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:
 * [[File: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)