User talk:CzechOut

I tend to talk a lot. So my talk page fills up. If you remember having a discussion with me, but don't see it here, you might want to check these archives:
 * 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/.'''
 * For discussions between 1st January 2011 and the beginning of the implementation of the new style sheet go to /JanFeb 2011 discussions/. This page was last wiped on 19:59, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Font size changes in new CSS
FYI, it's pretty bad form to change the size/style of text when it is a link and you hover over it. I had a few cases on the RecentChanges page where the bold changed the font width, and my cursor was no longer over the link to click on it. The link text should not change in such a manner, as the width of things changes awkwardly. The best thing to do might be to simply change the color, not the style of the text. -- sulfur 18:45, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

 * Thank you for your kind words, czechout. Also, congratulations for being the first to leave a message on my talk page. I believe that if editing on the TARDIS Index File – or any other Wikia for that matter – is worth doing, it's worth doing well. And I'm glad you appreciated my work at Winston Churchill; it took me ages to sort everything out and type it all in... :-) Freddie R. Aldous 21:35, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Imdb
Something is up with Template:imdb name. The gap between the name and the link seems to have grown. I'm not sure if this is a side affect of the new design, or merely something I haven't noticed before. The page hasn't been edited for some time.Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:09, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

All
I am pretty sure this problem exists for all external links, not just IMDB. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 21:48, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

The King's Dragon
I though I did add a reason. I unprotected it because it's already been published, it came out in July last year. Now unless we a policy that protects books that have been out for over 6 months now form being edited by new and unregistered contributors, I admit I made a mistakes. But I saw no need in protecting a articles on a books that, like I said had been out for 6 months, and I never understood why you reverted a User's contribution to that page. Mini-mitch\talk 10:27, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Canon policy rewrite
I tried to read through this and take both the "new user POV" and from a long time editor view where I would need to say to another user "it's stated [here] in the canon policy why X isn't allowed".

The intro is a little too wordy.

A policy needs to be a laying down of the rules.

I don't want to think about Rose/Dodo slash. Nor do I want to think about (though I have read) Tenth Doctor/Rose slash and I also don't want to consider the Doctor/Master slash (for which I blame the DW forums and DeviantArt for showing me). I think maybe just replace that sentence with "some fan's fan fiction".

As much as I dislike lists for some things, a list is what is needed at the forefront of the canon policy; "this is what is canon", "this is what isn't". A clear identification of what is and what isn't, the discussions are good to explain but there needs to be some simplicity to this as well, I know that's the aim of all the explanations, but we need to think to the enthusiastic/excited/irritated editor who needs/wants to know what they can start writing about.

What's generally canon
I can see your logic behind the statement, but it's very vague in terms of new users. Clear lists or clear info is likely better. Often the copyright notices are tiny or in the small print of things that it can be missed. Also there's a variety of permutations of © BBC (BBC Worldwide Limited etc) Looking at the Lost Stories Box Set, the only things that are actually listed as "© BBC" are the Doctor Who logo, the TARDIS image and the Doctor Who theme. Then there's "Doctor Who (word marks, logos and devices) and TARDIS, are trade marks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under licence." Alternatively if we just say that it has to have © BBC there may be people trying to claim I dunno a Top Gear segment featuring the Daleks as it counting.

All of which is a little vague.

Canon is important
Examples like this should include at least two sources to demonstrate the scope of the policy say The Masque of Mandragora and Dreamland if talking about Sarah's adventures in Italy.

For the licenced by the BBC stuff, that needs to link to a list of some form, as noted above.

Things we don't consider canon
1. Chuck Fanfic.net as being outside the scope as well (as it's listed on one or more of the other policies), also maybe everything on DW Expanded (and linked off to it) 3. Nothing exactly wrong here, I'd just soften the language a little bit. 4. Needs and example of Big Finish's work we don't cover. 8. Do we? I thought we chucked it all into Doctor Who parodies. 10. Should have a clear statement about special editions (like The Curse of Fenric and the CGI stuff like The Ark in Space and Dalek Invasion of Earth. 11. Needs to be clearer, possibly with an example. 12. What of stuff like Doctor Who: Cybermen, where I think we get the names of certain articles like CyberTelosian from? Use of these references texts, should perhaps not use the REF tag but actually be sourced using the tags?

Other stuff; Have we finished the discussion concerning Charity publications? If not when we have a ruling that should be singled out and noted.

Why are some non-canon things allowed here
This has good info, but again a little too wordy, I'd strip it down to be statements rather than rhetorical questions.

Once more professionally produced parody…? I think we need a definite ruling on this as it implies it can have its own article rather than just the DW parodies page. There's also stuff like Trock, which is often professionally produced and vaguely parody.

Parody is a rather wide scope, I'm concerned about what floodgates we're opening with statements like this.

Final thoughts
I think we need a 'what this wiki covers' page as I think a few of the sections of the canon policy are trying to do two things; say what is not canon while still stating what we do cover and why we cover it.

There needs to be a list akin to what we have at the moment to clearly say what we cover. The Allowed list on the sub-page is good and clear. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:30, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand more what you mean (now that you've explained it to me), sometimes I sort of…don't see what direction things are aiming for.
 * I also didn't mean to make massive demands for you to re-write (or write) large chunks of things! I almost a few times while reading through your example clicked "edit" and started to change things, but wasn't really sure where you were going with it, so I thought I'd stick with analysis and comment.
 * Is IDW really not included…oh, it isn't is it….hmmm. I see what you mean. Though "This section is still in flux, as the policy is still under debate." is noted at the top of the "valid resource" and no where on the page does it say that IDW isn't canon, it's just not included (I know I'm deliberately splitting hairs here).
 * I do like the use of the word "narrative" (a little left field comment), but as a word for framing the canon policy it makes logical sense (though that just may be me).
 * Thanks for the reply and quick work on what admittedly was a rather long response to a simple request of my thoughts! --Tangerineduel / talk 15:19, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Curse of Fatal Death
I've just been reading your sandbox around canon policy, everything seems fine with it to me however I have a problem with your non-canon status of the Curse of Fatal Death. While the story is essentially a parody, EDA: The Tomorrow Windows portrays the events of this story as occuring in an alternate timeline for the Eighth Doctor's immediate future. The community decided that we should canonize this story due to it being directly mentioned in a canon story. --Revan\Talk 16:42, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Forum Page
I've spent the last 10 minutes looking for the blasted thing but to no avail. I'll keep looking but basically me, The Thirteenth Doctor and TD agreed that with the 8th Doctor seeing the CoFD 9th and 11th Doctors in his future through a Tomorrow Window then we should include it in canon as an official source directly refers to events and characters from that story. --Revan\Talk 17:19, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't like the way that your suggesting that I'm makling things up to get my point across. Although I can't find the forum page you can see the outcome of the discussion on any page related to the story as The Thirteenth Doctor placed a note in the behind the scenes section explaining why the non-canon tag is no longer on the page. My whole reasoning for sending you the message about the Curse of Fatal Death topic was so that you were aware of previous decisions towards that story and to not blatantly disregard them when imposing new policy. My message was more of a heads up to other things that may affect what you are trying to impose and not an attack on what your doing to the canon policy. --Revan\Talk 18:00, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

A quote from Talk:The Doctor (Party Animals) shows the Thirteenth Doctor referencing the aforementioned discussion:

Why is this not part of the Doctor Who universe as well? As with Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death), unless there is something that directly contradicts the TV show, I don't see how it isn't part of the DWU? It comes from what we consider to be a canon source, and as far as I know, doesn't contradict anything. Does anyone disagree? --The Thirteenth Doctor 23:22, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

--Revan\Talk 18:02, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Found the discussion [|here]. --Revan\Talk 18:08, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Real World
Why don't novels currently carry the tag? Did you not get round to them with your bot?Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:14, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Quote of the week problem
Could you take a look at Tardis:Quote of the Week nominations, the text within the qotw template wraps so it avoids the contents but the actual template stays there below the contents. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:56, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Quoteoftheweek problem.png. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on it so quickly.
 * I'm not sure if the TOC being the colour of the background works, as it makes the TOC look like a template of its own, not sure if it's the result of the colour of the TOC being layered on top of the background or what.
 * I toyed with two solutions; chuck the NOTOC on the top to just rid the pages of contents as it's not really needed on the quote page, or alternatively force the TOC to hide on that page by default. The latter I couldn't work out how to do for that page alone though. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:28, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just mentioned the colour issue as it seems a large change to the TOC for one page. As we don't generally have templates that run the full width of the page on regular pages (the qotw page is the outlier in this case). That changing the qotw page/the template to suite the TOC might be better than changing the TOC to suite this one page. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's how the TOC functions, there is a logic to it. Or rather there was a logic to it before Wikia forced the fixed width on pages. I'll stop pestering you and leave you to find a solution. Though there's always my simplistic solution of getting rid of the TOC! (Not ideal, but would fix the problem...). --Tangerineduel / talk 16:22, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Template editing
Cheers for the notice. I was just tinker and testing stuff changing the colour to fit the more blue-ish design of the wiki and to make the protection template stand out, so it not too big a deal to me about my changes being 'swept away'. I appreciate the notice. Thanks. :) Mini-mitch\talk 21:30, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Mini-mitch\talk 17:22, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

RecentChanges format issue
In your latest round of changes, you've somehow made it so that the RC list is all double spaced for the main entries, which makes things a bit longer to read than normal. It also doubles the length of the page all things considered. -- sulfur 13:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Sentence case/Headings
I assume this is another working issue. As I seem to recall there was at least a little bit of discussion about the headings and formatting of them, and now they're all in capitals. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:57, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see your intentions, but I don't believe they will come through in the general operation and editing for general users.
 * It's not clear looking at what you get on the page and what's written in the MoS. The rule and the reality have become two quite separate things.
 * The TOC's appearance will not be enough of a reason for people to follow the MoS. The rules need to make sense and need to follow through onto the pages in big statements so people can follow the how and whys of the rules.
 * The headings are a different colour and a different font to the main body text, that should be enough for readers to discern a difference. I really think that the headings should follow how they're typed, while this isn't a change in the MoS it changes how the MoS's rules are shown to have affect on the wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:09, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I also disagree, and I would note I don't take any issue with the font mix, colours, spacing, sizing, or anything except the use of all upper case in the headings.
 * A wiki is not just about reading but also about editing of the site and seeing the differences between. While it is important for it to have a consistent visual flow the editing experience also needs to have a consistent flow between what's edited and how it appears.
 * I don't believe, at least at the moment, that that the solution is to change the MoS. I would just like it to be open to the possibilty to have consistent lower case throughout the headings. I do though, ask this portion of the redesign be brought to the forums as I really have concerns for it. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:55, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did actually reconsider what I said yesterday. I was a little too quick to jump the gun, some things I see it churns over in my imagination, I am on occasion a little hasty, so I apologise for wishing to rush to the forums. Also musing on it, consistency is better and what I had forgotten (and is what is clear in the MoS, and it wouldn't have crossed my mind that you'd change it out of spite, your edits are always well considered) is that by having it hard coded we can change it in the future should we need to.
 * And, you're right you/your bot has made far more changes than me and my humble fingers and mouse.
 * As I've said before I have a very (very) limited knowledge of CSS (which basically amounts to read in the Community Forums/other wikis, implement and hope I've not broken anything, when on the rare occasion(s) I did something). So I probably wouldn't be able to change it if I wanted to hence my jumping the gun a little on that front.
 * The only real question I have, would there be a way to force a lower case? I'm just thinking on stuff like McCoy, where you need a lower case (I don't know the situation where we'd need Sylv's name in a sub-header), but I was watching the credits of Silver Nemesis and realised that all the credits are in capitals, except that letter of his name, and just wandered if we had the capacity, should we need to, to implement a lower case. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:26, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

New changes
Hi! Was wondering if you give any indication when things are likely to settle down. Im holding back stuff at the moment 'cos Im finding the various fonts and sizes a bit of a problem. Maybe the forum article about the changes needs updating as it says two weeks. Thanks The Librarian 21:07, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! please dont tell me this is how it is now :( There are too many different fonts and sizes - the article text is is around 10 and the editing box about 14! Overall the design changes look good but seriously ... you need to magnify the screen to read some of it -take the block of text under the home page logo and the popular categories text ... if reading going to be that much effort I'm going back to books (joking - but at least I can bring the page closer). Please, please please reconsider this font is harsh on the eye and a regressive step no longer warm and inviting ( and it dominates my screen to get a successful width showing - not good for multi-tasking) The Librarian 19:33, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks I'm not a technical sort of chap so have followed your advise and switched to Firefox.I'll try what you suggested and see how I get on. Just when I think I'm getting the hang of things ... hey ho! :) The Librarian 20:22, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:42, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

The headings
I only have one real concern about the new fonts. It's the headings. I personally don't think it's should be in capitals and should remain how it was. I don't understand why it was changed, the only problem(s) we had when the original headings was Users that put the headings in title case instead of sentence case (which most Users changed when they saw them) and the other problem, although I never saw it as one, was the use of continuous sub headings (i.e on the Companion page). Could the headings have not be formatted to be a bit larger instead of changing it to all cap locks?

IMO, the capitalised headings lock dead awful. It looks like it a website for the near-blind. The headings look daft, the tabs along the top (mainly lifestyle and the link to your User page) run into each other as do their links in their drop down menus. (Mainly in Gaming). Also, because of the size of the new heading two some headings now run onto either two or three lines.

My suggestion would be: To bring all the headings up on level (meaning heading one would be used) or the font size in the headings is reduce. There are also a couple of complaint on the main TARDIS talk page about the font, just so you know. I hope you don't see this as criticism of your work, I just want to express my view on the heading. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for everything else you have done for this wiki, you have done a fantastic job! :) Mini-mitch\talk 20:41, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will indeed try and get use to the new font and headings, and I hope they will grow on me. I am still have trouble with the overlays of the Lifestyle and Mini-mitch and in the wiki drop down menus. I reset my cache, but it had no effect. I'm using Crome, and I've downloaded Firefox to see if that makes a difference. By continuous sub headings (not the best way I could have put it) I was meaning a page that used all of the headings. I think if we were ever to go for a change to the headings, it should be discussed in the forums first, even if it's a small reduction in the font or if the spacing is reduced. Thanks :) Mini-mitch\talk 22:12, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've cleared the cache several time, using both the keyboard short cut and from the options menu. And it's not changing. Mini-mitch\talk 22:52, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I say I am also experiencing collision of headings. (It's not the cache, I checked) ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 22:07, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've checked my zoom levels, which are at normal (100%). I've tried zooming both in and out to see if it made any different, which it did not. I've also tried changing the text format, and that had not changed it either. I've checked other wikis, mainly Wookieepedia, Mass Effect and I have no collision on that (bearing in mind, they format is wiki standard) Mini-mitch\talk 23:08, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I've done, but my heading is fine now. Thank you for your help :). Mini-mitch\talk 17:24, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Heading error
Here you go, I have also included a screenshot of the headings. I assume they appear differently to you as, on my screen, they're horrible. As you can see the overlap occurs with the user name and the drop down I can no longer read. Thanks Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:11, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to show a comparison of headers. They looked daft on that shot, but with the enlarged text they look significantly better. The heading problem was cleared up when I cleared the cache. Thanks.Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:30, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Nav templates
Just wanted to say the nav templates are all looking very good and fancy! Also, just curious, with the glow around them, will there be any problems with several stacked up of the glow over lapping? I've tried it the Sandbox and it seems to only impact the bottom of the templates a little bit, making them a little more purple/blue when one is unhidden. It's a very minor issue though I'm not sure the average user would even notice it. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:26, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand you've likely got a mountain of tabs open and several things going on, so a little time taken doesn't worry me.
 * On the two you've highlighted the concern isn't the glow overlapping within, but at the top, it's sort of glowing over the external link, this is the only time it's really noticeable because the glow is over the top of a totally blue piece of text.
 * I don't think it's a huge issue. With spacing, I think you'd need so much spacing to see a difference/see each individual box's glow that it's not really worth it/would make it too spaced out. As I said I'm not sure an average user would notice the overlapping glows. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:13, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot better.
 * I can't really find any fault with it. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:50, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Problems
I have noticed a couple of things since I changed to Firefox, and I'm wondering if there is anyway we could sort these. The first thing is section of the infoboxes appear joined (i.e. there no line to separate the different sections.) This also appears in the table on the Series 6 episodes. By the looks of it, it show that episodes 10 and 11 are a two parter, even when they are not. Is this a fault with Firefox?

Secondly, I've noticed that when you put a list into columns, (e.g. the Series 6 cast, the aliens and enemies of series x pages), there is a box around them. This never appeared on Chrome. Is there a way to get rid of it, without removing it's function on the page? i.e. could we change the colour etc? Thanks. Mini-mitch\talk 11:00, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Here are two screenshot. The first shows the infoboxes that have the different sections running into each other (since the line separating them is missing) and the second one shows the problem with the prettytable as its called. The episode 10/11 is fine, they no longer run it to each. As for seeing if my browser is working, I tend to use the wiki activity page or the main page. I also refresh my cache and view these pages first. Thanks. Mini-mitch\talk 14:34, March 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm using Firefox 4. The infobox problem is not on every page, it just seems to be on random pages and random infoboxes (it's happening o the Multi-form page. As for the , its seems to be every pretty table i see, and not just the Series 6 (Doctor Who) page. I tried around 6 different pages, all of which had missing lines somewhere. I'll look through the Firefox options, if there are any updates or a newer version I can use. Thanks.  Mini-mitch\talk 17:15, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I recall that you brought up the issue of pages that directly counter disambiguation policy. I have come across several such pages, but, as is typical, I cannot remember them all. The only ones I can think of are the previously mentioned Planet of Evil (planetoid) and the extremely annoying Inferno (nightclub). Do you have any more thoughts on where to go with this? I don't want to start changing redirects without some sort of community consent. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 19:44, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase human
I've noticed on many pages that human has been dropped to lower case within infboxes. Just wondering if this is going to be fixed (or is it on your to do list for the bot?) Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:13, March 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Righty. Also, if I manually change the lowercase to upper case (when I randomly come across articles) will that make it more difficult to implement the bot? I've held off when I've seen it just in case it made more work for you/the bot. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:06, March 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to go through every article in a category (I've done that far too many times in the past already), but I do on occasion just hit "Random Page" and open several tabs and reading them through, and see the lower case human, and it's in those instances I would've changed it. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:16, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia Badges
Hi. I haven't done much reasearch, but has the wiki ever considered using badges? I've been looking around wikia and lots of wikis have started using them. If you don't know what on earth I'm talking about, badges are these things like awards and a leaderboard is created for the people that have the most. I'm telling you cos you seem to be a "Wiki Brain" (no offense!). Thanks. Ghastly9090 16:06, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

CSS stuff
Whatever was going on seems to have reset itself again. I expect that it was just a bug and a fuckup on their part. -- sulfur 01:00, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Series 6 gallery
Can I create a gallery of trailer snapshots on the Series 6 page? After all, they are from the actual episodes. Ghastly9090 15:27, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've been thinking about the badges and i've realised that they're not needed. I think evryone knows who's who and who's the top editors. As for the gallery, I agree. Ghastly9090 18:59, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Doctorwhospoilers
Since you brought the matter up, I should inform you that I have removed all references to that site from the Series 6 page, and replaced them. Has it been added to the list of website that cannot be used as a source. You were right about, most recently they've been using Spotlight CV as an source of an actor, but going back a few months, all they used was IMDB, so i removed these actors form the Series 6 page since no other source could be found. They also use they forums, and other website forums as sources for their spoilers, so you were right to stop linking to it :). Mini-mitch\talk 14:58, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me?
I am very new to Tardis wiki. Revanvolatrelundar has been stalking me since I signed up and when I asked him to stop, he threatened to ban me. Can you help? | Who is Dr. Who? 15:02, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia time
Hey there, I've just noticed that when I sign my posts the time is still an hour behind. Can we set daylight savings on auto or something to make it easier? --Revan\Talk 16:02, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thats the weird thing, I live in the UK yet at 5pm when I left a message on a talk page it read 16:00. --Revan\Talk 16:41, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Found the explanation, my preferences were set to server time. Thanks for the help. --Revan\Talk 17:00, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but you said that it wouldn't anyway. My contributions are now to my native time, not that I noticed they weren't before I looked :D --Revan\Talk 17:06, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Untagged images
While I appreciate your efforts, I don't think we need to over automate everything, even if it is a no image tag, the lack of an tag/image category (and the subsequent uncategorised images page) is as good as a no image tag, I mean a no licence tag doesn't mean anything more than the lack of a tag. Our various policies already provide us with the option to delete images without tags, and the image policy provides instruction about the how, what and why of image licensing and and the drop down menu and notices around it say pretty clearly what you need to do. --Tangerineduel / talk 11:49, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Wikipediainfo & protect tags
Great work. I didn't think Wikia allowed anything outside main area. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:00, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Disambig
Thanks for adding the tag. I would normally ask Tangerineduel in these cases but he isn't always active. I just wondered if your goodself had an opinion. Thanks for the reply.Skittles the hog-- Talk 10:32, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Stub
Right...okay. Thanks for the tip.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Just checked. User:I am rufus added the stub cat. Still, thanks for the tip.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:21, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Stubs (and other problems)
I'm really liking the new stub templates - fantastic job! However, they cause a concern for me: White spacing; especially at the bottom of the pages. Should the template not be placed on the 'outside' of the page, as they were earlier? Personally, I think it looks more neater and like I said, saves of white spacing.

I am currently experiencing problem with the navigation templates, they now appear white, and when I 'unhide' to view it's contents, they seem to have a large amount of white spacing. Has this been implemented or am I experience some strange problems? Thanks. Mini-mitch\talk 20:17, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I give it a day and see what happens, and I hope it just a "wikia storm". If it remains the same after this time, I'll upload a few screenshots. Thank :). Mini-mitch\talk 20:26, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * My 'Recent Wiki Activity' is completely different to what it should be. I tried clearing my cache, which was to no affect. Like you said, I will have to wait and hope it fixes itself. Mini-mitch\talk 20:55, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Template Signature
Sorry. This is a really stupid question, but how do you change you normal signature to a template thingy like your signature? Thanks! Ghastly9090 15:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC) (That is what I want to change!)

Doctor Who Insider
With the launch of this new regular title may I suggest a new downloadable template (I've done issue 1 DWI Issue 1) licensing drop-down and maybe the inclusion of the cover on the homepage and a new abbreviation DWI. Thanks ... oh and some agreement on the title page DMI 1 /Doctor Who Insider Issue 1 / or DWI Issue 1 seems to be wanted!The Librarian 14:11, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did follow the community discussion though it was still being discussed. And I havent noticed yet, but DWI is printed in the UK - but will keep my eyes open for Americanisms I usually take all references from source occassionally an error might slip in. Thanks again. John The Librarian 14:49, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Master in template
Hey just so you know, the Bruce Master appears at the beggining of the Eight Doctors and leaves a trap for the Doctor. Because of this I've placed him back on the template as he does appear in the story. --Revan\Talk 20:25, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

At the very start of the book the Eighth Doctor goes to check on the Eye of Harmony and he sees a crystal on the side of the crack in the eye. The crystal is the Master and it gives the Doctor the amnesia that starts the story.

"In the stone corner of the closed Eye, something gleamed like a tear. The Doctor leaned forward to study it more closely. It was solid, like a tiny gleaming diamond. Surely it must irritate the Eye, thought the Doctor. Like those gritty fragments children call 'sleep' that they sometimes find in their eyes upon awakening. He leaned closer still. The little diamond started to blaze even more brightly. It glowed and burned and spun itself into a bolt of pure energy that lashed out and upwards and flashed into the Doctor's eyes, searing across his brain. The Doctor staggered back, his hands to his eyes and crashed to the ground. As he fell he heard a mocking voice. 'Always one last trap, Doctor. All's ill that ends ill...' Master's mocking laughter ringing in his ears..."

-Extract from the Eight Doctors

--Revan\Talk 21:07, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

The fact that its set right after the Movie makes it the Bruce Master. --Revan\Talk 12:12, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Image Template
Hi. Do we have a template stating that the image on a is bad (like: This image is fuzzy etc)? I couldn't find on when I was looking so I thought you would be the right guy to ask. Ghastly9090 14:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the above? Ghastly9090 15:37, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Stub ideas
You said you would take ideas for new stubs, so I have a few: Book stub (in-universe books), item stubs, and film stubs (although there are only two right now, it may come in hand at some point in the future). Mini-mitch\talk 19:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * As 'items' this would be general items that don't fall into a sub category (i.e The Doctor's Toolbag). Generals items would be Yo-yos, Water pistol, clock, etc (i.e objects that don't fall into any stub category). Would a clothing stub category be good, and you could use a tie for the image? Mini-mitch\talk 20:45, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Just chipping in with an idea, maybe for an in-universe book stub you could show a book with the seal of Rassilon on it and for an real world book perhaps a book saying "Doctor Who" on the front. --Revan\Talk 20:37, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Stubs & templates
Nice work with everything.

Template:DWIA needs switching to as the others, I know it's not often used now/we're phasing out its use.

I've just got a little bit of a question on the nomenclature side of the stub category names, why "Drink stubs" rather than "Beverage stubs" I would have thought it'd be best to follow the category names.

I know you've done a building stub, but should we have a more general "location stub"? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:27, April 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Quote of the week. I still feel the more simple solution would be to force the Contents to hide on that page by default. As it's not really needed. But I'm not sure if it's possible to force-hide the contents on one page without it affect others. But on the qotw page it would solve many of our problems.


 * The question I have with regards to the NameSort template is, with articles it has problems with do you replace the TitleSort (if it's on there) with DEFAULTSORT? I have read through the documentation twice (but I keep feeling like I've missed something obvious, so apologies if that's the case).


 * I just thought there'd be some logic to the categories / stub categories. I don't think it matters that much, just if you're looking at a page for Konka, it's in the Cat:Foods and beverages (or just Cat:beverages) category and then in the drinks stub. I know some things won't match exactly, but some consistency is nice (or just obsessive…).


 * Stubs wise, would the solution for Behind the scenes / in-universe be colour? Make the BtS stubs just black & white and leave colourful pictures for the in-universe stuff? That way there's a real contrast between the stubs used for different things. And looking around most except magazine/TV are already b&w.


 * Canon rewrite. I was about to reference the "Forum:Is DWU canon" but saw you've already jumped on it. As I said I was thinking about going in there and editing things, but I think I'll wait till you've done your major edits (mine would've been more about copyediting, softening some language, editing down something things and other stuff like that). Though considering how many things you're juggling at the moment I think it's forgivable that you've paused on a few projects!


 * British words. This is somewhat tricky for me, as while I can edit things like this without really thinking about it, coming up with things for you to highlight and change is a little more tricky. But here's some I can think of at the moment (I'll maybe keep an eye on stuff as I edit and come back to you with a longer list).
 * Organization > Organisation
 * Novelization > Novelisation
 * Color > Colour
 * Neighbor > Neighbour
 * With artefact I know you said "artifact", but given the need for a ruling last year I went with "artefact" given it appears in more sources. (Forum:Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon?)


 * To quote the Doctor in ...ish "it's not 'i-z-e' it's 'i-s-e' and it's not 'o-r' it's 'o-u-r'."
 * Should I worry that you're proclaiming that your powers have increased exponentially? That's usually the time when you dial the 'gate and throw a naquadah nuke through...or...talk about rice pudding and use an ancient stellar manipulation device.
 * There are a few other things that slightly annoy me, but changing them isn't a major thing, it comes mostly from editing in MS Word and even some minor text editing software that turns ellipsis from ... into one character …, I learned this lesson early on when editing Sometime Never... (I created a lot of the EDAs offline in TextEdit). Another thing, which verges on pretty obsessive is on the DWM articles and it's almost imperceptible, you can see it on DWM 18, there's two/three uses of the apostrophe/single talking mark. `The Monsters of Doctor Who: The Mandrells’ and ` Story Fourteen – The Lionheart'`. I think in those two examples there's three different pieces of punctuation. I will continue to edit these things out (I had to look through a few DWM articles to find an example) as I've edited quite a few (and you will likely have not even noticed!), it's just the inconsistency that annoys me. But I can live with it, and I can see how giving the bot a job of switching around apostrophes could go drastically wrong very quickly. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:35, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Some Iris Wildthyme charity stories canon?
I know, another canon-related question again, you must be getting sick of these by now. The website http://www.iriswildthyme.thiswaydown.org/index.html is a website created by Wildthyme/Doctor Who author Stuart Douglas who is also the owner of Obverse Books. Now on this website, proffessional authors such as Lance Parkin and Paul Magrs agreed to publish some of their Iris stories from Charity Publications on the site.

I was wondering if this made the stories canon in your eyes? --Revan\Talk 18:36, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Stub list
Once you've finished making all those pretty stubs, could you add them to the list at Tardis:Templates. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 09:24, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Warning - reply
Are you serious? The guy was adding incorrect information which is classed as vandalism. He continued to add it and you took it upon your self to (quite rightly) block him. I was never clashing with policy and so should not receive such a warning from you. Please clarify this in future as you falsely accused me of incorrectly using stubs not to long ago. Sorry to rant and good look with the stubs.Skittles the hog-- Talk 13:27, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Don't sweat about the whole stub thing. I wasn't offended, I was merely pointing out that it was another recent case of false [word that means accusation but doesn't offend - :)]. I did discuss the edit as I'm sure you have seen on his page, and User:Revanvolatrelundar also reverted this info. I saw it as obvious vandalism as the user re-added even though I countered it. Therefore, at least in my eyes, I wasn't defying any policy. It's hard not to be offended when I see a flashing "Warning" heading embossing my page when my edits were only to prevent such rubbish making its way onto the wiki. While its obvious you need a third party in edit wars, they are still required to have grasped the situation. Thanks for making this mistake obvious to the user, and sorry if you feel "accused" of anything. Nothing I write is written to target anyone. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 14:48, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you're trying to be even-handed, and of course that is a positive thing. I'm not really sure what stance your taking here. At first you were stating that such edits need to be discussed. They were. Now your saying I took a stance over him. Wrong, none of my comments referenced any admin action. In fact it was your good-self that took said action. I'm a little unsure as yo what you expected me to do? I talked to him and explained that he was wrong. He replied saying he was going to re-add the information.

However, here I think is another mistake. I did not revert his edit again. I merely removed the incorrect facts and reworded his information, okay I still essentially reverted his edit but as he was then blocked I never received his comment on the changes. I think this could have worked out better if you'd of allowed him to voice his opinion. I know policy doesn't say anything about this but you could of at least allowed him to reply to your warning.

Okay, the info wasn't so obviously wrong as your crude example of the average vandalist (I know that's not a word), but when I read it, it was rambling on that only two Cybermen were killed. This was obviously not the case and, as he explained, it turned out that was not what he meant. I'm sure you know all this having read the posts, but I though I might just annotate what I saw happening.

Just to round of my major point: at no point did I threaten him! Seriously, just because I'm an admin doesn't mean I'm corrupt. Thanks for clearing up that heading thing; I can see how a friendly heading could be seen as some form of bias.Skittles the hog-- Talk 15:48, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

What I meant by the whole "admin action" thing, was that you seem to be suggesting that I did not allow him to voive his opinion. There's no question that I didn't. I don't know whether this is what you are suggesting in near-enough all of your posts, but it seems that way to me.

I'm a little unsure about your viewpoint on his info. Do you think that it is correct? I'm guessing not, but please state so if you do. I'm glad to see that you did intent him to voice his thoughts (not that I ever doubted this).Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

The info I added was NOT false. Yesterday I took the liberty of uploading of a screenshot of that scene. If you look, you will see that only two out of 32 have been killed. I don't know why skittles reverted it. I told him not to but he did anyway.--Dalekcaan14 07:44, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the above comment to me. It seems he is adament that onlt 32 Cybermen exsisted. He also suggested that they were winning the battle. This isn't what I saw, but hey, each to their own. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 16:32, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Unused maintenance images
There are a few unused image on this wiki that fall under the category of "maintenance". Since I am currently doing a clear out of image, I thought it be best for you to decide what is to happen with these images since it can been seen as your thing.
 * image one
 * image two
 * image three (the old cleanup image (also a duplicate))
 * image four
 * image five
 * image six
 * image seven
 * image eight (not sure if this is maintenance, it says screenshot, but I think it was once used)
 * image nine
 * image ten (not screenshot)
 * image eleven (duplicate, I think, can't see the other at the moment)
 * image twelve (duplicate of number three)
 * image thirteen
 * image fourteen
 * image fifteenth (I think this was used for the old comic stub)
 * image sixteen (Was the old inuse image)
 * image seventeen (Gone to pot, do we still use this?)

There are also two old image that used to be on the Companion page, here and here. I'm not sure what you want done with them, so I'll let you decide. Thanks. 16:02, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't delete image just because they are unused. I go through them all one by one and delete if they are blurry, under 250px (although I kept some that may be used in the future), if they are way over 1mb, if they are unrelated to DWU. If there is anything I am unsure about, rest assure I will put the tag onto the image and see what other User's think.


 * If that's not okay with you, I am prepared to go through the images every Sunday night and tag the one I think should be deleted (I'll still delete blurry ones) and then, on the Friday or Saturday if nobody has an objection to the images be deleted I will delete, if there is an objection I will remove the tag and comment on the image about the discussion, so it not up for deletion in future.


 * I agree, I find some really good images that are unused, and it is a shame that they're not. I adding some, and if I think any that you could use for the top of the page banners (forgot the name), I will link you. The images listed above are all maintenance either duplicate, very small or blurry and I though you might want to use them for something. Thanks. Mini-mitch\talk 16:42, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads ups, I'll keep that in mind. I'll start this Sunday and the deletion (if there is any) can take place between Friday afternoon and Saturday afternoon. Like I said, the only images I delete straight away are the really blurry ones or anything that is obviously not to do with Doctor Who, anything else will have a tag on it. Thanks. 18:37, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sunday to Sunday sounds good. If you want, that's fine with me. I'll be okay to do it if your bot is busy doing something else. Could this become a policy, that all images that are going to be delete should be tagged and discussed? (Obviously instantly deleting sexual images, etc). 18:46, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers
Actually, no it doesn't. The text there states;
 * "Users should be aware that discussions in this forum tend to be started quickly after the first transmission of episodes, or the initial release of non-televised stories. Thus, if you haven't experienced the latest stories, this won't be a particularly "spoiler-free" zone. (Not, really, that the wiki in general is particularly spoiler-free, as our spoiler policy makes clear.)"

The spoiler policy even states "Spoiler information relating to not-yet-released stories must be kept to series or, in some cases, story articles." And nowhere on it does it say spoilers can be discussed in the Howling or on any forum. The closest we got to it was in Forum:The Howling, getting a little out of control where I brought up the discussion of spoilers. However, at the time Tangerinduel said;
 * "Spoilers in the forums however seem to often refer to information gathered from un-official sources. This doesn't fit into the forum's rules as what's discussed in the forum still needs to relate to the content of this wiki.
 * I don't think there should be discussions of "spoilers", what I'm seeing so far is people grabbing info from unofficial sources and running with the idea."

But the stuff Ghastly posted were from Official sources and were true spoilers. That's why I asked them not to post them again. Have I missed a discussion somewhere that states spoilers can be discussed there? --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:44, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Eurgh... but it does restrict it! The spoiler policy says "Spoiler information relating to not-yet-released stories must be kept to series or, in some cases, story articles." --The Thirteenth Doctor 19:54, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Can you change it to be more specific. Because if I'm misunderstanding it, then chances are others will too. I'm actually going to bring this up in the panopticon because it is something I feel strongly about. If it is the way you say it is then basically what we're saying to the entire wiki is, if you don't want to be spoiled, don't go to the Howling, because people can write whatever spoilers they want there. And then we'd warn those users that don't want to be spoiled about discussing theories on the article talk pages.
 * Let me be clear though, I'd be fine with spoilers there if we had another place to talk about theories without the possibility of future episodes being spoiled. That's why I originally brought up the idea of putting things like "Impossible Astronaut spoilers" in the title of the page so people would know where to not specifically go. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:22, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

DWA first line query ...
Hi! I notice that that the change to the first line of the DWA pages has been changed - could we put it back to how it was? By that I mean the line that gives the magazine title Doctor Who Adventures is the only link on the page to the magazine homepage (which was why I used it in the first place) as the main author of these pages I find it very useful as a springboard to the main page rather than keeping typing in the search or back and forwards through the issues one by one. Thanks ... oh and by the way still not a category set up for Copyright Doctor Who Insider ... when you've got a minute. Thanks again The Librarian 18:54, April 16, 2011 (UTC)