User talk:CzechOut

May wordmark cont.
Continued over from archive.
 * Sorry it took this long. Haven't been around my computer. I am really happy that we have Five over with! That one was a toughie...
 * Anyway, I noticed that you already replaced it. Now the wordmark at the top is kinda blurry.
 * How about, for the wordmark on top:
 * [[File:TardisDataCoreFive19.png]]
 * And, for the wordmark on the main page:
 * TardisDataCoreFive21 big.png
 * I think that looks much cleaner. --SOTO ☎ 02:58, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

More vandalism, with apologies
There's been another bout of vandalism over at the Controller (Bad Wolf) page - I seem to have unintentionally involved myself in an editing war there. I know it's the same person because he always puts in the same corrections - changes the name to Fat Controller, changes the word Dalek into Engines or Troublesome Trucks. Usually if I see vandalism I just revert it as a matter of course, but I think I'm going to let the admins deal with it this time - he seems to be a repeat offender, plus he made so many edits I have no idea how to revert it. This time, he also singled me out personally by leaving a message on my talk page, letting me know he had vandalised the page and to "sort it out!"

On that subject, I lost my cool a little bit at that point (even though there's a notification at the top of the page that says, specifically, "KEEP YOUR COOL") and left him a message (on my own talk page, since he was unregistered and has since been banned) letting him know what I think of his expenditure. I've left it up, unedited, and if it's deemed that an admin needs to take action, I'll accept whatever that may be. Worth it. TARDIStraveler ☎  22:21, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Covering eyes
Well because that's the most recognizable-at-first picture of a Weeping Angel you might put the picture simply elsewhere in the page! HiddenVale 22:36, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

see also and other questions
I thought that see also was a good way of letting the reader know that there were other articles on a similar topic that might contain additional information that isn't in the article. A good way to link to things that we might not be able to link to in the text of the article. At the mo' we only have one entry in the cupcake article. It's something that was entirely visual, we don't have the choice of words that who used, because who didn't use words. In the beginning of the episode the Doctor is reminiscing about cakes with edible ball bearings and in the end Rose brings him that. The only text that we have to apply is "cake" and "edible ball bearing". Everything else is visual (well, there are yummy sounds). That's what my reasoning was. I was also taking note from some of the alcohol related pages I'd been recently working on.

So what is the appropriate way to use see also? Is there ever a reason to use it for in-universe articles or should those lists be stripped from the other pages?

The capitalisation and category--I wasn't confused, just moving super fast. Too fast apparently. I try to watch for that, but it sometimes happens.

Also, what's the precise difference between and ? Is demonym new? Do we have other versions of this for other article types? For something like Tiaanamat?

Also, I was thinking about doing some work on real-world animals? Can I create a real-world animal category as long as I don't take animals from mammals per GOR? Thanks. Anoted ☎  02:53, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, it was very helpful. The reason I copy-paste to my talk page is because I like to be able to look back at old conversations. That's really hard when they span multiple places. The problem isn't so much during a conversation--I can have two talk pages open at once and generally do. But if a conversation goes on for a while, or if I'm looking back at an old conversation, then it's just sooo easy to get lost. Would it help if I only copy my half after you've posted? Thread my comments inbetween yours? Because I don't want to compromise the ability of others to use my talk page.
 * What I was trying to ask about animals was about the exact way that game of rassilon categories works. All years are in the top cat years for GOR even though they wouldn't normally be, right? So if a category for real world mammals was added (a subcat of earth mammals) then Guinea pig would be in both Category:Real world mammals and Category:Earth mammals for the duration of Earth mammals involvement in GOR. The same way that bear is in Category:Bears and Category:Earth mammals, right? Bear is only in the earth mammal category because of GOR, right?
 * And yeah, I'm planning on maintaining my focus on foods, but I like being able to do grunt work that can't be assigned to a bot when my brain needs a break. Un-orphaning pages, copy-editing, wikilinking, putting things in categories all take varying amounts of brain power and it's nice to be able to switch things around and do other types of editing. I made some edits in the past week that I had to undo to maintain the GOR and I just wanted to be super clear about how GOR worked. If there's still something I don't understand about it I'd like to know now, not after an edit of mine screws things up. I like to think that I pick up pretty quickly on most guidelines and rules simply from watching my edits and reading edit summaries when they are reverted but not everything is obvious and things that I thought were obvious sometimes end up being a little more complicated. So I figured that it didn't hurt to touch base. Anoted ☎  04:50, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Not being a fan of biography sections?
It seems off-topic to press on the point in a topic specifically about the special case of the TARDIS, so I'll ask here: in Thread:129452, you mention not being a fan of history and biography sections on in-universe pages. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that and how they can end up messy and sloppily written? -- Tybort (talk page) 09:53, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's an interesting point. I simply add "biography" by default if the page is more than a couple of paragraphs, and the character is substantially more than "guard reacting to event". When I personally make pages like that, I think that was from following what was said on Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles. -- Tybort (talk page) 14:13, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

species v. creatures v. animals
Category:Species, per our current definition is supposed to be used for intelligent lifeforms.

Category:Creatures, per our current definition is supposed to be used for non-intelligent lifeforms--animals that do not exist in the real world (RW).

But that's not how things are working right now. While most of the articles under Category:Creatures are not intelligent, they are also often categorised as species. And there are lots of non-intelligent lifeforms currently only categorised as species.

I'm guessing that a large part of this is because Category:Creatures has no subcategories. So if you want to categorise something as a mutant, or silicon-based, you put them in the species category tree.

This is also highly complicated by the way we treat the animal categories, primarily Category:Animals by zoologic class. The animal categories seem to be set up with the intention of handling only real world, non-intelligent lifeforms. But we have intelligent lifeforms being categorised as both species and animal (see Cei) and unintelligent lifeforms being categorised as creature and animal (see Stingray). Intelligent or not, none of these are real world lifeforms, so I'm not sure why they are considered animals. But this is a widespread practice, and leads to articles like Giant Clam being categorised as creature (Category:Skaro creatures), animal (Category:Molluscs) and species (Category:Mutants), which is confusing as hell and makes zero sense.

It seems like this system was set-up with a couple clear divisions in mind. Intelligent and not intelligent. And then each of those was supposed to be divided into RW and non-RW.

Or is the actual intent of the current system to have a set-up that has intelligent, un-intelligent, RW and non-RW lifeforms all co-existing in same categories? Are we supposed to have category called "aquatic species" where we can find every water based lifeform whether or not they are intelligent and whether or not they really exist?

The way the categories currently function I don't know what the intent is--there's just too much contradiction.

If RW lifeforms are not supposed to overlap with non-RW lifeforms, and intelligent lifeforms are not supposed to overlap with non-intelligent lifeforms, then I think it should be fairly easy to set-up subcategories for Category:Creatures and go through the articles in Category:Species and Category:Creatures and put them in the proper category trees. And then go through the animal categories and strip away the non-RW articles and categories.

If these are supposed to overlap then there's quite a bit more work to be done creating an category system for all lifeforms that includes divisions by real world existence and intelligence, but also includes subcategories for appearance and function that contain all types of lifeforms.

I don't want to touch anything until I know which way these categories are really supposed to work, so I'm coming to you hoping that you can clear this up for me. Anoted ☎  12:05, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the different between Earth ___ and _____ from the real world, don't worry. And I know that it's "from the real world" and that "real world ____" actually means something here and it's very different, and that's a dangerous place to get informal. I just super hate typing all of those "from the real world"s. So annoying! I wasn't planning on creating a "Mammals from the real world" category--it would have almost 100% overlap with the Earth mammals category so it seems silly. I was just using it as an example per GOR. Creating a "from the real world" category wouldn't screw up GOR as long as I only added pages to it, not moved pages from their current category to a new subcategory. That's all I was trying to clarify.
 * The thing I'm still confused about in terms of the lifeform categories is are they supposed to be divided up be real world/not and intelligent/not or is there supposed to be a tree that encompasses all of those things. Because if it's supposed to encompass everything, that's going to be one hell of tree.
 * In regards to the talk page thing, is your issue with my adding the other half of the conversation in terms of handling ongoing discussions, or...? If I put the other half of the conversations in only right before archiving, would that bother you? If while a conversation was ongoing I put in links to the diffs of what I said, would that be ok? I don't want to negatively affect other people's ability to communicate with me, but being able to easily find other parts of the conversation and archive full conversations is important to me. Also, this is something totally different but are there scripts for auto-archiving? That is archiving things that are x days old? I tried looking, but wasn't sure where to look on wikia and wikipedia takes up the first bajillion google results. Anoted ☎  16:07, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Speedy rename question
Hi! I have a question about procedure for the speedy renames. When do they get changed? Some of them have their links moved, some don't. Only one of them has more than 10 links to move. Do they need to be approved before they can be renamed? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:29, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just wanted to make sure. I'll take a look at the list later today and see what's left to do. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:53, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

czechbot requests
I have a couple requests for czechbot:
 * Move everything from Category:Fruit from the real world to Category:Fruits from the real world (fruit is grammatically wrong)
 * Move Category:Drink stubs to Category:Beverage stubs so it uses the same name as Category:Beverages, and Category:Beverages from the real world. Anoted ☎  16:16, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Taylor moves
Thanks. What I did with Mercury (element) (which was just recently called Mercury — some of the links were meant for the planet) was go through the links and switch them all myself. Your suggestion will make my job much easier. I'll let you know when I have all the links completely wrong, so you can run the bot. --SOTO ☎ 18:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * All links are now officially wrong. If that's good... Please run the bot — Malcolm Taylor → Malcolm Taylor (actor) + Malcolm Taylor (Planet of the Dead) → Malcolm Taylor. Then I suppose rename the pages. Thanks! --SOTO ☎ 23:24, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Policy questions
Hey. Two questions here. The first is regarding prequels — how do they fit in to series pages? I've noticed that series 7 has Prequel (The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe), the two Snowmen prequels and The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel. But why not Prequel (Asylum of the Daleks) or The Making of the Gunslinger? Why aren't there any prequels on the series 6 page? Or, for that matter, why aren't there Tardisodes on the series 2 page? Should they all be included, or should we get rid of them all from series pages?

My second question is regarding navigation templates. What is their purpose, and how are they different from simply adding a category? Would, for example, creating for a list of all pubs and bars be justified, even though there's currently a category for that? To take up an example from your discussion above with Anoted, would be justified, or should it just be left to a category:cakes? I noticed that Tangerineduel objected to at its talk page — what's the wiki's stance of this? Or at least yours? --SOTO ☎ 23:01, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Czech. That was actually very helpful. I will speak to Mini-mitch about my series question. Anyway, are you saying it would be helpful to have a template? Your rationale for  was that "the categories for hospitals have become so fragmented that there is no longer any one category which encompasses all these hospitals." The same applies to drinking establishments, as they're a category for pubs, then a subcat for terrestrial pubs, then British, then London and Cardiff. (I realise now that I might have to get rid of category:British pubs due to possible future recursion problems... oops.) If I split it up by terrestrial and non-terrestrial, would this be a useful template? I think your split of "specialised" and "non-specialised" for  is very useful, and not something we have in its category. Maybe I'll try to think of a better way to separate pubs — maybe something like pubs visited by the Doctor? I'm still not really sure about the merits of that specific template — if it's divided by terrestrial and non-terrestrial, then it's almost the same as the category tree. I looked through all the pages, and can't think of any other ways of splitting them. So would the template still be useful? I suppose it'd be just as useful of, so I might just create it. --SOTO ☎ 21:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a much better idea. I will actually create that, probably tomorrow. What would the template be called, though? And what would it say at the top? "Food retailers?" --SOTO ☎ 23:13, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually (surprisingly) created the template today. Anyway, could you maybe tweak the colors of ? Navigation boxes are currently unreadable on the LOD colour scheme. --SOTO ☎ 01:35, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Game of Rassilon
Hi! I haven't forgotten that you asked if I had any ideas for new badge tracks. After a bit of thinking and searching, I came up with three possibilities. I haven't done anything with images or names for them yet, however.

I was thinking that Category:Bernice Summerfield stories (or one of its subcategories) might be good. It's a huge category that doesn't get worked on much.

For a couple of in-universe categories I was thinking Category:Planets or Category:Species, as many of these seem to be stubs. Shambala108 ☎  05:51, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Title Sort Name Sort
I don't do much editing on name pages so it's not a really big deal. My confusion came from the idea that "The John Smith" would, under title sort be rendered as Smith, John The, and not John Smith, The. Did I misunderstand the original example? Anoted ☎  19:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Classic and Revives Series articles
Hey, Czechout. Ziv (the other admin of the israeli wiki, I believe you're remember) and I recently wrote two new articles in our wiki - one about the classic series, and one about the revived. It kinda bothers us that we have no proper source of information about these two stages of the show, like the rest of the articles we translate. We both have amazing knowledge about these things (I specialize in the classic series, Ziv specializes in the revived one), but yet, we - or, at least, I - always have this feeling that I miss things and details about all sort of knowledge of the series. So, because you, the english wiki, have like twenty times of our editors (we have two, you have... what, like, forty?), we thought it would be great if you could write two article of that sort here, and we will just fill up the missing in our articles.

If necessary, I'm ready to help the writing of these articles. Ziv can't, because he's working on a CON-adding-project and companion-articles-expansion to our wiki. Any who, here's the two articles we wrote - |- the classic series and |- the revived series, both in hebrew, of course. (Also, both of them aren't finished yet. I made a point to finish it until the series finale next week)

Hope you'll listen to my request :) Puchplimmirdeyslithin ☎  14:15, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Wales template
Just to ask - when will the Wales crew template be ready to put on the Series 7B episodes? --TARDIS2468 ☎  23:32, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler Screen
Hi there,

I am the lead administrator of the Marvel Database, and we'd like to implement your Spoiler Screen on our wiki. I wanted to have your permission before I tried to implement it.

May I have your permission? Of course I would reference back to your original template/implementation so that you receive credit.

Thanks!

&mdash; Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk &bull; contribs &bull; email) 14:13, May 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * SpoilerAlert is available for use by any wiki at Wikia Developers Wiki.

The Howling
Since The Howling is closed until next week, would it not be prudent also remove the create box from the page?

Please ban
Please ban this editor for multiple violations of T:SPOIL (regarding the finale) both in the template namespace and in their username itself. Thank you. --SOTO ☎ 22:37, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and somehow figure out a way to get rid of what they did at Thread:130435. In fact, I'll leave reverting all their edits to you, since it becomes slightly difficult with the black screen they employed. --SOTO ☎ 22:42, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Nightmare in Silver
Don't know if you're notice, but GNAA took over "Nightmare in Silver" page. You should post a thread and highlight it to the users and editors since it's full with spoilers the the finale. ZivKarni3 ☎  22:57, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Big problem at thread:130435
I was just reading through the latest additions to the threads in the forums here, and I just want to say there is a major problem at "Merging the Cybermen". Namely, it seems the page has been hacked to display all black except for some text at the top which contains spoilers (I read the first line by accident and then asked my friend beside me to read the rest and tell me if it was all spoiler, to which she replied yes). The person username, as it displays in latest thread activity, is also a spoiler. I have screenshots if you want them. It only apears like that in oasis. In mobile it looks normal, although the spoiler is in the last post of the thread there. Imamadmad (Contact me) 23:25, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

page not showing up
Alfie Owens is not displaying in my browser. It was, and then I edited it and it still was fine. I edited it once more, capitalising an "a" that I had previously uncapitalised. Still there. When I went back to the page a couple minutes later it didn't show up. No edits have been made in the meantime. Anoted ☎  23:40, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Notification
As the food category conversation on my talk page includes multiple editors, I thought it best to reply there and keep the conversation all in one place. Anoted ☎  02:13, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

non-alcoholic beverages
I know that beverage refers to both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. That's why alcoholic beverages are a subcat beverages. With the non-alcoholic classification we cannot have all beverages in one category, which I consider a problem. Also, we don't know that all of those beverages are non-alcoholic. We don't have any information about alien beverages other than what we're given. And a lot of those beverages we only have scant information on. We don't know if these beverages are not alcoholic unless we're explicitly told so. Hence the category label beverages. It keeps us from applying a label that we don't know is correct and it's inclusive of all drinks so that we have a category tree that is beverages and just beverages. We can bring back the non-alcoholic categories, but I don't see the point. Especially because I'm not sure what we can put in the non-real world one. Anoted ☎  05:13, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

For example, do we know that Rakeshla is non-alcoholic or is that just an assumption? Anoted ☎  05:16, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Badge Weirdness"
Hey CzechOut, I'm just relaying a message that was sent to me earlier, it's more your area of expertise than mine:

"there seems to be a bizarre glitch in your Badges: A Troughton and Pertwee appearing willy-nilly. Also, I noticed a "Days of the Year" Badge on another user, but I did not receive one when I edited. Has it since been removed?

TheDanishWhovian ☎  18:11, May 13, 2013 (UTC)"

Thanks. --Revan\Talk 22:51, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Craig Ferguson video
I don't normally do this, but I must commend you for the video you put on the front page. It's bloody hilarious!

(PS. Didn't you say that you can't play from the page?)

--SOTO ☎ 01:42, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing beats Craig Ferguson (he deserves a page) dancing to to the Doctor Who theme! --SOTO ☎ 01:45, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * :( Oh well. I can still watch it on endless repeat on YouTube itself... --SOTO ☎ 01:50, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same here. I've probably wasted hours watching it on a loop. I love that bit at the beginning with the... urgh, I can't put it into words! The first bit of dancing — it's just so perfect! I almost hate myself for venturing to the front page on that fateful day. It's incredibly addictive... --SOTO ☎ 04:33, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. You see those 359 views? I bet you at least 200 of those are from me! ;) --SOTO ☎ 04:54, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Front page error
You linked to the wrong thread - it should be Thread:130517, not Thread:130516.

Badge Oddness
Thank you for your reply. What I mean is that on Revan's page, there's several "Tricky Troughton" and "Priggish Pertwee" Badges. Is that supposed to happen? It looks very strange to me, since I'd imagine a new Badge appearing once the requirements of the old one had been reached.

TheDanishWhovian ☎  13:49, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Abuse filter bug
I logged out and then logged back in, and after that I was able to edit. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  04:13, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

IP users prevented from editing?
You stated here that editing has been disabled for new users and IP users. But then how did IP users manage to do this edit or this one? I mean, they're both generally good-faith edits (though I'd quibble about inclusion of the second one), but, if it's not working, then other IP users can make bad edits and spoil the finale. So can you please check, and figure out what went wrong? Thank you. --SOTO ☎ 07:16, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Nightmare creation issues
Thanks for the brief. I obviously won't be creating the page for the finale (as I'm sure it's been locked), but if I create any future TV story episodes, I'll made sure to follow that.

I usually don't make the ICC mistake, since I usually remember to get rid of then before I create the page. I was actually trying to figure out why there was a huge space between the templates, so thanks for clearing that up for me. As far as top/bottom of the hour, it's still mighty confusing, but it's starting to sink in. I actually understand it now. That took long enough... --SOTO ☎ 18:07, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

DWBIT cover dates
You may not be the right person to ask, but you seemed to know about DWM cover dates. Does the same apply to DWBIT? I mean, you told me to add one to the previous cover date for DWM, but I'm not sure if it's the same here. At present, the cover dates every issue up to and including DWBIT 43 is listed as the same as the released date of their comics, although that might be a mistake. But it's starting with DWBIT 50 that it gets even more confusing (and even more so at 55). Here's a chart a few example issues:

I have absolutely no idea what to do with this. It seems as though the dates were put in randomly. And the most confusing part is: there cannot possibly be such thing as a "cover date," as there is no date listed on the cover! Do you have any insight into this madness? --SOTO ☎ 20:13, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! --SOTO ☎ 21:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. Going through them all now, then I'll add the releases to the day of the year articles. --SOTO ☎ 21:30, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and then I need to fix the dates on the comic story pages too. This might take a little while... --SOTO ☎ 21:35, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who Toybox lists DWBIT 46 and DWBIT 47 as both being released on 12 June. I'll consider that as correct for now, but please tell me if I'm using the wrong information, as it would be really annoying to have to go through half the issues again and fix the dates. --SOTO ☎ 00:57, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, research wasn't giving me much... I'll do that. --SOTO ☎ 01:26, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

The Toybox list also switches the releases from a consistent Wednesday in 2006 to a consistent Thursday in 2007. Should I disregard this too? --SOTO ☎ 01:29, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Days of the year
I must admit, I am pleasantly surprised. Two things, though. First: I'd suggest leaving the thread open for a little longer than usual, since new users cannot currently give their inputs. Second: what exactly is this new "transmat" namespace? I'm thoroughly interested. --SOTO ☎ 22:53, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll make sure of it. I noticed you got the bot to do some work so that the pages can be transcluded properly. Just wondering... where exactly are you planning on transcluding the pages? --SOTO ☎ 18:29, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Which are...? --SOTO ☎ 18:46, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Weird category box bug
Hi. Really weird bug that seems to be happening with at least two users. Take a look at these two diffs:,. As evidenced by the automatically generated "adding categories," these edits were simply two users adding categories using the category box. The the weird result was: it broke up every template on the page to wikitext. Long, hard-to-read wikitext which would be incredibly confusing to new users. No new users around at the moment, but I'd like you to look into this whenever you have the time. I'm sure it's happened elsewhere in the wiki; I've only found these two so far. --SOTO ☎ 20:28, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

For later reference after Name airs
You might have already seen this, but Kasterborous posted an interesting article indicating that some fans think the BBC America Blu-ray leak never actually happened. The article (which contains no spoilers) is here. User comments with it appear to confirm the leak did happen (again, no one spoiling) and according to what's there the only thing that has circulated so far is a screen capture of the title screen and images of the Blu-ray box. I pass this along for reference as presumably the article on the episode will include a section on the leak, and this might be an interesting addition to the discussion (the fact some were/are skeptical the leak was genuine). 23skidoo ☎  13:53, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Classic Who stories: what's missing?
It's all in the heading. I'm currently doing a long marathon of every episode of Who, which I hope to complete by the anniversary. I try and do a serial a day. But I would also like to contribute to their story pages here — but I don't know exactly what's missing. Aside from a few minor pages, I haven't really been able to help much in regards to those stories. I'm currently still in season 1 (The Aztecs, in fact), which might be more heavily covered than others simply because it's the first. Even so, I must know how I should be contributing to Classic Who TV story pages. Thanks! --SOTO ☎ 03:11, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I shall start such a... Sorry, Hartnell's rubbing off on me. I'll start doing just that as of tomorrow. Actually, tomorrow's a busy day for me — Sunday, then. On a side note, I created anti-radiation glove! ...err, drugs... :D --SOTO ☎ 06:53, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hia, after a brief discussion with another user I thought I'd better check whether ir not it's okay to add this image: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/File:Doctor_john_hurt.png

To the The Doctor (The Name of the Doctor) page? I didn't want to add something again if it's wrong but it seemed to me a closer and clearer shot than the one already there. Thanks! -- bloob ( talk ) 21:00, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Lists of appearances
Hi! I've had a request to un-protect the Lists of appearances pages. I can do it, but it would take forever and I can't get to it right away. Is there a way for the bot to do it? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  21:39, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers
So I uploaded a few screenshots of the episode, and then I realized the spoler message might still be in effect. Am I correct or can I continue uploading the screenshots?-TARDIS- ☎  21:44, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

TARDIS photo
Hey, I uploaded a photo of the natural from of a TARDIS from TV: The Name of the Doctor to the TARDIS article and you deleted it. Can I ask why? It's a good photo and all the license thing is just fine. Puchplimmirdeyslithin ☎  23:08, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

The Name of the Doctor multi doctor story
Sorry, but how do you construe that not only is it not a multi doctor story, it's also not a First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, or Eighth Doctor story? Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 23:23, May 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because in this case, it isn't just supposed to be old footage, we're seeing new adventures, or seeing Clara in old ones. For instance the Second Doctor in a place with palm trees with the Eighth Doctor nearby. Or the First Doctor and Susan leaving Gallifrey. Or Clara watching the Seventh Doctor during Dragonfire. Or the Sixth Doctor on the Eleventh's TARDIS. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 00:21, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Clarence DeMarco
Could I ask what was wrong with the image? It was a jpg of less than 100KB with a greater width and height of 300x250-TARDIS- ☎  23:28, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing about Clarence is that his scenes were all in a dark tone on the footage, and that's the only one of him that meets the requirements of the eyes. Would it not work until one of higher quality was provided?-TARDIS- ☎  23:34, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind checking the messgae I left you in chat? -TARDIS- ☎  23:52, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

First Doctor and Susan
I don't see how it's better to have no image of the first onscreen view of the TARDIS being stolen than to have one that's not perfect. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 00:27, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

The Name of the Doctor: John Hurt's character
In regards to your recent edit to the page relating to John Hurt's character:

Is this character not just as much The Doctor as the Valeyard or the Dream Lord? Just because this character either does not use, or is not worthy of the name "Doctor" doesn't mean he should not be in the same group. The 11th Doctor very obviously states that "Doctor Hurt" is the same person. A name change doesn't mean he doesn't belong in the same group. At this point, he fits perfectly into the same group as the Valeyard or the Dream lord, both of which are still listed under Incarnations of the Doctor.

I think you're taking his quote about him not being the Doctor way too literally. Hurt is still quite obviously credited as the Doctor. You can't really argue with that.

Wasoha ☎  16:42, May 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed. He is credited as The Doctor. It says 'introducing John Hurt as the Doctor.' He is absolutely an incarnation of The Doctor. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 17:01, May 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * All right, so the credits don't count. But the Dream Lord is never credited as the Doctor. And I note that the template says 'incarnations of the Doctor.' Which means all incarnations, even if they aren't known as the Doctor.


 * I'm in agreement with Cult of Skaro and Washoa. Eleven acknowledges on screen that he and Hurt are the same even if he doesn't use the title. He says something like "that's the point" because the only people there were incarnations of him. Hurt's Doctor has more right to be included as a Doctor than the Dream Lord does. 75.141.237.237talk to me 21:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * And also, I am not trying to annoy you by constantly disagreeing. Your opinion is just vastly different to mine. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 17:11, May 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark me on the side of a "wait and see" attitude towards Hurt's character. Given the dialogue for The Doctor, this character is questionable at best and Moffat purposely kept the details ambiguous (one of his defining traits, I think). I'm not sure of who he is, actually, so I have no stake in this debate except to argue that the water is muddy, intentionally so. It's not clear who Hurt is, and this is done on purpose.


 * There was a wait and see attitude towards Clara's character(s) and while it's a long, long time until November, I think we don't know enough to declare that Hurt's character's identity is a manifestation on "our" Doctor, much less whether he is a regenerated incarnation. Right now, all we know is that he is a character who was given the appellation/caption, "The Doctor", by the DW production team. What relation he has with Eleventh is still a mystery. Badwolff ☎  20:03, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I disagree with you there; the dialogue is clear that this is unequivocally an incarnation of the Doctor ("He's me..."), but that for some reason, he no longer deserves the name "Doctor". ("...but not the Doctor." "He's the one who broke the promise.") Clearly, Hurt's character's identity is a manifestation of "our" Doctor. He's meant to be more than just a guy who happens to have the name "Doctor"; he is the Doctor, and this is clearly seen in the fact that he is seen as a past form of the Doctor within the Doctor's own timeline. I grant you that we have minimal information about Hurt's Doctor, but that doesn't change anything about what little has been revealed about him. -- Bold  Clone  20:29, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, everyone, but I think a wide range of feedback has now been received. Please do not post further on my talk page about this issue. The matter is closed until 23 November 2013. 21:20: Mon 20 May 2013

ref v. in-line citations
Sorry if this was confusing but I was not suggesting new policy. This came up after I had already edited articles in this format and it was suggested to me that my editing this way was not allowed. That in-line citations were the only permisable way of writing these articles.

Given that, I was looking to find out if any ref tag usage in this manner would be acceptable, allowed. If it was ok to use ref tags in the middle of paragraphs, possibly with a duplication in-line citation at the end.

I was not trying to change how we do citations overall. I do think that the way citations are done now are confusing to both readers and editors, but I wasn't trying to change the whole wiki.

If you look at this sandbox you'll see that I've duplicated the same paragraphs over and over showing the variety of ways citations can be done. At the moment, I'm under the perception that only the last two formats are allowed (the last two are in-line only). If some amount of using ref tags is already allowed and I was told, in-correctly that they aren't, then forgive me, the thread was perfectly unnecessary. If they aren't allowed then I'm asking that we allow them, and perhaps come up with a best uses practice. I'm not clear on what's currently allowed and what current best practices are. After all, there are multiple ways of doing citations in-line and we seem to have a random mix right now. Anoted ☎  17:24, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Bernice GOR track
Hi! I've gone over your list of suggestions for a Bernice Summerfield stories GOR track. It made me realize that I don't know that much about her, but I did search through her page and some story pages and came up with a few possibilities. Feel free to ignore any of them as lame; I'm not the most creative person in the world.
 * something about archaeology - "I Dig Archaeology"
 * something about having students -
 * something about drinking - Bernice's silver hipflask
 * something about sex with Eight -
 * something about the impermanence of marriage - "I got a divorce on the Moon"
 * something about the joy of big weddings -
 * something about the extreme length of time she was a companion - "I've been with the Doctor longer than any of you"
 * something about Ice Warriors -"Mare Silenium" or Down Among the Dead Men

I'm also going to take your advice and ask Tangerineduel for ideas. Shambala108 ☎  05:44, May 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Er...Did she really have sex with Eight enough for it to be a character feature? I might suggest Jason instead. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 14:13, May 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. For the Ice Warriors, maybe "The Ice Warrior award for bad puns?" (Thin Ice, Frozen Time) Not strictly related to Bernice, but it applies to the Ice Warriors well. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 14:41, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Okay. Understood. --SOTO ☎ 17:17, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Facelift Request
I see that, at least, the first page is getting a makeover. I have a request I hope you can work regarding Navigation and that is to have one list of all forums on one page. In the menu at the top of the page, if you click on Community (in the first row) or Forum (if you can get that to appear on the second row), you are taken to one list of discussion boards. But if you mouse-over Community, it lists the Panopticon (which is on the list) and Theories, The Howling and Help (which aren't on this list). And then there are Discontinuity discussion boards but you can only find those through a link on the topic's main Wiki page.

This is very confusing, especially to new users, and I don't understand why there isn't one link that can take a user to a list of all discussion boards (ideally, a link that doesn't rely on one mousing over to see all of the options) and one general one for the Discontinuity boards. There are times when I haven't been able to get the second row options I'm looking for to appear so I use other means (like Recent Wiki changes) to find a discussion thread. I realize that there might have been a logical reason to not include links to all discussion boards on one page where they can all easily be found but I can't figure what it is much less whether that logic still applies today.

It's just a guess but I think that some of the discussion that is done on Talk Pages would be moved to discussion boards if they weren't so difficult for new users to find. And since the Admins are frequently telling people not to discuss the content of the episodes on the Talk pages, it would help if all of the discussion board options were readily apparent to even a first time visitor. JMHO. Badwolff ☎  19:35, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for your very detailed reply. I can't rebut each of your points because I don't know much about the mechanics of how the page is laid out or the history of this wiki. So, I just have two further comments.


 * 1) Would you be open to listing The Howling, Theories and Help discussion boards on http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Forum ? Could there just be one place that is easy to find that lists all of the main boards? That's what I was trying to ask for.


 * 2) Regarding saying Admins are "telling people not to discuss the content of the episode on the Talk pages", it's just exactly what it says. I'm not complaining, as it seems to be the policy to only discuss the editing of the pages there. But discussion IS going on and I just thought if discussion boards like The Howling or the Discontinuity were more visible, maybe more people would move their discussions off of the Talk pages into those forums.


 * Look, I'm a new, casual user. You all have so much more invested in this wiki than I do and I'm not here to challenge your rules. It's just new users will find their way to this wiki and not take the time to read all of the rules on what is or isn't permitted. I was just trying to make a suggestion on how they might be directed to locations on this wiki where they could ask their questions.


 * Thanks again for your thorough reply even though you basically rejected all of my suggestions. I know you are a very busy Admin. Badwolff ☎  21:40, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was pointing all of this out because of the message on the Home Page about a facelift. Wanted to put in my 2 cents, for what it is worth. The Admins are so immersed in the details of day-to-day running of this wiki (for years and years it seems), that I wanted to offer a new user's perspective.


 * I have posted questions at the Reference Desk with mixed results (see http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:130247 when I was just an IP user). The questions I have don't seem to have simple answers. With 50 years' worth of TV shows, webepisodes, comics, novels, etc., there are simply a lot of unresolved questions and contradictory information. Plus, I think that a lot of people don't visit the discussion boards and mainly come here for the episode and character pages.


 * Thanks for pointing me to that Gallifrey site. I'll check it out. I'd still like to do some editing here but maybe that will be a more appropriate place for me to ask questions. Badwolff ☎  23:14, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Planets GOR
I noticed that it says on the planets category that it is currently in the Game of Rassilon. However, when I checked my user page, I couldn't see any planet badges that it was possible to earn. Is it a bug, or has the track not been opened yet? Quest?on ☎  00:49, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

be fair my arse
Yes, you do participate a lot in community discussions, your numbers there are very impressive. I was already aware of this. I was also aware that you were the originator of that forum post. My opinion isn't based on a lack of knowledge and I'm not being lazy about this. I just don't think that those numbers are relevant. Level of activity it not an indicator of how open a community or an editor is. Someone can be incredibly active in discussion areas but use that presence and their authority to stifle conversation.

The other day I noticed that editors were removing information from behind the scenes sections on date pages. Instead of "Actor ___ who played the role of ____ was born" we simply now have "Actor ___ was born". When I asked why, I was referred to a forum thread but not about this. I was referred to a thread about splitting day of the year pages because on that thread you happened to say to SOTO that he should edit these pages a different way. You said it (as an aside!) and that's what happened. You said that links to things that aren't directly related to the date cluttered Special:Whatlinkshere. True, but why not bring this up on the forum and let editors weigh in on the best way to handle this issue? We could just as easily de-link the pages instead of removing the information wholesale. No reason is given; no policy or forum discussion is referenced. You said that that was the way to edit pages and so that's how pages are being edited, no discussion necessary.

I opened a forum thread about reference tag usage. You shut it down with an explanation that the wiki had already decided not to do this a long time ago and that making a change like this now would involve enormous amounts of work. But I wasn't asking that we change policy, I was asking if this was allowed by policy and if not, could it? Not require, but allow. Requiring it would involve enormous amounts of work, which is one reason why I didn't ask that we make this a requirement. Shutting down the discussion forced me to go to your talk page and ask for clarification. Clarification that I never got btw. And if using reference tags this way is indeed not allowed, I still wanted to ask the community to weigh in on whether or not they could be. You say that this was discussed and decided upon a long time ago (and I'm taking your word that allowing ref tags to be used this way was what was discussed, not requiring, which is what you implied. No link so I can't check it out myself). So what? Is having discussed something really a reason to prevent people from ever discussing it again? It was a long time ago. Maybe there are more reasons to allow additional usage of ref tags. Maybe editors will change their minds. Maybe everyone will think I'm crazy, that this was a bad idea and always will be a bad idea. We'll never know. Because when you closed that thread you kept the community from discussing this and coming to a decision, depriving the wiki of one of its most basic and fundamental functions: discussion. You closed the thread before I got an answer to my question on what current policy was, ignored my subsequent comment on your talk page, and refused to allow a discussion on changing policy. To me, that's stifling. To me, that's anti-wiki.

If people don't agree with me or think my ideas are bad, that's fine. If I'm outvoted, ok. I'm not so egotistical that I think that my way is the only way. My problem is when my ideas are dismissed outright or ignored. If you think that I don't understand, then enlighten me. If you think that I'm working from incorrect facts, then correct me. But treating me as though my ideas are wrong is something else entirely. Your constant dismissal of my ideas tells me that my opinion is worthless. Because why bother telling me what I'm misunderstanding or why you disagree when it's so much easier to just ignore me? You're also telling me that you don't require agreement in order to get consensus because you have consensus by default. Discussion and consensus are for the little people. This is, in effect what happened with the date pages. You told editors to change what they were doing because you envisioned the pages differently. A big change like that requires discussion (beforehand!) and consensus. And yet an idea that was never proposed, never discussed and that affected hundreds became instant policy. This decision was made by you, and you alone and it was buried in the middle of a forum discussion on a different issue. Yes, you participate in discussion way more than anyone else, especially other admins, but your word is treated as law, making discussions inherently unbalanced. Ironically the behavior that you think makes you so open does exactly the opposite. You tell editors that you want pages edited differently and snap that's policy and treated as such.

This is what happened when you swooped into the Clara talk page discussion and said "No, we won't be splitting this....” I don’t know if you really thought that you were acting as an administrator protecting the best interest of the community but it came accross to me as disingenuous. You not only didn’t link to the prior discussion but you misrepresented it as having resulted in a clear consensus not to combine the article unless it was later proved that the other Claras were completely separate characters, which isn't what happened. Editors agreed to a wait and see policy, not a wait and see and we'll only split if X happens policy. And yes, this had been discussed previously and we'd decided on a course of action, but what made that discussion so permanent that we couldn't possibly discuss this situation again? Wikis are fluid. Editors leave, new editors arrive, people change their minds. It wasn't as though this was one person trying to bring back an old issue long settled. Multiple editors were involved in reviving this topic of discussion because there was new information that contributed to how they saw things. Some of the editors were aware of and had participated in the previous discussion. I said on the talk page that I didn't understand why you had decided to put a stop to discussion and I still don't. I think that trying to prevent discussion that way is the antithesis of a wiki. I stand by that statement completely. (Not the bad grammar or the place where I used the word "discussion" when I was clearly going for "decision", but everything else.) You never responded explaining why you shut the discussion down. The number of edits you've made in the discussion space, your being the most pro-community wikia admin, the fact that you started the original forum thread, my comment six weeks ago—none of that explains shutting discussion down the way you did. And let me be clear. I didn't start the discussion on the Clara talk page because I failed to read or didn't understand the previous forum discussion. I read and participated in that discussion. Did I fully absorb every point made? No, and I'll address that in a second, but I did understand the various arguments and I understood the consensus that was reached and I obeyed that consensus.


 * "I've been following this discussion for a few days now, though I had to stop reading at a certain point."

For the record, that's the line that you're permanently banning me from the Clara discussion for. I said this as way of apology in case I repeated a point that had already been addressed in some manner and also to explain that the discussion had gotten immensely difficult to follow. People in forums who are familiar with the people, the forum and the discussion tend to say things like "I agree with ___" and it's often difficult for outsiders to follow the conversation. It forces the reader to go back, reread previous comments and try and work out the antecedents. I understand why people do this, heck, I do this all the time, but I was an outsider at that point, and I found the discussion immensely difficult to follow. I said this in order to communicate that I was not ignoring previous comments out of laziness or because I didn't care, but that despite my best efforts I simply couldn't quite keep up; at a certain point the conversation had become overwhelming. No one mentioned that they had any problem with what I said, and so I believed that my good intentions had been properly communicated and well received. No one, including you said anything at any point that even hinted otherwise.

That comment was made on April 4th. I'd joined this wiki exactly five days earlier. I'd made less than 30 edits (including fixing typos and adding my signature). With the exception of one comment on an article talk page, every single edit was in the forum, and so if I had been acting in a manner that really was "destructive to the discussion process" it's crazy that no one thought to mention that to me. I can't imagine that they simply forgot to mention it to me'''. . . for six weeks. I kept participating in that discussion on the forum and I've participated in dozens of discussions since--on the forum, on talk pages, on user talk pages and nowhere''' has anyone mentioned this to me. If someone is destructive to the discussion process you don’t let them continue being an active participant in that discussion without first checking them, and letting that their attitude is problematic and cannot continue.

To say that I was new at that point is a fairly large understatement. I hadn’t made a single edit in the article namespace, I didn't know policy, heck, I didn’t know anything. Did I make mistakes then? I’d be kinda shocked if I hadn’t. According to you, what I said six weeks ago was a problem and not just a problem, but a problem big enough to warrant a punishment. And yet, you took no action at all, not even warning me that my behavior was inappropriate. Until now. It's been six weeks. In the time since I made that comment I've made over 2500 edits and acquired 73 badges (I'm ranked 23 in the Danger Zone). I've written over 40 new articles, uploaded more than 20 images and I'm almost done with a completely new category system for all species that is void of the problematic "creature" and "sentient" classifications that we have now.

It's six weeks later. In that time I've talked with you more than any other user on this wiki and you've never mentioned this. Not in chat. Not in the forum. Not on my talk page. We've discussed several different topics, and you've never failed to drop me a line and tell me when I'm doing something wrong. In fact, the very first note on my talk page was from you and it was about a comment I had left in the forum. It was about my mishandling interpersonal issues in the forum. So clearly when you see problems with the way people interact on the forum you make a note of it and drop by the offender's talk page to let them know that there's a problem. But this? This "destructive behavior" for which I’m being punished? This was never mentioned. Not once. Not by anyone and certainly never by you.

It was only once I commented on your decision to shut down a talk page discussion that my previous behavior was brought up, decried and used as the basis for punishment, a punishment that would keep me from participating in future discussion. You say that my punishment is intended to "allow me to participate more meaningfully in future discussions." Really? Banning me from discussing a topic is going to help me participate in discussion better? Is this a joke? Oh, and the punishment is nicely designed to not "inconvenience my general editing." So you want me to continue writing articles, adding images, and rolling back vandalism, you just want me to learn to keep my mouth shut a little more. I see. Well, I know when I'm not wanted. My editing might be, but as long as I’m critical of your decisions my opinions are clearly not. You're asking me to give my time and energy to a wiki that doesn't want to hear from me and I'm finding it hard to find a reason to contribute to a wiki where my opinions aren't welcome.


 * "Moreover, very few admin on Wikia, period, are as inclined to discuss things with their community members as I am"

That's just it, isn't it? Your community, your community members. Is it any wonder that early in my time editing here I went back and checked to see if you were in fact, one of the founders of this wiki? Not because of your familiarity with code or policy, or because of the sheer volume of your contributions (all of which is impressive) but because I got a sense that this was your wiki. Do I want to be a part of a community of Doctor Who fans who are working to create a complete encyclopedia of everything related to Doctor Who? Weirdly enough, yes, yes I do. But I'm not sure how comfortable I am being a part of a community and wiki that you control. You may not be the founder or the owner of this wiki but you do in fact control it, largely through your strong presence in and control of discussions. I've seen hints of it here and there all along, but every time I was a little too put off you'd go and take the time to assure me that that wasn't what was really happening. But it was, and it is. Frankly, I would have preferred that you be upfront about it. To put a very long post very simply: Over 2500 edits, 40 new articles and six weeks after the fact, you're permanently banning me from contributing to certain discussions because of a forum comment that no one (including you) had a problem with at the time. It's purely coincidental that this happened immediately after I called you out on shutting down discussion.


 * Yeah, sure.

You've spent a lot of tell telling me that you're really not "some sort of Great Dictator" and telling me how open you are. But saying it doesn't make it so. Take a step back and look around. On the wiki you’re in control. Maybe not technically, but you are in practice. It's how you act and it's how others treat you. The levels of crazy involved in my punishment are a testament to this. You are forbidding me from participating in a topic of conversation because of something I said weeks ago when I was new to this wiki. Something I said that no one, including you, had an issue with at the time. It's an excuse! I don't know if it's that you don't want to admit that you have that much power or that you don't want to be seen as using your power capriciously, but whatever the reasons, you dug up a six week old comment ago in order to justify this punishment.

You've framed it well, using language like "destructive to the discussion process", "dissed the community" and "forfeited your right to participation" in order to make this punishment sound justified, and in order to make your actions appear as though they are On Behalf of the Community. But that's not actually why you're punishing me. I called your attempt to shut down a talk page discussion what it really is, stifling and against the wiki spirit. You're not happy with that, and you're punishing me because of that. It really is just that simple. Whatever I said six weeks ago is irrelevant to all of this. I know it. You know it. Let's call a spade a spade and be done with this ridiculous charade.

I'm sure that in saying all of this I've gone and Said The Wrong Thing again. That I've Crossed The Line and Failed the Community in some way deserving of punishment so that I’ll understand what I did was wrong and Learn From My Mistakes. Don't bother; I’m not interested. If you're going to ban me, ban me. But don’t pretend that it’s because six weeks ago I crossed the line in some unforgivable way and am now refusing to accept my very valid punishment and act contrite. It’s just not believable. If you do ban me though, I'd appreciate it if you would delete my various sandboxes at the same time. They're all in my category, so it shouldn't take more than a minute or two. That will spare me from having to come back to the site after I'm banned and tracking down another admin to do it for me. Anoted ☎  06:01, May 22, 2013 (UTC)