User talk:CzechOut

'''For discussions approximately prior to the coming of the eleventh Doctor (and precisely before 02:33, April 3, 2010), please see RTD era discussions. For discussions between 3rd April and 31st December 2010, check out 2010 discussions.'''

Yeah
Yeah, I recently noticed this and have been altering them. That was just one I missed. Thanks for the tip.--Skittles the hog 13:40, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

????
Did you discuss such major changes to the box? It looks horrible now.--Skittles the hog 17:40, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I already reverted them; sorry. I don't really understand your editing style. I really think it looks horrible like that though. The only page with huge white spaces is The Master. I think it has worked well on the program pages though.--Skittles the hog 17:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You think it looks good? If you look at any article with a written plot it almost rips through the design. See The Invasion of Time, Delta and the Bannermen and An Unearthly Child for jus three. I appreciate what you’re trying to do. New Earth aint so bad--Skittles the hog 18:00, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I still don't like it. However, that's just one opinion. I'd submit it for discussion. The Rescue looks really nice. The Romans still needs to "imaged-up" and Galaxy 4 looks "alright". Perhaps not having it as a template part but an optional addition?--Skittles the hog 18:18, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to change it back soon. I have come across several pages where the design is badly muddled. (DW: The Talons of Weng-Chiang, Arc of Infinity (TV story)) Thanks--Skittles the hog 19:12, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that means episode pages cannot be edited to a proper layout until you've finished with you thing. Obviously others are going to want to edit. I really think it would have been more polite to make a sandbox example for a group discussion rather than hampering the edits of others.--Skittles the hog 19:20, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

You could have made a temporary template and then have it deleted. It's not hard. The changes do prevent edits. For example, if I wanted to add images to the individual episodes of The Rescue. Fair enough, that pretty specific but still a valid point.--Skittles the hog 19:31, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

How do you intend to make it look good on every page?--Skittles the hog 20:04, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the loss of a picture is weird as every other part has one. I never saw a problem with the contents list before. Perhaps you should just test it on the NewTV template before broadening the horizon?--Skittles the hog 20:14, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go at the signature thing. There are surviving images from every episode I think. I always intended to add one for every part. This new design will prevent that.--Skittles the hog 20:24, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ribos part 1 looks a bit weird but a picture is better than no picture. Thanks for clearing up the image thing, very in-depth.--Skittles the hog- talk 21:02, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you've made some changes...
 * I went looking on the page I was editing for the TOC, thinking it was just that page.
 * I am somewhat concerned that the placement of the TOC will limit how many images we can use to illustrate the first 2-3 episodes/the first couple of paragraphs of the plot.
 * Do you intend to make similar changes to all the other story infoboxes?
 * I think it is a good idea to make the new Wikia skin (fixed width and everything) work as best we can (btw is the text bigger on the ClassicTV infobox or am I just imagining it?). --Tangerineduel 07:44, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that some things need to be put live to test (which is easier than creating a little world within a bunch of user-sub-pages).
 * I'm all for creating more content on the pages, so I have no issue with any of this. The TOC placement seems a little odd at the moment, but it's just the new differentness.
 * I don't think I said anything about "fixing" the infobox? Though I would prefer to have "previous/next story" reinstated. --Tangerineduel 14:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I understand (the previous next thing), though there may be issues with things like the Benny audios, which admittedly do say story at the moment and should more correctly say 'release' (or something even more wordy like 'next audio release'), but that's a problem for another day.
 * Though I also problems with the Story/Episode/Part thing (Invasion of the Dinosaurs was the last story to call each "bit" that made up the story an "episode" after that they're called "Parts"). But again probably another different discussion for another day. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Are we sticking with this layout? Should I have a go rearranging?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 15:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Okey doke. I had a go at adding the image to The Invasion of Time, it didn't work. I'll have a go with the pics. Not so keen on the nickname :)--Skittles the hog-- Talk 15:36, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

The TV stub appears below the contents (see The Talons of Weng-Chiang). Is there a way to avert this? Also, do you know if the Big Finish podcast stories be filed under their type (CC, BFBS) or WC?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

TOC

 * Ah. Well, the primary reason I was reverting the edits was that you didn't seem to have any sort of permission from the site leaders to make such a massive and wide-affecting change. -- Bold  Clone  16:58, January 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't get permission from an active admin for live testing...unless you are an admin, in which case I'm sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.
 * I was being bold in reverting your apparent vandalism...no offense, but that's what it seemed like on the pages I visited.
 * Long story short, I don't like your method, and I don't like your changes, but I'm willing to go through the red tape. -- Bold  Clone  17:16, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was careful. I told you that it appeared to be vandalism to me. I wasn't accusing you of vandalism. Sigh...I didn't say that vandalism was "anything I didn't like". You were intentionally changing the format of hundreds of pages, several of them in an unconstructive way. This was manifested in the form of massive white blanks. Vandalism (at least as it appeared to me). It might have been intended to improve the wiki, but you also messed up a lot of pages in the process. Vandalism (at least as it appeared to me). Long story short, I call it as I see it. It doesn't mean I'm right, but do I what I can. -- Bold  Clone  19:22, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

TOC and tags
Now that the TOC is under the infobox (which looks much better now (and will look much better if Wiki where to put the search-box and recent wiki activity box back to where they used to be)) the tags, such a semi-protect and TV stub are under the TOC, which is halfway down the page. Although it was agreed the tags would look much better under the infobox, the TOC is in the way. I'm wonder what would it look like if the page tags would be under the infobox and above the TOC - if that does not work, do you have any ideas of how we could show the page is semi-protected or whatever, without the tags being halfway down the page or at the bottom again? Mini-mitch 16:42, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Expansion
Just thought I'd say that I liked the expansion at the start of pages (e.g The Reign of Terror). That really makes it look better.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:02, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

And more importantly, fun to read :)--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:06, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for inviting me, I will definately look into it some time soon. General MGD 109

Invite
Hey, thanks for the invite. :) -- Bold  Clone  15:49, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your input is needed!
Hi, it's Solar Dragon. If you haven't realised, I'm Anti-Wikia now. I have been blocked globally so please don't bother with these messages on my talk page, it is a waste of your time. I asked about moving away from Wikia in the past but had no final decision so gave up on discussions. Thank you, Solar Dragon (Down with Wikia!!!) 16:29, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Utopia
I'm fairly sure you could have done it without my help (I say fairly because I wasn't really concentrating when I did it), but, if you had moved Utopia to Utopia (disambiguation) and un-clicked "Leave redirect", this would have left Utopia as a red link enabling you to move the planet to the red link, without any deleting involved. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:27, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

150px
I just used 150 as User:David the Wavid (now inactive) used it. He was the main contributor for episode plots and their pictures. I just went along with it. If you remember I offered it as a suggestion not a necessary thing, I personally use this format as it looks nice. Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:13, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Erm....no. :)--Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:02, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Short article
Thanks for that I didn't know about Martin Chuzzlewit reference, but I will find somewhere to include the note you left on the talk page. Either in the MoS or the Layout guide, or the Guide to writing (all three are going to get an edit to resolve the placement/inclusion/mandated inclusion of "See also" on in-universe pages). --Tangerineduel / talk 14:46, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am at this very moment writing a (short) Edit policy which includes an edit war section. Not quite as length as Wikipedia's but still hopefully effective (and based on it). --Tangerineduel / talk 15:16, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Borderless ClassicTV infobox
I'm hoping this is something you're still messing around with, real world trialling etc. As I'd really prefer to border was still on there. As it all looks a little bit free flowing. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:54, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for readding the border. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:27, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Note
I apologies for archiving a talk - the most important thing is that it can still be viewed and edited. Why not just merge the two talk pages? I made a mistakes and I accept that, but it comes across a but hypercritical when you suddenly moved the TOC to under the infobox and change the infobox to suite how you want it.That too me seems hypocritical. I don't see you discussing them before hand. Like I said, I've made a mistake - however with the archiving talk page it can still be viewed, edited and linked to. Anyway, Let's leave it at that. Mini-mitch 17:55, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Docs
Check out: Mounting the Rescue. I expanded it as per your suggestion. I do not think I worded it that well though. Perhaps the interesting points could be under a header like so: (but with a bigger header)

Points discussed

 * Bernard Archard was considered for the role of Bennett.

Obviously not all the information can fit like that. I just think it makes it look more interesting. Perhaps it could be in addition to the main body at the base of the page? Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:11, January 8, 2011 (UTC)