User talk:Nyktimos

Categories
Just curious why the categories can't be underneath the last line of article? Just curious, as when it comes to edit articles it's often good to see where they end and the categories begin, especially for new users. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does look kind of weird if someone is listed as editing the bottom of an article when they are only editing the code on the categories.--Nyktimos 05:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just kinda a formatting issue, wikipedia has all the categories listed one after the other at the base of the page rather than bunched up on the last line and it makes, as I said a little bit difficult when editing the page in full, especially looking at it between the end of the sentence and the beginning of the categories, there really needs to be an instantly viewable separation. It's not an issue of who is editing (I'm don't think I mentioned it). --Tangerineduel 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Darksmith Legacy
Thanks for doing the infoboxes, it was getting late! Good to see the pages being looked at. The Librarian 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you really?!
On your edit to the 2089 page, did you really count? Trikster87, 26th February, 2010, (UTC)


 * Response removed: I should have posted that on your talk page. Short answer: not my edit. --Nyktimos 21:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Waters of Mars, just saying that you like it, I have the DVD, you can watch it when it comes to BBC Three (if you have Sky+). Trikster87, 27th February, 2010, (UTC)

Timeline navigation changes
As you are one of the frequent editors to year, decade and century pages, I wanted to try to make your life easier. Koschei got the ball rolling on navigation improvements with his new template, but this will be extremely laborious to implement. Hundreds of pages requiring minute changes also spells the possibility of manual error creeping in. So I'm updating his template into an entirely automated one. As you can see by examining the code at Template:Timeline test, and its dependent subtemps, all that needs to happen is to add at to the page. The temp will take care of the rest, automatically sensing whether it's on a year, century or decade page, and responding with appropriate output. The bells and whistles of template design aren't yet completed, but that's easily fixed after the hard coding is done. Appropriate categories will also be automatically placed on the page as well.

Best of all, you don't have to do a thing. The template will be placed on every page by a bot. (Ultimately the old HTML table navigation will be removed by a bot too, but that's about a week away yet.) So instead of spending so much time on mind-numbing work, feel free to get back to the greater fun of whatever more enjoyable work you were doing here. Implementation of the core skeleton will happen over the next few days, with the project complete by sometime before the end of April.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  03:10, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi :) Please don't create "empty" timeline pages just for the purpose of creating a bluelink.  It will impinge upon the ultimate, proper operation of the timeline template, which needs to be able to sense redlinks in order to offer navigation between years, centuries and decades which are surrounded by similar units of time that have not yet been visited by the Doctor or the Children of Time.  Thanks :)  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  23:35, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean that to seem accusatory. It was just a blanket request of, as far as I can figure out, the most frequent editor of these pages.  I had a brainstorm earlier and wanted to make sure that I got the word out to people before the idea slipped away.  The same message is on the forum and on the template doc notes now, too, so hopefully that'll stem the tide.  Prolly won't, but at least I tried.
 * I, too, have been worried about the inaccuracy of the start date of centuries and decades, but I had assumed, from the universality of what we're listing as years in the decades, that this site had opted for the common, rather than the precise, understanding of what "century" means. It's probably possible to fix, though I'd want a clear community consensus on that before I do the work.  I personally agree that the century does indeed begin in 2001, but as I wrote somewhere earlier, the Sixth Doctor would care about this sort of thing, but the Tenth Doctor wouldn't. On the other hand, wouldn't the Doctor observe the astronomical year, which does begin on a 0?  Why would he accept the Gregorian calendar, based ultimately as it is on the birth of Christ?  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:15, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, can't help you with changing the template to the Gregorian calendar. The TVM and its novelisation directly say 2000 is the start of a new millennium. It's really the point of the whole story, if you think about it. See Talk:2000.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  06:35, April 2, 2010 (UTC)