User talk:Tangerineduel

"Proper" wiki Merges

As an aside, things like Border Princess and Border Princes should be merged properly in order to merge the histories into one place. Have you ever done this before? If not, the process is as follows:

1. manually copy the information from the destination to the source article.
2. delete the destination article
3. move the source article to the destination (this creates the redirect too)
4. undelete all deleted revisions of the page

And voila... you're done. You have all of the history from every instance of the article in one location. :) -- Sulfur 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right (didn't know how to do it, or probably thought about it and did the easier way). Will bare it in mind for the future thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who theme

I just made a major move and revision, taking the article called "Theme Arrangement" and changing it to the more-likely-to-be-searched Doctor Who theme. I expanded and reorganized the article thoroughly. The only catch is that there's a ton of "What Links Here" artifacts where Theme Arrangement is still linked.

I'm prepared to spend some time (when time allows) removing the redirects, but if you happen to have access to a bot that can do this, please feel free. (Alternately, if you don't mind redirects - they make Wikipedians antsy which is why I'm asking here - then we can just leave it be). I put the word "theme" in lower case for the renamed article, but I wonder if it should be "Theme". Do you know if the piece of music is actually called "Doctor Who Theme"? 23skidoo 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I just realized I accidentally posted the thread to your userpage instead of your talk page. Apologies. I think keeping everything together in one article is probably best. Someone looking for information on the theme music and its various versions would probably just want to go to the one article. Spinoffs related to specific versions such as Pertwee's vocal version might be feasible later, but for not I was able to turn it into a general article on the theme by just adding a few paragraphs to what already existed regarding the different arrangements. 23skidoo 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub templates

Hey, thanks for your message! I find myself sorta changing my approach to these stub thingies as I see them in place on various pages. So the main reason the TV stub is oriented differently than the others is because it's almost universally used on a page that has a big, centered navigational block at the bottom. It'd be nice if they were all oriented the same way, but the other TV templates don't seem to want to oblige.

As for these things having or not having borders, personally I'm a fan of the no-border look. It a) makes the stub message stand out and b) is the way stub messages are on Wikipedia proper. Another point I've noticed yesterday is that if you put a stub message on, say, a character page without an image, the stub will appear out of alignment with the character info box. Having a border around the stub message fixes it firmly at 260px, due to padding and cell spacing. That's fine on a page where an image exists in the infobox, because adding the pic bumps it up to 260 as well (for instance: Tobias Vaughn). But if you look at, say, Harper, you can see that the fact of having a border falsely makes it look out of alignment. Since many stubs will be on pages without a pic, I think it makes sense to 86 the border. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Real World

I note you've just reverted the real world template. Please note that I'm actively working on it, for reasons stated in Template_talk:Real world. The original format of the template does work in Monobook, but not at all in other skins, as far as I can tell. Floating it with the "absolute position" command actually covers up the text in the lead. See, for instance, Doctor Who theme or Tony Dow (when viewed in say Slate or Brick). You said that my latest revision "mucks with page layouts", but I'm not seeing evidence of that in several different skins. How specifically did it muck with page layouts? Thanks for your help! CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What skin are you using? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see the problem you're describing. Thing is, though, should we be making a template that looks best only when an article is empty? I mean, surely we want to be able to read the lead of a proper article more than we want the format of an absolute barebones stub to look right? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, near as I can tell, across multiple skins, I've got it so that even on the ridiculously short articles, it's not crossing the line of the subsequent headers, as with Jasmine Breaks. It seems to look fine on genuine articles. Although one might quibble that it's wider than it was before, it does at least conform to a standard 250px width, which means that it'll match the width of the wikipediainfo box, common to these sorts of pages. And you can read all text on any page using the template. Because it's a transcluded template, it may take some time for all pages to use the new format, so you may encounter some pages which are using older versions. You can wait, or see the template as it currently looks on the page by performing an "empty edit" (edit, then save, without changing anything). CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Myths sections

It might be worth considering changing the "Myths" sections in the episode articles to something a bit clearer such as "Rumours and speculation" as that's what I understand these sections are supposed to include. A user removed the Myths section from Forest of the Dead with the rationale that the speculation and rumors listed were "not myths". I reverted this change and said I'd made the suggestion in your direction. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Myths and Rumours works for me. I'll change them as I see them. Hell of an episode this week! 23skidoo 04:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

Ok, no problem

Mainpage Changes

Hi, I posted about changes to the format of the main page here. I'd like some admin feedback about the changes too though. Could you take a look? thanks! -- Wendy (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio Cover Category?

Would it be OK to create a category tag for the Big Finish Audio Drama covers? If there was ever a need to go through them all again (like with the copyright tag recently), being able to have them all listed on one page would be a real time saver. --Colleyd 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Woof.

Actually, upon inspection, I somehow overlooked the fact that the copyright tag already put them all in a category. Sorry, my bad. S'what I get for doing edits shortly after waking up. --Colleyd 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Woof.

The new format is awful

Take a look at what the new format has done to the article on Pest Control. The Infobox has been shunted down by an Ads by Google box that, gee, include an ad for pest control services. I thought these stupid ads were only supposed appear on the main page and only for people who aren't registered users? Is there any way of shutting those ads off so the pages actually look the way they're supposed to? 23skidoo 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent. I did not know that the redesign was actually controllable by you - I thought it was something done at Wikia's level (hence my hostility about it). Glad you were able to fix it. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... another guy has vandalized the Journey's End page with spam about Prince Philip. Could you block him please? You'll find him on the history of that page. Thanks. The evil dudeArnie 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Its happened again....and I suggest you protect that page until broadcast. Its the only way. The evil dudeArnie 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I`ve just removed a block of text about you know who a few minutes ago can someone please stop this idiot Drwhofan08 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes sorry about writing on article pages, I realised what I had done and went to the discussion page and whilst there you must have spotted it. It won`t happen again. I`m new to all this and just getting used to it - sorry :( Drwhofan08 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Battles in Time

Hi, thanks for recent page suggestions they were helpful. I'm about to revisit, adapt and upload BIT pages over the next few weeks as the title is coming to an end soon (well, next month). Pages will include Trading Cards (listing and information), the Magazines, Magazine Issue guide (WITH the Dalek Wars!), galleries and Comic Strip pages. In light of this, and after having now tweaked Growing Terror, I was wondering if you could just scan it through, let me know what you think, and flag up anything that I specifically need to incorporate.
I've removed the stub as the content seems to be more than adequate (I think!) and am looking to create a new 'Doctor Who: Battles in Time' category.
PS If the new look is favourable I may work backwards with the other strips! Thanks again The Librarian 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again!

That’s just the sort of constructive comments I needed. Because it was a bit wordy I’ll sum up my reply if thats ok down the page order.
Infobox
Series: I hope to see the Doctor Who Comic Strip Stories expanded to include a wider overview of the publishing history (non-specific to the Doctors eras) in the future. And as a more direct link I just felt that the Tenth Doctor Comic Strip Stories would be, usefully, more direct. (I certainly find it useful) I would like to retain it as I don’t think they are duplication.
Image: Please hear me out on this one with an open mind! Its something I thought about for quite a bit on and off. Initially I did it rather than have an imageless page. but then I got thinking, and thought that it summed up what the page was about instantly. A Tenth Doctor Strip from BIT. The artwork is so simplistic that there really wasn’t the scope in just 4 pages to pick an image that summed up the story Which is why I moved towards representing the strip with notible snipets further down the page. Originally I was intending a look that had characters ‘faces’ in a column on the left of the page next to a brief entry on the right but I couldn’t get the format right. (It added to the page length a lot - too much blank space in the text side) So I opted for a image break after the summary before characters so its not like they’ve been overlooked and actually offer a better representation I think. The other much longer option was to show an image of the Tenth Doctor from each strip, but as the artist was consistent not sure about the effort against content.Besides is the image any less intrusive than some of the stub boxes!
Image tag. Sorry I couldn’t see a way of of adding a tag to each image when uploading. Do you just bring the image up and edit the page, inserting the line?
Enemy. And self page referencing.. OK
Main Article
Lettering (and others): I didn’t want to leave it empty like it had been missed, but able to be recognised as something to add at some stage if revealed. Not stated wins over unstated: OK
Summary (Opening Tag). This line is included and taken direct from the first frame. The reason for inclusion here is that it not only states for new readers where in the story you are (important for the younger of the magazine), but mainly becomes sometimes the stories do not tie-up with the previous frame and the TAG is used to move the story on. If the various parts of the strip had a linking title (on one article page) then I wouldn’t use ‘The story so far…’ bit but BIT clearly has individual but linked stories, with most of the entries like separate quests eventually leading to a final reveal. They (mostly) read more like self contained stories with a variable length story arc.
References: Tenth Doctors checklist
An explanation. Perhaps changing the line to; “The Battles in Time comic strip often sought to reinforce the Doctor character with that as seen on screen by utilising various ‘props’ used in the TV series. Namely; blue/brown suit, sonic screwdriver, psychic paper and his intelligent glasses. Apart from the brown suit none appeared in this strip.
Publication Details: Ok, first why its there is because of continuity with the other strip articles I’ve done. Although it could be seen as less significant for this title. (Because they are treated as individual episodes). Overall (throughout the various ongoing comic strip adventures) it can be a significant point of reference.
The ‘problem’ with the BIT strips is one of whether to group the strips or keep them as individual pages. I suppose I have tended to lean towards the separate-but-linked pages, but was also thinking of maybe incorporating underneath a linked list to other parts of a themed story. Maybe?!
Regarding the infobox I couldn’t get the ‘number in a series box’ to show which would give the strips an easier continuity.
Italitising TV titles: OK I forgot, will try harder to remember!
References: In Continuity: Out OK I think I’ve got it! (but it still confuses me sometimes where to put somethings so I generally use notes!!).
External references: OK thanks for that, spent quite a while looking for the format. I know I had used it before to show the webpage name but for the life of me…got tired searching. It was what I was looking for so thanks again for that bit. I will reinstate the words ‘Magazine and’ (trading card details) though if that’s ok?
After saying all that (phew!), I could still be pursuaded to follow another suggestion and combine the pages under the FIRST title of the serial (eg issues 2-6 would all relate to the Growing Terror page. (which would support the 'Publication' bit)Its still not too late to get it right. Thoughts?
As the title is winding up soon (supposedly), it seemed like an opportunity to tweak comic strip coverage on this stand alone complete series so that improvements can be made to the other strips. As you have probably noticed I also follow the Doctor Who Adventures title…and its not just for the toys and inflatable Oods! Honest! (Its a slightly different type of strip that Ive been working on in tandem). Anyway sorry about the waffle. Including your comments I’ve Ok’ed, my main concern is.. is it still more right than wrong?! The Librarian 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)