User talk:CzechOut

Re:Title Cards
Hi! I've been reuploading older titles cards images from the 2005 series, since most of them are 1280x720, but the screenshots we're all taken from the DVDs which makes the images look horrible. My screenshots are from the Blu-Rays and i resized most of them from 1080 to 480 with the "best quality" option, but i tested and less than 50KB without much quality loss is possible in most cases, so i will be uploading new versions of them and re-adding to the page. I'm still new at this wiki, and i prefer image quality over filesize, but since this wiki priorizes filesizes i'm not sure how to deal with it, specially when the guide page says to priorize the image quality if it was taken from VHS/Laserdisc/SD Image Resize to HD.

BTS naming conventions?
Hi. Can you please comment on this talk page: Tardis talk:Naming conventions? --Time Lord ☎  07:26, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Egypt
Haha, right? I was reading Dr. Twelfth and realised that Egypt still had no images. So I was like: "Why not?". I'm actually surprised I managed to illustrate four articles using images from it, since it is so small. OncomingStorm12th ☎  02:48, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Men images
Hey, I was curious why the images you uploaded of the Dr. Men series were in a .png format. I presume that you did this on purpose, as you know wiki well. So why does png fit the Dr. Men series more than jpg images? OS25 (Talk) 08:23, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

New infobox
I've noticed areas which could use an infobox currently lacking on this wiki. While we have infoboxes for characters, locations, organisations, objects etc., we don't yet have anything which specifically fits the informative requirements for space stations. Some pages, such as Platform One and Satellite Five, use the object template, while others, like Chasm Forge, currently use the location template. Would it be possible to have a new template created which merges elements of the object, organisation and location templates. A new spacecraft template could have spaces for image, aka, type, location, origin, affiliation, leader, crew and appearances. Just a thought. Thanks. 66 Seconds ☎  22:16, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Charity story deletion request
Your Storyteller thread closure reminded me; could you please delete Hanging Chads (short story)? CoT    ?  01:07, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Question
Thanks! :) OS25 (Talk) 04:32, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Re: New Infoboxes
Hey :) I assumed that since Special:Insights/nonportableinfoboxes was empty, that it was over. But it truly makes a lot of sense that there's still ""minor"" adjustments that need to be made. That said, it is indeed 100% better to wait until the currently-existing infoboxes are completed, before even attempting to make new ones.

I mostly wanted them to have a new project on the wiki, which I actually found: re-upload images that are smaller than 350px with bigger versions (when it's possible to do it). So, also, thanks for pointing out that is possible to get images under 100kb by getting quality a bit lower. That was very helpfull. Hope you get to complete the infobox transition (they look awesome, btw). OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:19, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Thread:213993
I wasn't trying to cause speculation or trying to get an official "Tardis Wiki Timeline" I was just aiming for a consistant approach as the "inquiring citizen" might get confused. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 15:17, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Phoenix Court decision
I feel like the decision you made about Phoenix Court is completely wrong. First off, The Blue Angel NEVER separates the Phoenix Court Iris from the other Iris. It's very explicit that the Phoenix Court Iris is just a past incarnation to the main one in the novel (the one that looks like Jane Fonda). She's even stated to have put the double-decker bus in her backyard, with one of her neighbors confused how she got it there, considering there's no way she could've drove it in. Basically, your decision hinges on claiming that The Blue Angel separates the two Irises, when it's blatant about them just being two different incarnations of the same Time Lady. The Obverse only has one Iris Wildthyme, after all. Please reverse your decision. --Pluto2 (talk) 01:15, May 28, 2017 (UTC)

Notes on the 'Killing Stone'
Hey Czech, I just got a book by Obverse Books about the production of Doctor Who spin-offs in the 1990s, and I figured you might be interested in a few quotes about what the author has to say about the Killing Stone, which has been very difficult to find information about. I believe this features new interviews by Bill Baggs, as unhelpful as that will tend to be.


 * It first began life as a novel, which Franklin was eager to publicise in his Myth Makers interview in 1989. “It’s what happened to Captain Mike Yates when he left in ‘Planet of the Spiders’. It was to have been published by WH Allen but unfortunately they’ve discontinued the series, because the ratings have dropped and so I’m going to publish this separately, privately myself. I’m kind of going to do what Dickens did, I’m going to produce one edition, one chapter each month for eleven months.”

...


 * While other BBV releases were treading a fine line between a cheeky knock-off and copyright infringement, The Killing Stone is, strictly speaking, illegal. It features appearances by Sarah Jane Smith, Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, Sergeant Benton and the Doctor himself, but this didn’t seem to worry Baggs.


 * “I think he’d cleared it with the BBC — but no it didn't bother me because they were his interpretations. And I think that's fair. And although it wasn't the best story ever, it certainly had charm and a certain cachet.”[1060] Baggs was only too happy to welcome Franklin into the fold, saying of him, “[he was] very friendly and eccentric. I loved his enthusiasm. His characterisations of the Doctor and the Brig were very funny. When Richard puts his mind to his craft he’s very talented.”

...


 * The Killing Stone would finally be published in novel form by Fantom Films in October of 2012 under the title Operation H.A.T.E. The new publishers however, took none of the risks that Baggs had, as Franklin explains. “A lot of it is Killing Stone but 50 percent of it is actually new and unseen and actually all the names have to be changed because the BBC copyright situation is rather tougher now than it was when I did The Killing Stone but it’s quite recognisable.”

I'm sure that's just about as much as you had been able to collect, but I thought it was a worthy note. I'm not arguing for it to be valid, I just figured this info might be useful at some point. OS25 (Talk) 12:03, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

The Master as a Companion
Hey, just wanted to pop in and chat about your accusation that The Master is not a companion of the Doctor. I understand from a technical standpoint why we would avoid having John Simm's face be plastered over the relevant templates, but surely you can't just deny that the events of Doctor Who: The Eleventh Doctor Year 2 clearly show him to be a companion of the War Doctor? I think that removing the relevant template is going too far -- I understand that it's important to note that the Master was mostly the Doctor's enemy, but surely it's impossible to ignore the narrative relevance to note the times that they were travelling partners? I mean, this is a whole season's arch here -- it's not just a one-off or anything like that. OS25 (Talk) 21:22, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

ICDH debate
Hi! You mentioned a while ago that you were ready to take part in a discussion about the ICDH, and I wanted to apologize that I haven't really been using the chat room since then! I've just been so swamped with worth elsewhere that I've neglected it I'm afraid.

If you'd like, we could schedule a date and a time to try and hash this out (I imagine sometime after the S10 finale). I would personally suggest we try to do this over Discord if we can -- since I think that would be a fab place to talk about this -- but if not we can try to do it in the chat room, or otherwise elsewhere on the site. OS25 (Talk) 00:46, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman
As much as I admit that Wonder Woman can only be recognised through RW knowledge, that was also the case for the Flash, Thor (superhero) and most other superheroes on his room. But, since RW knowledge must be used to name the heroes, it is beyond doubt that this is Wonder Woman, because even if part of her face is covered, her tiara is so iconic that it makes the recognition even easier. OncomingStorm12th ☎  03:24, June 24, 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it as that thin evidence. Take a look at the Flash and Doctor Strange on his room: also very dark images (not as clear as Superman, Captain America or Wolverine, but we still can recognise both of them). Because, from a RW perspective, there was not much reason to have a 100% clear image for the characters to be recognisable. The production team choose big heroes on purpose. But I'll also admit that not having a WW article now won't be that much of a loss, as it'd be quite short. OncomingStorm12th ☎  03:38, June 24, 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at those two images with the brightness on my laptop turned all the way up, the two superheroes are quite recognisably who OS12 says they are. If the images can't be used in the articles then so be it, but I don't see why that should mean their subjects can't have pages. I'd be willing to bet that if we asked other users if they could identify the superheroes in the pictures, they probably would be able to. CoT     ?  04:24, June 24, 2017 (UTC)


 * After a good night of sleep, I thought about the subject a bit, and now fully agree that having pages on Wonder Woman and the Flash are, as of now, a bit of a stretch. That said, having a page for Comic superheroes seen in Grant's bedroom certainly is a bit tempting, but I don't think the page it's quite necessary, because there the superheroes seen on Grant's room can be divided three subsections:
 * Not clearly recognised at the thumbnail level (Wonder Woman and the Flash, who right now won't get pages)
 * Clearly recognised at the thumbnail level, and TRODM is the only story they appear: Wolverine (superhero), Thor (superhero), Silver Surfer and a few others (as they are recognisable on thumbnail level, it's okay for them to have individual pages)
 * Clearly recognised at the thumbnail level, and also appear/are mentioned on other stories: Superman, Batman, Captain America and a few others (also deserve individual pages)
 * However, thanks for the suggestion. :) OncomingStorm12th ☎  18:22, June 24, 2017 (UTC)

request
Hi, please check to see if User:RobHolmes is a sock puppet for User:Paulmorris7777, who has been blocked for violating T:NPA. Thank you. Shambala108 ☎  22:04, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

Shining Man
Hey, I see you recently deleted Shining Man, and while I understand why, I had reshaped the page and removed all the information that wasn't properly sourced, as well as adding more info from the novel. That said, could you please restore it? Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎  03:01, July 6, 2017 (UTC)

Concerning your deletion of my edit to the St Luke's University page - To the best of my knowledge there is only one St Luke, who was a doctor and a traveling companion and who wrote a good story aka gospel. Therefore I do not understand why it was removed.

Cybermen
Alright good tips man! I really just made the sandbox as a concept proof for the debate, as I couldn't start merging the pages while the debate was still open, but I'll certainly avoid doing such things in the future. OS25 (Talk) 02:55, July 9, 2017 (UTC)