User talk:CzechOut

May wordmark cont.
Continued over from archive.
 * Sorry it took this long. Haven't been around my computer. I am really happy that we have Five over with! That one was a toughie...
 * Anyway, I noticed that you already replaced it. Now the wordmark at the top is kinda blurry.
 * How about, for the wordmark on top:
 * [[File:TardisDataCoreFive19.png]]
 * And, for the wordmark on the main page:
 * [[File:TardisDataCoreFive21 big.png]]
 * I think that looks much cleaner. --SOTO ☎ 02:58, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

More vandalism, with apologies
There's been another bout of vandalism over at the Controller (Bad Wolf) page - I seem to have unintentionally involved myself in an editing war there. I know it's the same person because he always puts in the same corrections - changes the name to Fat Controller, changes the word Dalek into Engines or Troublesome Trucks. Usually if I see vandalism I just revert it as a matter of course, but I think I'm going to let the admins deal with it this time - he seems to be a repeat offender, plus he made so many edits I have no idea how to revert it. This time, he also singled me out personally by leaving a message on my talk page, letting me know he had vandalised the page and to "sort it out!"

On that subject, I lost my cool a little bit at that point (even though there's a notification at the top of the page that says, specifically, "KEEP YOUR COOL") and left him a message (on my own talk page, since he was unregistered and has since been banned) letting him know what I think of his expenditure. I've left it up, unedited, and if it's deemed that an admin needs to take action, I'll accept whatever that may be. Worth it. TARDIStraveler ☎  22:21, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Covering eyes
Well because that's the most recognizable-at-first picture of a Weeping Angel you might put the picture simply elsewhere in the page! HiddenVale 22:36, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

see also and other questions
I thought that see also was a good way of letting the reader know that there were other articles on a similar topic that might contain additional information that isn't in the article. A good way to link to things that we might not be able to link to in the text of the article. At the mo' we only have one entry in the cupcake article. It's something that was entirely visual, we don't have the choice of words that who used, because who didn't use words. In the beginning of the episode the Doctor is reminiscing about cakes with edible ball bearings and in the end Rose brings him that. The only text that we have to apply is "cake" and "edible ball bearing". Everything else is visual (well, there are yummy sounds). That's what my reasoning was. I was also taking note from some of the alcohol related pages I'd been recently working on.

So what is the appropriate way to use see also? Is there ever a reason to use it for in-universe articles or should those lists be stripped from the other pages?

The capitalisation and category--I wasn't confused, just moving super fast. Too fast apparently. I try to watch for that, but it sometimes happens.

Also, what's the precise difference between and ? Is demonym new? Do we have other versions of this for other article types? For something like Tiaanamat?

Also, I was thinking about doing some work on real-world animals? Can I create a real-world animal category as long as I don't take animals from mammals per GOR? Thanks. Anoted ☎  02:53, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, it was very helpful. The reason I copy-paste to my talk page is because I like to be able to look back at old conversations. That's really hard when they span multiple places. The problem isn't so much during a conversation--I can have two talk pages open at once and generally do. But if a conversation goes on for a while, or if I'm looking back at an old conversation, then it's just sooo easy to get lost. Would it help if I only copy my half after you've posted? Thread my comments inbetween yours? Because I don't want to compromise the ability of others to use my talk page.
 * What I was trying to ask about animals was about the exact way that game of rassilon categories works. All years are in the top cat years for GOR even though they wouldn't normally be, right? So if a category for real world mammals was added (a subcat of earth mammals) then Guinea pig would be in both Category:Real world mammals and Category:Earth mammals for the duration of Earth mammals involvement in GOR. The same way that bear is in Category:Bears and Category:Earth mammals, right? Bear is only in the earth mammal category because of GOR, right?
 * And yeah, I'm planning on maintaining my focus on foods, but I like being able to do grunt work that can't be assigned to a bot when my brain needs a break. Un-orphaning pages, copy-editing, wikilinking, putting things in categories all take varying amounts of brain power and it's nice to be able to switch things around and do other types of editing. I made some edits in the past week that I had to undo to maintain the GOR and I just wanted to be super clear about how GOR worked. If there's still something I don't understand about it I'd like to know now, not after an edit of mine screws things up. I like to think that I pick up pretty quickly on most guidelines and rules simply from watching my edits and reading edit summaries when they are reverted but not everything is obvious and things that I thought were obvious sometimes end up being a little more complicated. So I figured that it didn't hurt to touch base. Anoted ☎  04:50, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Not being a fan of biography sections?
It seems off-topic to press on the point in a topic specifically about the special case of the TARDIS, so I'll ask here: in Thread:129452, you mention not being a fan of history and biography sections on in-universe pages. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that and how they can end up messy and sloppily written? -- Tybort (talk page) 09:53, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's an interesting point. I simply add "biography" by default if the page is more than a couple of paragraphs, and the character is substantially more than "guard reacting to event". When I personally make pages like that, I think that was from following what was said on Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles. -- Tybort (talk page) 14:13, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

species v. creatures v. animals
Category:Species, per our current definition is supposed to be used for intelligent lifeforms.

Category:Creatures, per our current definition is supposed to be used for non-intelligent lifeforms--animals that do not exist in the real world (RW).

But that's not how things are working right now. While most of the articles under Category:Creatures are not intelligent, they are also often categorised as species. And there are lots of non-intelligent lifeforms currently only categorised as species.

I'm guessing that a large part of this is because Category:Creatures has no subcategories. So if you want to categorise something as a mutant, or silicon-based, you put them in the species category tree.

This is also highly complicated by the way we treat the animal categories, primarily Category:Animals by zoologic class. The animal categories seem to be set up with the intention of handling only real world, non-intelligent lifeforms. But we have intelligent lifeforms being categorised as both species and animal (see Cei) and unintelligent lifeforms being categorised as creature and animal (see Stingray). Intelligent or not, none of these are real world lifeforms, so I'm not sure why they are considered animals. But this is a widespread practice, and leads to articles like Giant Clam being categorised as creature (Category:Skaro creatures), animal (Category:Molluscs) and species (Category:Mutants), which is confusing as hell and makes zero sense.

It seems like this system was set-up with a couple clear divisions in mind. Intelligent and not intelligent. And then each of those was supposed to be divided into RW and non-RW.

Or is the actual intent of the current system to have a set-up that has intelligent, un-intelligent, RW and non-RW lifeforms all co-existing in same categories? Are we supposed to have category called "aquatic species" where we can find every water based lifeform whether or not they are intelligent and whether or not they really exist?

The way the categories currently function I don't know what the intent is--there's just too much contradiction.

If RW lifeforms are not supposed to overlap with non-RW lifeforms, and intelligent lifeforms are not supposed to overlap with non-intelligent lifeforms, then I think it should be fairly easy to set-up subcategories for Category:Creatures and go through the articles in Category:Species and Category:Creatures and put them in the proper category trees. And then go through the animal categories and strip away the non-RW articles and categories.

If these are supposed to overlap then there's quite a bit more work to be done creating an category system for all lifeforms that includes divisions by real world existence and intelligence, but also includes subcategories for appearance and function that contain all types of lifeforms.

I don't want to touch anything until I know which way these categories are really supposed to work, so I'm coming to you hoping that you can clear this up for me. Anoted ☎  12:05, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the different between Earth ___ and _____ from the real world, don't worry. And I know that it's "from the real world" and that "real world ____" actually means something here and it's very different, and that's a dangerous place to get informal. I just super hate typing all of those "from the real world"s. So annoying! I wasn't planning on creating a "Mammals from the real world" category--it would have almost 100% overlap with the Earth mammals category so it seems silly. I was just using it as an example per GOR. Creating a "from the real world" category wouldn't screw up GOR as long as I only added pages to it, not moved pages from their current category to a new subcategory. That's all I was trying to clarify.
 * The thing I'm still confused about in terms of the lifeform categories is are they supposed to be divided up be real world/not and intelligent/not or is there supposed to be a tree that encompasses all of those things. Because if it's supposed to encompass everything, that's going to be one hell of tree.
 * In regards to the talk page thing, is your issue with my adding the other half of the conversation in terms of handling ongoing discussions, or...? If I put the other half of the conversations in only right before archiving, would that bother you? If while a conversation was ongoing I put in links to the diffs of what I said, would that be ok? I don't want to negatively affect other people's ability to communicate with me, but being able to easily find other parts of the conversation and archive full conversations is important to me. Also, this is something totally different but are there scripts for auto-archiving? That is archiving things that are x days old? I tried looking, but wasn't sure where to look on wikia and wikipedia takes up the first bajillion google results. Anoted ☎  16:07, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Speedy rename question
Hi! I have a question about procedure for the speedy renames. When do they get changed? Some of them have their links moved, some don't. Only one of them has more than 10 links to move. Do they need to be approved before they can be renamed? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:29, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just wanted to make sure. I'll take a look at the list later today and see what's left to do. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:53, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

czechbot requests
I have a couple requests for czechbot:
 * Move everything from Category:Fruit from the real world to Category:Fruits from the real world (fruit is grammatically wrong)
 * Move Category:Drink stubs to Category:Beverage stubs so it uses the same name as Category:Beverages, and Category:Beverages from the real world. Anoted ☎  16:16, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Taylor moves
Thanks. What I did with Mercury (element) (which was just recently called Mercury — some of the links were meant for the planet) was go through the links and switch them all myself. Your suggestion will make my job much easier. I'll let you know when I have all the links completely wrong, so you can run the bot. --SOTO ☎ 18:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * All links are now officially wrong. If that's good... Please run the bot — Malcolm Taylor → Malcolm Taylor (actor) + Malcolm Taylor (Planet of the Dead) → Malcolm Taylor. Then I suppose rename the pages. Thanks! --SOTO ☎ 23:24, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Policy questions
Hey. Two questions here. The first is regarding prequels — how do they fit in to series pages? I've noticed that series 7 has Prequel (The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe), the two Snowmen prequels and The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel. But why not Prequel (Asylum of the Daleks) or The Making of the Gunslinger? Why aren't there any prequels on the series 6 page? Or, for that matter, why aren't there Tardisodes on the series 2 page? Should they all be included, or should we get rid of them all from series pages?

My second question is regarding navigation templates. What is their purpose, and how are they different from simply adding a category? Would, for example, creating for a list of all pubs and bars be justified, even though there's currently a category for that? To take up an example from your discussion above with Anoted, would be justified, or should it just be left to a category:cakes? I noticed that Tangerineduel objected to at its talk page — what's the wiki's stance of this? Or at least yours? --SOTO ☎ 23:01, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Czech. That was actually very helpful. I will speak to Mini-mitch about my series question. Anyway, are you saying it would be helpful to have a template? Your rationale for  was that "the categories for hospitals have become so fragmented that there is no longer any one category which encompasses all these hospitals." The same applies to drinking establishments, as they're a category for pubs, then a subcat for terrestrial pubs, then British, then London and Cardiff. (I realise now that I might have to get rid of category:British pubs due to possible future recursion problems... oops.) If I split it up by terrestrial and non-terrestrial, would this be a useful template? I think your split of "specialised" and "non-specialised" for  is very useful, and not something we have in its category. Maybe I'll try to think of a better way to separate pubs — maybe something like pubs visited by the Doctor? I'm still not really sure about the merits of that specific template — if it's divided by terrestrial and non-terrestrial, then it's almost the same as the category tree. I looked through all the pages, and can't think of any other ways of splitting them. So would the template still be useful? I suppose it'd be just as useful of, so I might just create it. --SOTO ☎ 21:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a much better idea. I will actually create that, probably tomorrow. What would the template be called, though? And what would it say at the top? "Food retailers?" --SOTO ☎ 23:13, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually (surprisingly) created the template today. Anyway, could you maybe tweak the colors of ? Navigation boxes are currently unreadable on the LOD colour scheme. --SOTO ☎ 01:35, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Game of Rassilon
Hi! I haven't forgotten that you asked if I had any ideas for new badge tracks. After a bit of thinking and searching, I came up with three possibilities. I haven't done anything with images or names for them yet, however.

I was thinking that Category:Bernice Summerfield stories (or one of its subcategories) might be good. It's a huge category that doesn't get worked on much.

For a couple of in-universe categories I was thinking Category:Planets or Category:Species, as many of these seem to be stubs. Shambala108 ☎  05:51, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Title Sort Name Sort
I don't do much editing on name pages so it's not a really big deal. My confusion came from the idea that "The John Smith" would, under title sort be rendered as Smith, John The, and not John Smith, The. Did I misunderstand the original example? Anoted ☎  19:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)