User talk:Mini-mitch/Archive Talk 5: Difference between revisions
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Current companion? Really? You mean "current televised companion". In adding such link, you're opening up to other companions. I notice [[Rory Williams]] didn't make the list, and what about companions in spin-offs (SJS's gang, Torchwood 3, K9's gang)? I haven't removed it yet as I assume you must have a reason for this addition e.g. you might believe ''Who'' to be the only noteworthy show, you may think Amy to be the current companions over all, you may belief her to be the superior of the two current ''televised'' companions. However, this is very opinion based. I think it is better to merely have the main characters from each of the shows. Your opinion? ----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 16:48, March 1, 2011 (UTC) | Current companion? Really? You mean "current televised companion". In adding such link, you're opening up to other companions. I notice [[Rory Williams]] didn't make the list, and what about companions in spin-offs (SJS's gang, Torchwood 3, K9's gang)? I haven't removed it yet as I assume you must have a reason for this addition e.g. you might believe ''Who'' to be the only noteworthy show, you may think Amy to be the current companions over all, you may belief her to be the superior of the two current ''televised'' companions. However, this is very opinion based. I think it is better to merely have the main characters from each of the shows. Your opinion? ----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 16:48, March 1, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Well, until that day Pond should not be on that list. I know your a new series guy, but the BFA releases are current aren't they. Does that not make their companions current? If you want to have subcategories messing up a neat list I don't mind.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 16:59, March 1, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:59, 1 March 2011
Also note, after every twenty or so comments, the page gets archived.
Lyrics
Lyrics are different from quotes. See wikipedia. Take care to differentiate. Thanks--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:14, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Is using "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc in-universe?.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍
... and thanks for trying to mend fences with Fan555.
Promotional images
Hey, I notice that you've occasionally cited "promotional image" as a reason to delete a file. This isn't, technically, a reason to delete an image. Promotional images are allowed to exist here, but they can only be used on real world pages that aren't story pages. Let's look at that image of Rosita that you recently deleted. You couldn't use it on Rosita Farisi, cause that's an in-universe character page. You couldn't use it on The Next Doctor, because that's specifically banned by tardis:manual of style#Out of universe and story articles. But if you look at the second paragraph of that section, you see that
- Real world articles may use practically any other relevant images that have been properly sourced and tagged with an appropriate copyright tag.
So you could use it on Velile Tshabalala. In other words, we have to police the use of promotional images; we can't just delete them for being promotional. That's why promotional picture isn't in the drop-down menu of file deletion rationales.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Unknown species. --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:57, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Renaming New Earth.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍
Finisterman
I did notice when the similar user name turned up, but was kinda hoping the user had returned to add useful edits to the wiki. I've had a look through their contributions and have blocked it looks to be the same person them for 6 months (Finister2 was blocked for 3 months). Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:11, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Small Notice
Yeah, sorry about that. Didn't even realize until after you fixed it. Figured he should have gone above the TBA folks, didn't know if the announced order for the actor was more important than the character itself. --Witoki 16:38, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Whoa
Hey, does the site look totally "unglued" to you right now? I'm not seeing much in the way of formatting at the moment.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">17:44:56 Mon 28 Feb 2011
- Heh, never mind. As soon as I sent that message to you, things snapped back into place.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">17:46:47 Mon 28 Feb 2011
Big toc
Actually, I hadn't noticed, or I would have stopped you wasting your time. Big toc is effectively unnecessary now. It's been hard-coded into the site. It automatically happens on every page. Now, you can still use it, I suppose. I haven't really checked, but I imagine the effect of placing {{big toc}} on a page is that it allows you to control where the TOC will go. It normally goes after the lead, by the default of the new layout, but it might be that using the template will allow you to put it lower or higher in the article. So you're kinda wastin' your time to intentionally put it on pages. I use it sometimes on forum pages still, where there are less than the minimum number of sections for the TOC to automatically appear, but other than that, I stopped trying to put it out there.
And, yes, there is a known inequality in the way the various TV infoboxen are coded. That's why a part of the redesign is to eliminate the various infoboxen into a single TV box, a single audio box, a single novel box, a single comics box, and the like. Get all the code in one place and maintenance is extraordinarily easier. But that's a few days away yet.
In the meantime, know that {{tl|big toc}} is automatic. And I apologize that you've wasted some time; if I thought anyone was actually going to be hand editing that, I would have put up warnings before the change.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">18:45:22 Mon 28 Feb 2011
- Hmmm, your last message has me worried. You're speaking in the future tense as if you don't see this change is already on the site. Did you not notice while you were placing these {{tl|big toc}} s around that the contents were already on the right? If not, can I ask you to please clear your cache and look at the site again?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">19:04:32 Mon 28 Feb 2011
- The only effect using {{tl|big toc}} would now have on pages is to force the TOC to appear at the point of insertion, as I've just done to your page. (Revert by deleting big toc from your page) In the case of this page, that's an obvious difference. However, on a lot of other pages, especially those with infoboxen, it wouldn't make much of a visible difference, because the infobox is going to wrestle it down underneath it, so long as you don't completely bury big toc in the depths of the article. Just adding anywhere from the top of the page to, say, the end of the lead, isn't gonna do diddly, really.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">19:32:58 Mon 28 Feb 2011
- The only effect using {{tl|big toc}} would now have on pages is to force the TOC to appear at the point of insertion, as I've just done to your page. (Revert by deleting big toc from your page) In the case of this page, that's an obvious difference. However, on a lot of other pages, especially those with infoboxen, it wouldn't make much of a visible difference, because the infobox is going to wrestle it down underneath it, so long as you don't completely bury big toc in the depths of the article. Just adding anywhere from the top of the page to, say, the end of the lead, isn't gonna do diddly, really.
Drop down
Please stop changing the "Individuals" drop down. I have reverted it (or rather edited it back) to its original form. Your guessing people come here for the here-and-now TV show. They may well be interested in the Doctor as a whole. The other individuals are the lead characters of their spin-offs.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:30, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Current companion? Really? You mean "current televised companion". In adding such link, you're opening up to other companions. I notice Rory Williams didn't make the list, and what about companions in spin-offs (SJS's gang, Torchwood 3, K9's gang)? I haven't removed it yet as I assume you must have a reason for this addition e.g. you might believe Who to be the only noteworthy show, you may think Amy to be the current companions over all, you may belief her to be the superior of the two current televised companions. However, this is very opinion based. I think it is better to merely have the main characters from each of the shows. Your opinion? ----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:48, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Well, until that day Pond should not be on that list. I know your a new series guy, but the BFA releases are current aren't they. Does that not make their companions current? If you want to have subcategories messing up a neat list I don't mind.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:59, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
