User talk:CzechOut

Please note that I will not respond to unsigned posts. I urge you to remember to add four tildes at the end of your post, because '''this is required by wiki policy. Please do not use unsigned on this page, unless you are signing after-the-fact for yourself.

This page is also available in Bulgarian, German,  Spanish,  French,  Dutch and  Russian.

DIT
Okay, but is still think most of those images were fine. Some, I would say, were actually VERY good, like the Frank Butcher and the Kathy Beale images, despite being taken from a (copy of a) VHS recording. If I understand correctly, the copy I had was released by Loose Cannon Productions... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:50, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Monobook toy
Not sure if I'm the odd one out, but I only edit/look at the site using the Wiki/Oasis skin. As you say on the forum post that's how most people see it, so that's how I use it, better to see what everyone else is seeing/using. I've worked through most of the odd quirks of the Wikia/Oasis skin. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:34, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Cat: Unproduced TV story images
Help. I cannot figure out where to put this Category:Unproduced TV story images. I renamed OS25's category to make a little more sense, but I can't work out where to put it. I've shoved it into Category:Images by story which I think is okay but it doesn't fit with the other category nomenclature that's there. But the category as it was named before Cat:Images by Unproduced TV stories seems even more awkward. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:54, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw the categories that OS25 created and did have a moment of WTF. It looks like all the images come from either DWM or one or two DVD docos.
 * Technically they are "related to" the story. But as you say it's concept art (and can only be concept art), based on the story a long time after the fact.
 * I think concept art of a Dalek or whatever qualifies it to go in the Category:Dalek images category, that's fine, but to have a category for images relating to unproduced TV stories...the images were produced for DWM or the docos to illustrate the article or the docos.
 * That means they're firstly related to the article in DWM or the doco first and then second they're related to the unproduced TV story. (Does that logic make sense?) So while yes they're images relating to an unproduced story, their first affiliation is to where they appeared/created for because that's a stronger association... (I know that's a kinda shaky logic)
 * I'm not sure even about the articles themselves, a while back I created several (and deleted others for lack of sources) and I integrated others into their novel and audio counterparts. For the most part I thought consolidation of the info that existed was better than having a thin spread of info on dedicated articles. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:31, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

con and alongside
Well, that's a good way to make sure that no one watches. I don't recall if it was, but that bit of of programming idiocy should be noted somewhere in the article; quite obviously my changing the word to "after" is that "alongside"  would indicate that they were being shown not only to one side -- which would be appropriate  since it was being shown on BBC 3, but would indicate at the same time -- which not  only is idiotic but contradicted by by the article on Confidential. I saw the piece was being reverted, thought it was by mennarc(sp?) and was thinking how I would write him a note explaining the poor usage of "alongside" before fixing it, then was frozen out for three days. By the time I got back in, someone had changed one of them to "in conjunction with" which I thought was annoyingly vague but at least I wouldn't have to get into a p***ing match.

"Alongside" is a perfectly good word in American English, typically seen in discussions of naval stuff, when  a floating thingy moved with another floating thingy, not fore, not abaft, but  at the side. The long side, y'see.

Given this information, if you can find out which CON episodes were transmitted in this idiotic fashion, it should be noted specifically which they are  "This episode was first broadcast on BBC at the same time as...", the two or three transmitted before should be noted as such and the remainder after. That would be more accurate writing and no hardship on the reader. However, if not, then "in conjunction with" shuld be left as the best of bad choices.Boblipton talk to me 18:38, April 12, 2012 (UTC)