User talk:Tybort/Archive 4

	This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

Royalty

I tell ya what, Tybort: I've never liked Victoria, and I think I may have been too hasty with Neptune (Guests of King Neptune). I think it makes sense, instead, to consider the name a proper title, rather than an honorific. Thus, I think the better solution are the main titles given in Tooth and Claw:

Queen Victoria, Empress of India

This allows us to distinguish from what is now at Queen Victoria, which would then become, simply:

Queen Victoria

What do you think of that solution? I really, really don't want to give Queen Victoria a name that includes a story dab, because no one will find it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:11: Thu 19 Jul 2012 

On second thought, she's the very definition of a "primary use". Basically everything else named "Victoria" is named after her, so I'm moving "Victoria to Victoria (disambiguation) and Victoria (Queen) to just Victoria. This follows the general nomenclature of most of our other monarchs who, if possible, go by their single, titular names.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:51: Thu 19 Jul 2012 

No, Victoria, Empress of India is "the original, you might say". Victoria Waterfield was definitely named after her, to hammer home the point that she was from the Victorian Era. And then there's several place names, too, all derived from the "original" Victoria. It's not really about number of appearances, but overall "reach".
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:02: Thu 19 Jul 2012 

BTW, are you sure about the first appearance being Impreial Moon? 2000 seems awfully late in the day to me. She was really never in an annual story or a TVC or something from the 1960s/70s?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:07: Thu 19 Jul 2012 

Yeah, appearances are tricky things with famous people from the real world. Just doing a cursory review, I think you're right in that Moon might be her first actual appearance. But her existence goes back at least to Ghost Light, where it's stated that she is Queen and that her reign is going to be ended for the benefit of the story's antagonists — much like the plan in Tooth and Claw, actually. Then the idea of her appears again in Prelude Birthright and All-Consuming Fire. So the question is, do we need to see royalty for an appearance to be counted? I guess. Appearance is appearance.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:18: Thu 19 Jul 2012 

Dab stuff

Alpha Centauri should be for the person, and be undisambiguated. It's clearly the primary term. You can't use Alpha Centauri (The Curse of Peladon) at all, because it doesn't dab: both the planet and the person were introduced in Curse.

So it'd run something like this:

• Alpha Centauri (disambiguation)
• Alpha Centauri, the person
• Alpha Centauri (planet)
• Alpha Centauri (system)

I'm gonna have to think about the Sontar thing, too. I'm not sure how well that actually disambiguates.

Come to think of it, I may have well been wrong with the whole Peladon thing, so forget I did it. It's all easily correctable. Yeah, I am wrong. The planet and the individual were both introduced simultaneously, so (The Curse of Peladon) doesn't disambiguate. Ahh well. More work for the bot!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 19:55: Thu 19 Jul 2012 

Cyberleader thingy

Please pose your question to the forum. I'm not touching that one. (You might want to look back on previous discussions about the same.)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 22:27: Sat 21 Jul 2012 

Careaker

I think this is an odd one. The natural inclination would be to make Caretaker a dab page, and move the current Caretaker to Caretaker (Paradise Towers).

But that won't work.

Because of the presence of individuals known as "Caretaker" in Paradise Towers, Caretaker (Paradise Towers) fails to disambiguate. Since people will primarily be meaning the whole class of person, and not Caretaker 345/12, subsection 3 or other individuals, it should be the primary term, with Caretaker (disambiguation) serving as the dab page.

As for a page about the profession of being a caretaker, well, I dunno. I think we're going to have to let that go by the wayside, at least until someone makes a convincing case that there's enough info out there about caretaking to warrant a page — especially since the term is itself hugely vague. I mean a caretaker can be anything from a groundskeeper to a hospice worker, really. In the DWU there's little doubt that "Caretaker" is most associated with Paradise Towers crap that shouldn't even be a valid source, but because other people edit this wiki, too, it should get primacy.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 22:51: Mon 30 Jul 2012 

Removing continuity from Unbounds

Walk me through the reasoning behind removing the continuity sections entirely from the Unbound, isn't it still useful to keep the continuity? As these releases are still referencing various bits of DW continuity. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:10, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Certainly cut the in-universe stuff.

I understand your reasoning, it wasn't something I'd really thought about. My default go to compare is Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., but even looking at its continuity the info would probably better reside in the Notes section on that article. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:26, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Revenants and Deadline

Wrong. Unmade stories never displace a produced story. All that needs to happen is the addition of {{you may}} top hat to Revenants and Deadline.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:19: Tue 31 Jul 2012 

Glasgow

Hey. Not that long ago you put the {{rename}} tag on the Glasgow page. Can I get you to add you reason to the talk page so people see it and it gets a discussion going? Also so we can get a decision. Cheers. (I want to say 'Many cheers' (instead of many thanks), but it doesn't sound that good in my head. Oh the dilemma!) MM/Want to talk? 23:29, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I think the colourised reprints were by Marvel, but I'm not sure as I only downloaded the comics this morning. Clone gunner commander jedi _talk

Renaming pages

Hi there. If you are unsure as to whether you should be renaming a page or not, please leave a message on the talk page first, instead of going ahead and renaming it anyway. I've renamed "Clockwork (species)" back to "Clockworks" as this is the correct term for the species used in the narrative, and not the singluar "Clockwork". One example is that Iris is referred to as "a member of the Clockworks" instead of simply "a Clockwork". Thanks. --Revan\Talk 17:45, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

PNG

Line drawings, I believe are things like logos and other things like that which sit on a transparent background which a PNG can do, it's also said in the same sentence as SVG which suggests it's something on a transparent background as that's only (I think) how SVGs are.

See also the Forum:Tech note: Image use policy change. I think CzechOut (who wrote the bulk of the T:ICC means computer line drawings rather than the traditional illustrated line drawings (wikipedia calls it line art) (I'll look into changing the language to reflect this/to clarify it). --Tangerineduel / talk 17:49, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Response of relevance to you at user talk:Tangerineduel#PNG.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:07: Wed 15 Aug 2012 

Asylum of the Daleks

Are we allowed to write the plot for Asylum of the Daleks, or is it too early for the people who haven't watched it yet? Are we waiting for the re-screening tomorrow?

Cyruptsaram ☎ 21:16, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I'll ask an Admin.

Behind the scenes people

Is it my imagination, or are we seeing another seismic shift in the behind-the-scenes personnel with Asylum? I haven't seen that much red ink an a {{Wales crew}} instance since the first episode of Miracle Day.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍   02:32: Sun 02 Sep 2012

Stand-In Picture

Hey, I couldn't help but notice that you recently deleted the infobox picture for Dalek Caan, because it was "too tall". While I couldn't agree more, is there any chance you could keep the current picture there until you find a suitable replacement that meets the requirements of the Image Policy? You know, just as a temp? Thanks, Dr. Anonymous1 ☎ 18:59, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Well, then. I guess the only thing to do now is find a suitable image? I can do it, but unfortunately my iPod is unable to upload photos to Wikis.

Is there any rule against taking your OWN screenshots from episodes? I couldn't find anything against it in the rules, and while I couldn't find anything about it, I thought I'd just verify.

Thanks,

Dr. Anonymous1 ☎ 21:24, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Re:TARDIS image

No, there's nothing wrong withnyou're image, it's a very nice image. I just think it's more appropriate to use the older image. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:03, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Dalek Project and title templates

Ahhhh, yes. The older, media-speicifc variants of {{title}} have, by their very nature, a flaw. Since they only work on one medium, they don't need a "fall through" value, which means they auto-add (<media> story), even if one isn't really there. I really should get around to redirecting all those media based versions to {{title dab away}}, which works on just about all story pages — and has a default value of just italicising the title — without adding a "ghost" dab term.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  00:05: Wed 12 Sep 2012

Annual 1970 =

The Dr Who Annual 1970 cover page you've uploaded is less "faded" because the contrast is whacked right up, losing all the detail of the Doctor's coat which now looks like a black blob instead of having folds and visible outlines etc. Can you please increase the brightness ord ecrease the contrast to restore the lost detail? Thanks! 2.24.94.78^{talk to me} 13:54, September 13, 2012 (UTC)Frankymole

Dalek (TV story) edit

I just wanted to say that your most recent edit on the Dalek (TV story) page was a very good one and I appreciated your depth of knowledge that you utilized to make the edit. I also appreciated that you provided an in-depth reason for the edit as well. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emersoneells (talk • contribs) .

ST

Yeah, this was a bit of a grey area that maybe never got declaratively solved. I tried to throw up a warning at Forum:Short Trips prose v. Short Trips audio, but I'm not sure everyone got what I was trying to say then. In any event, the PROSE prefix explanation says nothing other than that ST should be used for stories from books. The bot is currently correcting on that basis. If some people have misapplied the prefix, the error is with them, not the bot. ST audios by Big Finish should have been prefixed with BFA, or at least something other than ST.

Once all the instances of ST are eradicated, I can make an additional bot run later which corrects the audio stories back to AUDIO. I'm sure there can't be that many that need correcting.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  15:55: Sun 16 Sep 2012

Prefixes

Well, that little 3-minute block would have made more sense if I could have actually found a way to post to you in under 3 minutes. Hopefully you got the message I sent to you at w:c:aybs:User talk:Tybort. Anyway, {{px}} is now being deleted from the wiki. Hopefully, you didn't put much time into it before I noticed that you were changing it all. Obviously, that system doesn't work, now that we're no longer prefixing by publication title.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:34: Thu 20 Sep 2012

Ohhhhhhhh. I can see by the way the bot is running that you actually had put a lot of time into it. Sorry that I didn't catch it earlier, so that I could have saved you time. Clearly, though, the new system is simple enough that it doesn't actually need "prefix helpers" like this, and it gets confusing to have multiple instances (like COMIC and PROSE) on the same page.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:40: Thu 20 Sep 2012

You changed the Desktop Theme!

Hey, who changed the new background? I like it. :-) Dr. Anonymous1 ☎ 19:54, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

You've been redecorating... Hmm... I don't like it. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for the heads up on the vandal. But please stop trying to correct the problem. You're actually making it a bit more confusing.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:11: Wed 03 Oct 2012

I appreciate that you were trying to do the right thing. Just remember, though, that if you add to a page, and I delete it before the cache has a chance to catch up, then your addition to a page "wins". The system will almost always award a "tie" to the edit which adds to the wiki. Thus adding your {{delete}} message ironically prevented me from deleting. Remember, too, that it's not really necessary to label which page has the edit history. That's obvious in the edit history, which every admin should be checking in cases like this.

A best practice with vandalism is simply to notify an admin and wait. Or, you could just accept adminship and then take care of the problem yourself. :)

As for what does or does not show up in Special:WikiActivity, well, I haven't been keeping close tabs on that. The real list of changes is at Special:RecentChanges. Anyone seriously interested in tracking changes on the wiki should be using that — not the "kiddie toy" of WikiActivity. This is before your time editing with us, but there was a great uproar over the introduction of WikiActivity because it's such a dumbed-down version of the activity report.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:47: Wed 03 Oct 2012

P.S.

P.S. is a valid source. It wasn't filmed, but it was released as an animated webcast, and animated episodes are considered valid sources as much as live-action ones, as long as they are narrative sources, which this one is. 78.8.5.21^{talk to me} 12:48, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Update tag

Just a quick reminder that the update tag should not been added to a page just a couple of hours after an episodes airs, which you did to Vastra and Jenny Flint. It is understandable that after a few hours, even a few days a page might not be updated with the latest episodes, but the update tag is still not needed. If after a few weeks or months information from episodes are missing, then you should add the tag, but not less than three hours after an episode airs. Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 15:17, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for lack of communication

Sorry that I've not been responding individually to the things that you put up on my talk page. Due to my limited time over the last month, I've been trying to just respond with action rather than words. Here's a roundup though:

• T:LOP has been expanded/rewritten per 5 Oct request
• Tardis:Valid sources/Detailed list has been redone in light of the bot-munching that happened there.
• [Tardis:Tardis Manual]] text will eventually all go away, so there's no need to worry too much about the fact that there's an instance of TARDIS instead of Tardis.
• Beltempest --> Beltempest (novel)
• Beltempest (Human) --> Beltempest
• finally finished up the Rob (The Chromosome Connection) thing from way back
• fixed quirk at The Dalek Project (comic story)
• ST issue should have been fixed, such that audio ST are now identified as AUDIO, while short stories are PROSE
• vandal 212.219.231.252 was banned by TD
• prefixes Robot 1 and Robot 2 were fixed
• the category is now category:Actors who appeared in Game of Thrones, per your copyedit
• The apparent contradiciton between T:VS and T:NPOV over blogs has been resolved — but do bear in mind that the impetus for T:NPOV was really Tangerineduel's, and he hasn't had time yet to give his edit. Language may change again. Still, I think the language as regards blogs and whatnot will probably stick close to what's currently at T:OOU SRC. Oh, bear in mind that there's a current forum thread about this one too. So expect some shifting as we hammer out the exact language.
• I haven't had time to ponder that Ember (planet) thing. I'm gonna have to sit with that one for a while.

Anyway, sorry for the communications blackout, but do rest assured that I've been reading all your suggestions and taking action along the way.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:31: Sun 18 Nov 2012

Cotton videos

Hey, do me a favour and test something, will ya? See if you can move RelatedVideos:Cotton to RelatedVideos:Cotton (The Mutants). I've no idea whether that namespace is admin-only, as we're one of the few wikis that has it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:50: Thu 06 Dec 2012

Cotton

Actually, there are enough prominent people called Cotton that I have a bit of a hard time justifying giving the plant the primary term here. I think it's probably wise to make Cotton be the dab page.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  05:35: Mon 10 Dec 2012

Regarding T:NO TITLE

T:NO TITLE poses little problem for Sarah Jane's Alien Files, since the TV version was known by that name in full, whereas the webseries was actually just The Alien Files. If and when any one creates those individual episode pages for the webseries, it'll be under the nomenclature TAF x. I'm not sure that'll ever happen now, though, given that those video files are, to my knowledge, no longer available. Certainly, our links to them are inaccurate.

TThe individual televised episode titles will now be moved to SJAF x.

Thanks for catching the Special:WantedPages Forum --> Theory error. That's been corrected, but it'll take a while for it to actually fall out of the WantedPages list due to caching. If you notice it's still there in a week, please lemme know. It should, however, only take a day or so.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:57: Thu 27 Dec 2012

Graphic novel dab term

The dab term page will be rewritten as to this point. The dab term (comic story) should be used for all comic stories, regardless of length, period. So it should actually include original graphic novels. The dab term (graphic novel) should only be used as a synonym for trade paperback. So Endgame (graphic novel), but The Only Good Dalek (comic story).
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:14: Mon 21 Jan 2013

dab term has been re-written, but on the specific point of Through Time and Space, you're right, it should be (graphic novel). And so it is, now.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:54: Mon 21 Jan 2013

Individual humans

Let it shake out for a day or so. We need to get a list at Special:Uncategorizedpages first. Then we'll have to make an individual assessment of each page. This isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all solution.

However, no: pages should not go in category:individuals.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  00:10: Sat 16 Feb 2013

Word order

Yeah, man, you've really hit on one of the massive cleanup projects. And you're not crazy. Everything you provided was bad English. But you may not have been able to articulate why, because numbers don't look a normal part of speech. And this, I'm guessing, is why so many of our editors seem to have a problem with this one. (Well, that and the fact that it's not normal to speak of a place, person or object of a specific time.)

Thing is this. In all these phrases, the year is actually an adjective. What do we do in English with adjectives? Let's look:

right	wrong
Jane carried the red ball down the street.	Jane carried the ball red down the street

In a similar way, it's: "1926 Hollywood", "1140 Worcester", "2059 Earth".

Another option you have is to turn the adjective into a prepositional phrase, as with: "the Hollywood of 1926" or "in Worcester, in 1140". But that sorta proves that years used in this way are adjectives, because one of the features of adjectives is that they can always be turned into prepositional phrases.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:26: Sat 16 Feb 2013

A Prequel

When watching the new prequel at 12 o' clock today, I looked at the title, and it read out A Prequel - Steven Moffat. I suppose that's the only title I have. Would you like to change it? Cyruptsaram ☎ 12:31, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Change to how we do renames

Hey, since you're one of our principle "bad name catchers", I wanted to be sure you saw Thread:128198 for a change in the way we'll be handling easy, non-controversial renames. Instead of just listing the changes on my talk page, we can now use {{speedy rename}} to populate T:SPEEDY. This list spreads the knowledge of what needs to be changed to all users and admin, establishing an actual system for change, which should make routine changes happen more quickly.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:39: Wed 17 Apr 2013

History/Biography sections

Well my big gripe is that people just put down the word "biography" or "history" without thinking what it means. I just clicked the "random" button to come up with Merrivale Carr as an example. What's the point of adding "biography" to the article? On the one hand, it's obviously biographical information. Of course it is. What else would a page about an individual contain, since we're obliged to write in the past tense? So you don't need to state it. Worse, stating it makes it seem like it is the definitive biography. And it's not really a biography. Such pages almost always describe just a few days in the life of the person.

Granted, on bigger articles, a biography section might work, as you need to set off one part of the article from another: biography vs. behind the scenes, for instance. And if you have information about several stages in their life, then "biography" is an accurate enough word. For instance, on Sarah Jane Smith, we know enough about her to reasonably claim, "This is the biography section of the article]]. But is it really the biography of John Ransome? No way.

But such pages are the exception, not the rule. Most pages about individuals are very short, describing the contact that individual had with the Doctor, or maybe another individual. Refactoring such a short page so that it doesn't have sections at all is probably most sensible.

Similarly "history" is often not a history at all. It's just a description of a single incident, or maybe a few incidents. Makes much more sense to roll without section heads, or to be specific about the section heads. "History" is just a lazy, imprecise word. Is it really the history of the Hope? Nah. It's more like "Known voyages". And to me, something like "Sightings" would be a better section head at Trickster's Brigade. I mean, it's almost an insult to say "History" there, because I bet a lot of people would love to know the history of the Brigade, and that section head only gives them false hope. We just don't know anything much about the Brigade, and "History" gives totally false hope.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  13:41: Fri 03 May 2013

Calamity Jane

You're the Torchwood guy around here. Got any thoughts on the issue at Talk:Calamity Jane?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  05:37: Mon 20 May 2013

Prom thingy

The page you wanted temporarily reopened is now reopened. It'll be gone in 12 hours or so.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  01:51: Mon 15 Jul 2013