User talk:OttselSpy25: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
To sum up, if you try to use an infobox on something, and the variables just aren't ''quite'' fitting, '''stop what you're doing'''. Then '''ask for help'''. Don't go and do a lot of work that has to be ripped up. And with unproduced stories, you have to give a citation for just about every piece of information in the infobox, since none of it is readily apparent on credits. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:40: Thu 12 Apr 2012 </span> | To sum up, if you try to use an infobox on something, and the variables just aren't ''quite'' fitting, '''stop what you're doing'''. Then '''ask for help'''. Don't go and do a lot of work that has to be ripped up. And with unproduced stories, you have to give a citation for just about every piece of information in the infobox, since none of it is readily apparent on credits. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:40: Thu 12 Apr 2012 </span> | ||
== Spot the problem == | |||
Please enumerate the problems apparent at ''[[The French Revolution]]''. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">19:25: Sat 14 Apr 2012 </span> |
Revision as of 19:25, 14 April 2012
Mission to the Unknown
We don't. It's the one story we can't at all illustrate in the infobox or the plot sections. The reuse of file:Varga.jpg is fine, because you're showing it as a publicity shot.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">21:03: Mon 09 Apr 2012
- If you encounter pictures you don't think meet our standards — for any reason, but obviously including alleged publicity photos — please tag them with {{delete}} and give a deletion rationale. So, {{delete|This image can't possibly be from the episode, because no telesnaps were made, and none of the footage survives}}. Even if the photo isn't ultimately deleted, it at least will bring it to greater attention and it may get moved.
In the cases you've brought up, I'd remove them from the character infoboxes and probably move them to the actors' pages, unless the actors' pages are already illustrated.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">21:34: Mon 09 Apr 2012
forgivness
sorry its not that because there's loads of the end of time images that why you forgot to add them otherwise that they won't know what the pictures from the episode it was.
User:JarodMighty 05:32, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
pictures of the symbols of Gallifrey, Time Lords & The Seal of Rassilon & Omega
these pictures from my user page were mine they were for my userpage
--User:JarodMighty 14:55, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Coop3 and JarodMighty
Hey, I've dropped a message onto JarodMighty's talk page encouraging him to take a look around the wiki and see how it all functions. That's the way I believe a lot of people learn by looking and reading and working out how a wiki works.
I agree with you with regard to Coop3's contributions, they're not brilliant. Some of the edits have been picked up by others and fixed or as you've done undone. I've rolled back the rest as it's mostly speculation. Let me know if you want an admin to leave a warning/friendly note if they start up again with more speculation. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:01, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Dimensions in Time
Please remove all references to the 20 pictures from Dimensions in Time that you uploaded. Make it your top priority, please. And please heed what's told you on your talk page so that both you and I don't have to keep doing all this unnecessary work.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">02:38: Thu 12 Apr 2012
- There's no legal copy of the thing to be had, so therefore it doesn't matter even if you had the original source videotape to take screenshots from. Effectively, the BBC doesn't retain copyright on the show, since they are unable to redistribute it. It is, in all but name, an unlicensed production. Arguing that it came from Loose Cannon — I bet it didn't, but whatever — doesn't help your case at all. T:ICC rules Loose Cannon an illegitimate source of photos.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">04:14: Thu 12 Apr 2012
Categories
Please, when creating categories make sure they're consistent in their nomenclature and casing as others in similar categories. You had a mix of upper and lower case on the Unproduced images categories. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:47, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Further to the unproduced TV story image categories, specifically, please stop. We won't be categorising such images, and you shouldn't really be bringing these images into the wiki, anyway. They are illustrations of the article in which they appeared. They aren't concept art for the production in question. They are done way after the fact, without the approval of the production team involved. They illustrate merely an artist's impression of what might have been. To put them into the article muddies the waters to an unacceptable degree.
- Again, I urge you to move into the area of finding photography of actual stories that are firmly within the DWU. Please stop wasting your time and my time with these things that are on the very fringe of the DWU. We haven't gotten images for every character in the televised DWU, even. That's what we need much more than these little back alleys of the DWU.
- All of your "unproduced" categories have been summarily deleted, and the pictures stripped of those categories.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">17:03: Thu 12 Apr 2012
Unproduced stories infobox
Your efforts in Category:Unproduced Doctor Who TV stories, though appreciated, are in some ways completely nonsensical. I really must urge you to please use common sense with infoboxes.
- How the hell can an unproduced story from 1985 possibly have an associated episode of Doctor Who Confidential? Confidential didn't start until 2005! This variable doesn't mean "any old documentary". That is why it is labelled "confidential", and linked to Doctor Who Confidential. It could not be a more specific variable. Please, please, please stop using it to do whatever the heck you want.
- Unproduced stories clearly don't have a production order or a broadcast order. They have no order whatsoever because, obviously, they were never made. The only navigation possible on unproduced stories is
nav=0
. - Relatedly, unproduced stories do not have a story number, because, again, they were never made.
- Unproduced stories have no public credits. Thus, all personnel in the infobox and in any "crew" section within the body of the article need specific citation. You can't just say Graham Harper was the director of Yellow Fever and How to Cure It without proof.
- Equally, production codes have to be specifically cited for unproduced stories. We do have some examples of unproduced stories that actually got production codes. But it's not every single one of them, and you have to be able to prove the point. You gotta be really careful with The Lost Season, too, as source. It's not necessarily giving real evidence, but extrapolating what the production code might have been.
- Seasons have to be backed up, too. You also can't link to a season that exists. For instance, linkage to season 27 doesn't work, because season 27 is the same thing as series 1 (Doctor Who). So to say that Crime of the Century is part of season 27 is awfully misleading. Actually, for most of these, you might consider whether it makes more sense to have the season variable un-linked so that you can explain better what you mean. You don't mean CotC was a part of season 27. For clarity, you mean it was a part of the "unproduced 1990 season".
To sum up, if you try to use an infobox on something, and the variables just aren't quite fitting, stop what you're doing. Then ask for help. Don't go and do a lot of work that has to be ripped up. And with unproduced stories, you have to give a citation for just about every piece of information in the infobox, since none of it is readily apparent on credits.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">18:40: Thu 12 Apr 2012
Spot the problem
Please enumerate the problems apparent at The French Revolution.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">19:25: Sat 14 Apr 2012