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)

Redirect deletion
If you think that a redirect should stay then removed the deletion tag on them - I'm just going through all the re-direct an making them link to the proper pages without having to go through the redirect, and then proposing the unlinked re-direct is deleted. In future, I shall not put a deletion tag on Actor's real name (If I do, just undo it, I'll understand what you're doing). Mini-mitch 18:5, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank for informing me of that - I though an admin could remove a deletion tag, if there was a reason behind it. As least I know not to put a redirect if it an actor's real name, or something mention in Doctor Who (Sol III etc). Mini-mitch 19:06, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Blank spaces
Thanks for opening this on the forum. In addition I have noticed users (ok, it was Bold Clone) changing to. I have no idea why this edit took place as it has no effect. Not sure if it really relates to you discussion. On a side note, I summarised "Points discussed" as the base of Mounting the Rescue. Was that what you were going for? Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:47, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Licenses
Done, and thanks for the easy copyable text. I made just a few adjustments, I added the CC by SA licence (not used all that often but it's one of those wikia-wide templates. That was added by wikia-central).

I also removed the italics, I tried them first but it won't show up in the drop down menu. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:53, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Delete templates
Delete templates arent showing up on my pc, are they on the pages of vandalism that ive just edited? Revanvolatrelundar 16:02, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Re standalone deletion page
RE Standalone deletion.

Hi!, only found this page the other day because I was looking at how to link in SFX Collectors magazine 47 (given over to DW this time round). I agree its a bit random at the moment but not sure it isnt worth a page for magazines that are not regular Who-related releases. Btw I can't find how to locate the 'what links here' option on the page to see where it came from. Any ideas beyond creating a SFX page for relevant issues? Thanks The Librarian 19:17, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Me again! It was SFX (magazine) but Doug has been changing it as I work - again!!!! The Librarian 01:07, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * btw Comic Heroes does have some 'Who' content as well, recognising its long established comic character and contributing artists which I might (eventually) get round to covering thats why I placed the issue one cover on the page of SFX titles The Librarian 00:35, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on something
Hey, when you've got a moment I was wondering if you can give me your opinion on something. TARDIS Wiki basic grammar guide. It's something I've been working on here and there.

I'm still undecided about whether to create an actual page for it, is it helpful or does cross the line into condescending? Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:56, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just want to say how good all the additions are to the Style guide (I've renamed it, it also fits in better with other titles that are something guide like the Tardis:Layout guide). Also thanks on the TARDIS test Wiki thing. I'm don't really have anything I've been burning to test, but it's good to know there's something there to test stuff on, without totally breaking everything. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:36, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Added by removed
Done. When the theme was first pushed out I recall discussions about it, but there were other parallel discussions concerning modifying the CSS (and whether you could under the new skin and the ramifications of that and...just other things like that). --Tangerineduel / talk 14:23, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Italics and others
Changing stuff on the MediaWiki is fine, you provide the copyable stuff and I have confidence that you know it's not going to break anything. The first time I edited the MediaWiki (I think it was to add the show/hide functionality) I was paranoid that I would break something.

Italics enabled. I saw that on Wikipedia, looked at their template and then...it all looked a little bit complicated.

Wouldn't it be better just to include the Title template within the each of the story infoboxes rather than adding it to each page, or does it need to be on every page to make it function correctly?

I'm unsure about the read more things, it's not something I use regularly, but it did force me to write explanations on which ever category I came across in case someone came across a category via the top of the page, though it does seem to repeat what's at the bottom of the page. I'll get rid of it if it's decreasing usability I'm just wondering if it's any help to general users? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:41, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Impersonation Accident
I am truly sorry: I do not remember doing it as your signature I clearly remember doing it as mine - sorry, buggered things up there. I have no idea how that happened as I have no idea how to impersonate anyway, so it was obviously an accidental fluke. Really sorry, from 90.215.45.50 15:48, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Images....Opps! Drat and double drat
Hi! Damn thanks for pointing that out sorry. Just realised I can't see how to add category! It used to come up automatically but doesn't now when you download on add a picture. Tell me how and I'll sort it ASAP. You're right there must be dozens - been busy! Typical just when I get round to tidying up after me! The Librarian 19:13, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Me again sorry. Been going through it and I can't work it out - gonna need your help. Gonna have to go back through added pictures until I find where I stopped adding the info. As well as correcting I need to know how/where to add licences (which incidently is spelt wrong on one of the template markups you gave me). As for screenshots - dont think I've ever added any not that I remember anyway. Theres loads of bits that I aint got the hang of with the new look -its like starting over again! ... so please be patient with me, I dont mean to be hassle. Thanks The Librarian 19:44, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Off to rest shortly but to let you know, I've found out how to add licenses to new images (you have to accept the 'advanced option' - why?), anyway, the mistakes go back to November last year. I dont understand the alphabetical bit so I'll work back through my contribution history. I'm guessing that if I open the picture file and go to the edit, where it comes up under '==Licensing==' thats the bit I have to rewrite. Yes / No ? That bit I get ok but, if there is no licensing box to to edit ... what then? How do I put one in place?
 * Interestingly I did use some pics (just a few) as screenshots way back in October but not since, so it is odd that not having selected any licences since the new look, so many are showing as screenshots and loads more dont have any licence at all. Sorry know Im being thick but want to get it right. And finally, is that really how Americans spell it Liscencing? (cant find it again now anyway). I'll reread what you've written again tomorrow. night night! The Librarian 00:03, January 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! ok I think I have enough help to work things out now so I'll endeavour to make the corrections ASAP. I do think you missed my points but hey, hopefully I'll get there in the end. You'll notice that untill November I was adding image licensing ok so it should follow that I wouldn't suddenly or knowing change and select inappropriate ones, so many and so often. And licensing ... I draw your attention to eg 717560.jpg re: Liscensing Thanks again The Librarian 20:42, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Prop delete template
The prop delete image seems to wander a bit down the article if you place it under the infobox (it also seems to overlap into the contents page). It's not a huge issue but could you take a look see Paradox Lost for an example. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:56, January 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually wasn't really thinking about it and was doing about 6 different things at once. However, after I sent the message off you you I was looking at the page and thinking "hmm...I should really have put that at the top". But as with various mistakes and misplacements I will fall back on the 'what if another user did this' scenario (though quite possibily in that scenario the response may well likely be a "meh" and a shoulder shrug)...so it really is just my mistake. Oh well. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi thanks for pointing that out to me. I apologise for the mistakes and won't make them again. Thanks for your encouragement too :) Just The Doctor 03:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

templates
It happens when i use the category section without clicking to edit the page, i only do it in cases where there is obvious vandalism and there will be no discussion for it. Thanks for using revan btw, barely anyone takes the time to look at an abreviation as its kind of a gobfull saying it all :P Revanvolatrelundar 22:11, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Howling Halls Vote
The recent discussion on the Howling Halls have forced a vote. May I ask you to place yours? Mini-mitch 19:34, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

BBV
Your definately right, we need to refine the policies about BBV, as you said on the forum there are obvious execptions in BBV's case (The Killing Stone cant have had any copyright restriction as its just like a companion chronicle with the Fourth Doctor and the Master etc. explicitly named as that). However productions such as the Airzone solution have no connection to Doctor Who but just had some overlapping actors in it.

Anyway shouldn't really be discussing this here, to the forum! --Revan / Talk 21:01, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki.Wiki.js
Done. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:28, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion in Forums
Could I ask you to leave your thoughts on the discussion on speculation in forum here?. Thanks. Mini-mitch 21:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
Do lists, such as the one at the end of Baltimore, need to be individually sourced? I would have thought so but there is no template there. (By the way, I'm not trying to question your edits, It is just a question) Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:32, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Admin request
Hey, I have been wondering when a request was going to come, I'm sure it's clear that I have...less of an interest in the code side of things. That's not to say I haven't learnt a lot, but I bow to your better understanding of the code and all that stuff. I do understand the need to test things real world and the Tardistest wiki looks interesting.

I would be quite worried if you were asking for admin status to 'big up' your status.

The admin request that's been sitting for six months…I definitely remember reading it (or at least seeing it or maybe reading the first few lines...) and possibly getting distracted by something.

I think with these new admin changes and everything we might need to have an admin discussion/notice area somewhere so we all know what's going on and aren't surprised when the main page turns orange (I would note that the orange was beginning to grow on me! It kinda reminded me of the 2005-2009 titles).

On the deletion thing, I paused for thought on the main Cat:The Sarah Jane Adventures category, as I kinda thought that one would make more sense for all the SJA categories to go into.

You could put on your user page something to the affect of 'I'm a tech admin, annoy these guys for other admin-y duties', should you wish to remain a 'normal' user and just be an admin for the tech side of things.

This is my sort of long winded way of saying user rights management changed from none to Admin/rollback. As I noted on Mini-mitch's page I have neither a star nor a mop and bucket to offer you. You can add your name if you wish to the Tardis:Administrators page (one several admin protected pages). --Tangerineduel / talk 12:25, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the bot need to just be an admin or does it need to be enabled for rollback as well? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:13, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad I can throw some interesting questions at this whatever time it may. Bot is now admin, rollback, bot. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:37, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Small headings
Hey, I'm not sure if you can do this but could you try and make Heading 4 and smaller ones a bit more bold. I have noticed on some articles It's hard to tell that there's a heading there. --Revan\Talk 14:33, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Italic title
I've just been playing around with your new title arrangement for my new page Book of Lies, however when I get the template working, the majority of the page goes into code-format view and I can only edit it from source, therefore I cannot work out or reverse what went wrong. I have reverted the page for the time being so you can assess what's going wrong. --Revan\Talk 19:22, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I understand now, it comes before the title, not instead of the title. --Revan\Talk 19:27, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I just placed the template where the title was on the page, so it was placed where for example Book of Lies should have been instead of at the very start of the article. --Revan\Talk 19:49, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I saw that from your edit, thanks for explaining though. --Revan\Talk 20:02, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Difficult long ago questions
Really jumping in with the difficult ones. You're right I don't remember, I can't even fathom a reason why I might have done so. Feel free to move it back / delete and move. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:57, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Dalek (TV story)
Weird effect at the moment. Browser page title reads "Dalek (TV story)" edit history reads "Dalek (TV story)", top of the page "Dalek (story)". Is this just a wiki-hiccup or something else? --Tangerineduel / talk 16:02, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Many thanks for the encouragement, it's always nice to get some positive feedback!MagicManky / talk 04:15, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

CVE
Yes, I did consider this after I had deleted it. It similar to the way most people search "UNIT". Thanks for the tips.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 09:31, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

SJA protection
Nothing worrisome. When I protected them I likely just clicked 1 year protection. I think it was to make sure in relation to Death of the Doctor and other timeline speculation stuff related to that the episodes were protected until the new DW series had begun and until the new SJA series begings. 6 months at that time didn't seem like enough time to cover it at that moment. Especially the last 2 or so episodes of whichever series tend to get hit by people wanting to fill in the gaps or add speculation the semi-protection just helps curb that a little bit. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:56, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Guide for new admins
I've created a guide: Tardis:Guide for new administrators it includes a few things I've learnt along the way and some useful information which you may already know or find out as you work your way around as an admin. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:05, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Italics and stuff!
Ok think I get what it says, I'll try it out shortly-ish. Question: If the title has already been marked up to appear italicised across the wiki will it autocorrect any future references made in articles which I assume still require ''?
 * btw likewise meant to thank you for correcting the licence thing. I would ask however, if it possible to add a link to 'add another pic' on the page after one has been downloaded. I realise that going back does the same thing but 'add another pic' seems a more logical step.
 * ...and while I'm here, you appear to have made several references to DWM Specials being 'a subscriber bonus' - I don't quite get it. Is that an American thing? I know if you subscribe to Big Finish CD's you get exclusive audios not available to non-subscribers for about a year, but I'm not aware of any similarity with DW magazine subscriptions. It was quite late in DWM history before any subscriptions (and even later one that included specials) was available - probably down to their irregular release. The value for money bit you've mentioned, came from a move from weekly to monthly which worked out that, per page, the magazine was cheaper and therfore better value - a point used to sell the idea of buying the monthly (like it needed one!)  The Librarian 15:37, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Humanoid
I completely agree with you on the Humanoid articles. Just in case you missed them (I doubt you did) there are ones for Red Humanoids and White Humanoids as well. I suggest copying the delete template over.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:16, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I didn't want to copy your words; some people are a bit touchy about plagiarism.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 15:26, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

These pages aren't racist they are aliens that we don't know the names of.94.9.211.247 18:07, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not plagiarise in legal tems, but copying a users own text might offend them.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:35, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

they shouldn't be deleted94.4.100.74 18:55, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

How
How would I make text run along the right-hand side of this. It is only for my user page and so of no great importance but I cannot figure it out. Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:49, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to know how to have the text on the right with the template on the left. The align command doesn't seem to work.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:02, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now perfected my user page. Huzzah for useless pages!!!--Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:00, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

You should write a self-help book. Very thorough; thanks.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 10:43, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

John Cura
Hey, no problem. I just thought it was weird that John was red-linked a lot more frequently than the other articles, so I added his page and credits. Obviously it needs improving, as there are a few redlinks in his credits (due to me not being able to find the name of the article for the credits I found).

I'll be sure to ask if I need help with anything, thanks! - Harrison Preston 23:02, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Random category question
This is vaguely related to other audio stories categories. (sort of)

Should Category:First Doctor enemies be Category:Enemies of the First Doctor? I can't help when reading think that it should be "Enemies of the First Doctor" or maybe sentence wise "the First Doctor's enemies".

As there also exists Category:Enemies of Torchwood Three and Category:Enemies of Sarah Jane Smith. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:03, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

More questions
Sorry to disturb your editing (again), but I noticed you were reverting the recent changes to "Generic job (X episode)" pages. Am I correct in believing this is to properly identify them? Or is it because there should be a page on that job (heaven forbid)?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:02, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Graceless
Hey, we need a prefix for the Graceless series and since BFG is being used I was wondering what you think we should have for it. --Revan\Talk 21:26, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

It's definately in the DWU, characters from the new Key 2 Time trilogy are in it and acts as a sequel to that series. I'll get on with making the prefix now. --Revan\Talk 21:35, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

The series is downloading to my pc now but from what I have read, Amy changes her name to Abby in the first episode of the series to infiltrate a compound of some sort. --Revan\Talk 21:43, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Bullet-point BOS
I had the same discussion with Skittles the Hog, a while back about the Atraxi 3 page, and when Tangerineduel was asked, he gave Skittles this reply. There is no written rule, and personally I think it looks better as it helps to make the information look a lot better, rather than just 'wandering'. If we can't come to a decision (over a bullet-point, should we ask Tangerineduel?). Mini-mitch\talk 16:58, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

New page box
It's all looking very fancy! And a great update to what was presented previously.

These are the issues I've found while testing it;

The box on talk pages:

When the new page thing appears on the new talk pages there's a rogue tag that appears at the bottom. Also is there some way to change what appears when someone creates a new talk page, as none of the options are really relevant.

Layout of the box:

The 1 and 2 work if you read it. However when looking at these things I try not to read any of the instructions and try and throw myself enthusiastically into it (at least that's how I remember being way back in the day when I first started editing), anyways...the 1 and 2 look like steps rather than options. Maybe change it to "Option 1" and "Option 2", force people to read and understand these are separate choices.

Also capitalise first word of the sentence under each of the numbers, to further emphasise they're two separate choices, maybe even put a box around the two of them

Option 2:

The only slight worry I have with the insert box is it might lead to people creating duplicate articles, as you can follow any redlink and then type in something that already exists say 'Dalek' and you get a copy of the page and then click save then there's basically a copy of that page under another name.

DWA layout:

As for the DWA layout, The Librarian is probably the person you want to speak to, he's the one who's really filled out the DWA issues, my contributions to the DWA articles is mostly removing much of the  that are unneeded or can be replaced with colons on articles. From what I can see it looks right.

Other templates:

The audio story is for audiobooks, I think it should be what was there before the Template:Newpage audio story layout as there's far more of these released than audiobooks.

I think that's all, I assume some of the layouts are blank because it's tedious fun creating several layouts from scratch. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:25, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

New additions, stuff and things
I must say...brilliant work all round.

This coding stuff is something I would never have done, possibly it's something I may have got around to (maybe), but as I've said the most detailed I've done was to get the show/hide thing to work. So it's all really brilliantly fantastic, I'd off up a prize or a gold star…but the only one that's lurking around is Adric's shattered gold star that's in Special:Unused images, and that's not exactly appropriate.

A minor thing, if Template:Audiobook now does everything that CD does...could we move/create a new template just called "Audio". I know it's a minor thing, but audiobook generally means something read by someone and "audio" would just be more logical.

I also noted all the "stuff" (yes I'm being very technical today), below the edit box, the "Do not copy text directly from other websites such as the BBC's official webiste, the Doctor Who Reference Guide, or Shannon Sullivan's A Brief History of Time (Travel). All of these can be used for reference with proper citation, of course, but do not simply copy and paste from them." and everything, I assume is you doing. (just a tiny note website is misspelled). If I knew where the text was for this I'd edit myself, but I'm not really sure of the what I'm guessing is MediaWiki thing.

This message "If you are uploading an image, you must select one of the copyright licenses in the drop-down menu at the bottom of this page." is also present at the bottom of the edit box. Is this because whatever it is is just applied to every edit box no matter if it's an article, talk or image upload page?

I'll ponder on the "what to say on each of the new page messages" thing (yep…very technical today).

Option 2 wise, I thought I'd just mention it, because when I tested it I typed 'Dalek' and was surprised to get the full page presented to me in the edit box. But you're right the benefits do outweigh the potential abuses. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:55, February 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple infoboxes: The short answer to why there's multiples that all do vaguely the same things is it was easier at the time to have multiples than to work out all the optional stuff.


 * It was basically that no one had the knowledge to change how they worked. I wanted the bits of the infobox to collapse so I read up on it and implemented it. Though annoyingly that feature on the infoboxes at the moment doesn't seem to work for images. the InfoboxCD, which is used for the single story articles used collapse as there's no cover for it, but since the Wikia update doesn't work. I've been meaning to mention it, but it hasn't been of pressing concern.


 * Origins wise, all the infoboxes share their origins with the Template:Infobox TV and Template:Infobox Novel they were some of the first infoboxes to be created for the wiki.


 * I think the odd naming conventions for the "name" field have been in the infoboxes since the start.


 * Glowy box thing: We should put this and other adminy stuff somewhere.


 * TardisTest: I'm not sure about the background over at the test wiki. I just thought I'd bring it up while we're heading headlong into another revamp. I just find the staticness of the background and the transperancy a bit weird on the eyes when scrolling.


 * Talk page: Have you noticed that at the top of the talk page edit box you still get "This is a talk page. Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (Tangerineduel / talk 15:26, February 16, 2011 (UTC)) or by using the signature button", but the yes of the buttons, the bold, signature and other buttons have disappeared. I actually only ever used the signature button, hence why it's probably taken me this long to notice. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:26, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Dates
Could you have a look at the dates discussion on the forums. Sadly, it has gone to "the vote".--Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:25, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Do company names (e.g. Happy Cook) need to be in italics?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:04, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Testing !
Sorry been busy this last week or so but I'll give DWA a go asap probably after the weekend. Just so you know Im not ignoring you ok The Librarian 22:04, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok had a look now. Hmmmmm There are good points the categories and fields with italic notes are good but .... I don't think its very easy to understand! And if I'm confused (exactly what/where to type) new editors would probably feel really intimidated. Its the PAGENAME bits and markup text that seems confusing at the start end and middle. I like the fact that most of the fields seem to be there but .... as I use word and copy it over I'll probably select all and highlight the bits I need to type in which will require some working out. And the Option 2 bit ... cant make sence of why when I choose a red link it comes up as the page being created surely is the one headed at the top? These are just first impressions gonna try and work it out very soon. I'm not trying to be difficult but why not just extend the infobox templates to include sub headings and categories? The Librarian 16:15, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you thought any of my remarks negative, they weren't honestly I'm just not too tech savy (like some :) ) and was thinking about new users as well. I know there's a lot of work goes into this sort of thing so you have my total respect! I will give it a go - promise! Because I seldom do work 'live' in case it crashes/ others leap in and I get edit conflicts or my kettle doesn't switch off (which has happened and caused a total loss of power - several times!), I would have probably gone on to copy option 1 into word. The categories are fine, I know you're picked up before on what/how I've titled them but that was only for this very reason - that while their names may change they are effectively the same type of feature - so on that front it's all good!
 * You've explained something to me above which I don't think I should have had to ask and perhaps could be better worded on the page. Its the options bit! Perhaps a comment along the lines of "....welcome to new page creation where you have 3 options to choose from. Firstly by using an existing page template, secondly to create a new page by editing an existing page or thirdly creating a page from scratch. I will give it a go ... very very soon! The Librarian 19:01, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * To a very clever boy - actually its really quite cool! :) The posters could be marked up A3, A4 and A4 - theres at least 3 per issue. Just noticed that publication date has been removed from the infobox - I notice you've changed the first line (it was only there really to link to the magazine title early on), but does this mean a change to all magazine infoboxes which may be unwise for other titles I'm thinking of. Another question is whether this is part of cleaning up all the previous issue you were gonna get a little bot to do? btw I realise why I haven't been italicising comic strip titles - the ' is not word compatible, so I often leave it out opps! Sorry I still think Option 2 should be better explained eg "to adapt any existing page" The Librarian 23:17, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Saying nth Doctor
I don't think that Skittles intended the change on a basis of we don't know which incarnation is which. I certainly would change e.g. third Doctor to just "the Doctor" because to me that seems more in universe as the Doctor doesn't go round getting called "oh look it's the third Doctor" and with a link behind the word we can still specify which incarnation we are talking about. --Revan\Talk 17:34, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

N-th Doc
I never contested its in-universe status, I just thought it to be policy. Looking around I cannot find a rule, but I was also sure that the n-th term had to be capitalised, for example First Doctor. Is this wrong.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Newtemplatetext
You're really roaring along with these! Just wondering if we should have a link from this box to the Category:Templates category saying something like 'Before you create a template, take a look in here'? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanted to say I really liked all the Australian pages, it's been a while since I read something here that I didn't know before! And there were pictures! It was all very interesting.
 * I haven't really noticed any limbo-esque state that the wiki's been in at the moment, I've been enjoying being able to take a small step back and take a look at some of the other pages that I'd been wanting to see to why the other admins go to work! --Tangerineduel / talk 15:42, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything's looking really good. Also thanks for fixing up my talk page.


 * You're right in it looking a little odd, though I can't find fault with it. I've tried a few different wordings and have come up with "A copyright license must be selected from the drop-down menu below this message". I think the less words may be better to get the message across to impatient people as quickly as possible, as it's only new and/or impatient users that we really need to have this message for. Though if it needed to be the original message there a break could be put in to force it into two lines. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:40, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Australia
Do you want me to re-upload the image that previously existed under File:Uluru (under a new name) for the Australia page, or are you happy with Uluru illustrating it?Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:53, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Revision note? You might be able to find an aerial shot on The Sound of Drums or another of the pan-about stories.Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:03, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hartnell
Do you intend to implement this throughout? No one else uses this system.Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:08, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Promotional images.
Cheers for the heads up. I just occasionally go through the unused images, and tidy them out (quite a few of them have the wrong licence.) Promotional images, I will keep in mind what you said about promotional. Won't happen again. :) Mini-mitch\talk 22:33, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Fields
Why is there not an "Enemy" field in the Infobox Short Story template? Has it been forgotten or purposely removed?Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:39, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Handles
The handle on the left of your highlighted photo access the phone not the actual TARDIS. It isn't technically a door.Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:31, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the definition of door applies to compartments. I may be wrong.Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:36, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Also, why do prefixes not have the real world tag. I know these topics are totally unrelated but I wanted to ask.Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:30, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

--The Thirteenth Doctor 21:57, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

More praise
Fantastic work in creating the Template:Qotw. Just one question, should the instructions be first or second person? When I write instructions I tend to go to second person, as it reads as more personable and addressing, but first also works in that sense. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:14, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Poetry
T.S. Eliot's poem The Hollow Men is referenced twice in the DWU. However, it is never named and a PDA of that name exists. Should I move the book or leave the page uncreated.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:14, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I switch the links over later.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:31, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah
I know, but it seemed kind of cheap for such a cameo appearance. Oh well.Skittles the hog-- Talk 13:01, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Companion categories
Should companions (e.g. Polly Wright) be in categories such as tele companions. Surely this goes against in-universe categorisation.Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:41, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

TARDIS
I had to block Bold Clone for 24 Hours citing removal of content. However, I am unsure how to re-add your work at the damaged page, The Doctor's TARDIS. Can you do it please? I kind of screwed up while reverting.Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:09, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I edited a past revision.Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Block
I can see where your coming from but I believe it to be justified. I reintroduced the pictures and they were repeatedly removed. I think it is clear they had sufficent purpose in being there and, as they were added by your goodself, I am sure you do to. Therefore I blocked him for removal of content. Was it the hastiness of the blocking thats bothering you?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 23:11, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Harsh? Really? This is a guy who admitted to being aggressive towards other as shown throughout his edits. He has constantly caused scenarios like this. I originally intended to block so that I could restore the page, but I then went a bit overkill. However, as shown by the Howling Halls and others, he isn't one for backing down, even though he is wrong. Therefore a 24 block may help him cool down. I'm sure he'll reconsider content removal when it is disputed if such a situation rises again. Thanks--Skittles the hog-- Talk 01:29, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going for repeated removal of content. Feel free to push the issue, it's good to lay out some ground rules as blocking punishment is a bit vague.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 02:06, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've noted. Surely there should be a rule in which the article as it is stands with discussion determining changes. That way, articles aren't "damaged" while discussion takes place. What do you think?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 09:36, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

qotw and stuff
Answering in reverse (not just to be complicated, it's because it's the most fresh in my mind!).
 * That's fine, a short image is good, one use of a good short image that's used well is the Harry Potter Wiki.
 * Okay….the big redesign.
 * What you shouldn't do; don't bring out one feature at a time and don't ask for a vote on every single feature, both of those would result in very lengthy discussions, votes and very lengthy amount of time taken surrounding it, resolutions would be difficult given each bit would be seen on its own.
 * By using the glowy design on the templates you've already implemented (which you've said reflects the larger redesign) you could take that as already having started the implementation without any objections.
 * So perhaps continue pushing forward with this redesign. I think it's better to work from a new design and then see how it looks and if anything needs changing than looking at little bits or deciding on small pieces and trying to change it that way. That was one of the problems I found with the new wikia skin, they gave us a small amount of information and it was just really hard to judge and it wasn't until we got it on our wikis that we could see how it all worked and what changes needed to be made.
 * I would suggest, though having a forum topic alerting people to the change over (that some things may be buggy or whatever) but requests for changes should wait until it's all in place and can be seen all together. Back it up with information that we've needed a new update, that the changes (such as the glowy stuff) has been slowly creeping in, that with the new wikia skin we needed a re-think and all that stuff or something like that.


 * The spoiler policy looks fine. If I make any changes they'll be minor.
 * The quote of the week language I was more referring to the Template:Qotw/doc part of it (which I keep forgetting is a separate bit to the template!), which you've got in the first person, I was going to go through and change it to second but was just wondering if there was something you were going for with it in the first.
 * Quotes and variable stuff wise (I am a little tired while typing this so I was a little perplexed at first reading it), the variable quote thing, would this mean we could just have 1 template on the article filled with 52 weeks full of quote themes? Incidentally I didn't come up with the qotw idea (it arose from vandalism, arguments and some other things), so the layout of the quote voting page I came up with, which is simple but doesn't quite function in a way I'm entirely happy with, just minor stuff like the numbering of the quotes under a bolded number means they all need to be indented and the same with the votes. So if you've got ideas how to make it easier, and make the whole process of nomination, voting and everything more streamlined I'm certainly interested.
 * On the copy and paste front I have a text file full of the various iterations of he/she/object/real world and basically do the copy and paste thing. And that doesn't really worry me, I've gone through and done the copy and paste thing on practically every TV story and novel. Way back in the day a lot of the articles had the code for the infoboxes (often based on the really early yellow and grey infobox) on the pages, I went through it and did the copy and paste fill in thing for all of those, so the quote of the week has been quite minor and something I did in a bit of spare time away from the wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:23, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy
Yeah, reading it back I haven't really explained what I meant. My suggestion was that, the article as it stands, should always take priority over changes in a debate. Therefore, I think articles should be reverted to their previous form until a conclusion is reached. It probably would not work thoroughly though as people may see major problems with it form. If so, perhaps you can think of some variation.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 15:22, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, okay, you've made you point with the blocking thing. So much for moving on :). I agree that is against the spirit of the wiki to prefer a version but with naturally angry editors (such as BC), it may be the best recourse in order to have a productive argument rather than abuse. Thanks for the pointers.Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:12, February 23, 2011 (UTC)