User talk:CzechOut

For discussions approximately prior to the coming of the Eleventh Doctor (and precisely before 02:33, April 3, 2010 (UTC)), please see: RTD era discussions.

Wales crew
Interesting template, could I ask for a small change, just to keep things consistent across all pages? Instead of a colon can it be a hyphen between the title and person? I didn't want to go changing things on it in case you were still mucking around with it. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:41, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I do feel kinda strongly that they're hyphens rather than colons.
 * It's not completely about following a standard, it's more that the colons are more used in citing sources on pages and when looking through the page it's one of those things that you see connected with that sort of thing, and I'd really prefer it to be hyphens so the cast and crew listing are marked out when looking at them as their own defined thing. Nothing else on the wiki uses X - X except the cast/crew listings and I'd prefer to keep that visual difference intact. --Tangerineduel 13:39, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noticed looking on the Victory of the Daleks page that Andrew Gunn's name isn't linking within the template. Hopefully it's only a small issue. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 17:13, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Reflist
Hey, I've fixed the errors in the reflist template (which seemed to function fine without actually existing). But anyways the issue as I saw you can see in the changes I've made (I removed your stuff about saying it wasn't working) but feel free to put whatever back in.

Anyways the issue was that while you named the references (which you'd do to use the references multiple times in the same article), you didn't cite anything as the reference which needs to be done the first time the ref name thing is used. So when the the reflist came to assemble all the references in the reflist it hit errors because there wasn't anything to cite. Hope this helps. --Tangerineduel 14:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Cite
I sent a message off to wikia central and was told that they'll be upgrading the extensions when they upgrade the MediaWiki software, which should be coming in the next few weeks. As soon as the developers release MediaWiki 1.16 Wikia will also be upgrading everything else along with it. --Tangerineduel 05:41, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Bot and Captcha
The short answer is...I'm not sure, not sure what setting have been changed or altered. It's nothing I have specifically changed.

Having a quick look around the wikia central forums brings up a range of things it could be.

One thing to note, your bot doesn't appear as a listed bot see Special:ListUsers/bot, I did look into changing your bot's user rights, but that option is locked to me (admin's aren't totally all powerful).

All I can really suggest is head to the Wiki central forums and if that doesn't help go for the Contact wikia staff link. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Tangerineduel 16:55, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline template
Just to be clear - as long as I don't go around creating new pages and using HTML coding I'm OK in editing the pages, meaning I can add/update new items? Or are you requesting the pages not be updated at all? No biggie with earlier years, but things are moving pretty rapidly with regards to 2010, obviously. 23skidoo 22:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm not planning to add any new years anytime soon, anyway! 23skidoo 22:31, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Rice University
Best to check the 'what links here' before wiping out a redirect. (Though I'm not sure why a university's name should be funny?). I change the only linking article to the correct page and deleted the redirect. --Tangerineduel 15:26, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Timelines
I agree 2016 should be deleted for now. But will doing so mess up your bot or the template? 23skidoo 03:31, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go ahead and knock down 2016. It'll be a couple years at least before we're likely get anything real-world related to put there (I suppose I could put the 10th anniversary of Torchwood on there, but that's stretching it). 23skidoo 03:45, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

2014
What lead sentence? All I saw was a single item. That's not a lead. I take extreme exception of being accused of subverting anyone's efforts. I expect an apology. No, I demand one. No one asked me for my opinion on this - I didn't even know the discussion was underway. All I thought was going on was some stuff about a template. This is the same sort of crap that made me tell Wikipedia to go to hell. In fact, you guys can have fun. I've got better things to do with my time. 23skidoo 03:52, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipediainfo included
Is it a good idea to have the wikipediainfo included in the template?

Do we need the wikipediainfo template for years 2000 to 1990? I can understand for televised Doctor Who world events giving the production years context and all, but did 1990-2000 mostly prose years are they all relevant? --Tangerineduel 14:29, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * All valid points.
 * I realised what I'd written (about the implied preferencing one over the other) after I'd hit save page.
 * So yeah, controlled non-manipulateable is probably easier in the long run, one less thing for people to mess around with.
 * Though one thing of concern is that the wikipediainfo generally resided at the bottom of the page, while having it included as it is means the timeline is now at the top of the page. It's just that the wikipediainfo is an out-of-universe link dealing with the real world, so its placement at the bottom was to be down with the real world stuff.
 * Also did I miss something about the placement of the timeline being at the top right (I'm sure I asked about it being placed centre bottom)?
 * Neither of which is too much of an issue, I'm guessing it's because the top of the article is where the in-universe stuff resides and since the timeline pages are in-universe first the navigation template should go up the top rather than buried down the bottom of the page? --Tangerineduel 15:19, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Righty. The year articles are one of the places I don't spend a lot of time on.
 * Just a random question, is infoboxen the plural of infobox? I (and wikitionary) seem to think it's infoboxes, or is infoboxen a collection of infoboxes?
 * But hurray! No yellow. I don't actually mind the grey.
 * As for future secondary infoboxes, we should consider not overwhelming the page with too many infoboxes. --Tangerineduel 16:53, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome template
Hi, the issue with implementing the template automatically was (and still is it seems) that it doesn't work. Wikia rolled out a process through which anything placed on a particular MediaWiki welcome page would add to all new users and add the admin who had most recently edited on the wiki. The issue was neither I nor Toughpigs (who edits here and I think is an admin over on the central wiki) could make it work effectively. The issue is that it wouldn't add the template, it'd just add the code of the template, looking at your bot's most recent additions it's having the same issue.

What I had intended to do was pair back the welcome template so there was no coding in it and re-add it to the automatic mediawiki welcomer thing. So while it wouldn't look as pretty all the information would be there. --Tangerineduel 12:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm...not to point the obvious but your bot is still adding the code rather than the template.
 * I would rather have to add the template manually that have a bot that adds the code (which for new users to see all that on their talk page is rather daunting), it's basically the same reason I and admins on other wikis opted to disable the automatic process a while ago for the same reasons. --Tangerineduel 13:31, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also the other issue with using a bot, rather than a person is that a person (or the method through which the mediawiki added and used and admin) is that if a new user sees the template with a user's or admin's name on it they can go to them for help, with a bot it's sort of a dead end process. --Tangerineduel 13:32, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's precisely the point, it adds the code of the welcome template rather than the template itself. (Hit edit and have a look or look at the 1500 or so character count in the recent changes).
 * As I said it's also the issue we faced with the automated welcome template.
 * Also as I said it's also a question of the user whose talk page it is being able to ask questions of the person leaving the welcome tag, be it a user or an admin, but not a bot.
 * I would ask strongly that you please disable this particular function of the bot. --Tangerineduel 13:44, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * The code does make a difference, it makes a difference how you read something when you're looking at it in code view, whether it's a neat template or all the coding stuff, for new users it really does. Appearances for new users and how stuff looks does matter and when dealing with new users the lack of all that coding means a less daunting experience.
 * I know you know and I know that the bot links back to your page, but again this template gets added to new user's pages, so there may be some confusion when that happens.
 * I'm speaking here from both being a new user on other wikis (back when I joined I don't think there was a welcome template) and dealing with new users.
 * I have gone back and re-enabled the mediawiki welcome to see whether anything's changed since we last enabled it, and if it hasn't maybe pairing it back, or just disabling it again. --Tangerineduel 14:11, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Been there done that and it didn't work.
 * Template:WelcomeMediawiki and Template:WelcomeMediawikianon are the two templates I created to use on the auto mediawiki space. As you should be able to see in the recent changes (look for edits made by User:Wikia. The template (still) doesn't work. These templates aren't used as the main thing for the mediawiki (MediaWiki:Welcome-message-user) that's one of the pages, there's 3 that are used to implement the welcome feature, but it just seems to pull through the template code (for some reason) rather than just the template. Despite the template not being on the mediawiki page. --Tangerineduel 17:21, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes we probably are talking about different things (sometimes I just start rambling after reading talk responses very quickly and then wonder if I've gone off on the wrong tangent).
 * Any how...there is something weird that happens with the automated welcome template where even though the welcome template is nested (that's what I was rambling about above with the automated...thing) it still doesn't grab the template it (for some reason) grabs the code (I don't know why). Take User_talk:209.169.196.24 for example, this was (supposed) have the anon welcome template added, and through the above mediawiki nesting thing (excuse the overuse of 'thing' it's rather late for me) even though the template was nested rather than on the page it pulled through the code. I don't know why, having had a look at other wikis that have implemented this the code seems also seems to turn up. Hence we've stuck with adding the welcome template manually. Also why I've been considering pairing the automated welcome template back to a simple welcome and signature with a link to a separate welcome and introduction page as a way to get around the pull through code thing. --Tangerineduel 17:40, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

BBC copyright tag
On first thoughts I am fine with what you suggest (ie grouping to BBC titles), then I had another thought, that the copyright bits explicitly word 'covers', and I'm as interested in contents as well, which can often be illustrated. Furthermore, I do like the idea of seperately crediting the magazine title. As the Radio Times for years was the only source of Doctor Who news it seems odd that we ommitted it but that could be because Im the only one so far (ish) working on padding it out - stay tuned! The Librarian 20:25, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Just a small question
I noted all these delete tag edits have been marked as a minor edit. They're technically not minor edits (Wikipedia:Help:Minor edit). Just wondering if there was some reason for marking them as minor edits? --Tangerineduel 13:26, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Righty, was just curious. --Tangerineduel 13:50, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Caution
Hi, please don't edit another user's user page (no matter what good intentions) it is against our Tardis:Vandalism policy, if you believe something is an error on the user's user page, leave a message on their talk page with regards to the error. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:35, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The page in question would have been deleted regardless of the user page linked to it.
 * Perhaps I should have said (earlier) to ignore user pages that link to pages that need deleting, and it's something that didn't really occur to me to say at the time.
 * I'm sorry if what I said bugged you, I didn't mean it to be irritating.
 * I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia page (I spend only a small amount of time on Wikipedia).
 * My caution was only that, it was only because in the past we've had users editing user pages and correcting the user pages and users getting annoyed by those corrections (spelling, grammar and whatever else). Hence the stance that I took on this issue.
 * I will look to altering / adding to the vandalism policy to Wikipedia's stance into this. Again, I apologise for any offence I might have caused with regards to this issue. --Tangerineduel 16:40, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Use of the bot?
Hey, wondering if you could break out the bot to change something, see Forum:Organization or Organisation?.

I could change all the articles in and linked to the Category:Organizations manually (it's only about 150 edits or so, I've been there and done that before), but it's still a mind-numbing job. Any questions, arguments, queries and whatever else; the forum, my talk page or whatever. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 15:36, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Righty, thanks, much mind-numbing work saved (there were a couple of dozen pages linking to the category) but that was easy enough to change, just one letter.
 * Linguistics, language and spelling is complicated and sometimes odd argument I'll leave to the lexicographers, linguists and whomever else wants to debate it. (Though I will say I think 'girt' needs to be used more often, but that's just me).
 * I've updated the Manual of Style adding a specific reference to the Organisation/Organization spelling thing, if it becomes an issue I'll look at a page dedicated to spelling issues.
 * Which little note thingy do you mean? --Tangerineduel 13:04, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Dscontinuity bug...or something
Hey, could you take a look here Forum:Discontinuity pages and search bug, as you pretty much implemented all the code and stuff for it, and I'm not really sure what could be causing this issue. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:27, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuity template
Hello, me again. I've been having a look at the discontinuity template and pondering how to change it to accomodate the somewhat increased discontinuity page(s), that now include Torchwood, the SJA and K-9 and Doctor Who, Torchwood and SJA in prose and audio form. I mostly had the main links off as placeholders, but they're now fully fledged pages and people will eventually add links to them.

As I said looking at the template, there's no quick and easy way to identify each page as DW, SJA, TW or whatever (to make the template insert the right identifier to make it link correctly), it could have something like " series=Doctor Who " which I think is relatively standard across the infoboxes, but I don't really know as that's not enough as there's also a necessity to distinguish for audio/prose and that's something which isn't on every page and distinguishable.

This isn't urgent (at least I hope it isn't urgent, it's all red-links at the moment) I was just seeing how the discontinuity link would look on War of the Daleks (one of the only a few discontinuity novels with a discontinuty section). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. --Tangerineduel 18:16, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Dear Czech, i think the tardis wikia is under attack by stupid vandals, and i mean more than one.Sclera1 05:58, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Merge Template Image
How about an image of the 10th Doc and the Meta-Crisis Doc together? That would suggest to me the idea of two things that are the same thing. Monkey with a Gun 03:09, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Such as this: Monkey with a Gun 03:15, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally like the images - they add a little flair to the wiki. Just thought of the perfect image: the two Brigadiers in Mawdryn Undead. I'll do a screen grab when I get off work. Monkey with a Gun, via 166.205.7.189 19:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * That image does work quite well. And I never got around to firing up Mawdryn Undead... dang real life, with its "job" and "friends" eating up all my time... Monkey with a Gun 01:22, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Home video releases
Would (on the format for TV stories guide)'Home media releases' be a better fit for this section just so it can encompass LP, audio cassette, online streaming and other things? --Tangerineduel 14:24, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think just seeing 'home video release' made me think of old video shops and just the phrase 'home video' evokes VHS tapes. (Maybe it's just me).
 * Just stick with 'home video release', as you say, anything else will make it needlessly complicated and messy. --Tangerineduel 14:56, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Your Bot
You could ask Wikia to flag your bot as a bot. This would stop it from showing and taking up space in Recent Changes. ☆ The Solar Dragon  ( Talk - Contribs.) ☆ 15:47, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh...cruk...I need to apologise to CzechOut on this front, he did leave me a message and it was one of the things I haven't addressed yet (as the log in issue resolved itself etc). I have just now sent a message off to Wikia central asking for it to be flagged as a bot. Sorry for my lateness with regards to this issue. --Tangerineduel 16:02, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * There we go, bot has been flagged as a bot. --Tangerineduel 17:23, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Nazi
I attempted to write a non-stubby Nazi article. I mentioned all the likely problems on the talk page, but the biggest one is that I've never heard the Elizabeth Klein series, and I'm willing to bet that I got her story wrong. Since you're the one who brought her up, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look (ideally at the whole article, not just her part) and correct whatever I screwed up. Thanks. --Falcotron 09:00, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

K9 collapsible season template
I think the season nav templates shouldn't have the show/hide as they provide information that assists in the navigation on the page (more so the the variety of others). --Tangerineduel 11:26, May 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, it does look slightly bulky, but still useful I think. As it's the only not collapsed template at the bottom of the articles it's not a large impact on the pages. --Tangerineduel 15:35, May 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Through my deleting of the various categories I came across the 'Category:Series 1 (K-9) stories', just thought you'd like to know why it was mis-behaving. I've added to all the season/series templates  to make them automatically add the cat:Series Fnarg/whatever'. (So we can have categories sorted by season/series). Which removed the need to go through every page (in the case of the classic series especially) and add the category to them. I've changed the K9 series 1 template to correspond to the new names, so there shouldn't be any further issues. --Tangerineduel 16:08, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Radio Times
Hi, I've noticed you've found the Radio Times page. Could I ask politely that you leave it alone for a bit longer (see discussion on page) as it is very much a work in progress. Im going to revert some of the changes for a couple of reasons mainly that the page will be split soon when I've decided how best to do it (By publication year or Doctor tenure (complicated in the gap years), and whether to incorporate Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures (as other spinoffs are included) in the main body of the article or to futher divide it up into the 3 main series. (Any thought welcome) At the moment I'm still information gathering and scanning the other material (listings, mini features, Pick of the Day/Week and letters - there's loads and I haven't got to the DVD PDF extras yet! (I needed to make some space at home :) Im adding details to the pages as I'm doing them. Possibly for later inclusion - either on the main Radio Times pages or else under the transmitted programmes pages. Anyway hope you dont mind me asking. Thanks The Librarian 01:11, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. I have been keeping half an eye (actually more like 1/8 an eye) on the bot and the forum page where I think you noted this issue. I'm confident any small issues that the bot creates you'll fix (or make the bot do another pass that will fix any lingering issues). Thanks. --Tangerineduel 18:03, June 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it made sense (though I often make the worst mistakes when thinking this).
 * The Season templates are only on the stories which are part of that season.
 * The Categories to which those stories were part of were only in Season X.
 * I didn't actually see the issue considering the category and the Season templates were both very specific things, neither had any reason to interact with any other thing. Aside from it adding the Season X to the Season X stories category (something I didn't consider when setting this up). But it was a change how categories are added here (so put this down to 'it seemed like a good idea at the time').
 * Mostly my aim with the auto-add thing was to avoid adding them the 'cat:season X stories' manually (though I should note Season 1 I did add manually rather than add it to the template, so no need to worry about that one). --Tangerineduel 14:39, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Template:VG
Can you check that I did this right (and, ideally, fix anything I got wrong)? --Falcotron 10:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

First, both Wegner and Moffat have affirmed that the Adventure Games are part of series 5, and part of continuity. Are we going to disagree with them on this?

Personally, I _do_ disagree with them, at least to some extent. When I played City, the story went something like this: "The Doctor began sneaking around the Dalek, then stumbled into a run and was exterminated. Time was magically reset by a few seconds, and this time he was able to sneak around the Dalek. Then he ran back and forth for a few seconds in hopes that it would convince Amy to walk around a wall that she was on the wrong side of, finally convincing her. Then..." I find it hard to believe _that_ is canon. (And then there's my friend's playthrough, which consisted of him trying to get Amy's butt to wiggle in every way possible for the model and then quitting the game.)

I really think the BBC should release an "official walkthrough" to tell us what "actually happened" vs. what "could have happened but didn't". But at this point, we're disagreeing with the producers of the show; they think the game itself can count as canon, and who am I to say, "No, it can't."

As a more minor point, if you're trying to prevent people from citing City of the Daleks, you're way too late. People have been refering to it left and right, but getting it wrong (using the DW prefix, forgetting the italics, doing stupid RTE things like VG:, or just not citing it). See Special:WhatLinksHere/City of the Daleks (and that's just the ones that cite it correctly). I wanted the template because it should often be easier to fix those problems (and, more importantly, to verify my fixes) by switching to the template, just as it is with DW, etc. Plus, almost nobody uses the templates except for experienced editors, so, frankly, having them is not going to make much difference in how often the games are cited.

True, Amy Pond and Eleventh Doctor don't yet have anything from City--but they don't have anything from Vincent either. I think most casual editors are wary of editing anything other than the "listy" parts of any article that big, while most serious editors don't want to touch anything as horribly screwed up as those articles currently are. --Falcotron (sorry, missed a tilde...) --Falcotron 21:52, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, they didn't use the word "canon", but they did use the sentence, "Everything you see and experience within the game is part of the Doctor Who universe." That's pretty much exactly the definition of "canon" we're looking for.


 * As a side note, I have heard Moffat use the word "canon" (and likewise "continuity") in interviews, although generally only to point out that it's a silly thing to get hung up over. --Falcotron 22:23, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I already said above (and in your forum thread), I think it's ridiculous to consider my playthrough part of the DWU. (My words were, "I find it hard to believe _that_ is canon.") But I think we can twist their meaning around--a playthrough done _as intended_ is part of the DWU--that works, and is better than completely ignoring it. The big problem is that they haven't told us, and probably won't tell us, what the right playthrough is. Again, as I mentioned before, even if they give us a walkthrough, it'll probably include things that aren't part of the DWU, like the Doctor risking his life to pick up collectable cards with facts about the DWU. So, the problem is clear. The solution isn't, but I think we should discuss this on the forum thread that you created, instead of just between ourselves. --Falcotron 23:33, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I saw your moved back, and checked your reasons, they are fair enough, and i just read you views on the talk page (which i did not look at first time) and i see that putting it as it originally was is the best way to go. Mini-mitch 21:44, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pandorica Opens, the painting and the story
Was the painting actually called 'The Pandorica Opens'? --Tangerineduel 10:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, must have been distracted when I was watching it. River quite clearly says the title. --Tangerineduel 11:35, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to leave it, but another user moved the page back to 'The Pandorica Opens' from TV story. I also wanted to get everything moved and change the move permissions before we got a move war going on. The page is now admin-move protected, just in case anyone tries again to move things around. Sorry moving stuffed things around. --Tangerineduel 15:13, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh...I'll probably get to it, it is one of the comparatively easier things to do compared to many of the other things on my to do list. --Tangerineduel 15:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes/Italics
Hi, you may or may not notice I'm trying to 'canvass discussion' towards the forum topic, I wanted to say now that's all I'm doing. Some users don't go near the forums unless prompted (I almost never go to The Howling). I just wanted to say that here and now to be transparent to avoid any percieved bias towards one way or the other. I really value the community involvement in a discussed and decided upon policy rather than a conversation. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:28, June 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not on board with the idea that it's beneficial to the wiki.
 * I admit it has gone on for a lengthy time, but it hasn't be a long time of discussion, it's been a long time of in-action between discussions.
 * I would like closure on this issue, but I don't want closure based on one two editor's discussion. Several wikis have different methods of referencing their content.
 * All I want is community involvement in what I believe is something that will be a dramatic shift for how articles are edited. I am looking at the over all experience of writing, editing and reading articles on this wiki. --Tangerineduel 06:53, June 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I could perhaps have been more neutral, I've read through the Wikipedia canvassing article and will keep it in mind for any future situations, though I find using templates a somewhat heavy handed response to such things however, I will keep in mind the language I use in future.
 * I suppose you panicked me a little, and continued to worry me as while these changes are something you wanted to make, this is a community created wiki.
 * It especially worried me when you said "We're talking about a change that I clearly want to make, that I have the tools to make with relative ease, and about which I actually don't think there is any logical resistance." that insinuation was one of my major concerns when I read it and somewhat further back concerning bot rights and a situation that might arise.
 * I only worry because of situations like this in the past (and users without the aid of a bot) have still made massive changes to the wiki because they thought they were doing the right thing that they thought was correct.
 * I just thought I'd note down how I sometimes read a situation, I mean it not as an attack or a criticism, just how I read the your comments at the time. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 16:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)