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)

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)