More actions
Please leave all new messages at the bottom of the page.
Please sign all messages.
Any unsigned messages will be ignored.
Front page
Can't seem to find this complaint of which you speak. What exactly is the issue and how would you suggest we handle it?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:04: Sat 08 Jun 2013
- We need to clearly establish that information from the BBC can still be a spoiler. The 7b Blu-ray fiasco was an "official", if mistaken, release from the BBC. Many, many press releases come from the BBC which run afoul of our spoiler policy. It's important to convey that something can be a spoiler even if it comes from the BBC. We're talking about the organisation that we know robbed us of the surprise of a ninth regeneration and any suspense about the ending of The Parting of the Ways.
- It seems to me that we have to weigh the costs and benefits here. Are the views of one person on Skype enough to muddle the clarity of the statement as worded? They might be, and I'm not opposed to kicking around some modification of language.
- But —
- This wiki just spent a week last month being incredibly, pro-actively pro BBC. At their request, we took extraordinary steps to help keep their secrets. Is it reasonable to interpret us as anti-BBC just because we've said that the BBC spoils their own product? Everyone knows they spoil all the time. They spoiled the regeneration on the beach thing of The Impossible Astronaut. They spoiled the cliffhanger of Daleks in Manhattan, back when they still owned and operated Radio Times. They spoiled the whole Silents/Silence thing, prior to the release of The Wedding of River Song. And, of course, they famously spoiled the 20th anniversary by okaying the release of The Five Doctors (novelisation) two weeks in advance of The Five Doctors (TV story).
- Rule #1 of any fan trying to avoid spoilers is to stay away from the letters B, B, and C.
- Is it really an insult to the BBC to point that out? I dunno, but it's certainly not slander. According to what our definition of spoiler is, the BBC do in fact spoil stuff on a regular basis.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:12: Sat 08 Jun 2013
Why did you delete my page? It obeys all of the community guidelines and is 100% true. I spent all afternoon in Hospital making that while I was waiting for the GP. This is just stupid and mean.
Boris
The Name of the Doctor
Hello :) Could you explain me why you reverted my edit in the continuity section of The Name of the Doctor, so that I won't fail in future? Thank you :) --HarveyWallbanger ☎ 20:34, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed answer :) I am not convinced 100%. The case I mentioned is when the Fourth Doctor wakes up for the first time and tries to flee with the Tardis in front of Sarah Jane and the Brigadier, in a hurry, because he says he doesn't like goodbyes. Eventually he changes his mind, I know, but... I won't complain again :) --HarveyWallbanger ☎ 18:27, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
My email
Hey There, I wanted to check in with you and see if you received my email. I sent it a few days ago. Let me know. Thanks, --Sarah<staff /> (help forum | blog) 15:52, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
War Doctor image
Hello :) I had a question regarding the image of the young War Doctor (Hurt), I few days ago I entered the infobox doctor but then I noticed that the image has moved and is now located directly below the infobox . Please, if possible, to repair the error.
(excuse my english but I'm not a native speaker)--William Warlow banger|☎ 13:27, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply but I'm afraid you've misunderstood what I was asking was not to put the image of the young doctor as the main picture but because after entering the infobox that lists the various incarnations of the Doctor the image moves, finishing further down the page instead of where it really should be (in so far talks about how the eighth doctor was risen from the sisterhood of Karn) --William Warlow banger|☎ 16:50, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
Images
Hey :) Before we get into a little edit war over the image at Dalek time controller and elsewhere, I thought I would explain why I'm having to delete a lot of your work today. It really is important that you follow our image rules, particularly about size. As of today, 250px is the absolute minimum width that is acceptable. It's not a suggested minimum, or a mere guideline. It's really, truly, the minimum width, because 250px is the width of the infobox. And this number will soon be revised upwards, for technical reasons.
Here's the deal: pictures are being taken and displayed in so many more ways than they were when you and I first joined Wikia. It used to be that you put an image in an infobox and that was the only place on the whole network where it lived. So a lot of us, me included, operated under the theory you probably still believe: better any image than no image.
But that's not how it is anymore.
Every picture on the site has to work in:
- the infobox
- at thumbnail level, in the body of an article
- the mobile skin
- at both widths of the images at "Our Top 7",
- in MyWikia,
- even within search results
And it's not just the locations that have multiplied. It's the quality of the devices on which the site is viewed. Monitor quality has exploded just in the last three years. People buying even phones today have much greater resolution than was ever possible before. Seriously, look at our site on an iPad Retina and you'd instantly want to start deleting pics out of sheer embarrassment.
So the old adage, "better something than nothing" really doesn't apply anymore. It honestly makes our site look better on modern devices to go with nothing than to go with something of poor quality.
Let me illustrate by putting two Dalek images side-by-side, as seen in MyWikia.
| <250px | well over 250px |
|---|---|
|
|
You can see the difference in quality, even at this small size. But go ahead and expand those pictures to their native size. It doesn't take much scrutiny to see how incredibly badly pixellated your image on the left is. That's cause it's having to stretch something that's really tiny by a factor of more than four.
Also, you'll note that all that extra height that was on your image goes absolutely nowhere in MyWikia. All we've got is an eyestalk, anyway, so how is your picture actually illustrating the difference between a Dalek and a Dalek Time Controller? And your pic of Molly? All you could see in MyWikia was her forehead. Widescreen isn't just a stylistic choice for us: It's a technical necessity.
Now, look, I recognise that trying to illustrate audios is hard. You're basically limited to just the cover. But you still have to hit the technical minimums. One way you can more reliably do this is to get the highest resolution cover image possible. Usually Big Finish see out a giant 1600 sized version right around the time of release. Go for this one. Or scan the cover yourself to a huge size. And, yanno, don't try to hit 250px exactly. Go as wide as you can, with as high a quality source as you can, while still staying under 100kb in total file size.
And if you can't get something that fits the minimums, don't illustrate it at all. This is gonna really impact your work here once I do the math and find out the new optimum minimum size. (My guess is, though, that the new minimum is going to be about 450px.)
Honestly, the site looks better when we choose not to illustrate over using a very low-width image.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 19:07: Fri 06 Dec 2013
Reverting my edit
Hi, please explain why you used rollback to remove my edit to the Timey-wimey detector page. How is that not a similar device? Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:20, December 24, 2013 (UTC)