User talk:Skittles the hog

Just wanted to check

Hey, I just wanted to check that you're not working on a NA navbox, as I just saw the EDA (great work btw) and didn't want to start working on an NA version if you're in the process.

Also wanted to say that your re-work of the feature article policy looks to be coming along well, I seem to recall I thought of something like you've done, but I put it on the back burner mostly because at that time there would likely be objections and nothing would be done to fix the articles, so it seemed, as long as it didn't have any improvement tags that was good enough, but we really should be showcasing the best, so your process seems to be better. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:59, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to alter the Feature Article policy whatever way to accommodate your new additions. I don't think your additions are a large shift in policy, it's more a development of the "Feature Article rejection" part of the policy. Also if you follow through the policy's talk page to the forum and (through some other links), there was this page Tardis:Nominations for featured articles which was how we used to do it, until it all sort of stalled and I restarted it with the system we've got at the moment, but the nominations page was in 2008, now we've got more active users so any opposition should get the problems fixed, rather than just stagnating.

I have been around, I've just been doing shorter series of edits than I used to. I'm still on here (usually) daily. So I'll still respond to any messages within a 24 hour period. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:27, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I do tend to ramble.

So, yes, go for it. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:36, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through your altered policy, there's several minor things I'd change. I think (so we preserve the edit history), if you add what you've done to the policy page (and put an inuse tag on it), I'll add what I've changed and you can see the changes. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:40, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

As you can see I've changed a few things here and there.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the Ready for posting, which I made as a sub-page of the nominations, this was just in case we got a lot of feature articles that passed the policy and/or that there was a lot of discussion on the nominations page so the ready for posting page could be a clean page with just nominations and if there's a lot votes for which month they should go in. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:07, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to know if you think it should be a subpage or part of the current page. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

...Thanks. I've rolled the edits back for now until next month's article has been voted on, as you were the driving force behind the change over. I thought you would want to oversee the changes. So I'll leave it for you to shift over when you return. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Right...

I did not understand a word of that message. 09:06:40 Sat

TARDIS page edits

It seems user Bold Clone and I have a bit of a disagreement on how the TARDIS page should be edited. He edited sections and pics that he felt were out of place. I don't believe the edits were necessary. Truthfully, the edits he made were done more then a week ago. I just haven't had time to write to you. I talked to him about it a week or so ago and he said that only input from a moderator would be enough to sway his decision. This was a good idea and that's why I'm writing to you. I undid his edits again but only so you would have a more recent edit to make a comparision from. I'm sure he'll undo my undo all over again. Forgive my long drawn out arguments in advance. His edits include:

• Removing pic of the Console that was in the flight section of the page.

According to Bold Clone the console pic quote "Irrelevant to flight." end quote. According to him, quote " The console of the Doctor's TARDIS is completely irrelevant to the TARDIS' flight. It doesn't belong there." end quote. While I, personally, would prefer another pic of a newer version of the TARDIS' console, I disagree with him in regards to the idea that the console is irrelevant to flight. It b elongs on the TARDIS page and in the Flight section. The reason I say this is because it has been demonstrated "that all you need is a console w/ time rotor and three walls to fly through the vortex". We see this in the episode The Doctor's Wife, The Doctor's Wife is the episode where Idris and The Doctor use left over parts from cannibalized TARDISes abandoned in the Bubble universe's Junkyard to build the Junk TARDIS. With the junk TARDIS they fly to the Police Box TARDIS which had been hijacked by House. According to the junk TARDIS wikia page "'The TARDIS consisted solely of a console (with time rotor) and three walls. It lacked a proper shell, which the Doctor stated would be very dangerous to travel without." So basically I think this demonstrates that the console is key to time-space flight and that it does belong in the flight section.

• Reference to the TARDISes ability to turn invisible

Basically I posted a reference in the "Chameleon circuit" section noting the time when the TARDIS landed in the White House's Oval Office in 1969. The TARDIS was both invisible and inaudible at the time so Nixon and his staff didn't know the TARDIS was there. This happened in the first episode of series 6, The Impossible Astronaut. Bold Clone said , "Chameleon circuit: Completely irrelevant to the shapeshifting abilities of the chameleon circuit." From what I can tell the Chameleon Circuit is designed to conceal the TARDIS in order to allow it to blend into it's surroundings like a chameleon. Shapeshifting is one way it does that, invisibility is the other way, so I think it does fit under that category. He also took out a pic showing the TARDIS going from being invisible to visible in the Oval Office.

• Removed pic showing how the TARDIS is bigger on the inside then it is on the outside.

The pic was in the "Dimensionally Transcental" section of the TARDIS wikia. The pic was there awhile. It was previously reviewed by you and you didn't seem to have a problem with it, prior to it's removal. The pic was meant to illustrate how the TARDIS was bigger on the inside. Bold Clone seems to believe the pic doesn't fit on the page.MochaShakaKhan 04:19, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Quick point: I never said that that the staff would change my opinion. I would prefer that you stop misquoting me.

A console picture is not as relevant as a picture of the TARDIS in flight. The TARDIS in flight is far better for a section about the TARDIS in flight. How many others are going to make the same connection as you did?

The Chameleon circuit does not turn the TARDIS invisible. Does the Doctor specifically say that the chameleon circuit turned the TARDIS invisible? No...

There were two pictures illustrating the TARDIS' dimensional transcendance. We only needed one. --Bold Clone 18:35, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Well you said, "If you have a problem with it, talk to the staff" I came to the false conclusion that the word of an administrator would be enough to get you to stop undoing my edits. Am I wrong about that? I never said that they would change your opinion. The TARDIS isn't a big ship like the Enterprise or the Galactica. There are a few key components that make a TARDIS. One of those key components is the console. Words are great, but visual content is important too. I'm not sure about others, but when I look up a wikia I want to see what it is I'm reading about. That's why a few pics are necassary. They don't take up that much space on the page and they make all the differance.

As for the invisibility, I believe it belongs somewhere on the page. I think it belongs in the Chameleon Circuit section, but if you want, as a comprimise perhaps we can add the exert I wrote to another section other then the Chameleon Circuit section. Invisibility is a feature of the TARDIS so it does belong somewhere on the page. That's the point.

To the less technobabble savy amoung us Dimensionally Transcental might be alittle hard to wrap your head around so the pic was meant to help by showing the TARDIS from the inside out. MochaShakaKhan 19:13, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong about that. It does not matter what the Staff says; I will not change my mind.

Really, we dod not need a second picture. If I were to talk about how the Enterprise can fly through space, I would show a picture of the Enterprise flying through space, not the control room. The same sort of clear and logical thinking applies to the TARDIS in flight. I want to see that TARDIS in flight, becuase that is the best visual aid we could possibly give.

Invisibility might belong somewhere on the page, but not under the Chameleon Circuit. The Chameleon Circuit does not give invisibility.

To the less technobabble-savy, dimensionally transcental might be a little hard understand, which is why we already had a picture there in the first place. We do not need a second one. --Bold Clone 20:37, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Well we resolved the issue concerning the section on invisibility and this newer issue about the main image, but there is still an issue concerning whether the pic of the console that used to be on the page belongs in the flight section. I also wanted to add a gallery to the article, but it's possible some people may have a problem with that so I'd like to know if it is OK in advance.MochaShakaKhan 19:35, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

OK, then maybe instead of including the gallery directly on the TARDIS page, perhaps I can place a link to another page on the wIkia that would be a gallery specially dedicated to TARDISes. I beleive the Marvel Comics wikia does this. I really do beleive that visual referances are just as important as "textual" ones. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. :) MochaShakaKhan 05:57, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles

Sorry it's taken a few days to get back to you on your rejig of featured article nominations. I don't really understand your basic ruleset. When does approval happen? According to what I can figure out on your sandbox page, the answer seems to be, "When there are no remaining objections". So it's not a positive vote of "This is a great article because it adheres to points a, b and c of the (as-yet-unwritten) Tardis:Featured article policy," Rather, it's a negative vote of, "No one dis-likes the article, so we can now feature it on the main page."

I don't think that's what we want to say.

I'd recommend setting a clear standard for FA status, then finding six articles which adhere to that standard, with those six articles agreed by admin over a week long private nomination process not open to the general editing community. In other words, really truly get the six best articles on the wiki. Then, roll those six articles out over the next six months.

In the meantime, start the voting process, open to all (even unregistered) voters for January 2012. Instead of making the standard simply "all objections must be answered", make the standard, "Not only must all objections be answered, but featured articles must have a minimum of five completely positive votes."

As your ruleset currently stands, an article could be featured without even being seconded, since your main criterion is merely that no one objects to it. We need to close that loophole and give nominations a few months to gather a minimum number of votes. This is why we would build in the six months' padding — in addition to the need for admin-decided examples of excellence.

So, in summary: define a standard, pick six examples that meet that standard, open up user nominations for January 2012, and then wait (in the six months we've added to the system) for user-nominated articles to get a mere five votes. That's how I'd go.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">04:09:04 Tue 02 Aug 2011 

TARDIS main image

There is some sort of argument or discussion of what the main image for TARDIS should be. One user wants a camoflauged TARDIS. You and me know that is ridiculous, because that is not a TARDIS's true appearance. I honestly think an admin should get control of this situation. Your input is really needed. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 11:35, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes...changes

I saw your question on CzechOut's talk page and thought I'd drop you a message about them there's more information here New Tools to Start & Grow Your Wiki and there's also a discussion over on the community:admin wiki forums; Community:Admin Forum:Admin tools feedback and suggestions. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:34, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Tonight on BBC One and others

Due to a Wikia error which isn't allowing me to upload a new image of your file, I will have to upload the image as a different name. I was uploading a new image which didn't have the BBC insignia. So, please can there be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine. Hope you understand :) BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 16:16, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

DPL at London

Done.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:20:23 Mon 08 Aug 2011 

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Alienation of new and IP users. MM/Want to talk? 20:34, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

This was in reply to User:BroadcastCorp but was removed from his page. This is here merely for future reference.

- - Right, seeing as you have decided to not only claim I'm making personal attacks, but then make comments on other users pages about me, I've decided to answer you. I asked Czech to ignore your comment as it was unjustified. This is a perfectly valid point. Here's the important part: if was a criticism, not a personal attack. Tardis:No personal attacks specifies that disagreements are not personal attacks. It also says something interesting about accusatory comments being personal attacks...

- - Now, you suggested on User talk:Tangerineduel that I had no evidence for my own claims. I did, simple as. Then you went on to simply insult me for no clear reason. I have already asked you not to attack users at this talk page and hoped there was no need to reiterate but: please do not insult other users. Hope this cleared up the situation for you :) --Skittles the hog - talk 17:27, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Doc cats

Hey, I saw that you had put most of the docs into the 'making of' cat, but that you hadn't actually made the cat yet, by affixing it to an existing cat. I changed the name to something wordier, but more precise, Documentaries about the making of Doctor Who televised stories, and then stuck it under Doctor Who documentaries. But I don't really remember what all the other new cats were. Could you please either attach them to category:Doctor Who documentaries, or give me a list of them? We don't want to lose these categories that appear to have been made, because they have a blue-link, but actually haven't been made. Thanks.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:54:56 Fri 12 Aug 2011 

p.s. Why the name switch? Because there are actually other kinds of "making of" docs. Beyond the Vortex is a "making of" for the McGann/Sheridan stuff, Torchwood Declassified is a making of for Torchwood televised stories, and there's supposedly some kinda making of documentary on the K9 Series 1 DVD — just for a start. So a name was required that was specifically DW, specifically about TV stories.

Heya :) The p.s. was just meant to clarify why I changed the name of the cat from category:"Making of" documentaries. I felt it might not have been obvious why such a long name was required in replacement. I wanted to point out that there were DW documentaries, which weren't visual, and that there were visual documentaries, which weren't about DW, hence making Documentaries about the making of Doctor Who televised stories the clearest expression of the contents of the category.

As for why I was asking you for a list, rather than just relying on Special:WantedCategories, well, it's because Special:WantedCategories isn't all that reliable. First of all, it deals with cached material, so it's not up-to-date info. Also, with this godforsakenly asinine "everything with the word 'category' in front of it is a blue link" idea, the potential for "false" wanted categories is greater. For instance, you had mistakenly created category:"Making of " documentaries on one page. Because you got a blue link, you didn't notice the extraneous space you put in there between of and the closing quotation mark. So the reason for requesting you to perform the actual category creation (or to provide me with a list) was explicitly because I wanted you to take care of it, or for you to give me a list of the precise names you wanted to use. But the main reason was that I don't trust WantedCategories anymore.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:44:31 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Who played...

Who played Albert Einstein in DW: Time and the Rani? Really in need of reply. As in the infobox it just says "to be added". Thanks. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 15:32, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer me please. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 16:03, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I kind of guessed you were a guy. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 16:55, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm feeling okay. Of course I am feeling okay. It's called a joke, that's all. Four letters. See here for more infomation: Wikipedia:Joke. You can edit it if it doesn't satisfy you. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 17:02, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

How is it a personal attack? I said it was a joke. How is it a personal attack? It's not my third one. So please can you stop it. Don't accuse users of making personal attacks. It can really upset them. :( BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 17:08, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know. What do you think of me now then? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 17:14, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Multiple images

There is a discussion concerning the Doctor image, but it's really in the middle of a very long discussion that you need to trawl through to find.

There should be some form of discussion on the Doctor's page about this, explaining why it was removed and maybe (somehow) summarising what we've discussed so far. We seem to have come to an agreement/lack of further discussion on the Talk:Master concerning the image, so that's something.

But if we're to address all the other articles with multiple images; Borusa, Romana, Rassilon and whomever else we're got around maybe a Forum topic would be best.

I thought that considering the length of the Talk:The Master discussion and its focus on the Master article/image that restoring the images until we had a definite answer was best, though feel free to remove the multiple images from all of the articles pending a full discussion in the forums.

If you think we need a full discussion in the forums I'll start one and point towards the Master discussion and we can go from there and work something out. Or is there enough in the Master discussion to work out a policy for the other articles? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:24, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologise, I just looked at the Talk:The Doctor page and there is a discussion about the main image, or why it was removed. I didn't notice that when I restored the image. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:33, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Righty. I've removed the image from the Doctor's page and started a discussion on the talk page. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:45, August 15, 2011 (UTC)