in question.

As for the scanning, uploading and referencing thing, what a long way around to cite a reference (or make a reference valid)!

I had a quick at the Vampires of Venice edit the user who uploaded the source only has one edit.

When you find anything like this remove it (as it's not verifiable), also leave a note on the user in question's talk page explaining sources need to be verifiable, scans like they've used aren't valid because nothing is cited. Often explaining this stuff calmly and reasonably helps, and sometimes it doesn't, in which case; if it's the same user doing to uploading explain, then warn them, if they continue block them. --Tangerineduel 14:22, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Deleting timeline pages like 2016 Edit

I'm actively marking as many useless pages as I can find. If I had admin powers, I'd delete 'em on the spot without question. So no, deletion of them won't mess up anything. Now, of course it will create red links, but that's okay. The plan, ultimately, is to alter the template so it seeks for the next year/century/decade that actually exists on the wiki, or at least to only display what is actually available for the user to find. That may be some time away, but I absolutely have to have the red links in order to make any progress on that. So please, delete at your leisure. There are going to be, I think, hundreds of pages put up for deletion by the end of this. Most of the 15th-17th centuries, inclusive, is just dead space. CzechOut | 03:37, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pages like 2014: Manual of Style issuesEdit

Ugh, I note that you've gone back and essentially reverted my (not my bot's, by my) edits to pages like 2014, putting them back in the clunky old style that had been there before. The philosophy of the discussion about timelines at Forum:For people working on year/decade/century pages . . . is that we're trying to make sure that timeline articles are treated like regular in-universe articles. By destroying the lead sentence and reintroducing the header "Doctor Who Universe", you're subverting that effort. I've spent a fair amount of time today doing manual edits today on 21st century years, in particular. Please don't invalidate a day's work, or ignore the discussion that's been ongoing at the above-named forum page, without discussion. CzechOut | 03:44, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Um . . . I really didn't mean to cause you distress. Perhaps the word "subvert" was too strong; but you were definitely reverting my work. And I was just trying to protect the work I did today that was the result of what I see as a month-long discussion, both in that forum thread and another one. I really thought I had consensus to proceed today, based upon those discussions, and various private posts along the way. Honestly, one of the things that's frustrating about this place is that there's never a point where it's "safe" to proceed. At least on wikipedia there is a kind of mechanism in place for closing debates and drawing a discussion to a consensus decision. Here, it's more like you ask a question, hope that it gets answered in a few days, then hope like hell there's the appearance of resolution in under s month. I honestly thought we had agreement from those who were interested to a) put on the new template and b) begin the process of treating these pages like any other in-universe article page (i.e. Bolded topic, lead sentence, elimination of the words "Doctor Who universe" in a head, past-tensification, etc.)
You were apparently late to the party, and objected. I'm not sure how I could have done things better. I'm sorry that you feel left out of the discussion, but, honestly, it is a public forum — the highest profile place this wiki has for discussing things. I can't make you read it; I can only post discussions there and try to reach consensus. I honestly don't know how else to proceed in a situation like this but to say, "Please stop reverting things; this matter has been debated elsewhere already, there's been a change to the MOS to reflect that debate, and now I'm complying with MOS."
I can tell you, though, that your additions to the forum page haven't fallen on deaf ears. I just spent 30 minutes typing up a note to the forum page which basically agreed with your suggestion that we should split off the production info from the DWU stuff. So it's not that your views aren't being taken into account. CzechOut | 04:46, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

DepartureEdit

I'm sorry I didn't keep you informed on stuff in the forum, I try to keep up to date with stuff in the forum I know Azes13 and Doug86 also stop in at certain times in the discussions. It isn't really feasible for me to contact admins (or users) during each forum topic.

I would really encourage you to return and continue adding both to the wiki and the discussion, more than occasionally there will be editors who are somewhat challenging, it's a test of negotiation skills to work through these issues.

But if you're set to leave, I'm sorry to see you go, thanks and I hope you'll return at some point. --Tangerineduel 14:42, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Huh Edit

If you are no longer editing then why did you just make an edit? Ghastly9090 16:30, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in Forums Edit

Could I ask you to leave your thoughts on the discussion on speculation in forum here?. Thanks. Mini-mitch 21:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Master Edit

Blimey, sorry about that, it does come across as a tad rude, I was finding somewhere else to place the paragraph in Behind the Scenes and I was going to place it under the as a heading over the onscreen Masters section. I apologise for the initial deletion as the phone I am using to edit seems to copy revertion history easier than it does from the main bulk of the article. --Revan\Talk 14:01, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Bad wolf bay Edit

Hi you said that you know about a "bad wolf bay" in Dalarna Sweden I tried to find it but couldn’t if you remember wear or how you fond if it would be fun to know I tried to search "varg stranden" and different variations of that. Agge.se 01:12, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:A second look at wiki achivements.
czechout@Wikia   17:08:40 Mon 22 Aug 2011 

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.

czechout@Wikia   21:05: Wed 21 Dec 2011 

I created the romanian version : http://ro.doctorwho.wikia.com/wiki/DoctorWho_Wiki

Dragonulteo talk to me 17:10, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Miranda BormanEdit

Hey, CzechOut has already been contacted by someone who may be Miranda Borman and left a message on their talk page about providing citations for any information that they provide. So any information that turns up on an article needs to be cited with sources. At the moment there hasn't been any vandalism of the article and there's no evidence of any recent vandalism to the Dragonfire article. For now I think we should be aware but not alarmed. I'll watch the article and see what happens, any vandalism can be rolled back and as I've said (anc CzechOut has said on User:Miranda Borman's talk page) any notable information will need to be sourced and if it isn't then it'll be removed. Thanks for notifying me of this possible issue. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:06, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

The Edge of Destruction Edit

Hello! About your edit according to which nothing suggests the Doctor didn't know that the TARDIS was alive... I must underline he states "My machine can't think" and he is amazed that the time machine can rebel. HarveyWallbanger 18:34, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki