User talk:Mini-mitch/Archive Talk 5

File:Archive filingcabinent.png

Archives: 1  • 2 • 3  • 4

Please leave all new message at the bottom of the page. Also, please take new heading for each discussion. Please sign all message as well. Comments that are: unsigned, rude, a personal attack, vandalism will be ignored or deleted

---

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 

Heh, well, big toc will move the toc on your page if your page hadn't specified the TOC element within your archive box. I've temporarily removed the forced TOC to demonstrate. You can put it back after you note the effect.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">19:36:17 Mon 28 Feb 2011 

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)

Yes, but I would prefer it to stay as it is. I think that the list is best left short and sweet. Thank you for your time.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:25, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Good, It looks better not sectioned.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:08, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

The God Complex

I know the reason you keep on deleting the info on The God Complex is that it has not yet been confirmed. Have you actually looked at the front cover of DWM 432? The one thing I want to say is that when the DWM before the airing of the Series 5 finale says "Latest Info On Pandorica Opens etc" and I remember that it was then put on the Series 5 page and left there. Why are you getting rid of The God Complex? Look at the image next to the text on the front cover. It's the screenshot from the clip of Amy screaming IN the opening episode! Look at the evidence. How on earth can you deny it? --Ghastly9090 18:50, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Things to consider before deleting

I reverted a high percentage of your deletions today, so I wanted to drop by here and give you a few suggestions. Please don't delete names that are:

• working titles, like Black Ops or Sarah Jane Investigates. We should be working towards building a list of redirects for all valid, confirmable working titles. Some people, generally on the geeky end of fandom, may get stuck someday in a trivia contest and want to know, quickly, what was the episode that began its life as Black Ops.
• common alternate English words that you know must exist in some Doctor Who story somewhere. Deleting kitten was just cold, man :) Especially when you know the word was used in at least Gridlock. Same thing with canine and feline.
• if you're going to give the rationale "unlikely to be searched for", please consider whether that statement is true. You gave that rationale for "kitten", but c'mon — people will search for ordinary English words, if given a chance. Things that are unlikely to be searched for are phrases that are unusually long, complicated or simply misspelled, versus the primary name of the topic.

But the biggie is this. Please don't delete:

• anything that is used as a valid alternate name in the lead of an article. Tony Head and season 27, etc., were all emboldened in the leads of articles. Any time an alternate name for the topic is emboldened in a lead, it automatically requires a redirect based on that name. Doesn't matter if it's never linked to. As a valid alternate name for the topic, it must lead people to that article if they type it in the search box. Simple as that. Also, you may not personally like calling new series by a seasonal name, but this battle was fought long before you joined the wiki. You're subverting a compromise reached long ago. If you don't like references to "season 28" or "season 30", fine — but you'll definitely need a forum discussion to change current compromise. As things stand, the series number gets preference, but the season numbers are valid redirects.

'Course, I didn't undo everything you deleted today. But you might want to consider these points before going through another round of deletion.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">01:14:13 Sat 05 Mar 2011 

Policy inconsistency

You've recently completely unprotected The King's Dragon without explanation. I'd like one, please, considering that multiple admins have been trying to protect the creation of Touched by an Angel (and Touched By An Angel, for that matter). The former book comes out in July, the latter in August. What's the difference? Both are future publications, but one is only slightly less in the future than the other.

Please justify your actions in light of tardis:spoiler policy.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">00:01:22 Sun 06 Mar 2011 

Thanks for explaining. And for catching my error. I could've sworn Amazon said 2011, but going back to check, it appears that it didn't. That'll teach me to sit too far away from my monitor. Thanks again :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:43:58 Sun 06 Mar 2011 

Moving images

Hey, when you're moving images it's often easier to uncheck the 'leave redirect behind' check box (as I'm assuming you're changing the file names on the pages to what you're moving the images to). Unchecking the box means the redirects aren't created, which obviously means you don't have to go back after moving them to delete the redirects. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:35, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

SJA Page Mistake

Hello. There is a typo on http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sarah_Jane_Adventures that I cannot fix, because the page is protected.

It should say numerous, not numerours...

• Bio dampers appeared numerours times, they debuted in DW: The Runaway Bride. Fbultimatrix 11:38, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Is The Curse of Fatal Death canon?.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">20:05:03 Fri 11 Mar 2011