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)

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)