User talk:Bigshowbower: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
m (Happy holidays)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:


::I was looking at how it's being used on the talk pages and I've brightened it up a little bit (using the format of the Gone to Pot template as a basis) to make it a bit more arresting. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:39, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
::I was looking at how it's being used on the talk pages and I've brightened it up a little bit (using the format of the Gone to Pot template as a basis) to make it a bit more arresting. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:39, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
If I may jump in here, however. I'm seeing the box being overused. A few times now I've seen the box added to discussion threads that clearly are asking whether such-and-such a piece of information should be added to the article. That's 100% valid, and occasionally those topics go off into discussion, but if this box gets overused, it'll lose it effectiveness. I've spotted what I consider to be unnecessary uses of the box in both the End of Time and Eleventh Doctor talk pages. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 02:39, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


==Discontinuity==
==Discontinuity==
Line 21: Line 23:
I mean, how is the two Time Lords who disagreed with Rasillion going to Earth discontinuity? We know exactly know why, but it isn't a plothole. I answered that they probably have no choice, twice (someone removed my answer first time), because they can't exactly fight against him. Ugh, I hate it when people either look for errors, or put so-called errors down that aren't in fact errors, but curiousity!
I mean, how is the two Time Lords who disagreed with Rasillion going to Earth discontinuity? We know exactly know why, but it isn't a plothole. I answered that they probably have no choice, twice (someone removed my answer first time), because they can't exactly fight against him. Ugh, I hate it when people either look for errors, or put so-called errors down that aren't in fact errors, but curiousity!


I would love it if it were possible to lock that section of the page to avoid it getting filled with fake errors. *sigh* And yeah, I will keep an eye on it myself, too, before it fills up again. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 03:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I would love it if it were possible to lock that section of the page to avoid it getting filled with fake errors. *sigh* And yeah, I will keep an eye on it myself, too, before it fills up again. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 03:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC
 
==Infobox Individuals - Mentions==
This is doable (there's a big however though). I've just added mentions to the [[Template:Infobox Astronomical Object]], which took roughly an hour and a half / 2 hours and that was for close to 400 articles.
 
Adding another field to the infobox isn't too tricky, but combining it with the code to make it collapse/not appear in the infobox see [[Arkon]] (it has mentions and no appearances) or [[Orbis]] (only has appearances and type). Having this code in the infobox has a side affect of all the fields needing to be present on the article, otherwise the infobox doesn't work (even if they're not being used). (Contact me if this is somewhat rambling I have just finished the 400 articles).
 
Anyways, there are roughly 4000 individuals article pages that use the infobox template. The mentions field can be added to these articles before we add it to the template, but we still would need to make sure all 4000 have the mentions field on it. Thanks. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 15:16, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 
:It's actually fairly easy to add "if" checks to these, the only problem is the excessive amount of html code in each of the infobox templates. If those could be put into the CSS file and the styles used instead, they would be much more easily done. I've made some changes (easily reverted) to [[Arkon]] and the [[Template:Infobox Astronomical Object|astromical object]] template to show the changes that would (could? should?) be made to prevent someone having to update 400 (4000?) articles just to clean up/fix an infobox. :) -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 16:11, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
 
==Nicholas Courtney's "stroke"==
Back in October 2009, you flagged a bit of dubious info on [[The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith]] regarding Nicholas Courtney apparently having a stroke. Just a heads up I've gone ahead and removed this information (or, to be more precise, reworded it as a myth). I can't find any confirmation of this in any reputable source either, 18 months after you first flagged it. [[Special:Contributions/68.146.64.9|68.146.64.9]] 13:34, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
{{Please see|Can we disable visual editor please?}} <br> {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}04:06: Tue&nbsp;20 Dec 2011&nbsp;</span>
{{Please see|Can we disable visual editor please?}} <br> {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}18:09: Thu&nbsp;22 Dec 2011&nbsp;</span>
{{Christmas greetings}}

Latest revision as of 07:40, 25 December 2013

Welcome to the
Site-logo.png
• Bigshowbower •

Thanks for your recent edits! I'm Jimbo, your robot wiki representative! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is actually a great time to have joined, because we're now fully independent, and working on a host of new features!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a fan written wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.

British English, please

We generally use British English 'round these parts, so if you use another form of English, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card.

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:

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:

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this:
~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask an admin.


Talk pages and infoboxes[[edit source]]

I'm not sure on the creation front, not sure in the sense that I'm not sure if it can be done when a page is created. We could have a template about the same width of the cleanup tag which says something to the affect that you mentioned with a link off to the Howling. That we would just post on the talk page, or on the particular section of the talk page (like the Template:Section cleanup) but obviously with wording as you suggested.

Infoboxes, yes, that can be done. (It's something I've looked at and thought 'I should do this') I'll probably get to it once the whole End of Time, Eleventh Doctor, regeneration stuff has settled down. As I'll need to add it to the descriptions and adjust the infobox for it and everything. --Tangerineduel 13:42, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. --Tangerineduel 03:46, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at how it's being used on the talk pages and I've brightened it up a little bit (using the format of the Gone to Pot template as a basis) to make it a bit more arresting. --Tangerineduel 13:39, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, however. I'm seeing the box being overused. A few times now I've seen the box added to discussion threads that clearly are asking whether such-and-such a piece of information should be added to the article. That's 100% valid, and occasionally those topics go off into discussion, but if this box gets overused, it'll lose it effectiveness. I've spotted what I consider to be unnecessary uses of the box in both the End of Time and Eleventh Doctor talk pages. 23skidoo 02:39, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuity[[edit source]]

Stop removing disconinutiy that needs a damn good explanation. There was no speculation. The Doctor's suit is torn from the glass window smash in series 5, and I have seen that myself. The rips from when he smashed through the window dissapear, and then reappear in the first episode of series 5. The exact same rips. Stop removing discontinuity, and in no way was that speculation. It was full-blooded fact. Delton Menace 10:11, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Lake[[edit source]]

On the Tenth Doctor Companions template we should acknowledge Jackson Lake in some way, so I've come up with a compromise, placing him in a "See also" category. Take a look and see what you think. (Rosita doesn't belong in any regard because she's only ever Jackson's companion). 23skidoo 19:17, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

The End of Time[[edit source]]

It really is. I thought I was the only one who noticied. Quite a load of pointless so-called "discontinuity" was added in the last day or two, so I myself answered one or two for the sake of the disucssion ending (as in, it won't be brought up again), but then someone removed the answer. I put the answer back, and someone tried to make their way around it and fidn an error in my answer. It got the the point where it wasn't even acount any discontinuity anymore, but a discussion.

I mean, how is the two Time Lords who disagreed with Rasillion going to Earth discontinuity? We know exactly know why, but it isn't a plothole. I answered that they probably have no choice, twice (someone removed my answer first time), because they can't exactly fight against him. Ugh, I hate it when people either look for errors, or put so-called errors down that aren't in fact errors, but curiousity!

I would love it if it were possible to lock that section of the page to avoid it getting filled with fake errors. *sigh* And yeah, I will keep an eye on it myself, too, before it fills up again. Delton Menace 03:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC

Infobox Individuals - Mentions[[edit source]]

This is doable (there's a big however though). I've just added mentions to the Template:Infobox Astronomical Object, which took roughly an hour and a half / 2 hours and that was for close to 400 articles.

Adding another field to the infobox isn't too tricky, but combining it with the code to make it collapse/not appear in the infobox see Arkon (it has mentions and no appearances) or Orbis (only has appearances and type). Having this code in the infobox has a side affect of all the fields needing to be present on the article, otherwise the infobox doesn't work (even if they're not being used). (Contact me if this is somewhat rambling I have just finished the 400 articles).

Anyways, there are roughly 4000 individuals article pages that use the infobox template. The mentions field can be added to these articles before we add it to the template, but we still would need to make sure all 4000 have the mentions field on it. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 15:16, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

It's actually fairly easy to add "if" checks to these, the only problem is the excessive amount of html code in each of the infobox templates. If those could be put into the CSS file and the styles used instead, they would be much more easily done. I've made some changes (easily reverted) to Arkon and the astromical object template to show the changes that would (could? should?) be made to prevent someone having to update 400 (4000?) articles just to clean up/fix an infobox. :) -- sulfur 16:11, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Courtney's "stroke"[[edit source]]

Back in October 2009, you flagged a bit of dubious info on The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith regarding Nicholas Courtney apparently having a stroke. Just a heads up I've gone ahead and removed this information (or, to be more precise, reworded it as a myth). I can't find any confirmation of this in any reputable source either, 18 months after you first flagged it. 68.146.64.9 13:34, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

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

czechout<staff />   04:06: Tue 20 Dec 2011 

Your input is needed!

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

czechout<staff />   18:09: Thu 22 Dec 2011 

Christmas cheer[[edit source]]

Happy holidays!

As this fiftieth anniversary year comes to a close, we here at Tardis just want to thank you for being a part of our community — even if you haven't edited here in a while. If you have edited with us this year, then thanks for all your hard work.

This year has seen an impressive amount of growth. We've added about 11,000 pages this year, which is frankly incredible for a wiki this big. November was predictably one of the busiest months we've ever had: over 500 unique editors pitched in. It was the highest number of editors in wiki history for a year in which only one programme in the DWU was active. And our viewing stats have been through the roof. We've averaged well over 2 million page views each week for the last two months, with some weeks seeing over 4 million views!

We've received an unprecedented level of support from Wikia Staff, resulting in all sorts of new goodies and productive new relationships. And we've recently decided to lift almost every block we've ever made so as to allow most everyone a second chance to be part of our community.

2014 promises to build on this year's foundations, especially since we've got a full, unbroken series coming up — something that hasn't happened since 2011. We hope you'll stick with us — or return to the Tardis — so that you can be a part of the fun!

TardisDataCoreRoadway.png