User talk:CzechOut

Infidel's Comet
See Thread:191574 again. --Pluto2 (talk) 01:00, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Thread:206566
Your input would be nice in Thread:206566. It would be best if you read the entire thread before replying. Fwhiffahder ☎  19:32, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

... in light of recent events, I think the thread could use a different representative on your talk page! So I'd like to second the request for your thoughts in Thread:206566 :) NateBumber ☎  00:29, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should reread. An enormous amount of evidence was given in favor of inclusion, and you ignored it in favor of a software issue. At this stage, it's worth it. You ignored the fact that the authors elsewhere confirmed that they were who they said they were, and that plenty of evidence, such as the Cwejen, was given to support validity. It's entirely worth the effort of merging, and your closing statement reads more like as bizarre advertisement for Wikia software than a rebuttal. I'm in no way attacking you. I just want you to reread the entire thread, as that closing response feels like a slap in the face. --Pluto2 (talk) 09:29, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's this: If the FP Wiki wants to cover Doctor Who stuff, let them. Or we could import the new pages and rewrite the combined ones. --Pluto2 (talk) 09:55, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Pluto2. What's particularly galling is that it is you, personally, and your policy of not allowing anyone on the FP wiki to actually post anything useful because of your unsupported views of "canon" (along with your unwillingness either to update the front page to acknowledge that the last five years have happened or to allow anyone else to do so), that has meant that the FP wiki is completely useless. Saying "use the FP wiki", when it is not usable specifically because of your own decisions, is just insulting. The copyright "issue" is also a non-issue, given that the vast majority of the FP wiki is currently just stubs. By domain-squatting the FP wikia and filling it with outright lies like "it is not a part of the DWU" and "the odd novel or short story does occasionally surface, as most recently happened in 2011" you are doing an immense disservice to anyone who actually cares about Faction Paradox, as you clearly don't. Your personal animosity towards FP is obvious, despite a pretence at objectivity that's fooling no-one. Give up your administrative role at the Faction Paradox wikia and hand it over to someone who is an actual member of Faction Paradox fandom (I'd be more than happy to take over the role, as would several other people who posted in that thread) or admit that you are actively trying to harm FP fandom. AndrewHickey ☎  14:41, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Just two posts above yours Tangerineduel said that: "The "too hard basket" argument for re-integration isn't a valid one, not for this discussion. The FP Wiki's state of disarray is not something that should affect this discussion here."

As was said many times in the thread, there's no rush. By popping in for a few hours to get rid of everything you didn't like, you didn't give the thread the time that it deserved. You just threw out a non sequitur and stopped everyone else from responding! From what I understand, none of the problems you brought up are impossible to solve. Couldn't one just import the pages here as separate pages and then merge them afterwards? Couldn't the legion of non-admin who support reintegration deal with the other problems? Perhaps we could even start from scratch?

What I'm trying to say is: could you find the time to make a response to the points brought up in the thread? CoT    ?  15:25, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Becoming an Admin
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Adoption:Doctor_Who_Answers

Doctor 25 ☎  18:53, December 25, 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts
I don't know if this is how one goes about it but, what are your thoughts on my nominating User:OncomingStorm12th. See link.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tardis:User_rights_nominations - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER   ☎  23:27, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Closing the Faction Paradox debate
Hi! Thanks for your response to Thread:206566, although it wasn't quite the one I was expecting. Don't worry, this isn't an angry rant! I just want to address a few of your points and propose a compromise.

First, I'm confused whether you plan to change the four little rules to highlight what you said re:balancing in that thread. Those were the grounds on which I conducted the discussion: I saw FP listed as a Rule 4 violation, so I detailed the many, many reasons why it is not. You mention that the matter of authorial intent seems to have stemmed from Vienna, but in reality I got it from the text of Rule 4 ("if a story was intended to be set outside the DWU ...") and your past quoting of a Lawrence Miles interview to justify the removal. Please note that no one "had" authors come to the thread; per the Facebook link, it appears that they found and posted in the thread of their own volition, and frankly, they weren't needed: I had already procured ample evidence that Rule 4 wasn't violated from Lawrence Miles' own words and actions as well as others' properly-sourced statements.

Second, you reference that you're remembering the opinions of extreme exclusion fans, but those guys aren't who's using this Wiki! Based on the posts in that thread, the TW's current editors either (1) want FP, (2) don't care, or (3) realize that it won't affect them. And for readers, any wiki that includes Iris Wildthyme is not going to lose readers based on inclusion for Faction Paradox. In contrast to the exclusionists, the Faction Paradox fandom has exponentially increased in size due to Obverse's new range. I, for one, am a user who gives a personal, on-my-word guarantee that I will do the majority of the editing, if need be; I've already begun revamping multiple existing articles that relate to the Faction Paradox series. Just waiting for your go-ahead :)

Finally, you said “there's no reason why you can't make a great, well-linked article over there”, but throughout the thread we mentioned several times that it's futile to write a Faction Paradox article without referencing Doctor Who, something that the rules of these two wikis make completely impossible. I see three different users in that thread who discussed their experiences trying to contribute to the FP Wiki and realizing it was pointless for that reason. I don't think this is something a new admin could fix; even changing the rule would still lead to unnecessary duplication of content! (We ended this train of discussion in the thread when an admin said technical matters were irrelevant to inclusion.)

And now for the compromise! :) I propose that nothing be done about the FP Wiki and that TW's inclusion policies simply be updated (per the Four Little Rules) to not explicitly exclude Faction Paradox. This satisfies your two criteria of "posing no problem to the quality of contributions" and "avoiding technical challenges of re-merging" while simultaneously satisfying the wants of the editors (as expressed in that thread). Furthermore, avoiding reintegration would allow FP material to grow here naturally and not force it onto this community; as you said, the articles on the FP wiki aren't a gold standard, so why would we want them transferred here? Instead, let's passively ignore them and move forward. The FP Wiki would (eventually) become like the Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki: existing as a source, but completely redundant to its better-quality cousin. I personally pledge to do any and all edits to Tardis Wiki concerning FP material without looking at the other one, and I offer to check others' edits to FP-related pages here to make sure they're not copy-pasting (or that if they do, they link to the edit history of the FP article to satisfy CC-BY-SA).

I think this is an amenable compromise that simultaneously upholds the Four Little Rules and allows for growth. Please let me know if it's okay; I just want to see this sorted! NateBumber ☎  14:30, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this solution can (or ever will) be implemented, but I'd like to say that I'd be willing to help as much as I could (even though my knowledge of FP is not very broad). A little question though: wouldn't the Wikia Staff be able to help importing these articles back? Perhaps they could get around those technical difficulties of re-importing articles. OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:40, December 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * I just came over to make a very similar suggestion to what NateBumber said. There are two distinct issues here: the policy issue of "does FP violate our Four Little Rules?" and the technical-and-policy issue of what can and should be done about the relationship between this wiki and the FP wiki. Your comment addresses the latter, but not the former.


 * Also, closing the discussion after making one comment, and not allowing any response from those who have previously participated, is a bit bad form. I'm sure that this wasn't your intention, but it gives the impression that you're coming in with a Judge Dredd-style "I AM THE LAW" decision with no possible appeal. As I'm sure you know, that's not how wikis are supposed to work. You're better than that, CzechOut. —Josiah Rowe ☎  05:16, December 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm no talking about FP's inclusion he he.


 * Though I will say that FP have changed their opener.


 * Take a look at this on their website


 * Which they have updated, since our thread. This at least proves identity. Best wishes. - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER   ☎  12:45, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Faction Paradox
Hello pal. You probably won't want me but I might as well ask.

I'm interested in becoming a caretaker at the 'Faction Paradox wiki. I'm interested in making the wiki organised, formatting it properly, undoing any vandalism and keep everything in order.

Best wishes. - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER  ☎  21:54, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Faction Paradox
Look...

Essentially everyone is infuriated at the decision. You interjected, posted a non sequitur, and closed it without letting anyone reply. Several people have suggested alternatives. For instance, importing the articles exclusive to the FPW to here and adding information for the ones that would have conflated histories via starting from scratch. There is no hard basket. You didn't let anyone get a word in after you intervened. Please, PLEASE reopen the debate so that people can reply to you there. I think everyone would be happy with the idea of accepting Faction Paradox back into the wiki as a valid source, but starting from scratch. Can we do that, at least? This way, the FP material can be valid sources, but without the technical trouble of importing - we just start from scratch. Everyone's happy that way. --Pluto2 (talk) 02:21, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

OK, to reply to your message on my talk page:

''I don't really understand most of your message. But I appear to have made you angry. So let me just apologise up front and say that it was never my intent to make anyone mad.''

Possibly then rather than coming on and unilaterally dismissing everything everyone said, and in the process calling Simon Bucher-Jones, Philip Purser-Hallard, Stuart Douglas and myself liars for saying we are who we are, you should have *at the very least* read the discussion and responded in terms of those "four little rules" you keep quoting? You know, the rules you apply *in every single case EXCEPT Faction Paradox, which you exclude for no good reason at all*?

''You know, I've never tried to harm FP fandom. How could I? I don't have that kind of power. One of the aims of the original split was always to create an environment that would foster the growth of articles about Faction Paradox -- which is a pretty long way from hurting FP fandom.''

It does exactly the opposite, for reasons that were explained, at length, by multiple people, in posts you gave no indication of having bothered to read.

You've stated that I've deliberately prevented new editing and new ideas, and that's just so demonstrably false it dumbfounds me.

Imposing rules that say that references to "DWU" stuff is verboten does exactly that. It makes it literally impossible to talk sensibly about Faction Paradox. Saying in the canon rules "Nothing which bears a Doctor Who logo, or is otherwise judged to be a part of the DWU by the TARDIS Datacore, counts" immediately makes that wiki useless, and therefore rather than "create an environment that would foster the growth of articles about Faction Paradox" you have essentially domain-squatted what could otherwise be a useful domain name.

'' The front page is completely editable. You yourself have edited the only policy page about sources. You know firsthand that if you don't like what it says, you can change it. If you don't like what it says at Template:Main Page/What is FP -- again -- you can change it. And there's never been even a single hour where you couldn't. So if you don't like what it says, is it reasonable to blame me?''

Except that the instructions that are on that main page are so badly worded it is impossible for anyone other than the most dedicated user to follow them and actually even find out what it is they're meant to be editing. And that wiki *has* no dedicated users, because of the policies you imposed.

''Finally, it's deeply unfair for you to quote words I wrote in the Spring of 2012 as if I just said them. Honestly, I haven't thought about the things you're quoting since I wrote them. You're holding them up as if they're things I said yesterday -- as if they're some deeply held personal conviction.''

You've given no indication that your views have changed. And given that you're the person who sets policy there, and you repeatedly argued, vociferously, in forums both there and here, against anything that might make that site usable.

''Would I like to appoint someone like you who appears to know something as an admin? Absolutely. The fact that you care passionately about the subject does make you a more attractive candidate than your 25 edits between the two wikis would otherwise suggest. I'd like to see more proof that you're serious about it, of course. It's standard procedure on Fandom that people with no admin experience edit for at least a continuous week, have created at least one new page, and are still editing the wiki while the admin nomination is considered.

But we have to be able to work together and trust each other. You wanna give it a shot?''

No. You have given no indication that you even begin to understand the problems people have with the decisions you made -- decisions that make any attempt, at all, to do anything useful on that wiki with you as the owner, utterly pointless. You've also given no indication at all that you are willing to listen to any disagreement. You're not someone it would be possible for me -- or, I think, for anyone who's actually a member of Faction Paradox fandom -- to work with constructively. AndrewHickey ☎  17:33, December 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to agree that the only way an FP wiki would work is if CzechOut was NOT an admin. His behaviour on this Wiki demonstrates clearly that he's not someone suited to collaborative effort.

fwhiffader's block
Hello,

fwhiffader has countered your reasons for blocking here: link. He didn't break the rules to the extent of warranting a block. Please unblock him. --Pluto2 (talk) 02:57, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Fwiffhader
Dear Mr CzechOut,

I respect your decision to block Fwiffhader however may I have my input?

Three of the reasons he was blocked concerned myself. One - the "Don't make the grammar worse" statement, two - the "Don't just make stuff up" statement and three - the final ask to see the removal of the Facist statement over at the Paul Magrs wiki.

I just wanted to say that the first two didn't, to me, come across as nasty - and if those two are main contributors to his being blocked, then please reconsider.

The reason I'm asking for reconsideration is primarily due to FP's reintegration. He seemed to know more than most on the subject and we could really do with his help.

I'm just asking if you'd reconsider not only does he display signs of upset, not through text but way of reply, but he has apologised to me off his own back. He didn't have too - but he did.

I mean we have editors that vandalise pages and add gibberish to pages that have never received a block.

I'm asking you not to unblock him but to shorten his "sentence". As a year block can damage the amount of user's contributions they make. Take OttselSpy as prime example.

I wish you all the best. Thanks for your time. Denchen 23:56, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Fwiffahder, again
Hi, CzechOut. Fwiffahder contacted me on Facebook to ask whether I would review your block of him. I told him that since I'm not really very active here, I didn't feel comfortable changing a block without running it by the blocking admin (in this case, you) first.

I've looked over Fwiffahder's edits, and I do agree that he has violated T:ATTACK more than once. And even though the "FASCIST BASTARDS" business wasn't technically on this wiki, I do think that it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of our no personal attacks policy. I believe Fwiffahder when he says that that comment and the #occupywikia bit on his user page were intended as jokes, but the fact that he didn't listen when multiple people expressed offense and asked him to change the "FASCIST BASTARDS" line, and indeed reverted changes to that phrase on the wiki's front page, indicates a stubborn streak that is at the very least unhelpful.

That said, I think that his apology and block appeal shows a willingness to attempt a change in his behavior. I think that a reduction in the length of his block might be in order — if and only if he agrees to moderate his tone, and to refrain from broad-swath attacks on admins, or on the wiki as a whole. I would suggest changing the block to perhaps two months, to allow feelings to cool, and then make it clear that when and if he returns he will be "on probation".

I haven't used the admin functions at Wikipedia in years, but when I did I remember people used to talk about blocks as being like an electric fence — providing a shock to make somebody realize they have gone out of bounds. A year-long block is more like the sort of thing you would give a recalcitrant problem user who has failed to get the message after previous blocks of shorter duration. Obviously, this isn't Wikipedia, but I'd think that a similar level of response would be reasonable.

As I said at the start, since I am not really very active here any more I don't feel comfortable changing the block duration myself. But I hope you'll consider what I've said. Feel free to respond either here or on my talk page, especially if there are other factors at play that I might not be aware of.

Oh, and happy new year! —Josiah Rowe ☎  04:27, January 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * I request an extension to the bam of Fwiffahder. His behaviour did not change in the slightest. He just banned me on some Wiki he controls with the following message: "Banned for violating rules 1, 2, and (the secret rule) 3: don't be an idiot." Here is a link:


 * I am neither pro or against the extent, but I feel the obligation to add that on the said wiki the "main page" title was changed (just today) to "Amorkuz is Wrong about Everything Wiki", which is, at the very least, suggestion that the supposed "change of behavior" he claimed to have on his apologies might not be at it's finest. (Which I really hope is not true, because he mostly edited constructively). OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:56, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

Front page
On a more pleasant note, is there any particular reason why Class doesn't have a pretty circle on the front page and a corresponding Transmat page? —Josiah Rowe ☎  05:42, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Removing/Deleting posts
I want my posts in the Fact checking category of Doctor Who Discussions to be removed/deleted. Reason: need speculation (opinions and theories). Not facts.

Rose's question of Doctor 9's Northern English accent

Rose's frustration of the TARDIS Translation circuit

David Tennant's accent

Earth-like Gallifrey

Rose not noticing that Mickey is plastic

Black & White

"Doctor, stop being childish."

Regeneration - Changing sex/gender

Regeneration: Subconscious

Second Doctor errors

12th Doctor is the 13th incarnation?

Peri's Death

Doctor 9's reaction to Rose's changing history

Something special about Christmas

Doctor 25 ☎  18:21, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

FP integration: request for help
Hi, sorry to bother you. I would appreciate your help/advice in making editing in the FP content easier.

I was wondering if you could check whether Thread:209869 is ready for closing. I feel responsible as I began that thread to resolve differences we had and insisted several times that until the thread is closed the edits should not proceed. Now that the differences have been, in my view, resolved, I would feel bad if this thread prevents editing for no good reason.

Related to the discussion on that thread, you've created a long time ago a redirect from The Ship to The Doctor's TARDIS. During the discussion, NateBumber conceded that he did not think this identification was a done deal already, as had been discussed at the FP Validity Battles. Thus, our discussion ended in agreement, but we may have been both wrong. Was your redirect referring to the Ship from Toy Story?
 * If yes, then does it mean that this identification has already been established on this Wiki and Toy Story can be freely edited as an Eighth Doctor story with Fitz and Compassion traveling in the TARDIS?
 * If not, then I think the redirect has to be modified to include a disambiguation term.

Once again, I always feel hesitant asking admins to close threads, but I feel that now, with the inclusion of so much new material, more than ever admin oversight is indispensable for the smooth induction of material with non-trivial connections to the existing pages. Amorkuz ☎  14:05, January 24, 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm really confused by this request, since, as a thread for discussing whether the Ship is the Doctor's TARDIS, that thread has not reached anything approaching a conclusion (although it has concluded various smaller matters involving Lolita and Faction Paradox timeships in general, though those were already concluded in the FP reopening). Yes, we agreed that it hadn't been decided, but we haven't actually decided the matter, and unless someone opens another debate where we can post information completely redundant to what's already in Thread:209869, said thread is still serving an important purpose. NateBumber ☎  14:42, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of all posters coming to agreement concerning all the matters addressed in the thread (ie, the Doctor's TARDIS keeping Object infobox, Lolita = TARDIS, timeships = TARDISes, the Ship = Doctor's TARDIS, male/female crewmembers = Fitz/Compassion), I second the notion for an admin to close the thread. NateBumber ☎  20:31, January 24, 2017 (UTC)

Hey Thanks!
Thanks for contributing to those discussions. Sorry if I came across as hostile -- honestly didn't meant to. Thanks for doing such a good job of keeping the site organized. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 08:30, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, also the Shalka thread might peak your interests while you're around.

Inactive
Hi. Not sure if you're the right person to talk to, or if this is even an issue, but wanted to ask regardless.

On my user page, it has me listed as "Inactive". I'm supposing that's because I haven't edited the wiki in a while. Also not sure if that actually means anything but was wondering if that can be changed.

If you aren't able to help, hopefully you can direct me to someone who can

Thanks Mister Fifty ☎  20:49, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Fangs of Time
Thanks again Czech! Just two questions. First off, does it matter who edits the page Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time to be invalid? I was interested in writing a new header. Also, there's the topic of Sean (Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time). Do we even keep that page? And how "meta" should his invalid page be if we don't delete it? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:32, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Sleeze
So I'm not going to disagree with your conclusion, or ask for the thread to be re-opened, but I do have to re-ask the very thing I wanted answered in the thread itself. What's the difference between the Sleeze comics and Glam Rock Detective? Both are spin-offs made using characters created for DWU stories. Whether it's easy to admit or not, the Sleeze Brothers were created for Doctor Who Magazine, and in that instance they're a lot father away from figures like Death's Head and a lot closer to figures like Bernice Summerfield. So what's truly separating the Sleezes from other examples like this?

You say that the comics weren't meant to be set in the DWU, but in some sense they were. The author created a "setting" for DWM, set in the DWU. Then he made comics continuously placed within that setting previously created for and within the Doctor Who Universe. I'm just confused on how this is different from other cases is all, and I certainly am unclear on how this was seen as so "open-and-closed." OS25 (Talk) 03:01, January 31, 2017 (UTC)


 * I've come to the easy conclusion that most of the questions that I've asked you are totally reasonably and can't easily be answered. Since this is the case, I don't think it's that radical to ask for a forum discussion on the matter where more than one reply gets made before it suddenly gets shut down.


 * Again, I simply can not see how the Sleeze comics are like Death's Head. They're not. Death Hand is a crossover, much like the Star Trek comics. The Sleeze brothers were characters made for the DWU who then got their own spin-off. Again, Bernice Summerfield. Glam Rock Detective. K9. This doesn't have a clear distinction for being different, and it at least deserves some community discussion. OS25 (Talk) 14:32, February 1, 2017 (UTC)


 * The best comparison to the Sleeze comics would probably be Miranda (comic story). OS25 (Talk) 15:25, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair argument I suppose, but I just don't think one post was all that needed to be said on it. Furthermore, my previous argument in the other thread wasn't that it was going too slow, but that there wasn't any real need to wait on the thoughts of one person over any other admin. I gave you kudos in the original thread because I was happy to see your respond. Happy to see you not answer any of the points I raised in the thread I was not.

I won't re-open the thread of course, but my clear problem once again is that the Sleeze brothers were created for the DWU. It isn't comparable to the Star Trek or Sherlock crossovers at all, because those were separate entities before they were a part of the DWU. Weather the stories were printed by Marvel or Big Finish doesn't hold a precedent. I'm furthermore fairly sure that we could easily find instances of some other weird, technically valid thing that didn't try very hard to be connected to the Doctor Who title continuum. Miranda comes to mind, that's a very weird little comic.

But sure, I'll go ahead and accept this as the final word and go about with other things. It just felt worth inquiring about because it was a sudden conclusion. OS25 (Talk) 16:24, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Copyright vio?
Hi, CzechOut. I'm not entirely sure how this works... but doesn't the sheer amount of videos on this website violate copyright? Just asking; not nitpicking. --Time Lord ☎  08:56, March 13, 2017 (UTC)

Death's Head
Hey Czech, so Death's Head has popped up again. It turns out there's an entire comic story that, as a wikia, we've simply over-looked. That story is COMIC: Connections. It's also known as the linking segments for The Incomplete Death's Head. It is set on Maruthea (a planet introduced in COMIC: Party Animals), the main villain is Hob (a DWM character), and the Seventh Doctor is in it. My question is basically if I can just go ahead and create Connections (comic story) since it meets with our policies.

Here's what that would look like.

Also, and this is the ugly part you're not going to like, the story itself features heavy "Flashbacks" to previous Death's Head stories, making those stories part of the new DWU-based narrative. And thus I have opened Thread:213311 to discuss if these flashbacks (in reality, they're viewed through a sort of Matrix created by Hob on Maruthea) are now valid. The problem is deciding where Connections stops and how we can write about that story when in many scene they discuss comics that they "watch." For instance, if Death's Head looks at an extra panel of She-Hulk inside the Matrix before a She-Hulk comic starts, then when would we stop covering the comic? At that point it kinda all bleeds together.

I'd love to hear your point of view on this, I suspect you and I are the only two people left on this planet who care about DH at all... OS25 (Talk)

date question
Hi! On the article page 2100, you posted the following information:
 * In 2100, Earth began to colonise nearby star systems. (TV: The Waters of Mars)

There is a delete tag on the page questioning this date. If you remember where you got it from, can you leave a message on the article talk page (or my talk page if necessary, and I'll add it to the talk page). Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  23:14, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

The Master Image
Hey Czech, so I recently noticed two things about Template:Masterpic. The main thing is that it's missing the incarnation of the Master introduced in Titan Comics. I only bring this up because it seems the template includes every-other visually illustrated Master. I think this is a good image of him that we don't use in articles.

A point that's equally worth raising is that I think the template has gotten a little too cluttered. It seems to only switch between images of Simm, Gomez, and Roberts. Otherwise I just see random flashes of the other images, all far too quickly to identify. So I think the best idea would be to either add the "War Master" or to remove a lot of the more obscure Masters from the image.

P.S. good to have you back. OS25 (Talk) 06:37, April 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, I did a quick sandbox of how I think the template should end-up. I think we should cut the kid-Master and try to sort out its flow. OS25 (Talk) 07:02, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Heather
Hi. Recently, you removed both a speedy rename and a simple rename tag off Heather because "we'd never dab in the manner requested". However, the page does need some sort of dab term, as per T:DAB "if more than three things share a common name, the un-disambiguated term typically goes to a disambiguation page". This means Heather should be the disambiguation page. So, what dab term do you think would be appropriate?

Also, why couldn't we dab it as (plant)? I know is not the most common dab term on the wiki, but so aren't (flower) and (element). OncomingStorm12th ☎  00:53, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thank you very much for the clarification. OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:22, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

suspected template malfunction
At Time-Gun of Rassilon, in the Template:Infobox object, there is a problem in rendering the "only" field: the link works but there is an extra { before the name of the story. This may have to do with the new skin used on that page. Amorkuz ☎  19:51, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, currently, the "only" and the "first" fields no long pipe-switch the story's dab term. Previously, "Gangland (comic story)" would automatically become "Gangland", but this no longer happens. Is this on purpose, or a mistake? (PS: It also happens on OncomingStorm12th  ☎  21:22, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. And also, thanks for pointing to Special:Browse and T:SMW. I wasn't aware of these tools, and they both seem very useful. Thanks for the answers as well. OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:33, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Question
Hey Czech! So a couple of weeks ago someone asked me about a policy (that I had toted in an editing summary) which stated that all home-video original releases needed to have their respective box art in their infoboxes rather than a still from the product. Things like Destiny of the Doctors or My Reoccurring Nightmares. I wanted to directly link them this policy, but I have no idea where it's written down. Is that still a thing? Or did we over-rule that? OS25 (Talk) 05:33, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Positioning of "dab page" box
Hi, I've noticed several pages earlier where text was pushed down roughly until the infobox ended. I didn't really pay much heed then (sorry, can't remember where I saw it). But now I've found at least two pages where the dab page template somehow is stuck in the middle of the text: see, for instance, John Smith (Tenth Doctor). The same seems to be happening with the "you may" template (see Tenth Doctor). In a similar situation, if the dab page template is moved from the place after the infobox to right before, the box is rendered at the top again: see John Smith (Seventh Doctor), which I changed. I have a vague suspicion that these might be connected to the pushed down text. Plus, it might be that the easiest way of fixing it is by running a bot to move "you may" and "dab page" before inboxes. Amorkuz ☎  23:45, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * Amorkus' suggestion doesn't work as I changed Red to before the infobox and in still causes the same issue, must be CSS related. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 15:53, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worse than I hoped for. Thanks for explaining. If things are in a flux in the underlying rendering engine, I guess the only thing to do is sit this one out and hope for the best. Amorkuz ☎  22:57, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Merchandise and Question
Okay, I'll stop using the infobox on those pages until the new one is introduced. At the time, though, it seemed like it was the best fitting without the use of the story one.

Also, are you aware that some users that have been editing on this wiki for years have been labelled as a 'new editor' when you go to their user page? It's been bugging me to ask for a while now. --Borisashton ☎  18:58, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. --Borisashton ☎  19:32, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

.png
Hey, thanks for the quick reply and easy solution. The image in question that I was going for was from one of the DWM preview illustrations. It's a panel in a circle that truly looks very bad when surrounded by all-white, so I hoped to use a .png format to make it look smoother against our backgrounds. If this isn't alright, I hadn't been informed but that's good to know. OS25 (Talk) 19:55, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Magazine covers
Good to note, although the idea of us now needing to make images over 420px is terrifying. Sounds like even more images will get deleted that way.

I'll move on to something else I suppose, although trying to catalog so many deleted images is going to be a rough road.

Thanks for the tip though, that will be useful for future uploads of images, in terms of how wide they have to be. OS25 (Talk) 22:14, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in this, but I saw that soon the minimum width will be 420px. But will the maximum size of files still going to be 100kb, or will this go higher as well? OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:26, May 1, 2017 (UTC)