User talk:Josiah Rowe

	Archives: #1, #2, #3

If you leave me a note here, I'll usually respond here. If I've started a conversation on your talk page, I'll usually check your talk page for a reply. (There may be exceptions, but that's the general pattern.)

Featured article system

Hey Josiah! I notice you've stopped by recently, so I'm gonna try leaving a message here before going to user talk:Josiah Rowe.

Since you have experience both on Wikipedia and Wikia, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how we could best implement some sort of featured article "process" here. Would a straight import of the Wikipedia system — with Template:ArticleHistory and all that — be advisable? Or is that system overly ambitious for a Wikia wiki, due to its smaller userbase? I've looked at what Wookieepedia and MemAlpha do, and there are lessons to be learned there. But I'm kind of hoping that since you're a Wikipedia leader with experience over here, you might have some thoughts on how to get smaller communities to build articles in a more cooperative and purposeful way.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">21:29: Sat 14 Apr 2012 

I'm honored that you'd ask for my input, but I'm afraid that I'm really not very knowledgeable about "process" matters like this. ("I know so very little about telebiogenesis.") In fact, I've severely cut back on my Wikipedia contributions in part because I don't have the time or the inclination to fight through all the red tape over there (not to mention real-life stuff, like the birth of my daughter).

That said, my gut feeling is that there's no need for the FA process here to be as formal and stultifying as it is at Wikipedia. The key is to establish a core group of reviewers, who can determine appropriate criteria and apply them to candidate articles. Once that's in place, there could be incentives like the Triple Crown over at Wikipedia to encourage users to bring articles to FA status... but I think that has to come later.

I hope that's helpful. Wish I could chip in more myself, but for the foreseeable future I'm afraid my contributions both here and at Wikipedia will be limited to fixing the occasional typo. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 04:11, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

That's good advice! Thanks for taking the time to give it. Congratulations on fatherhood! And whatever edits you can give here between feedings will be gratefully accepted. Remember: you're still an admin here — whether you like it or not!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">21:32: Mon 23 Apr 2012 

I wasn't even sure I still had the admin bit here. "So many parts! And hardly used!" —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 11:22, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Active admin

I'm glad that you are back editing here at TARDIS. Just to let you know, if you are staying, which I hope that you are, you might want to change your status from inactive to active here; at the list of administrators. Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 00:27, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know whether I'll be sticking around or not. If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that my pattern of editing is not what you'd call consistent — partly due to my erratic work commitments, and partly due to my general lack of responsibility. (Bit like the Doctor, really.) I sort of feel like if I list myself as an active admin, I'm liable to disappear for another 5 years, whereas if I stay on the inactive list I might actually stick around for a while and help. :)

Tell you what— if I'm still editing here in a week, I'll change my status. :) —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 01:42, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, who am I kidding — I'm active. Changed the page. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 03:24, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

infinity doctors

I offer my apologies for my lack of careful writing that have given you offense. I have no opinion on whether The Infinity Doctors should be canonical -- I cannot, since I have not examined the text. I have no issue with people who think it should be canonical or should not be canonical. I do take issue with the reasoning that it should be "semi-canonical" or that a "According to some sources" label" is not a clear warning sign that a piece may have severe continuity issues that may render it non-canonical.

If you feel that an apology in the discussion, let me know and I will make my apology there too. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 16:04, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

No need — the apology here is both appreciated and sufficient.

As for the "according to some sources" phrasing, I think it may be a necessary evil. Ultimately, the game we're playing here ("let's try to make 49 years' worth of Doctor Who fit into a single, coherent narrative") is futile, since there are so many contradictions even in undisputedly canonical material (who was responsible for the destruction of Atlantis? When are the UNIT stories really set?). All we can do is present the evidence to the reader and let him or her decide what to "count". Sometimes, we throw up our hands and say, "OK, there's just no way to make this fit." But that should be a last resort, and I think that "according to some sources" is an acceptable step short of declaring a story non-canonical. You are, of course, free to disagree, but I hope that you can see that the argument in favor of the "some accounts" wording isn't just "I like this and want to include it." —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 17:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comic images

Sorry, you and Tybort must've posted at roughly the same time. I kinda missed that you'd asked me several times about the Griffen thing. Here's the deal with comic images. People can get widescreen or 4:3 images 8/10ths of the time, so I'll tend to just reject an image that's not widescreen until they come back and say, "Actually, there really is nothing better." The widescreen thing is not quite so stringently enforced for comics, but at the same time it's mportant to occasionally tell people to try, or else we end up with some horribly long shots.

Better than me gabbin' is for you to check out Tardis:Guide to images#Comics, where you'll see a number of different shots compared and contrasted.

Also, I went through an extensive tutorial with user:OttselSpy25, which I think is now on his latest archived talk page. You might find some of the descriptions there instructive, but I think he changed some of the pictures so they don't demonstrate the flaws as clearly. Still, you might want to take a gander at user talk:OttselSpy25/Archive 1#Image selection.

As pertains this particular image we're talking about, I'd go for http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/josiahrowe/Griffen1.jpg, but with modification. I'd get rid of the word balloon, which is super easy with monochromatic stuff like this. Just set your paint to the paper color and paint it out. Then I'd crop it back a bit so it wasn't quite so wide. (We do allow limited photo manipulation with comics to get rid of paper yellowing and to remove the entirety of word balloons.)

Hope that was helpful!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">01:11: Fri 04 May 2012 

Thanks for the pointers — but unfortunately my Photoshop skills are more or less nonexistent. (Actually, I don't even have Photoshop on my computer.) I cropped and resized the scan in Preview on my Mac, which is about the sum of my image manipulation ability.

But looking at your discussion with OS25, I'm seeing another problem — I don't have the source material for that strip myself. I've only read scans that were (illegally) put up on the web, and that's where I got the image from. So technically, I suppose I don't have the ability to make an image for Griffen at all. (Those Alan Moore "Black Sun" strips haven't been reprinted, have they? His other two have been, but I don't recall seeing his three Gallifrey stories reprinted — which is a pity.)

Anyway, it looks like I'd better let somebody else handle the images for this one. (I only made the article because I remembered the character's name when I was making the disambiguation page Griffin.) —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 01:32, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

DWTV

Thanks for the fixes on the DWTV template! I also noticed that Robots of Death is misnamed as Robots of Evil, Nightmare of Eden is misspelled as "Nightmare of Ede," and Warrior's Gate lacks an apostrophe. Could you fix these as well? Memnarc ^{talk to me} 09:01, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 15:45, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Atkinson

Well, I'm not arguing for the immutability of the text. Indeed, it wasn't something I gave acres of thought to. I was just shocked that the article was still alleging that Atkinson was the regenerated form of McGann. But I do think the word "overwhelmingly" isn't hyperbole. There was only 1 respondent who argued the thing was canonical. And there were, what, over 10 against the idea? I mean, "overwhelming" is a word that admits of a lot of hyperbole, but rarely have we had debates that ended so convincingly. Sure, there was nuance amongst the opinions, but as a general and simple explanation of the discussion, it's accurate to say that COFD was overwhelmingly rejected by the community.

That said, I certainly welcome your improvements. Obviously, you've greatly enhancced the lead. But the word overwhelming, or something equally superlative, should stay. Overly complicated, nuanced language at that article will allow some people to thin that there's some kind of wiggle room. At the end of the day, all that really matters is that we simply state that the guy isn't a part of the DWU, and that there's a community discussion which overwhelmingly decided that we would adopt that stance. So, yeah, go to town and change the wording, but please don't introduce doubt or nuance on for a discussion that went 90& in one direction.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">05:22: Sun 13 May 2012 

Works for me :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">06:05: Sun 13 May 2012 

Typo in Stories template

Hello. I just wanted to point out that on the Stories template, Let's Kill Hitler is misspelled as "Let's Killer Hitler". I was just wondering if you could fix it, since editing it is locked. Thanks. --Frohman Talk 18:07, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that! It's fixed now. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 18:10, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

River Song

Dear Josiah,

looks like we're a the point of getting into a p***ing match, so I thought it would be best to take it to a discussion here.... perhaps we should take it to the talk section of River Song. If you think so, please let me know by leaving me a message on my talk page. Email alerts of page changes haven't been getting through for several months.

I have been removing the matter of River's bisexuality because it does not exceed the level of speculation. The standards here are very strict: it needs to appear in a narrative source. Given the lies that Mr. Moffatt provides to keep the surprises actual surprises, he would not be a valid source even if twitter feeds were a generally accepted source. You've been in an argument with Czechout over The Infinity Doctors, in no small part to sustain it as a source of information about Gallifrey.

Given these issues I don't think River's sexuality has been established in any way, especially given the way people in general lie about sex in general. I am not going to change it back immediately. I intend to wait a day or two. If you can offer something more substantial than the information at hand or a better line of argument than is possible in a title line, please do. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 21:59, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

FP

Yep, definitely going to be coming back through and delinking with a bot. Fortunately, fairly flexible logs are kept of page imports, so it'll be fairly easy to identify the pages that need to be de-linked at a later date. However, the priority over the next week or so is on completing the basic infrastructure of w:c:factionparadox. We can live with a few redlinks in the interim.

By the way, I'm not opening up w:c:factionparadox to new admin until I get the "train tracks laid". But you seem to have a fairly good interest in/knowledge of FP. Would you be interested in admin status there, too? Wouldn't really be expecting you to do anything according to any kind of schedule, but one of the reasons the place died on its previous two attempts is that on both occasions the lone bureaucrat failed to add admin. Thus, when the bureaucrat's interest waned, there was no one left around with the power to do anything. Having additional admin would at least ensure that new users — if any ever come — could have multiple avenues of contact with those nominally in charge.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:14: Thu 24 May 2012 

Yeah, it would just be a backup thing in the event that a user — and let's be honest, there haven't been other users there for years — couldn't get in touch with other admin, and they really needed to get a page deleted or something.

By the way, I've made you an admin at w:c:tardistest, which is just pro forma for all active admins here.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:17: Thu 24 May 2012 

FP deletions

Yes, of course. Sorry. I knew the FP Wiki was there when I deleted it, it didn't even cross my mind to check the pages were the same (oops). Thanks for reminding me. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:23, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ebooks

Hey, we did discuss it, indeed you even agreed with me. See Forum:How should we deal with link rot?. I did as I suggested on the thread, I removed the link and added a text only version to the Notes section. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:34, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

So I did. How embarrassing. Please to ignore my idiocy. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 15:23, June 19, 2012 (UTC)