User talk:CzechOut

I tend to talk a lot. So my talk page fills up. If you remember having a discussion with me, but don't see it here, you might want to check these archives:
 * 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/.'''
 * For discussions between 1st January 2011 and the beginning of the implementation of the new style sheet go to /JanFeb 2011 discussions/. This page was last wiped on 19:59, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Font size changes in new CSS
FYI, it's pretty bad form to change the size/style of text when it is a link and you hover over it. I had a few cases on the RecentChanges page where the bold changed the font width, and my cursor was no longer over the link to click on it. The link text should not change in such a manner, as the width of things changes awkwardly. The best thing to do might be to simply change the color, not the style of the text. -- sulfur 18:45, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

 * Thank you for your kind words, czechout. Also, congratulations for being the first to leave a message on my talk page. I believe that if editing on the TARDIS Index File – or any other Wikia for that matter – is worth doing, it's worth doing well. And I'm glad you appreciated my work at Winston Churchill; it took me ages to sort everything out and type it all in... :-) Freddie R. Aldous 21:35, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Imdb
Something is up with Template:imdb name. The gap between the name and the link seems to have grown. I'm not sure if this is a side affect of the new design, or merely something I haven't noticed before. The page hasn't been edited for some time.Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:09, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

All
I am pretty sure this problem exists for all external links, not just IMDB. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 21:48, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

The King's Dragon
I though I did add a reason. I unprotected it because it's already been published, it came out in July last year. Now unless we a policy that protects books that have been out for over 6 months now form being edited by new and unregistered contributors, I admit I made a mistakes. But I saw no need in protecting a articles on a books that, like I said had been out for 6 months, and I never understood why you reverted a User's contribution to that page. Mini-mitch\talk 10:27, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Canon policy rewrite
I tried to read through this and take both the "new user POV" and from a long time editor view where I would need to say to another user "it's stated [here] in the canon policy why X isn't allowed".

The intro is a little too wordy.

A policy needs to be a laying down of the rules.

I don't want to think about Rose/Dodo slash. Nor do I want to think about (though I have read) Tenth Doctor/Rose slash and I also don't want to consider the Doctor/Master slash (for which I blame the DW forums and DeviantArt for showing me). I think maybe just replace that sentence with "some fan's fan fiction".

As much as I dislike lists for some things, a list is what is needed at the forefront of the canon policy; "this is what is canon", "this is what isn't". A clear identification of what is and what isn't, the discussions are good to explain but there needs to be some simplicity to this as well, I know that's the aim of all the explanations, but we need to think to the enthusiastic/excited/irritated editor who needs/wants to know what they can start writing about.

What's generally canon
I can see your logic behind the statement, but it's very vague in terms of new users. Clear lists or clear info is likely better. Often the copyright notices are tiny or in the small print of things that it can be missed. Also there's a variety of permutations of © BBC (BBC Worldwide Limited etc) Looking at the Lost Stories Box Set, the only things that are actually listed as "© BBC" are the Doctor Who logo, the TARDIS image and the Doctor Who theme. Then there's "Doctor Who (word marks, logos and devices) and TARDIS, are trade marks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under licence." Alternatively if we just say that it has to have © BBC there may be people trying to claim I dunno a Top Gear segment featuring the Daleks as it counting.

All of which is a little vague.

Canon is important
Examples like this should include at least two sources to demonstrate the scope of the policy say The Masque of Mandragora and Dreamland if talking about Sarah's adventures in Italy.

For the licenced by the BBC stuff, that needs to link to a list of some form, as noted above.

Things we don't consider canon
1. Chuck Fanfic.net as being outside the scope as well (as it's listed on one or more of the other policies), also maybe everything on DW Expanded (and linked off to it) 3. Nothing exactly wrong here, I'd just soften the language a little bit. 4. Needs and example of Big Finish's work we don't cover. 8. Do we? I thought we chucked it all into Doctor Who parodies. 10. Should have a clear statement about special editions (like The Curse of Fenric and the CGI stuff like The Ark in Space and Dalek Invasion of Earth. 11. Needs to be clearer, possibly with an example. 12. What of stuff like Doctor Who: Cybermen, where I think we get the names of certain articles like CyberTelosian from? Use of these references texts, should perhaps not use the REF tag but actually be sourced using the tags?

Other stuff; Have we finished the discussion concerning Charity publications? If not when we have a ruling that should be singled out and noted.

Why are some non-canon things allowed here
This has good info, but again a little too wordy, I'd strip it down to be statements rather than rhetorical questions.

Once more professionally produced parody…? I think we need a definite ruling on this as it implies it can have its own article rather than just the DW parodies page. There's also stuff like Trock, which is often professionally produced and vaguely parody.

Parody is a rather wide scope, I'm concerned about what floodgates we're opening with statements like this.

Final thoughts
I think we need a 'what this wiki covers' page as I think a few of the sections of the canon policy are trying to do two things; say what is not canon while still stating what we do cover and why we cover it.

There needs to be a list akin to what we have at the moment to clearly say what we cover. The Allowed list on the sub-page is good and clear. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:30, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand more what you mean (now that you've explained it to me), sometimes I sort of…don't see what direction things are aiming for.
 * I also didn't mean to make massive demands for you to re-write (or write) large chunks of things! I almost a few times while reading through your example clicked "edit" and started to change things, but wasn't really sure where you were going with it, so I thought I'd stick with analysis and comment.
 * Is IDW really not included…oh, it isn't is it….hmmm. I see what you mean. Though "This section is still in flux, as the policy is still under debate." is noted at the top of the "valid resource" and no where on the page does it say that IDW isn't canon, it's just not included (I know I'm deliberately splitting hairs here).
 * I do like the use of the word "narrative" (a little left field comment), but as a word for framing the canon policy it makes logical sense (though that just may be me).
 * Thanks for the reply and quick work on what admittedly was a rather long response to a simple request of my thoughts! --Tangerineduel / talk 15:19, March 11, 2011 (UTC)