User talk:The Librarian

OK I had a bit of a clearout....The Librarian 01:36, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

REMEMBERS

 * Continuity: the story titles should be italicised. (The way to work out references from continuity is. References are in-universe and if there's a lot of them organised under category headings (see...Alien Bodies for an example), continuity is out of universe.)
 * Comic strips: check out Template:Infobox Comic Template:Infobox Other Comics
 * Unknown names: Just put the character in Category:Individuals with unknown names or Category:Humans with unknown names. Also put the individual in whatever additional categories also suit them (not just the unknown name category I mean). Also check out the two categories for the general convention and what not. If there's more than one scientist then it would be 'Female Scientist (Brain Drain)' etc. --Tangerineduel 15:41, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Lee Sullivan - really nice guy!

 * Hi there - just passing through and thought I'd say hello - a really nice page on BiT. Was very amused that some of the isolated images I couldn't remember drawing :) Speaking of which - back to the drawing board for issue 59! Lee Sullivan 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have spoken with Lee on a number of occassions and he has been very helpful in sourcing some of the work and approving use of his artwork. :) A thoroughly decent chap! Im adding more content (hopefully) soon. The Librarian 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just loved the imagery!! Creepy!!

 * To paraphrase the Dalek movies; Every move you make I see, every sound you utter I hear...(sounds a lot less creepy in the 60s Dalek voices with the lights flashing not in sync with the voices). I'm always around here. --Tangerineduel 07:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Passion / Contempt?! :)
I saw your message on TangerineDuel's talk page... Speaking as "some people" - yes, I am. Our pace of growth is much better than the despised mendicants of the Guild Wars Wiki. Bwahahaha! Monkey with a Gun 01:50, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Writer in infoboxes
The infoboxes have gone through an edit or two this year, so now if you don't put a field in like |writer= it won't appear, additionally, if you put a field in like writer, but don't actually put anything into it, it also won't appear. --Tangerineduel 07:04, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

So, just to demonstrate:

Below is the infobox with just the name, writer and next story fields filled in:

Below is the infobox with all the fields filled in.


 * The Librarian, hi. I notice you've added a few writers for DWAM comics. Do you know the writer of #61, Sea-Rah? It's blank. (Don't know it myself. I've never seen the magazine where I live.) (Good work, btw. I don't think I've done any editing since I signed up. So many of the articles are in such a state it's hard to see how one can make much difference.) Klippa 02:00, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Magazine covers
Just select 'any uncategorised magazine covers' all the Radio Times covers currently use that see Category:Magazine covers for them all (if you want to add the tag manually it's .  Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Continue using the magazine template and I'll get to it shortly once I've assessed whether to have a 'Radio Times' tag or a BBC Publishing or which way to go with regards to sorting sorting the categories and licencing etc. (I am on it, it'll just take a little while!). --Tangerineduel 17:32, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your requeest was directly beneath a discussion I was having with TD, so I read it, and have a question. If the Radio Times is published by the BBC — and it is, right? — then isn't what we really need a "BBC Magazines" license that could then be used to encompass RT and DWA?  Put another way, can't we just rewrite the existing DWA license to be a general BBC Magazines licesne, then TD would only have to change the name of the license in the dropdown.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:38, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah...I was about to point that out. The conversation part. The other bit I've yet to get to.
 * That is a nice idea, but I'd likely duplicate the template so it could categorise differently. --Tangerineduel 13:23, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comic story layout
Hey, check out Tardis:Format for Comic stories or see Bad Vibrations which has been correctly edited to the layout. I'm guessing you've got a layout saved somewhere in order to write articles offline (I do that with the DWM issues) as I've been through most of the Tenth Doctor stories moving References up to below characters or above Notes depending on how you look at it. Also the 'Original print details' (the case change is in keeping with the Manual of Style with regards to headings), this is a sub-heading within the Notes section and the 'Publication with page count and closing captions' is indented rather than bracketed (as when it's included it makes the heading very long, and that info is more suited below the sub-heading. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 15:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Adventures Comic Pages
Just a reminder: the Doctor Who Adventures comic stories category is for the stories themselves, not the objects from the stories. Also, the first occurrence of the object's name in the article should be Bold and at the end of the article add the citation for the story. (Prefix: Whatever the Story's Called) -<Azes13 23:54, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Image issues
I'm guessing you mean the image view that overlays the image over the top of the page you're viewing it on; so the image is in the main view and the page is dimmed behind it?

If so, to get to the page's details, on the bottom right of the image there is a little image that is a page with a magnifine glass, if you mouse over it it'll say "View page details", this'll take you to the image's page. Alternatively you can right click and open the image in a new tab, this'll take you to the image's page also. Hope this helps. --Tangerineduel 13:52, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Image and illustrator
Added for both Template:Infobox Short Story and Template:Infobox Torchwood Short Story. Both fields are auto-collapsing so they can be added and they'll just collapse if they're not used, see both pages for a copyable template. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * But you might also find the Template:Infobox Other Comics might be more useful if it's appeared in a Magazine, as with all infoboxes the fields collapse if they're not used. --Tangerineduel 13:51, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I wanted to apologise for creating the page for this week's DWA, and leaving you a lot of work to fix all my errors. I think I'll refrain from new pages like that from now on =] Hugsforyou 00:40, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Templates and galleries
You can find all the templates (or do you mean infoboxes?), the templates are in the Category:Templates category, and you'll find all the infoboxes in Category:Infoboxes.

There is an infobox for music Template:Infobox Music which does have all the collapsing fields on it.

Also check out the Tardis:Layout guide which also has links out to the infoboxes and layout guides etc.

The galleries issue is one that's been going on for a while since a previous MediaWiki update. You can manipulate how the gallery images are laid out. Take a look at Doctor Who DVD covers/Region 2, all the galleries begin with currently it's 5 covers across in its current layout, change it to 180 and you'll get 4 across (just change it and preview, don't save and you can see the difference). Try it on some of the other pages you're seeing a difference and this should probably help.

As for the 'search this wiki' function and other things like that, yes this wiki and wikia are going through some transitional phrases. But the 'search this wiki' not deleting thing seems to come and go (may be a browser thing), short answer is I don't know for sure. Sorry I couldn't be more help on this front. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:22, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's the Time Lords!
Well actually the all powerful overseers and whoever else that are in charge at Wikia central. They changed the look, and yes, the sidebar is gone. Just to note, this isn't something I had any say in, but I don't think that it's all that bad.

We now have the marvellous...ummm...top bar. Which has its own unique limitations, you can only have 4 menus, with 7 things within it. Practically though only 3 are usable as the fourth needs to be used for community related stuff.

If you're looking around for stuff that used to be in the sidebar 'what links here' etc, that's in "My Tools" down at the bottom right. You can also add to this menu to get other special pages within it you can get most of the Special:SpecialPages links into the My Tools (you add them by searching by name).

You can find some info on the new look here. Any questions I'll try to answer them. --Tangerineduel 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Xmas episode 2010 THE RUMORS
Is it true that there will be a flying shark?

Or a glimpse of Amy and Rory's honeymoon, (Karen Gillan said that on TV)
 * Don't know who posted the above but the teasers are now in full flow. The Brilliant Book 2010 gives some hidden clues!The Librarian 20:22, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Inuniverse
Make sure your writing in past tense for in-universe articles. Thanks--Skittles the hog 22:31, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Where it says "Edited by USERNAME Xminutes ago" at the top left, there is an arrow next to it. Click it and a panel will come down. At the bottom it says page history.--Skittles the hog 13:37, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Merging
Hi...you've actually...kinda made more work than was actually necessary. The process of merging is to copy, paste, delete and then move the articles the merge the histories of the pages not just the content, by just copying the info you're essentially claiming that you've create that content. Page history is king on a wikia, that way we know who's created the content, by just moving some of the content then, when the pages are deleted we loose the original list who created the content. Because of the delete element of the merger process only admins can do a proper merger. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 09:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, just wanted you to know.
 * All the infoboxes are in the Category:Infoboxes, but the one you're looking for would likely be Template:Infobox Music. --Tangerineduel 10:24, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed that for you, the Music infobox now has both previous/next on it. --Tangerineduel 14:42, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

DWA Format
Okay, I'm being brave now in my continuing efforts to get headlines to adhere to sentence case, and have decided to tackle the biggest offender, Doctor Who Adventures. I know this is your playground, so I need your help.

The problem is much bigger, it seems to me, than just that almost every subhead Uses Capital Letters For Every Word. It's also that there's no rhyme or reason to the order of the subheads.

In general, it seems to me that it goes:


 * Contents
 * Various items within the mag
 * Credits
 * Additional details
 * External link

But this isn't the universal way it's done. In fact, the closest thing to a standard is:


 * Contents
 * Various items (often including credits, which really aren't contents)
 * Hidden Away/Facts
 * Additional details
 * External links

First of all, why is there inconsistency? Why on DWA Issue 193are the credits (properly in my view) not under credits, whereas on DWA Issue 150 is everything under contents?

Second, what is the deal with this Hidden Away/Facts thing? Why is it generally not put under contents? Is it somehow not a part of the contents? What makes it different to, say, the Tales from the TARDIS feature?

In my view, each line should be in the same place on every issue, and I think it should be like the first example I gave above. In other words, the Hidden Away/Facts thing should be brought up under contents.

Next comes the question of what each of these things under content means. Isn't there a way we can shorten some of these subheads? Like, why is it "Information/Fact File (Photo feature and Essential Info)"? That's a helluva mouthful. Are you saying here that this part of the magazine has had all these names at one point or another? Can't we shorten it to just "Fact file" or something like that? Then, maybe we could write a section in the main Doctor Who Adventures article that defined each of these recurring features. And when we put this new name on the subhead, we could link Doctor Who Adventures. "Tales from the TARDIS" seems the most blatant case. You're telling us in the subhead what the section is. That's not what a subhead is for. You should link to some article which explains what the feature was, or, better, you should write a line or two of text under the subhead to explain it.

The thing I'm finding is that these DWA articles are a little inscrutable because the subheads don't at all add to one's understanding of the magazine. I mean, when I see "The Doctor's Data (Collectible Fact File)", that doesn't mean a damned thing to me, and nothing in the article describes it to me. How is that different from the fact file at point 1.2? I don't know, and none of these articles tell me. What the hell is a fact file in the first place? You see what I'm getting at?

I can probably use the bot, in most cases, to quickly establish a more robust, comprehensible format on these pages, but I do need you to help explain these sections and give me good titles for the subheads. Subheads shouldn't contain parenthetical expressions, should probably have only the first word capitalized, and should either be followed immediately by text explaining what the item is, or they should be linked back to an appropriate section of the main DWA article.

Can you help?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  01:00, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response. I'll respond to it in a few.  But I wanted to quickly say, don't make any manual changes to headers just yet, as any radical changes on just a few issues now will make it harder for the bot to make quick changes later.  My whole point in bringing up these issues is to try to get you, as the person who's likely done the most editing on this series, to try to develop a common framework for each issue, so that the bot (CzechBot) can quickly edit all 220+ issues.  So for the moment, don't make any changes to the articles.   Let's just work on figuring out an appropriate format for each page.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  21:13, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Past tense please
Past tense please. Also the source should be right at the end of the text not further down the page. Good work on the DWAs.--Skittles the hog 20:08, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

DWMS
This isn't my complete answer, as I'm fairly sure there's an advertisement somewhere in my files to back this up, but:

Off the top of my head, I think you'll find that the indicia to at least the Summer and Winter 83 editions call the publication, Doctor Who Monthly, which indicates they're legally indivisible from the main magazine. There's also something kicking around in my mind about the fact that the transfer from a monthly magazine to a 4-weekly magazine meant that subscribers were suddenly getting 13 regular issues a year, instead of 12, and therefore the specials were then withdrawn as a natural part of the subscription. I'll try to get you more solid stuff, and cite it more properly in the article, but I'm right in the midst of a lil project of my own at the moment.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  16:00, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten back to this, and to be honest, I can't tell you when I will. You've been more than patient, so for now, please feel free to remove the information on the grounds that it's uncited.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't introduce language to suggest that it wasn't true, cause it's just a matter of taking the time to dig it up again.  I definitely didn't add the info as a conclusion I'd personally drawn; I just failed to cite it properly at the time.

New Year and stubs
Hey, and a Happy New Year to you.

I'm not sure about an ongoing stub, by the nature of something current information is coming in or changing all of the time. With a stub you look at an article and it either has enough information or not enough, with the latter you add a stub tag to it. I don't think there is a need for a 'current update stub', just because so few articles cover topics that are solely "current"/being regularly updated.

If it needs updating with more recent info there's Template:Update, there's also the Template:Current.

I'm struggling to think of an article that would need an 'ongoing stub tag'. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:02, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here on this conversation, but I saw it on both your and TD's pages. The current template was designed specifically for the situation you're talking about.  I think if you read the text of it, you'll find it does what you seem to be wanting.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:59, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

 Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  20:55, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Pointer
The source should be right at the end of the info. Not on its own line. Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:18, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you're doing a good job with all those articles.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:43, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah is seems weird, I like Moffat but he's a bit full of himself.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:53, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Have you voted on the forum yet? Czech posted a link above.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:05, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

SFX Magazine
Nope, no other idea but to create an article based on the actual name of the publication, cause no other idea is needed. That's whatcha do. You create a page based upon the name of the mag in its indicia. I don't know precisely what you're holding there, so I can't tell whether it's more appropriate to go with SFX Magazine or SFX Collector's Edition or SFX Special Edition — but whatever is the specific, legal, indicia name of the publication you're holding is what you go with.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  23:10, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Yeah.  SFX needs to be a redirect to special effects.  The magazine should be at SFX (magazine).   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  00:29, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comic Heroes
Right, but the mag should be on its own page, as should any cover artwork from it.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  00:46, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Dozens of miscategorized photos
Hey, I noticed you've recently dumped dozens of DWAM and other comic scans under the license screenshot. Since you doubtless have a record of what you've uploaded, is there any way you could clean that up and put them under the appropriate license, Comic copyright? Thanks — it actually does matter that the appropriate license is used, for a number of different reasons.  czech out  ☎ ✍    18:57, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't check my messages immediately. I've re-read your message several times and I'm not quite sure what you're having a problem with.  The licensing drop down is still present when you upload pictures, and when you choose a license, it's automatically added to the cat.  That's unchanged in the new skin.  The process is precisely the same as it's always been.  In other words, you had to intentionally choose the screenshot license for it to be in the screenshot category.


 * The "offending" files start (alphabetically) with file:DWA 026 CS Bert.jpg, and then continue through with the prefix DWA for quite a while. I think you've miscategorized some DVD files and other things in the "D"s as well.   You'll have to go to  and advance through to the DWs to find them (the alphabetical header at the top of the page doesn't work; you have to get there manually).  Once you pick a file to change, just go down to the licensing section and switch template:screenshot for template:comic copyright.


 * If you have any additional problems, please let me know.
 *  czech out  ☎ ✍  <font color="#ffffff" title="Czech up on the bot">  21:12, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to be clear: it won't work to change the category. You have to change the license itself, and that action will then change the category.   <span style="background:#cc3333; border:1px dotted #777777; padding:1px 3px 1px 3px; margin-left:4px; font-size:85%;-moz-border-radius:5px;"> czech out  <font color="#ffffff" title="Talk to me">☎  <font color="#ffffff" title="See what I've been up to">✍  <font color="#ffffff" title="Czech up on the bot">  21:27, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I know license is spelled licence by the British, but this wiki was set up by an American, and he/she would've used the American spelling. Doesn't really matter nor offend our MOS, because the MOS largely only applies to main article space.  Pages in the file namespace don't have to heed the whole "British first" spelling rules, except in one circumstance that is only theoretical at this point.   <span style="background:#cc3333; border:1px dotted #777777; padding:1px 3px 1px 3px; margin-left:4px; font-size:85%;-moz-border-radius:5px;"> czech out  <font color="#ffffff" title="Talk to me">☎  <font color="#ffffff" title="See what I've been up to">✍  <font color="#ffffff" title="Czech up on the bot">  21:32, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, first things first. From the Oxford American Dictionary:
 * license |ˈlīsəns| ( Brit. licence)
 * Also, since Wikia is an American-based company you'll find the american spelling for "Licensing" hard-coded into Special:Upload and Special:MultipleUpload. Can't do anything about that.
 * Moving on. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that "you have to accept the 'advanced option'" to be able to add licenses to new images.  No, you don't.  The dropdown appears on both of the upload pages mentioned above, which are the only two ways you can get a picture onto the wiki.  It's impossible to bypass the licensing dropdown, although you can choose to ignore it.  That's why I'm telling you that, one way or another, you did choose to put the template:screenshot on your uploads.


 * You are correct that you have to change the bit under the "Licensing" section. You can either choose to edit just that section or simply hit the "Edit this page" button at the top of the page.  You would then replace  with  .  The dropdown menu is only available on the two special pages mentioned above; i.e., upon your upload of an image.  After that, if you want to change the license, you have to know the name of the license to which you wish to change.  You will therefore find category:copyright templates a useful category to peruse, so that you can become familiar with the names of all the copyright templates.  For the matter we're discussing, though, you only have to remember the templates, template:comic copyright, template:Dwacover, template:Dwdvdfiles copyright, and maybe template:Magazinecover.  Since your personal editing interests cover so many different printed publications, though, you really do need to familiarize yourself with the list of templates soon.


 * Should you find that an image you uploaded has no licensing whatsoever, or no formal section called "Licensing", simply choose to "Edit this page" and drop the name of the appropriate template after any description which you may have placed on the page. If there is no description, just chuck in the template call at the top of the page.


 * Hope that helps. Again, feel free to drop by the ol' talk page at your leisure.   <span style="background:#cc3333; border:1px dotted #777777; padding:1px 3px 1px 3px; margin-left:4px; font-size:85%;-moz-border-radius:5px;"> czech out  <font color="#ffffff" title="Talk to me">☎  <font color="#ffffff" title="See what I've been up to">✍  <font color="#ffffff" title="Czech up on the bot">  01:09, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not quite grasping your difficulties, cause I really want to. I'm interested in this phenomenon as a possible software glitch. So don't take anything I'm saying personally. Obviously, you're one of our most prolific editors, and have created a definite niche for yourself. So I don't think you're either a) dumb or b) a liar. But I can't figure out how you've gotten your results, because I can't reproduce them.

Let's take a look at that (alphabetically) first file of yours, file:DWA 026 CS Bert.jpg. It has never been edited since its upload. And, importantly, it has a section called "Licensing". That can only happen one of two ways. Either you selected screenshot from the dropdown, or you intentionally typed ==Licensing==

into the edit box. I've tried pressing the tab button to "accidentally" fall on the licensing drop down, but that's extremely unlikely, because you have to tab through all the special characters first. So you'd have to press tab about a hundred times to get to the dropdown. Even after you do that, you can't activate the dropdown by keyboard. You have to use your mouse and actually pull down to a license. At least, that's how it works on FireFox for Mac. Maybe your browser/OS allows for activation of dropdowns by keyboard, which might explain how you could do it without knowing about it.

To my mind, that leaves the possibility that you had ==Licensing==

either in a macro or in your clipboard, and you were accidentally, or robotically, pasting it into your edit fields in such a way that you don't now remember doing it. That is, you weren't typing it out, which you would remember, but pushing a single button and barely recognizing that you were doing it.

See, here's the thing. There are two, and only two, possibilities for adding licenses to pictures. Take a look at two files I've uploaded today: file:PlaybackComparison.jpg and file:SidSutton.jpg.

With the first one, I used the dropdown menu to add the license. Notice that this action put a "==Licensing==" heading automatically on the page, just as exists on your upload, file:DWA 026 CS Bert.jpg.

With the second one, I typed screenshot into the edit box. Note that on file:SidSutton.jpg, there is no "==Licensing==" section. The template is simply immediately underneath the pic.

Thus, since file:DWA 026 CS Bert.jpg is most similar to file:PlaybackComparison.jpg, I'm thinking that you did use the dropdown. Especially since you earlier seemed totally unaware that a correct spelling of "licencing" was "licensing", as it's spelled on your upload.

If, in going through and changing these licenses, you see a picture which jogs your memory about anything you were doing at the time, please let me know, as your info might help us fix a bug we don't even know exists.

Now, as to the pages you've found — like file:717560.jpg in which "==Licensing==" appears as "==Liscencing:==", I can tell you immediately that it's not a system error. It's the work of one individual, Just The Doctor, who consistently does that. Neither Wikia coders nor admins here would deliberately put a colon in a header like that. It's just not done. And, as I've already demonstrated, the dropdown adds "==Licensing==". So, Just The Doctor was cutting and pasting his own typo. If I get bored one day, I might fix it with the bot.

Anyway, thank you as always for your fab attitude and your dedication to the printed word side of the wiki. And for getting to the end of this very long, dry post. :) <span style="background:#cc3333; border:1px dotted #777777; padding:1px 3px 1px 3px; margin-left:4px; font-size:85%;-moz-border-radius:5px;"> czech out  <font color="#ffffff" title="Talk to me">☎  <font color="#ffffff" title="See what I've been up to">✍  <font color="#ffffff" title="Czech up on the bot">  22:06, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Images
I see CzechOut's already assisted, but as I've just written this out, this may be of some use also.

When you go to upload an image it depends how you get there. If you open the "Add a Photo" link in a new tab/window you'll be presented with this page Special:Upload (you can also add this to the "My Tool", Edit my tools and in the "Add tool" field type "Upload photo"). Alternatively if you click the "Upload photo" link that's on the article pages on the right hand side, you'll be presented with one field for the file name, a browse and upload button. There's also an "Advanced options" link. Click that and you'll once more be presented with the various fields as well as the licensing drop down menu that you see on the Special:Upload page.

All of the licencing tags automatically add a category, so all images that don't have licences aren't categorised you'll find them in Special:UncategorizedFiles (this link is also at the top of the Recentchanges page. One note, the UncategorizedFiles page is cached, so even if the pictures are tagged they won't disappear from that page until the wikia's cache is refreshed (about 24 hours or so).

To add a licencing tag simply edit it image as you would any article and add the correct licencing tag, you can find a list at Tardis:Copyright tags.

Hope this answers all questions. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:45, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion in Forums
Could I ask you to leave your thoughts on the discussion on speculation in forum here?. Thanks. Mini-mitch 21:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

title
Hey, since you mostly deal with articles that are about things that should be italicized, could you please remember to start new articles with the new title template? Its usage is super easy. Just type:

or if only a portion of the title should be italicized

Most of the existing articles that should be italicized have already gotten this treatment, but new articles are a bit beyond my control. Since you deal with this type of article so much, you might benefit of reading the documentation at title, as well. Thanks :)
 * Oh I wish that merely italicizing the title of an article meant that every use of that title would be magically correct throughout the wiki. But, no, italicizing the page title is just that.  It has no impact on how the title is presented in in-line wiki links.

Belated thanks
Oh, by the way. You know that stuff you were saying before about how you would try to upload a photo and you had to do something special to see the licensing dropdown? And I was all like, "What the heck are you talking about?" Well, I finally did figure out what you were talking about, and have since plugged the hole with a bit of javascript. Now when you hit "Add a photo", it should be pulling up Special:Upload, which has the licensing dropdown clearly above the submit button. I thanked you in the code for pointing it out, but it just occurred to me I never thanked you here.
 * Doubt that I'll be putting in another "add a photo" button on the page that's presented after you upload something. Not terribly necessary, really, considering that you can add "Upload a photo" and "multiple upload" to your MyTools bar.  Through the MyTools bar, you always have easy access to the two upload pages.  (Click on "Customize" at the bottom of this and every page to add upload links permanently to your screen.)

Can you test something for me?
Hey, by now you'll probably have noticed something different when you try to create a new page. I've started adding in a whole fleet of enw preloadable formats. Today, I've gotten around to something that particularly interests you: formats for DWA and DWM issues. Could ya kick the tires on the formats for me, and tell me if you'd like anything tweaked about them? I've based both on the most recent issues of the mags. I think the DWM one is pretty solid, cause I'm familiar with that mag, but it's been a while since I've seen an issue of DWA. I think that you'll like that both formats automatically fill in most of the infobox, and even automatically add categories and the previous and next issues. I'm a little less sure that I've got the subheads right on the DWA thing. Thanks for your help.
 * Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I understand you very clearly, though.  When you say,
 * And the Option 2 bit ... cant make sence of why when I choose a red link it comes up as the page being created surely is the one headed at the top?
 * what do you mean? Option 2 would be the thing I'd have thought you'd have liked and understood the most.  All you do is just put in the name of a page you want to copy and, hey presto, you get it all copied over into your new page.  So let's say you want to create DWA issue 204 really quickly.  Choose to create that page, then go to Option 2 and enter DWA Issue 203.  It'll copy over the existing page and then you just have to edit in the differences.


 * As for the preloadables under Option 1 being confusing because of some of the code, I'd really prefer that you included all that when you're working in Word. It'll make your life way easier.  You don't even have to think about it.  In a sense you don't have to understand it.  It just works.  Maybe if you chose that format, then hit "preview", you'd see what it did, and therefore got more comfortable with it.  The whole point of having a preloadable format is that it automatically take care of some of the things that are standard to every page.  The coding does this, by automatically numbering issues, making sure a standard lead is attached to each article, and automatically filing the page in the right category.  I'd urge you to try to do the next issue using the preload, preferably not in Word.  Do it "live" so that you can preview it and see what the format is doing.


 * The question I really have for you is whether you think the sectional subheads in the format are good. Do you need more or fewer?  Would you choose different sectional labels?


 * If you haven't done so, you might want to read Help:preloadable formats. Maybe that'll make things clearer.


 * Oh, and the reason you can't extend infobox templates to include subheadings is that limits the utility of the infobox. It means you'd have to create an infobox for every single series, magazine, and medium.  Which isn't desirable.  An infobox is a component of pages; it's not the page itself.  It should be possible to use the infobox for audios, for example, on Big Finish, BBC and Magic Bullet productions.  That wouldn't necessarily be possible if the infobox also had sectional headings on it.

DWA external links
You might want to take a look at Forum:WARNING: Doctor Who Adventures pages, as it falls within your sphere of interest. Also, if you know of any other places you've used the DWA official web page link besides category:Doctor Who Adventures and Category:Doctor Who Adventures comic stories and Category:Doctor Who Adventures covers, please let me know, so that I can send the bot out in full attack mode.

Also, I've just noticed you've made some comments on my web page that somehow escaped my noticed. I haven't read 'em yet, but thanks for whatever input you gave. :) I'll get back to you on those matters shortly.  :)  02:12:05 Fri 25 Feb 2011

Font size on this page
I'm not detecting anything other than the standard-sized text on this page. It's probably a browser issue for you, like you've accidentally resized your browser's text downward. However, if you're worried about it, you could place at the very, very top of the talk page. Then you could choose to edit the entire page and put  at the very bottom. That should work to envelope the whole page in a single font size. 14:14:10 Sat 26 Feb 2011
 * What browser are you using? I'm not seeing anything like what you're describing either Firefox or Safari, and you're the only one reporting this error.  (If Internet Explorer, please remember that this site, and indeed Wikia as a whole, isn't really IE friendly.)  16:33:04 Sun 27 Feb 2011
 * I strongly urge you to use another browser, then. Mozilla-based browsers like Firefox are particularly recommended.  IE, frankly, sucks in all sorts of ways, not just for its use on wikia wikis.   16:50:08 Sun 27 Feb 2011
 * In the meantime, I've given my signature an "IE fix" by switching to absolute font-size rather than relative font-size. That should fix your problems.  Even if it does fix things on your talk page, don't take that as an excuse to stick with IE.  IE is truly evil.  Not only is it a security risk, it's doesn't share the same "core" of most other browsers.  Thus, output using perfectly ordinary coding expressions in CSS/wiki markup can't be predicted.  This site and all wikia wikis simply look different on IE than most other browsers.   16:59:20 Sun 27 Feb 2011
 * Oh, there's no question but that it's the coding of my signature interacting badly with IE. The question for me is:  is it my code that's behaving badly, or IE that's performing like it belongs in 2004?  And I know what the answer to that is, too.  :)  At any rate, you're saying now that the latest change I made didn't end your problems? I can do something else to help IE parse the sig better, but I don't really want to unless the last fix failed to resolve things.  17:16:48 Sun 27 Feb 2011


 * Okay. I have the strong suspicion that whatever you were seeing should now be completely gone.  Please confirm.  <span style="">17:48:29 Sun 27 Feb 2011
 * Just to test under the same conditions, I'm putting a second message here. <span style="">17:49:48 Sun 27 Feb 2011

Preloadable format stuff
Okay, I've taken on board your suggestion for rewording the message that comes up when you start a new article. Take a look and tell me whether you think that wording is clearer. (Also, did you ever go to help:preloadable formats to see if you understood the language there?) <span style="">18:17:58 Sun 27 Feb 2011

DWA preoloadable
On the DWA issue preloadable, specifically, I've added in the A3/A4/A4 you requested. The cover dates were never removed from the infobox; it's just that in the format the cover date variable isn't defined. Any variables undefined don't appear when the article is published. In other words, if you were looking at template:DWA issue/preload, it would appear that the cover date wasn't there, because none is defined. However, if you actually start a page, and pull down to "DWA issue", the text you see while editing will definitely include a line for "cover date".

I note that you're apparently not using this format as of the latest issue in our library. Had you used the format, it would have automatically avoided the error you made with the second word in DWA Issue 205. It's impossible to get the issue number wrong using the new format. Also, it starts leads in the format that's required by the manual of style. Please remember that ll articles should begin with the name of the article in bold.

Please use the format to add new issues into the database from here on out. It really will make your life a touch easier. Obviously, if you prefer to work offline until you're finished editing an article, you can easily continue to do so. Just paste the contents of template:DWA issue/preload into Word and work there. To avoid what you described as "the ' is not word compatible", simply change the format of the word document to plain text. Then you can type anything without Word trying to "read" certain special characters, like the apostrophe.

Remember that with this new format, the title of the article automatically provides the title of the lead, and the previous and next issues. So you should never have to type in the words "DWA Issue XXX" anywhere in your word document (unless you're making a point about a specific back issue somewhere in the body of your article).

As for whether the bot will get involved in fixing back issues, the answer is a probable yes. I want to get you using the format first and making sure you're comfortable with it. Once got the kinks worked out, and we're sure that the format seems to cover the shape of most issues of the magazine, then we'll worry about imposing it on past issues. One thing the bot may do sooner rather than later is to strip all the back issues of their current leads and replace it with the one in the format — that is, the one that follows the MOS.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. <span style="">18:37:23 Sun 27 Feb 2011

New formats aren't just for DWA issues . ..
Hey again :) Just noticed your latest creations in comic stories, and it appears you've not adopted the format given under the drop down menu.  Please do so, as it automatically places the appropriate templatess on the page, and it uses MOS-appropriate captilization for headers (it's External links not External Links).   Really improtant that all new pages in your sphere of interest have title and TitleSort on them, even if they don't appear to need them.   Feel free, of course, to just copy and paste the new formats into word and to work as you normally do.  Just thought I'd give you a heads up that your current offline templates are now out of date.   <span style="">10:03:49 Wed 02 Mar 2011

More details, please
Could you please define the problems you are having that are causing you to put a hold on your editing? <span style="">21:34:06 Mon 21 Mar 2011
 * I'm having difficulty understanding your problem. The size have been precisely calculate to scale correctly.  You speak of "too many different fonts", but there are precisely three.  There's one for the subheads and accents that you usually see in all caps.  There's one for the main body.  And there's a monospace font for editing.  That's well within general "best practices" in layout and design theory.  Now, I will grant you that a couple of days ago, for a period of perhaps 36 hours, I was rapidly cycling through fonts in order to find the best serif/sans-serif combinations for article text/header text.  But the design theory that I've always been working towards is: one for headers, one for text, one for editing.  This may have given the false impression that "a lot" of fonts were being used, and I apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused.

May I suggest that you now clear your cache and look at the site as it is meant to be. Things have, as you suggested in your last note "settled down".

If you're still having problems after that, please let me know.

Also, please understand that, yes, the default size of the main article text is deliberately lower than what it was. This is because most people don't have 20/20 vision. Thus, sites need to be built with fonts and sizes that will scale well. Most people in fact do magnify the screen. Thus we need to allow for that when designing the page. The easiest way to do this is to go for a font size that allows for easy multiplication or scaling.

As for the examples you give, they're particularly poor ones. In the first place, few people go to the home page, especially after they've signed into their account. Most people start on the recent activity page. In the second, the particular areas you speak of are being styled in addition to normal styling. That is, their font size is being set within the individual templates that create them; they're not being directly styled by anything I'm doing in the CSS. It may well be that they need to be re-styled in the light of the new font. But these areas shouldn't be used to judge whether the overall font of the site is "working" or not.

Go to a regular page, like companion and then judge whether it's working. Companion is a particularly good page to look a because it exhibits all the features of the new style: pictures, subheads to the lowest possible level, quote styling, the works. If after looking at that page, you're still having problems, please take a screenshot and show me what you're experiencing.

Lucida Bright, the font you should be seeing, is one of the English-speaking world's most readable serif fonts. Equally, Georgia, which is a font you may be seeing if Lucida Bright isn't installed on your machine, is a highly readable serif font. And if that fails, well, there's a reason that Microsoft Word defaults to Times New Roman. The font stack has been chosen with great care to make sure that no matter what OS you're using, no matter what base fonts you have, 99% of all users are experiencing something which I can replicate on my machine, and which I've personally examined for its suitability.

For you to say the font is "harsh on the eye" and "no longer warm and inviting". I really need to see what you're seeing to diagnose what problems you're having.

If worse comes to worse, I can help you design your own personal font stack so that you see the site exactly how you want to. In other words, it's possible for you to override my settings on your machine only. But I'd rather work with you a bit to get you seeing what I'm seeing, because, as has happened in the past, you may be experiencing something that I do need to address.

Finally, I hope that you've by now abandoned Internet Explorer and have moved up to Firefox or Chrome or Safari for Windows. <span style="">20:13:59 Wed 23 Mar 2011

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:37, March 23, 2011 (UTC)