User talk:Stardizzy2

Novelisations

Hello there, I noticed that you created some redirects to the novels when doing the novelisation links on the season articles. Be aware that you can get around this by putting the title in the link using [[page (novelisation)|what you want people to see]]. Example [[The War Machines (novelisation)|Doctor Who- The War Machines]] displays Doctor Who- The War Machines. This avoids creating redirects while still keeping the title that you have put.Jack's the man - 15:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. yeah, I know I could do it the other way. I just would rather have the novelisations have the same article name as whatever appears on the spine, rather than Name of Story (novelisation). my way of having it both ways, I guess. --Stardizzy2 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Time's Champion

Hi there just wondering why you are deleting sections from articles about times champion since i know that its from the New Adventures ? also in future if you plan to delete a large ammount from an article could you put a message on the articles talk page stating why

Thanks --Dark Lord Xander 02:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

sure, I'll explain. Craig Hinton and Chris McKeon worked on a fan novel together entitled Time's Champion. digressions to go over arguments justifying fan theories which reference fan fiction (digressions to justify personal views of continuity, full stop, actually) don't really belong here and most especially not in in-universe sections. I feel a bit cruel deleting these sections when I suspect that Chris McKeon (or at least one of his friends) added these sections. at the very least, though, they don't belong in the main (in-universe) section of the articles.

next time I delete a large chunk from any article I will, in future, explain why I did so. --Stardizzy2 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Dark Lord Xander 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I Am the Doctor

I actually took it out of the Non-Canonical category because, with the exception of the Barbara Wright-as-Dr. Who-creator reference, and speculation regarding the Eighth Doctor's regeneration, everything else is simply a restating of canonical storylines (which include the licensed novels). There must be a better category for this. We also need to add a year-related category. Any suggestions? The only change to your edit is I'm going to put back the reference to John Peel's credentials as it's important to state that Peel isn't just some guy who wrote a book, but a veteran DW novelist. 23skidoo 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By year-related category do you mean, "stories set in year X" and/or "Year X events"? I had created the former. it got deleted.

• • Reply: No, I was relating to book-publishing year categories, such as "X Novels", etc. Wikipedia has an "X Books" category, but there doesn't seem to be one for this wiki for these books that fall into no set category. 23skidoo 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

About I Am the Doctor, unless he received authorization from the BBC. He labeled his speculations not as speculations, but as fact. That to me, makes this un-canonical fiction. Most of the fanfic ever written also mostly adheres to the "known facts". I will bring it up on the forum. --Stardizzy2 15:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm good either way. On a related matter, I disagree with the idea of deleting the I Am the Doctor disambiguation page. Please see the associated talk page for my response. Cheers. 23skidoo 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aliases page

I just completed an extensive revision of the Doctor Aliases page. I overwrote your edit just now but will be going back to incorporate your changes. We were thinking along the same lines. 23skidoo 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I got them all. My edit consisted of in-universe revisions, and I also reordered the examples to be chronological (more or less), moved a few misplaced items into the right category, and deleted a few frivilous ones. The ball is back in your court if you wish to revise/trim/organize further. Cheers! 23skidoo 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling

I reverted your redirect - as Tangerineduel indicated, there's enough to warrant an article (especially now with Davies' autobiography revealing she was at one point to appear in the series). And I'm afraid your memory fails you on the in-universe reference as she is directly referenced in dialogue (as indicated in the article) in The Shakespeare Code ("Good old JK!" is the exact line). (This is 23skidoo editing as an IP because Wikia did an update last weekend that for some reason rendered it impossible for me to log in under my current browser or OS). 68.146.25.241 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

oh, okay, my memory did, uh cheat. Stardizzy2 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You All I Want People To Do Is Acknoledge It And Atleast Join I Started On Saturday And Only Have 3 Members Including Me Lol. So If You Did Watch The Show Plz Help Me Im Not Asking You To Devote Yourself Just At Least Look By Now And Then Lol. Thanks Michael Downey 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving and copying

Hi, please be aware not to simply copy all text from an article being moved (as with Doctor Who and the Vortex Crystal) as it does not maintain the article's history. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 15:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

okay. I actually didn't know how else to do it. --Stardizzy2 20:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen

I reverted your changes to this article as it removed important information (the use of the melody in the Pertwee era) and the reason for the deletion was not explained in the edit summary. When making such deletions, it's considered good form to explain why in the edit summary. I've been encouraged to write articles in in-universe style whenever possible, and that includes adding background information so that it's more than a one-line stub. The edit you made unintentionally rendered some parts of the article unreadable as the coding was messed up. If you feel certain information is inappropriate, I invite you to seek consensus on the talk page for the article. Thanks! 23skidoo 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who DVD Files

Was it you who added the additional DVDs all the way up to issue 29 on the page for Doctor Who DVD Files?

As of this now only five have gone to the printers even though 28 issues are planned. I would suggest removing reference to issues 7 to 29. The page looks like the magazine is counting its chickens.

What do you think?

--LondonConcrete 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add those. I only tidied up the page to make it look less like a press release. (I suspect someone cut-and-pasted from a press release, actually.)--Stardizzy2 18:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Post on my page

Playing to my vanity Stardizzy, you should be ashamed (grin). Thanks for the tip. I'll bear it in mind. --Lucifuge Rofacale 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-Whoniverse-specific photos

Hi. I'm a bit puzzled by your objection to the non-Whoniverse-specific photo of Gilbert and Sullivan.

Like I said on the talk page there, what about Image:Samuel Parris.jpeg? Or Image:363px-Charels I by Daniel Mytens in 1631.jpeg? Or Image:460px-Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpeg? Or even Image:Brass drawing pin.jpg? What's "Whoniverse-specific" about them?

And why does this wiki have a licensing template specially for public domain pictures from Wikipedia in the first place if we're not supposed to use it? How many "Whoniverse-specific" pictures on Wikipedia are in the public domain anyway?
--solar penguin/(talk)/(contribs) 12:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

those other images should have gotten deleted. I didn't know about them. as for photos out of public domain -- shhhh! ... I mean, uh [nervous laughter] I... I don't know what you mean! --Stardizzy2 01:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Article titles

Please stop moving/changing names of characters that have titles in their titles (ie Professor, Doctor, Major etc), this is against the manual of style (see Tardis:Manual of style#Naming_conventions). --Tangerineduel 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

okay. I should probably take it up with everyone collectively that I would rather titles get included in the article names. --Stardizzy2 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

template:infobox TV test

Hey, gonna have to roll back all your changes. Though I haven't been saving all my changes as I've gone, you've actually made a number of changes between my changes and the text is too complicated to figure out a clean way to merge the two. Also, I notice you've introducted non-collapsing elements to the infobox, which goes against the design philosophy of the whole thing. I'm quite a bit a way from unveilling this on any real page. I haven't even unveiled this particular box on the forum discussion page yet. It will likely be several weeks before I introduce any of these infoboxes to a real page. I'm going to design an infobox for each major type of page before introducing them to any real page. I want to make sure that each type shares the same variable names where possible.

Please do comment on the forum page, once each type is rolled out for comment, but please don't alter my own test pages in future. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

my bad. I did my "coding" by simply cutting and pasting, by the way, in case you couldn't tell. --Stardizzy2 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

template:infobox Comic

I'm reverting your capitalization thing again for the third time on two templates. This infobox design was approved by a vote, with capitalization being a non-issue for everyone else. If you want it changed, bring it specifically to a vote, because you are wrong grammatically. It is not standard English to capitalize the word "companion", or to capitalize an adjective, but not a noun: "Guest companions". Capitalization is only for proper nouns and the first word of sentences.

The thing you need to understand is that this is a base template for lots of other templates, which are already built on my local machine, or have been uploaded to the site. I'm not going to go back and capitalize every single one of these things on the basis of a vague notion that it might be correct because that's the way its done in the end credits of movies. It is extremely tedious to do this coding, and I'm simply not prepared to add to that tedium by having to hand edit capitals.

But, y'know, that's just a li'l annoyance. What's really bugging me about what you're doing is that you keep giving the variable {{{year}}} the title of year. This change actually affects the content of the infobox, rather than the style, so please stop doing this. I've explained why in several different locations. But it's important, so I'll try it again.

This variable is not now being used for year, nor will it ever be. If you go back through all the old templates, for whatever reason, the editors chose to equate the title "setting" to the variable {{{year}}}. I don't know why. It was stupid, and it's confusing as hell. But they did. And so people have used {{{year}}} for "setting" on hundreds of different infoboxes. It's just a fact of the wiki. So when these new infoboxes go in, they allow for the "old" usage, but provide for a new variable, {{{setting}}}, which is more intuitive. The idea of a {{{year}}} and {{{place}}} variable is a non-starter. There is no easy way to allow for that kind of thing, given the multiple settings so many stories have, and more particularly, the fact that there are stories which may specify a place but not a year. Some stories have, y'know, 10 different locales. How many {{{year}}} and {{{place}}} variables do I allow? And is the work necessary to translate what's already on a page actually worth it?

Look at some examples: Castrovalva (TV story) is sort of a good place to start. You have three physical locations, only one of which has a real date. I would therefore have to program a {{{place1}}}, {{{place2}}}, {{{place3}}} and a similar series of {{{time}}} variables, and then make sure that {{{time1}}} variable displayed properly next to the {{{place1}}} variable. And that's a fairly easy one. At the end of the day would we actually end up with something that looks better than what's already there? I don't think we would, so we've just worked to manually re-edit something that was already working. Far easier instead of putting all those places and times into their own variables, to simply change the variable {{{year}}} to {{{setting}}}.

And, y'know, Castrovalva is pretty simple. The Massacre leaps to mind as something more complex. You might want the flexibility to point out that a setting of Wimbledon, London, 1960s is only true of the final episode. You couldn't do that as easily with the stricter place/time variables. And if you want really complicated, take a look at The Eight Doctors. That one would require ten separate place/time variables. And I'm not sure that book has the record for most places in a single story. I think to be safe I'd actually have to program 20 different place/time variables. Which is silly. It's just better and easier to have a free-form setting variable than to try to set a complicated new "grid" of time/place variables.

If you don't understand that, I'll be happy to try again. Or you could read what's at template:infobox Comic. Maybe that phrasing will make greater sense. In any case, it's really important you don't try to change the labelling of the {{{year}}} variable. And please understand when you made the suggestion at Template talk:Infobox TV test, I did take it seriously. I really tried to come up with a way to have {{{time}}} and {{{place}}} variables. But when you consider all the different types of stories, it's just not practical. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

usually in written English, yes, you only capitalize proper nouns and words in front of sentences.

with infoboxes, you use a different style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Unearthly_Child

see the capitalizations?--Stardizzy2 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DVD region codes

I don't think we'd actually resolved the issues concerning the DVD region code, on the talk page, it's a bit preemptive to be making wide scale changes until we've really reached a full decision, CzechOut raised some interesting issues. The statements on the Doctor Who on DVD page have a lot of vague descriptions with no real certainties. Statements like 'tend to' and 'generally' aren't really confidence builders in the information department. We need facts to back up these articles. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't take responsibility for vagueness in the article. I only re-named it and did some light editing. --Stardizzy2 23:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tonight's the Night deletion

As you gave no rationale for proposing deletion of the article, I am removing the banner. It is possible you might have been under the mistaken impression that this was a joke article or a hoax. Please see [1] . It has as much a right to be here as A Fix with Sontarans. Cheers. 23skidoo 03:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I hadn't offended you there. actually I didn't feel that strongly about the deletion. my rationale for deletion came down to my thinking it belonged in the parodies article. although "A Fix With Sontarans" makes a good precedent and in retrospect I don't think I should have called for the article's deletion.

(BTW, when I first read about "The Doctor's Daughter" here on April 1, I seriously did think "hoax". It hadn't aired yet, though. Of course it never did, I mean, would they really make such a fanwanky story?!) --Stardizzy2 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, delicious bacon.

In the words of Monty Python... oh, you're no fun anymore. Monkey with a Gun 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I suck. and to think I wanted more humor on this Wiki. [grin] --Stardizzy2 18:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fanfiction Page

Hi, Stardizzy2! I really liked the way you edited my page, but I think a section for the 2000s would be good too...and maybe we could mention A Teaspoon and an Open Mind? The 4th doctor 23:18, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and mention it. I didn't put anything there because I know relatively little about the subject. you should put in a mention. you don't have to ask me, just leap in and edit. --Stardizzy2 19:38, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Campaign

I had posted here initially a response to an edit you made to the List of Appearances back in March but others have reinstated Campaign into the lists, so my objection is moot and I deleted my earlier message (it's still in the History, though). Feel free to disregard or delete this PM. 23skidoo 12:57, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

template:fact

Hey, notice you introduced the old-school (source?) thingy at Rassilon. You might want to consider using {{fact}} or {{facts}} in future, as these create an ordinary link and a category link wherever they're placed. They also make the need for citation more obvious, since, as links, they're a different color to ordinary text.

There are also a couple of other, similar templates that have been created in your absence: {{what?}} and {{disputed}}. You might find these useful when the problem isn't citation so much as clarity of expression.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:55: Thu 29 Sep 2011 

thank you. as I guess you figured out, I had gone away for a while and didn't know about these changes. Stardizzy2 19:01, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Stop

Stop removing TV stubs. They are stub becuase they have to be added under headings. Do not remove the TV stub unless all headings are filled. Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 21:01, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

these do not fall under the definition of a stub. Wikipedia defines it as:

"A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion. Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub

emphasis added.

if you mean that some sections need filling out or expanding, then that doesn't make it a stub. --Stardizzy2 ^{talk to me} 21:08, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Requested template

Hey, you said at Forum:Use of the stub template

this Wiki could really use a template for subjects which look like stubs but for whom not much information exists

Could you please develop that point further and perhaps provide a link to a similar wikipedia template? I'm not quite grasping the concept. Sounds lika an "anti-stub" template, whose point I don't immediately grasp.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:23: Mon 19 Dec 2011 

Your input is needed!

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

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">23:53: Tue 20 Dec 2011 

I mean something that says "Insufficient Data: The canon has little on [name of subject]. Please do not mark this as a stub. We don't know any more!" --Stardizzy2 ^{talk to me} 01:46, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Disabling your account

As a former admin, you might recall that local admin have no ability to disable or delete accounts. We can only block them. If you really want to disable it, you have to use Special:Contact, but this will mean you'll lose the account Wikia-wide. I wish you'd stick around, though. Why not just set your computer to allow access to this site only between certain hours each day?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">01:31: Wed 21 Dec 2011