More actions
 |
Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27 |
|---|
Idris.jpg
The reason you gave for deleting File:Idris.jpg was "Unjustifiably long vs. width: no excuse for a non-widescreen image of a BBC Wales featured character." However, there is only the one very brief scene while the character is still Idris, before she's killed off, and at no point is there what you'd call a "widescreen" shot of the character; for that whole scene she's always either surrounded by the other characters, who should of course be cropped out for an image illustrating Idris, or is distant from the camera and unusably small on-screen. The shot I used was what I feel is the best possible one out of the episode to illustrate her, but to fit your criteria one would have to crop out vertical bits of her to make it "widescreen" and we'd end up with even less of a usable image, beginning at her eyebrows and stopping at her chin or something.
Additionally, why would you delete an image which fits all the criteria at Tardis:Image use policy simply because you think we could do better, instead of actually doing better? Is it not best in any case to have an image there, in hopes of replacing it later when a better source becomes available? — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 20:19, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I do see where you're coming from on this, but I still feel that even when the clothes are the same, the character that is actually being portrayed is important. You wouldn't use file:Alligence.jpg atop the Fourth Doctor page because it's not an image of the Fourth Doctor, it's an image of Meglos, and the distinction is very important to the story in which it appears. It's the same type of argument as the one concerning publicity and promo shots; you yourself have indicated the importance of distinguishing pictures of the characters from pictures of the actors in their costumes out-of-context. I put it to you that it's just as important to distinguish the image of one character from the image of another even when they're played by the same actor in the same costume. That's why we can't swap photos on Eleventh Doctor and Eleventh Doctor (Ganger) even though they might look the same to someone unfamiliar with the story, and why we can't crop out a screenshot of the Sixth Doctor which only shows his face and illustrate Maxil with it. When an actor is playing a dual role it makes a difference which role they are playing. Their facial expressions, posture, surroundings, and everything are all just as much a part of the performance as their clothes and hairstyle, and it's all relevant in a shot of the character. So, that one scene is the only time we have an in-Universe image of Suranne as Idris rather than Suranne as the TARDIS, and it's worth having a shot from it as the primary photo for Idris. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 21:19, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
Riftan 5
I earlier today attempted to restore the page Riftan 5, except that it now gives an error message. I'm not familiar with fixing this sort of thing, so I thought maybe you could help with it. Doug86 talk to me 01:08, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Image cheat card
It looks fine to me, although I would add in the User image policy - what kind of images they can upload, how many etc - alongside adding the rule of fan made images. There should also be a link to the reasons why an image can get deleted, so User know what they can and can't do/have with/as the image. MM/Want to talk? 11:34, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, though I'm wondering where concept art and/or behind-the-scenes pictures would fit in; I assume it would be the same usage as publicity images. I ask because Vinvocci has a behind-the-scenes picture on the page (which I hope we don't have to remove). -<Azes13 talk to me 13:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Very nice. Looks pretty complete to me.--Skittles the hog - talk 14:35, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- It looks fine. We really have had a lot of discussions to shape the policies haven't we.
- I'd second Azes13's musings. I think we need to state firmly our position on concept art, which I don't think is established outside of the Template:Concept tag. I've had a look around and can't find anywhere that our position is stated. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:09, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
No wallpapers
Thanks for the reminder, I'll make sure to only post screenshots in the future. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandalore74 (talk • contribs) .
QotW
Since QotW is over a month behind, should the ones from October be skipped, or should they be posted weekly, disregarding the dates? Additionally, some weeks have either no votes or a tie, and even some have no quotes. What should be done in those situations?
It seems sensical to go with the first course of action in the first dilemna, for we'd end up having specially-themed quotes at wrong times (such as New Year's Eve in January or February) if the second option were to be taken. D0ct0r11 • 19:45 Fri 11 Nov 2011
Oh no.
I've made a mess of disambiguating again, haven't I? Sorry, because they weren't story pages, it didn't cross my mind until it was too late, but I'm gathering that Shug and Magda shouldn't exist as pages, correct? -- Tybort (talk page) 20:07, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Relatedly, if there's two characters, do I basically just scrap the disambig page and say "you may be looking for" on the top of each page, is that the right idea? -- Tybort (talk page) 20:22, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, looks like the name I was looking at has three examples after all. Although, what on Earth would I actually label the Byzantine Emperor Constantine? Would that be Constantine (Shadowmind)? -- Tybort (talk page) 21:36, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
New disambig possibilities
Thank you for the helpful list. I would love to get updates on names and disambiguation page stubs! :D Also I will be careful next time with naming the pictures, like "Human_Nature_scarecrow.jpg" instead of "Human_Nature_685.jpg".
Jasononthehouse talk to me 23:22, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
I finished all of the disambiguation pages you mentioned and currently I am on the big project of adding names to dab pages that are not updated, starting from the alphabet A. If there's any addition or updates needed on dab, please tell me! :D Jasononthehouse talk to me 03:35, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
other things
Do you think Doctor Who 6x11 The God Complex 163.jpg and Weeping Angel rawr.jpg are duplicate images? I preferred the image (which now became "unused") that was used on "Weeping Angels" page before Weeping Angel rawr.jpg was uploaded.
Also I think Eyepatch4.jpg and 400px-Eye-patch-curse-570x321.jpg are definitely duplicate images. But I don't quite get the instructions about duplicate images on "Image Use Policy" page.
Jasononthehouse talk to me 07:45, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
See Also
So if I do see other "see also" sections they should be removed? Memnarc talk to me 04:23, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
badge
the 'make 5 edits on disagubation pages' badge has 'engine' spelt wrong. if you get a minute could you fix it?. Metardis 11:30, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
Refusal to allow redirect puzzling
I understand the idea of using a standard nomenclature for article titles, but exactly why do you want this wiki to be more difficult to navigate by not allowing a redirect at a longstanding article like Doctor Who Adventures comic strip stories???? 14:58, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
Dates
Doug86 I don't think followed the cardinal/ordinal numbers discussion as he's been deleting everything. Could you run the bot through and recreate them? I can't really be arsed undeleting them all at the moment. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:14, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno, Doug86's very delete-happy some of the time.
- And like me he usually changes everything in the 'What links here' and then deletes the page. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:43, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I couldn't be bothered doing it and I'm not going to try.
- I'm trying to do NaNoWriMo, so it leaves me feeling less like writing a lot on here, so that's why I've not been around a lot and probably won't be until the end of November. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:07, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
Categorising arcs
I really do not understand Retsinif's connecting random not even seemingly disconnected arcs as categories to various story pages. Is that just me? -- Tybort (talk page) 22:20, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
Timelink?
Ah i got it from the Timelink: Vol 1 reference book, I'll stop using it if i'm not allowed to do it.
Also i've just done the bit that you just sent to me (@import url("/index.php?title=MediaWiki:FixMe.css&ctype=text/css&action=raw");) and just published it.
TimeTraveller34 talk to me 19:01, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Hello, my good man!
Thanks for welcoming me to the Tardis Wikia. I know it was one of those automatic messages, but I still appreciate it nonetheless. =^)
I think Doctor Who is a swell show. I only watched it a few times, but I can tell it deserves its own Wikia.
If you need me to do anything for you guys, just tell me. I'm usually online everyday, so you'll usuaully hear back from me in a day or so.
CoffeeShopFrank talk to me 23:07, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
I'll make sure that doesn't happen again. Sorry about that!
CoffeeShopFrank talk to me 21:02, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Ok
Ok, Will stop using the Timelink Ref Book at the moment have only the new Doctor Who Series on dvds and most of what is on those dvds is on here, May need to get the old ones, sad they don't do a Old Doctor Who collection?
REF
Hiya, thanks for the message. I wasn't sure which tag actually went for it so I might have mislabelled the tag. The page was meant to be from Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space (RPG) series but I didn't find a page for Aliens and Creatures :( Anyway, thanks again for the note. --Darth Batrus talk to me 14:52, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
You're too kind.
Thanks for the kind wishes! :-) — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 02:00, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Apologies and Answers
{C {C {C Well, I apologise for my huge mistake, but the problem still stands: the Tenth Doctor needs a picture for his page.
Also, to answer your opposition to using multiple side-by-side pictures for the Dalek page: at least 8 other character and species pages have side-by-side images of their Old and New Series incarnations. Also, you suggested to post my idea on the Dalek talk page, but, like I said, people rarely use that. I also noticed a conspicuous lack of notification or explanation for why that other person the uploaded the current lousy pic. Odd, huh?Patrick Watt talk to me 23:18, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Reply
Good. Thanks!Patrick Watt talk to me 00:09, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
More questions of ambiguity.
So, A New Life (1976) and A New Life (1978). I'm absolutely sure that that's not standard disambiguation, but as they're both DWAN short stories, what should they actually be called? 1976 short story? 1976 DWAN story? DWAN 1976? -- Tybort (talk page) 20:20, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
Comics and short stories in annuals
Yeah, I'll fix that, then. Sorry, guess I either wasn't thinking or was overthinking. And I can't just allow a rollback either, as I've been adding so many categories. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:34, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
- The way The Rival Robots linked to the stories still didn't seem to make a lot of sense (the "previous story" was from one right in the middle of the last annual), but I've cleared up the whole "not comics"/"not short stories" debacle. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:21, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
Linking together annual stories
Maybe I'm thinking too far ahead, but what happens once we get to the final story of the Doctor Who Annual 1986? Do I skip ahead to 2006 or count the yearbooks' stories as annuals as well? I'm gathering that Brief Encounter is counted separately to the rest of the the DWM special editions and the yearbooks? -- Tybort (talk page) 23:51, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, so to clarify, due to the different tones and publishers and so forth, that means that once I get to DWAN: The Radio Waves and DWY: Junkyard Demon II, the "next story" bit in the infobox should be left alone? -- Tybort (talk page) 16:21, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
- So, I'm not sure if I'm following properly. Is the Panini-published 2006 annual basically a "stand-alone" annual next to the World Distributors ('66-'86) and BBC Children's Books (2007-present) series? -- Tybort (talk page) 20:51, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Hit a bit of a snag on the Yearbook's infoboxes and "previous" and "next". For some reason, people assumed that every yearbook's prose stories are Brief Encounters, which means that the 94 and 95 books have no real order between each issue's prose and comic stories. -- Tybort (talk page) 04:15, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
New disambiguation
Conundrum and all its relevant links should be at Conundrum (novel). None of the "what links here" are for the short story. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:33, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
Re:Various and sundry
In short, I need the TOC of the Doctor Who Yearbook 1994 and the Doctor Who Yearbook 1995, neither of which have BE stories. -- Tybort (talk page) 09:47, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the table of contents of Doctor Who The Official Annual 2011 and 2012 would be helpful too. -- Tybort (talk page) 10:15, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh, if the first two Yearbooks' BE stories count as both Brief Encounters AND Doctor Who Yearbook stories, then that means I'd need the table of contents for those two on top of '94 and '95 to sort out the order. At least I THINK that's what you're getting at. If it's both a BE and a DWY, does that mean a couple of them conceivably have two separate "previouses" and "nexts", or am I misreading that? -- Tybort (talk page) 22:10, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay...I'm sure I'm nearing the end of my constant questioning over the past few days. Is what you're saying the "next story" box for Brief Encounters ends with Fond Memories, while the DWY stuff continues beyond A Tourist Invasion and into the 1994 stories like Loop the Loup? -- Tybort (talk page) 01:14, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Edit to a locked page.
On Tardis:Canon policy, the link to The Nightmare Fair should go to The Nightmare Fair (novelisation). -- Tybort (talk page) 16:14, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Series
Yeah, basically, the "X Doctor comic stories" was already there (or at least for the vast majority of them). I just added "Doctor Who Yearbook" on top of that. You ARE right though about that not being a series. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:01, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Publisher of the 2007-12 Doctor Who annuals
So, the infobox for each Doctor Who annual after 2007 goes:
A BBC Children's Books published by the Penguin Group.
Maybe I'm just slow today, but I can't actually tell which is supposed to be listed as the publisher of the annual stories. I've put Penguin Books for most of their comic stories, but I have a feeling I'm wrong. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:02, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
BBC Books
Well, in the specific case about BBC Children's Books/Penguin Books, I'm sure I'd come to the same conclusion, but I'll try to keep in mind what you said (especially the part about finding tables of contents). So far, the only possibly inaccurate or inconsistent information I'm using is stuff already on the wiki (minus some info directly from the 2006 annual and 2007 storybook which I DO own). -- Tybort (talk page) 23:41, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Page creation
I create the pages when information on Big Finish's website becomes available. The information I use to create the pages consists of only what Big Finish place on their website and is by no means a spoiler. --Revan\Talk 21:28, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Publisher change
Hi! You might want to look at the copyright templates for Doctor Who Adventures. From issue 244 the magazine is being published by Immediate Media Compnay London Limited. Thanks. The Librarian talk to me 13:33, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Deleting a page instead of fixing it?
The reasons you deleted The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe were incorrect capitalisation and violation of T:SPOIL for this to be here anyway. Ok, so why didn't you fix it instead of deleting it?
More questions about disambiguation
When one of two stories are disambiguated, and it leads to an episode of a Hartnell-era serial, i.e. The Traitors, versus the short story The Traitors, is there anything further that should be done with that redirect? -- Tybort (talk page) 01:39, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Rename a locked from renaming TV page and all links
There's a short story in the BFBS collection A Life Worth Living called Fragments, which means "Fragments" needs renaming to Fragments (TV story). And yes, all of the links check out for the bot to do its business. -- Tybort (talk page) 02:09, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Vandal.
69.22.168.246 has been doing some vandalism. -- Tybort (talk page) 14:30, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
Good job! (or was it just automatic?)
I'm presuming that you made the changes to the heading on tales from the TARDIS. Good job! (or was it just automatic?...) Metardis talk to me 20:01, December 1, 2011 (UTC) Whoops, there are not any changes. Last time I went on the wiki the heading on the community corner where bigger... Metardis talk to me 09:38, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
The End of Time
In your evident outrage over the existence of this article (per your edit summary as you deleted it), you neglected to include the redirect, making it difficult for people looking for the TV episode and impossible for those looking for the novel. Well done. 68.146.80.110 20:30, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
More bot removal things
All links to The Alliance should be moved to The Alliance (The Pandorica Opens), as there are several alliances in play. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:36, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, this is a tricky one, I've moved Project Infinity to Project Infinity (audio story) (and moved back due to hitting a brick wall). Now, I want all the links to Project Infinity to lead to Project Infinity, once the current links to Project Infinity be moved to Project Infinity (audio story), but the page Project Infinity already exists... -- Tybort (talk page) 20:30, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Finally done!
Okay, it's taken me weeks, and a whole pound's worth of sweat, but I've finally created a collage of all four main versions of the Daleks to date. I did my very best, but let me know if there's anything about my
picture that makes it unfit for use as the main picture on the "Dalek" page. Patrick Watt talk to me 21:31, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
PIC SUGGESTIONS
Thanks for the suggestions. If you have examined them carefully -- not that there's any need to -- I have been putting in whatever pictures are at least appropriate. I haven't intended them as permanent pictures, just something to use until a better one comes along. Boblipton talk to me 02:24, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
Placeholder grammar? I don't understand what that means. Grammar is not content, grammar is structure. As for the quality of the pictures, the theory behind wikis is that as more people work on a piece, the better the quantity (and as you have argued, unconvincingly to me, the quality). Editing is badly written stuff is often a gradual process -- often I have had to perform a gradual grammar fix -- from wrong, to not incorrect, to correct -- before I can even begin to figure out what the original people were trying to say. Putting in non-optimal pictures is an intermediate stage -- better than none, and someone else can say "I've got better pictures." At leas tthat's my theory. I'm mostly a word guy anyway. Boblipton talk to me 02:52, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Ahah. Ok, now I understand. I have been and will continue to put in pictures that I consider appropriate, while ackowledging that because I am not a layout/picture guy that others may come up with better ones. Is this inappropriate? Boblipton talk to me 03:18, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
After some further thought, it occurred to me that I do make use of placeholders. In the plot of The Wedding of River Song the word "invaded" is used. This is the wrong word. Nonetheless, until I can think of the right word, I won't change it. Yes, I have consulted two thesauruses and cannot find the right word. There is something overwhelming about "invade" that makes it appropriately humorous. Nonetheless, it is wrong. Still, the plot as constituted needs something there and until the right word occurs to me, it will remain as is. Boblipton talk to me 12:55, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Czechout, your last remark tempts me to use a smiley, did I not despise them. It can be interpreted as "Don't try to make a page better unless it can be done perfectly." While I sympathasize with sense of frustration that burks beneath, I think incremental improvements are still improvements. I will try to move the improvements more in line with policy. Boblipton talk to me 14:12, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Reply
I appreciate your candor, but the truth is, I was not in any way, shape or form trying to send a "message" regarding the "New Daleks"; it just so happened that that was the only picture that fit. Also, it just looked kind of cool. However, if it's full-body images you wish, then (*sigh*) I'll see what I can do.
Another thing: I recently read that Steven Moffat stated in an interview that he is NOT replacing the "Old Daleks"; rather, the "new ones" are just going to serve as an "officer class". Dunno whether that information is apocryphal or not, but still, it's well worth a look.
Reply
Actually, I harbour no such illusions. Despite your assertions that you're the"go-to" guy, I rely on your opinions solely for advice, not a "green-light". However, given your Administrative status, if you say something's a bad idea, then it probably is. As for posting my idea for a "collage" pic on the "Talk" page... well, very people use that, preferring instead to voice their opinions via the "chat" function. You understand. Nevertheless, most people who commented appear to be in favour of the multiple-picture idea, or at least something that equally represents all Dalek versions. Also, I took your advice regarding my "New Dalek" pic, and replaced it with the full-body shot of them as they were seen in "The Pandorica Opens." I'll send it to you ASAP. Patrick Watt talk to me 00:58, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
More bot work
I kind of goofed altering the links of Bad Blood and Sins of the Fathers manually (there looked like there were less links than there were, and by the time I realised this they were more-or-less done), but I can clearly see that The Flood --> The Flood, there is absolutely no way to do the remainder by hand. And like with Project Infinity, the in-universe term (The Flood) is needlessly disambiguated. And sorry for kind of going half way with the latter, which probably means that the bot's function won't work as well. -- Tybort (talk page) 03:07, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Well Said.
Okay, then. In that case, you can see the new, improved pic on the "Talk" page in a few minutes.Patrick Watt talk to me 20:45, December 7, 2011 (UTC)