Bestbaggiesfan

fc template

Hi there and thanks for your contributions. Just regarding your use of the fc template in this edit, you might not know that this particular template (Template:fc) is designed to be substituted, not transcluded. If we transclude it, we unnecessarily obscure the link targets. Basically, you need to type {{subst:fc|Portsmouth}}, not {{fc|Portsmouth}}. I've fixed that page now, but just a heads up for future edits. Hope this makes sense. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know this but I have two questions regarding what you've said:

1. As the link still worked and there was no visible change, why change it?
   
2. Also, it takes much longer to type what you've said, so when is the 'fc|team' template actually used?
   

From what I've read, transclusion is better than substitution. Apologies if you explained it in the original post but I'm finding it hard to understand why a change is needed. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tennis

Hey, are you being serious? How about you check every other tennis aricle and see how it is done there? Or bring it up at WP Tennis to discuss that. Why do you think there is a tennis3 template? Kante4 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm being perfectly serious, you can't think that 'compact' looks better than the more spread out one? Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Why do you want to change it? It has been done like this for years now and you want to change it, bring up some arguments why. Maybe not only here but at the project site where i may take this. Kante4 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point but this is the English version of Wikipedia so surely the templates used should be the ones that are used in all English media? Tennis3 template Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with english wikipedia. check the other article from the previous years or even this. Makes no sense that you change it without even discussing it at the project site. Kante4 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who created the article and that's the template I set it to, that's all I'm saying. If you feel that strongly about it then change it back. t least I know now for future reference but I still believe my template is better but if Tennis 3 has always been used then so be it.Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No one owns an article. I change it back because the other one is used since a few years. Kante4 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I owned it! I just said that's how I created it.Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Does not change the fact that you used a completely different template than every other creator used so far. Kante4 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep deleting 'reflist' on the page aand deleting external links too? Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just saw that, because the draw is the reference and as long as there are no other refs given (who won etc...) there is no need for the reflist. External links are given in the main article. Kante4 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:Clara

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Until the 50th episode broadcasts, she has appeared as Jenna-Louise in all of her Doctor Who episodes (and all of her other screen appearances, for that matter), and is still better known as such. The name change is mentioned and sourced at Jenna-Louise Coleman, and the new form of her name is used at 50th anniversary special (Doctor Who) and 2013 Christmas special (Doctor Who) as she will be credited as such per sources. The time for changing the other uses, such as at Clara Oswald, will be after the 50th special airs. U-Mos (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who references

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit, could you please explain why? I don't believe there is anything wrong with the edit I made. Melonkelon (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just gone and rechecked and realised I read the edits back to front. I though you'd changed <refname="HurtDoctor"/> to <refname="HurtDoctor"></ref>. That'll teach me to double check reversions in future. Sorry about that. Thanks for bringing it up. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fires of Pompeii

Basically, you're completely wrong about this. They're historical figures, they share the same traits as the historical figures they're meant to represent, there is precedent in every other Doctor Who episode page on linking to historical figures, the pages for the figures themselves mention the episode, and Capaldi's page and the Twelfth Doctor page both link to the Caecilius page. Unless you intend on removing the links for every other historical figure from every other Doctor Who episode, you have no justification or precedent for doing so on that page, so I'm going to continue to revert if you try to change. Kuralyov (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the use of the Caecilii wasn't suggested or written by Davies, so I don't know why you would claim that as part of your justification. Kuralyov (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you must be looking at it from a different point of view to me but they simply aren't historical figures! Certainly not famous enough to think that Russell T Davies deliberately meant for them to be equivalent to Charles Dickens when he wrote him into the show. There is room for disambiguation when you are talking about Caecilius whereas with other historical figures, like Charles Dickens, there wasn't. This is why I think it is wrong to link to that page.Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 09:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, how on earth can you know he's playing the real person when they are only credited as Caecilius and Quintus during the episode? In fact, during filming in the video of Peter Capaldi and Tracey Childs on the right hand side here, he is credited as Lobus Caecili which shows that he was never intended to be a historical figure, just a made up name. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 09:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, not to be rude, but have you even read the article in question, let alone, are you familiar with the actual history at all? If not, then you should probably try and educate yourself a bit so you don't come across as being so uninformed. The Caecilii were chosen for this episode because they are a famous Roman family that lived in Pompeii at the time of the eruption and their house was uncovered in near-pristine order, so much is known of their lives and profession. Most grammar-school Latin students in the UK and US learn about them as part of their introduction to Latin. The widely-used textbook that features them was what inspired James Moran (and NOT Davies so I don't know why you keep bringing him up) to use them in the episode. This is all covered in the article. Again, I don't want to come off as rude, but did you even read the article you're trying to come across so authoritatively on? Kuralyov (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you have done on the Wiki entries for "EastbourneTennis". At eastbournetennis.com, we have this year embedded your content into our site and you have saved us hours and hours of duplicating work. Thanks again Tenniseastbourne (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Bestbaggiesfan/2013 Aegon International – Men's Doubles

User:Bestbaggiesfan/2013 Aegon International – Men's Doubles, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bestbaggiesfan/2013 Aegon International – Men's Doubles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bestbaggiesfan/2013 Aegon International – Men's Doubles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)