User talk:CzechOut

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Revision as of 23:43, 30 April 2013 by SOTO (talk | contribs) (→‎May wordmark: new section)
Archive.png
 Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27

Hey all :) If you need help with anything, please ask, below. The page tends to fill up quickly, so I've got a lot of archives. I try not to archive discussions that are ongoing, but sometimes it unfortunately happens. Gimme a second shout if I've not answered your question!

This page is also available in Bulgarian, German, Spanish, French, Dutch, Hebrew and Russian.

If you've come here to request a simple, uncontroversial page move, please consider using {{speedy rename}} instead. This puts all rename requests into a neat little chart that all admin can see and work on.

Nomination

Ok, thanks, I will keep an eye on the nomination page. Shambala108 ☎ 01:34, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! Ambrose8 ☎ 04:02, April 5, 2013 (UTC)Ambrose8

Why

Why did you delete my talk page? I might take that as a personal attack 94.9.14.20 12:58, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

GOR

I will do, but it won't be able to start until the end of April - I have a lot of work to do at home, so that will have to come first. Once that is done I will spend a few days looking through for new possible achievement tracks and try and get them started at some point :) MM/Want to talk? 12:30, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Testing/Blinking/War

Is there method to the madness that you seem to be spreading throughout the wiki? --Tangerineduel / talk 16:04, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down conversations

Why do you keep closing the conversations I try to start? Other people have similar questions and join in the discussion but you cut them off because they are in the wrong forum (although you move it to a forum that is unlisted on the forum page so it's impossible to find) or because they don't concern ONE SPECIFIC question. Can you see why there is so little activity in the Reference Desk? Newcomers come and pose questions and when they return, they can't even find their original posts.

Why even bother posing questions in this wiki? Either create additional, more open forums where people can openly talk about any aspect of the series or this site give warnings in the forum description about the kind of questions you seem to find intolerable.

You couldn't make people feel more unwelcome if you tried.69.125.134.86talk to me 21:57, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel like I've been targeting you specifically, and can only assure you that this is not the case. I have responded in full at User_talk:69.125.134.86.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  04:14: Sat 06 Apr 2013
I don't feel personally targeted. It's just that here are these Forums, which are usually places designated for discussion and conversation, and if some rigid rules ("confine discussion to one specific question") are broken, the threads just disappear, banished to Forums which aren't even listed on the main Community/Forum page.
Think of the new user, you come and it looks like the logical Forum to post a question to is the Reference Desk. But when you come back to check to see if it has been answered, there is no trace of your post. I found a mention of "The Howling" but this Forum doesn't appear on the Forum list. Are there other hidden Forums where a free flow of discussion can and does occur? But if you do a search for Howling on this wiki site, it does not show you a link to the Howling Forum.
Like many fan sites, it seems like this one is designed for long-timers, people who know where everything is and the history of the site and policy decisions. As Doctor Who becomes more and more popular in the U.S., I think that assumption should be changed and the focus slightly less on the hardcore contributors and editors and more on casual users who come here just to ask a question because so many things on Doctor Who just don't make any sense at all.63.143.217.227talk to me 19:25, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

he.doctorwho

Hello! I am the new administrator on [www.he.doctorwho.wikia.com/wikia/עמוד_ראשי the Hebrew wiki] for Doctor Who and I'm trying to build a randomizer. It's hard. I wonder if you can help me. Please? Even pretty please, which is cooler. and prettier. Pretty pleases are cool. Oops. Got a bit distracted. So, can you please help me? ZivKarni3 ☎ 01:34, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
Yes, I did understand, thank you very much! I created the randomiser to our Wiki (although we still have to create a page to all the episodes we haven't yet).

And about the past tense thing - yeah, I didn't know that, so I'll know for the next time!

And THANK YOU again :)

The Doctor Who Series Wiki

Hello, my name is TheTrueDoc and I am the creator and lead admin of The Doctor Who Series Wiki (follow link to see what we do) and basically we are a fanon site where people can upload thier own stories that they have created to do with the Doctor Who universe. But we are fairly unknown at the moment and so I was wondering if you could put a link on your main page to our site, not only would it advertise us but I feel it's a great idea to hear peoples own stories. Please let me know if you are the right person for me to be talking to about this, if not could you direct me to the person who is. Thank You, I look forward to hearing back from you :) --TheTrueDoc ☎ 13:57, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand. I would say it is different because we have successfully set up a series where we organise who writes which episode and try to incorporate a story ark. As well as this, we have what we call the 'User Series' this is where we let contributors put thier own series of episodes on one page so that any one looking through can see it clearly marked. Also, we have 'Spin Offs' which are going well where you may create a series, not neccasarily about the Doctor but included in his universe (or parralel ones). We then put link on the main page to all of these stories. --TheTrueDoc ☎ 14:14, April 7, 2013 (UTC)


Yeah, that's what i disliked about those fan sites --TheTrueDoc ☎ 14:38, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Haha no it's okay! I've already done that! It works! Oh and it's okay you've been silly. As the Doctor said in The Snowmen: "What's wrong with silly?" So, It's alright :) And, I really don't want to pain in the a** (hope It's okay I censored), but how can I make a countdown? I've been trying for AGES! Can you help me please? ZivKarni3 ☎ 15:38, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Great Intelligence

Could I get your input over at Talk:Great Intelligence? Got someone insisting that speculation is not speculation and TV shows are more important than other media...--ComicBookGoddess ☎ 04:12, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Search at DWA

Thanks for the help. It's much appreciated. Hope you're feeling OK. Imamadmad (Contact me) 21:07, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

You are seriously brilliant! Thanks so much! Is there any chance they can both have a white background and have the user entered text in black (so it's really easy to notice and then read) and the automatic text be some darkish-greyish colour noticeably lighter than the black but still dark enough to easily see. I don't care about having any specific shade. Thanks so much for doing this, especially while you're doing so much work here. Again, you are brilliant, and thanks. Imamadmad (Contact me) 03:28, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Looking good. Thanks for that. And also thanks for the advice on seeking community advice. Also, if for some reason the colours ever need to be changed again on those search boxes, I'm sure it would be much easier to do it without having to come and bother you again, now the code is down with the right sections. Thanks again.

PS, sorry for not replying sooner. I was having some troubles with the internet on my laptop. Imamadmad (Contact me) 07:38, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yet another response to 'You are not an admin' ;)

Are you referring specifically to my response at Thread:127413? If so, I only directed him to the policy in question at first. I hardly consider it a crime to elaborate after specifically being asked to. Also, there aren't always admin around, and when someone, especially an IP user, asks a question, it's always best to answer swiftly. Not to mention I get bored. :P

Anyway, I guess I'll just stay away from the forums altogether in the next little while...
--SOTO ☎ 01:22, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

KO. Got it. Hopefully, there won't be any more reasons to discuss my discussion habits in the future. --SOTO ☎ 02:40, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Policy pages

Yeah, sorry about that. I've been to Tardis:Doctors often enough that I just briefly looked at it to verify it said what I remembered it said, then I didn't read any further. Shambala108 ☎ 22:29, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Redlinking thread

I do appreciate the time and effort you expended, and you're right, I should have split that message in two and posted the later half on your talk page.

And you're right, the thread did start as asking about policy. But after the first few posts I'd been clearly informed and it transitioned into a discussion about editing. As in how to edit with an understanding of the policy. There was still a heavy focus on policy and clarifications but the bulk of the discussion was on how to deal with certain situations and how to act on policy.

I understand that I use hyperbole and I do understand how that led to you thinking that I was talking about a visual problem. My frustration really built when I got answers to things that weren't problems, after I'd taken the time to clear up confusions and state unequivocally that that wasn't the problem. My real frustration was that it didn't feel like a discussion: I felt that I wasn't being listened to. I can understand how you thought I might be a bit more familiar with the biggest wiki in the world, but once I said no, that I wasn't, it was really annoying to be asked if I was sure. It might have been said jokingly, but tone doesn't translate online and combined with everything else it just exacerbated things.

Partially it's something that had really been building on the thread. I felt like you were constantly answering not quite the question I had asked. That, and the fact that I had to constantly repeat myself--I felt a little bit like I was banding my head against a wall.

When you replied to me on the thread:

"all I wanted was a yes or no", and on the other says, "I wanted to know if there were exceptions"

That's a perfect example of what I mean. I wanted to know if there were exceptions and how to apply policy in certain editing situations, but once you said yes to my question (If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked?) then I didn't need to know anymore. As far as I understood you, you were telling me that there were no exceptions. That I didn't need to better understand how to apply policy because there were never exceptions. If it could be linked it was required that it be linked. If things are truly that black and white then yes or no is really all I need.

And when I said that I only wanted a yes or no, that was because I felt like you had been piling on. You said yes, there are no exceptions and then followed it up by saying that a lot. I had asked a series of questions. And answering the later question was dependent on a particular answer to the first question. I was asking, is it A or B? And every question after that was predicated on the first answer being B. So when you went through all of my questions and basically said "it's A, it's still A, we follow policy so it's A," I didn't feel so great.

You also really confused me. Your first really long post came immediately after SOTO's fairly long post. And you said some things which seemed to contradict what SOTO said. I hadn't needed additional clarification after reading SOTO's comment, but then I read your comment and was quite a bit more confused than I had been. I'm actually still a little confused about that. I'm not sure if you and SOTO have different opinions of what policy means and on how to edit, or if you're trying to tell me the same thing but it's just not quite coming across. It would be helpful to know if you think that advice was correct. Anoted ☎ 03:22, April 12, 2013 (UTC)


I was hoping for you to weigh in on the comment specifically, but that's fine, thanks. Anoted ☎ 05:16, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Clocks

Aha, I never knew about that thread before, thanks, Czech. MrSiriusBlack ☎ 07:45, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

I think you need a vacation from this site. You seem to be on here 24/7. I'm sure it's a labor of love but no fan site should be dominated by one person and it's not healthy for you either. Delegate and log off! 64.134.43.30talk to me 22:22, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic!

I'm not sure who was responsible for naming the badges awarded in the Game of Rassilon, but may I just extend my delight and appreciation of seeing that the badge obtained for making 50 edits on Torchwood episodes is entitled the Vera Juarez' "Crispy Fried Chicken" Award (we look forward to your letters of complaint and disgust). I literally laughed out loud. And then had to explain to my coworkers why I was laughing. And then had to explain to my coworkers why I was on a Doctor Who wiki. TARDIStraveler ☎ 16:31, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Thane.jpg

I'm trying to clarify it, watch the forum for a suggestion on how to do so. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 21:54, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Added suggestion. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 21:55, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hi! I have a question for you. I've searched in the Help and Tardis files, and I can't find anything that gives guidelines for adding categories to pages. I've had to correct a few problems lately, and I'd like to be able to link to something in the edit summary. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 02:28, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate what you've done here but I have to apologize for dragging you away from your other projects for this. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 18:23, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
The two things I've seen lately are: confusion over in-universe and out-of-universe, which you covered, and the category tree, which I see that you have redlinked and will probably cover soon. Thanks again! Shambala108 ☎ 18:57, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ray gun/Energy weapon merge

Done. Though you could have just put a {{merge}} tag on it. I periodically go through and do mergers of everything that ends up in that category. Was there a reason for this one needing urgent attention? (Just curious). --Tangerineduel / talk 15:54, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I see you're messing around with the speedy merge idea (and like you I do tend to look at the various maintenance pages and go through in bulk and do mergers, moves etc).
I've tended to think of the regular merge tag as just a request tag rather than a discussion starter. I've only considered it a discussion starter if something's been started on the talk page (or mentioned on the tag).
I don't think we need a "speedy merge" tag, mostly because most mergers aren't a speedy process, but as you demonstrated not all mergers need discussions. But I'd like the merge tag to still be used as it handily collects all merger requests in the one category. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:28, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Moves

Well, I used to just add {{rename}} to the pages. I've learned since, however, that admins don't necessarily frequent Category:Articles that need renaming, so now I just perform the moves myself. To answer your first question, no, I haven't yet switched the links for all of them (what I was about to do). I suppose I could just let the bot do that...

Ummm... But you said leave you a message? On your talk page, I assume?

Anyway, are you suggesting that I just not move pages, and wait for admin with proper rename powers to do it? --SOTO ☎ 21:36, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, yes. Very efficient. That is pretty smart, actually. Of course, we'd have to clarify what {{speedy move}} means, so that users don't add it to cases that require discussion. Maybe you could eventually create T:MOVE/T:RENAME, similar to T:DELETE, a policy guiding users on when you use {{rename}} and {{speedy move}}, and, of course, which.
--SOTO ☎ 22:13, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikia Exchange

Thanks for passing that along. Imamadmad (Contact me) 11:57, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Actor pages

I've been trying to add IMDB links where possible, but I found one or two where there were too many people with one name to figure out the correct one. I'm happy to be making pages for all these actors, and have learned a lot about making such pages already. :) Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 17:48, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 18:30, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Game of Rassilon Badges

It seems that I do not have the ability to earn the "Days of the Year" Game of Rassilon badges. Is it only you that is able to earn them, or is it an error? Quest?on ☎ 01:56, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Game of Rassilon

I'll think about it and see if I can come up with something. Shambala108 ☎ 04:37, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Trolling at Tenth Doctor

There's a case of vandalism happening now over at Tenth Doctor. Someone keeps replacing the picture with the word 'Troll'. I reverted it three times before realizing he's not going to stop, so I thought I'd let an admin know. TARDIStraveler ☎ 11:24, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Question about Infobox Individual...

I'm a little unclear. In my sandbox I've been working on an article for Stemp, a character from The Elite, but I was unclear on one thing. Since her character's only on audio, at first I thought I should put her actress in "main voice actor." But then, looking at {{Infobox Individual}}, it said that main voice actor should be used only if it's different to main actor, which made me think I should put her actress at main actor, but that said main actor was only for television. Which do I use? Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 12:28, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Question about T:ITALICS

I'm pretty clear on T:ITALICS, but I have one question. What do we do about documentaries? I didn't see this mentioned on the page. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 13:23, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

{{Speedy rename}}

I added {{speedy rename}} to Sunday (since we also have Sunday (day) and Sunday City (we could make a dab page!), but it's not appearing at T:SPEEDY. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, but something's telling me that something must be a little off...

Also, wouldn't it make the template easier to use and more user-friendly if, instead of having to write in:

{{speedy rename
|new = new name
|links = yes/no
|user = user name
}},

we could just write:

{{speedy rename|new name|yes/no|user name}}

--SOTO ☎ 17:56, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I get the template difficulties. I suppose I'll just have to memorise the variables... :/
Anyway, on Sunday, if you don't consider such a case as "speedy," then you should probably change the wording at T:SPEEDY, as the case with Sunday is definitely "a clear case of moving according to our naming and disambiguation policies."
Oh, and the table appears to be working now. Speaking of which, what use do you have of the template? As an admin, you can just rename it in less clicks... --SOTO ☎ 22:02, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Untitled picture question

i am not sure how to go about crediting screen captures that are then uploaded to the info bar. you had stated i was doing it wrong/not doing it, i guess i need some help... :) Roi Simcha ☎ 21:29, April 21, 2013 (UTC)pics

you had stated that i was missing the credit info (belongs to BBC) from my photos, i was wondering if i needed* to put in additional stuff besides the "bbc screenshot" photo type.

  • i was missing it on my early submissions

Roi Simcha ☎ 07:32, April 22, 2013 (UTC)


Hide redirect

To be perfectly honest, I didn't consider the 'animal skin' meaning of hide when I created the redirect. I just figured that the verb is not article-worthy. Next time, I will employ a dictionary! :D
--SOTO ☎ 02:06, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Gethin Woods

Thanks for directing me to that policy; I never noticed it. Just to be clear, if the only source for a piece of information is a video interview, then I just shouldn't include a source? Incidentally, this particular video is now uploaded, and is the BTS vid for Hide. Would it make any sense to somehow include the video in (or on the sidebar of) the article, as you seem to be implying?
--SOTO ☎ 00:36, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

You deleted Painting of Clara-merchandise.jpeg, and I'm not entirely clear on why. It was under 250px which I can fix, but you said that there were other problems? I'm not entirely clear on the jpeg thing, T:ICC says that they are fine. Was there anything else? Anoted ☎ 00:26, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're getting at. There really is no in-universe use for it because it can't be considered cannon, but if there was a way for it to be considered canon (would the actual prop count, if it were sold or on display) it's still in the shape of a portrait, being that it's, well, a portrait. I find that insanely frustrating. Is there a reason behind that? Images can come from books as well as tv, are those allowed to be in portrait alignment in-universe? Also, is there a particular reason that some pages don't have an "in-universe" or "real world" tag on them? Anoted ☎ 00:58, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Redirect question

Hey, quick question. Can I just delete a redirect, or will that break something on the wiki? I need to create a page for the character "Face-Painter", but it currently redirects to the story Face-Painter (short story). Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 01:48, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

he.doctorwho template question

Hello, and it's me again! So, I was editing my Language's Doctor Who Wiki and I was trying to make this template for he.doctor who, and I couldn't make it (our template has bugs - if we doesn't fill out one of the parameters, it doesn't "go away", but stay with his code, like, if we don't fill out the "Subject" parameter, then it stays like that: "Subject: {{{Subject}}}" and it's really annoying because we have to give up some parameters (such as "script" and "adapted from") or make separate templates to CDs, TV stories and so on. So, I copied the code of the template but I got lost in it and confused and ugh. So I was thinking - maybe you can help! So, can you? ~pappy face~ ZivKarni3 ☎ 19:34, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here's the link. As you can see, it doesn't work, like in Nav=0 and all this stuff (the image too).

ZivKarni3 ☎ 13:42, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Is there anybody home? If you need the template in here, so this is it: Infobox Story. Can you help me? ZivKarni3 ☎ 11:44, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

category recursion

Yeah, I noticed that a few minutes ago. I made Artists from the Real World a subcat of Human Artists because it wasn't already. I'm in the middle of fixing the dupes. Anoted ☎ 00:04, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

John Banks?

An IP user, specifically 81.132.1.71, edited the page John Banks and added info that I couldn't find a source for, so I undid the edit. Just now he said:

Since I last checked and re-edited this page less than 24 hours ago, it has unfortunately been edited again and the inaccuracies I had eliminated have re-appeared. John Banks.81.132.1.71

On the one hand, impersonators do exist, but on the other hand, if he is John Banks, this could be adding valuable info to the wiki. What should we do in this situation? (I will add that the info he added wasn't just obvious vandalism, it was info that could be correct given the stories he added the info to.) Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 18:40, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

All right. I don't currently have any of the CD liners for the info he added, but if I ever do get them, I'll get back to you. :) Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 19:38, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I've already verified all the stuff that was there before the IP user edited. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 20:27, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
Fairly certain. I will check again later today. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 20:34, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
I've actually found a few that are missing. Adding now... Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 20:34, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Categories on mobile

Hi there. The main reason that I haven't been editing much is because I had to send my computer to the shop (again — I'm starting to consider a new computer...). I can't create logos or finish up my day of the year project (which requires many tabs to be open, an impossible task on my phone). The problem is: I can't figure out a way to get rid of categories. In the category box, you can only add categories, and, on the side of the edit window, the erase button doesn't work on my iPhone (or an iPad, for that matter) on both Chrome and Safari (on the Oasis scheme — so that I can actually edit) Is there perhaps a way to view all the categories in the text, and edit that way?

I'm currently adding category:royalty from the real world to pages, and deleting category:people from the real world and category:human royalty to avoid recursion. Except I can't delete the categories!!

Also, is there anything you can do about stub/Wikipedia tabs on Wikimobile? They interrupt the text by actually appearing as pictures within the text. They also vary in location, as Tardis:Stub#How to mark an article as a stub is not well kept.
--SOTO ☎ 20:24, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

That was the most in-depth response I've ever received. Thanks! I searched through Preferences vigorously, so I'm surprised I didn't notice that... I don't suppose there's a way to get it to always load on the Wikia skin?
Also, I am planning on purchasing a new computer sometime today or tomorrow. Meaning I can get the logos done. So can you please give me direction at the 50th logo thread, so that I can finish Five immediately? Thanks.
--SOTO ☎ 21:47, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
In trying to publish this response, I had another problem: an edit conflict. I wasn't able to copy just a portion of my text, and this had to scroll all the way down manually and rewrite it. :/ In short, it's practically impossible to edit properly on a mobile device.
--SOTO ☎ 21:47, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, its nice to meet you! :)

Thanks its nice to meet you :) Rosiesievers20 ☎ 21:34, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Re:User page blanked

I see your point. I will use sandboxes to experiment in the future. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 11:43, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

orphan bot question

Does the bot update Special:Lonely Pages, or Category:Please add to this page in other articles? Is it better that I work from one or the other? Anoted ☎ 17:51, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of orphans, is a transclusion enough to keep something from being orphaned? Anoted ☎ 17:55, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
54 was on the lonely pages list even though it had a transclusion. I did link it a few more times for good measure, but that's what prompted the question. It seems that years are the type of pages to be in this position not-infrequenly.
Also, when un-orphaning, I don't actually go in order. I click on pages that I know I can un-orphan or just ones that sound cool...that still good? Also, Special:Lonely Pages, how frequently does it update? I thought it was once a day-do you tend to update Category:Please add to this page in other articles more frequently than that? Anoted ☎ 18:34, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

food and beverage categories

I really want to go through the food and beverages category pages and fix them up. Write pages for the cats, categorise the articles properly, work on some of the articles and write missing articles. However this is a place where the extensive subcats are very confusing. I'm not really sure why they are all there. Pickled onions can be a condiment from the real world, but also a vegetable from the real world. Lasanga is a pasta from the real world, and a meal from the real world. Processed foods overlap with multiple categories, sweets are a subcat of processed foods, dairy products overlap with sweets and drinks, and so on. Every single subcat has articles which are or can be in another subcat and in a lot of cases one cat isn't obviously the dominant. Some of the subcats are particularly problematic; cats where almost every article in the cat can just as easily be in another one. From my reading of policies this seems like a problem of vast over-categorisation and using categories instead of writing articles. A lot of these categories aren't fully supported by the Whoniverse. My instinct is to minimise the number of subcats and delete the ones that aren't helpful to the organising process, but it's a big undertaking and I wanted to touch base with you before I started. Anoted ☎ 01:35, April 27, 2013 (UTC)


Category change proposal

There isn't a lot of category deletion. It mostly involves renaming categories and combining categories. My overall goal is more precision. A lot of the changes involve setting up fully separate botanical and culinary categories. There are only a few articles that don't have this problem. For example, salt, is clearly categorised in terms of it's culinary usage and it's proper mineral definition. But this is a massive problems for almost every food derived from plants. So most of my changes revolve around creating two clearly separate category trees. This requires a few changes to botany categories, but the food categories really need to be overhauled. Here's an overview of what I was planning to do:

Botany changes

I'd completely separate botany and culinary definitions. So in botany, Fruit would be a subcategory of Flowering plants, and mint would be in Flowering plants. In culinary, Fruit would be a topcat, and mint would be in Herbs and Spices. Mushrooms would be in the botanical category Fungi, but the culinary category Vegetables. Black pepper would be in the botanical category Fruit and in the culinary category Herbs and Spices.

This would involve renaming Spices to Herbs and Spices, and combining the categories Nuts and Legumes and Grains and Pasta into Legumes and Grains. This would also involve renaming (and possibly deleting) some botanical categories. This would also involve writing proper category pages for these botany and food categories. It might also involve writing and editing some articles we don't currently have.

Meat

I'd add the category meat. So the category tree would look like this:

  • Food
  • Meat (already has an overarching article) - would include articles like cash cow, chiggocks and sneg
  • real world

Items within meat I'd put in proper zoological categories, and I'd subdivide the Meat category in culinary terms. I do not believe that this requires any changes to zoological categories.

Beverages

Rename Non-Alcoholic beverages to Beverages. Rename Food and Beverages to Food. Make Alcoholic beverages a subcat of Beverages and Beverages a subcategory of food. The category tree would look like:

  • Food
  • Beverages
  • Beverages from the real world
  • Alcoholic beverages
  • Alcoholic beverages from the real world

Other changes

I'd also change the Diary category to Eggs and Dairy. I'd limit the meal category to things that could only be described as meals, like Chop suey, Fish custard, Kedgeree. Scrambled eggs and sandwiches would not be in the meals category. I'd get rid of the Processed foods subcat Sweets, and I'd limit the Processed foods category to things that by their nature were Processed. I'd also write the category page up clarifying what does and doesn't belong there. I'd draw the distinction between Processed foods and Preserved foods. Jam and pickles are preserved, not processed. Let me know what you think. This involves more renaming than deleting. You're right, it's a lot of structural changes. I'm really just trying to make things more coherent and fully separate botany, zoology and food. Anoted ☎ 04:01, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Category language

Also, I don't fully understand why Category pages do not need to use Britspeak. The guides state this but never explain why, or what would be used instead. Anoted ☎ 04:39, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Problem with an image

I tried to replace the image at The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil) with a 250px version, but when uploaded, the image was somehow squashed. Do you know what could've caused this? Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 16:13, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Shouting

Just to let you know that this edit by you was tagged as 'Shouting' by the AbuseFilter. I don't know if this is intended behaviour - it tags when all caps are used, so I suspect it tagged because you used {{PAGENAME}}.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  21:27, 27 April 2013

Oh, so that's why my edit didn't go through the first time. (I'm having a few connection issues, so when it didn't submit the first time, I just assumed it was my connection again.)
Well, as long as you were aware, that's all I was concerned about.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  21:34, 27 April 2013
I think it explains it just fine - but you may want to have a heading in larger text so it obvious. I only missed it because I was having technical issues, but it may have been more obvious if there was some sort of heading saying the edit has been blocked or whatnot so it catches the eye a bit more.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  08:48, 28 April 2013

Naming categories proposal

I think I was aware that categories can't be renamed but thanks for the reminder. When I refer to renaming a category I'm referring to the end result of creating a new category, moving articles from one category to another, and deleting the original category. Most of these cases don't involve editing that many articles, so I can easily do this grunt work, no need to involve a bot. The majority of the work that's required is actually in terms of putting articles in categories that they aren't in yet, not in moving them from one to another. But yes, I'm aware that I'd need you to do deletions, and even if I didn't, I'm aware that it's a large undertaking and that I should run it by someone first.

  1. I was reading category guidelines and the guideline said that the text of a category article didn't have to be in britspeak. I didn't get "britspeak isn't enforced on the text of category pages" from that, I got, "huh? what should they be written in?" from that. The distinction of not necessary, or rather, not enforced was not clear to me.
  2. The legume thing...you're right. It should stay the way it is. I still think that pasta shouldn't be in a category title though. Either just grain, or grain and cereal? I'm thinking about it in terms of writing the category. If pasta was in the category title, we'd basically have a large portion of the text from the pasta article in the text of the Grains and pasta category. Sure, we can lump pasta with grains, they're often located near each other in stores, but we can lump pasta with baked goods just as easily. More easily actually because pasta has more in common with bread than it does rice. At the moment, we only have pasta and lasagna, and lasagna is really a food made with pasta, not a type of pasta.
  3. I know that animals are not necessarily meat. I've been keeping a list of animals where the article specifies that they are considered food but that aren't yet in a food category as well as a list of animals which are frequently eaten in the real world but the article makes no mention of edibility. We also have cases where we have separate articles for the food and the animal, and I've got a list of those as well. Jellied eels are the food, eels are the animal. Eels shouldn't be in the food category unless their non-jellied edibility gets discussed in the Whoniverse.
  4. I'd divide up the meat category if there was a good reason. If we had enough fish that a fish subcat made sense for example. Or enough pork products that a pig category made sense. Like bacon, ham, sausage, spam...oh wait, that's more than the number of obviously edible fish. This isn't the first thing I'd do, I'd wait to see what the category looks like once the proper things were removed and added. I'd also probably eventually write a Breakfast article and maybe also a category for breakfast foods and foods served at tea time. But that's not at the top of my priority list for things to do with food.
  5. The advantages to making Beverage a subcategory of food is that the current way of doing things defines all beverages in terms of alcohol. Milk isn't defined as a beverage from the real world, it's defined as a beverage from the real world that does not contain alcohol. And even though all beverages are in a beverage subcategory, they're defined by the top level category Food. We bother to separate beverages from food but if I want to see all non-real world beverages I have to go to two subcategories of Foods and Beverages. Now a lot of this could be fixed by creating the category Beverages and making the appropriate real-world and alcoholic subcategories. The changing of the name "Foods and beverages" to "Foods" simply reduces redundancy a little and makes the category articles easier to write.
  6. We organise some foods in terms of what they are when they aren't being eaten. Chicken is a food and an animal. Salt is a food and a mineral. Artichokes? A food, but not a plant. This probably happened because people think about the chicken with feathers walking around as separate from the chicken on their plate. People think of the salt that season the chicken with as one of many uses of salt. But vegetable means the same as plant to them. They're those leaves that you pick, wash and eat. I don't think it's an accident that someone bothered to add Fruit as a subcategory of Botany, but didn't bother to do that with the vegetables.
  7. We have a lot of foods (most of them plants but some animals) that are organised only in terms of culture. If you randomly land on a page for an edible plant chances are that if you follow that subcat up, you will never encounter the words plant, or botany. I think that that's a problem. Right now we have the Fruit category hanging around under botany, we have Mushroom categorised as fungi and we have Raspberry and Mint categorised as plants from the real world. That's it. We have over 20 articles about foods that are plants that have no botanical classification. Cabbage, potato, tea, truffle, cocoa bean, rice and more. Most of the articles for these food items mention that they are plants, or talk about the growing process in some way. And we do not classify them as plants. Full stop.
  8. To me, this isn't something that we're waiting around for Doctor Who to tell us. Doctor Who doesn't need to tell us that water is an inorganic substance. We have a real world classification for water and we apply it.
  9. There are also a fair number of food categories that mean something in terms of plant classification. When edible plants aren't categorised as both a plant and food, the category can mean more than it intends to. When the same words mean two different things depending on the context and we don't bother to define the article in both contexts we end up lazily adding meaning that we don't intend. A herb (used to cook) is not necessarily an herbaceous plant.
  10. Fruits are plants. I want to remove the Fruit categories from botany and add some sort of plant category to the articles in that cat. Right now, this is simply incorrect. Fruits are not a different part of botany akin to fungi.
  11. Whether we say it's plant or flowering plant isn't that big of a deal. It's one possible way to divide up the category plants, but it isn't necessary to my plan of categorising foods as both plant and food. I think the best would be something like this:

Tree fruits are fruits that grow on trees, not trees themselves. The categorisation I'm proposing would keep these separate. We could also whip up some stubs for actual tree articles so Lime tree could be categorised as a Tree, Lime (fruit) could be categorised as fruit, and both trees and fruits would be considered plants. I think I've answered all of your questions. Let me know what you think. Anoted ☎ 02:16, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Why aren't the discussions I archived showing up in User talk:Anoted/Archive 1?? Anoted ☎ 02:57, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Ummm...I'm confused. I did select a few sections to archive the first time. See this diff. It did delete them from my talk page, but it didn't put them anywhere. If I didn't select then why did those conversation disappear from my talk page? And also, while I like that it's fixed (thank you!), a lot of the stuff in archive 2 I wasn't prepared to archive yet. And I probably would have added it to archive 1, not create a second archive. Can you help with any of this? Anoted ☎ 03:24, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with adjusting the archives manually if I can auto-archive in the future. I'd do it, but I don't want to mess things up again, or worse. I really don't understand what went wrong the first time. Heck, for all I know I really don't understand how auto-archiving works period. The help pages don't really go into detail. It just says that it's really easy and to follow the instructions after clicking the archive button. Only, there are no instructions. I figured out the whole selecting thing, but it didn't work, or I did something wrong, or...I don't know. Also, it's probably irrelevant but why the edit summaries "Shouting"? Anoted ☎ 03:52, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
"What's pretty clear, though, is that diffs on /Archive 1 establish you only successfully brought over enough characters to establish the {{ArchPage}} note".
Um, no, I had to add the {{ArchPage}} myself. Manually. Sections disappeared off of my talk page, but Archive 1 didn't exist. I thought I had to manually add {{ArchPage}} to get things going.
Everytime I archive in the future it will create a new archive? Is there a way to archive sections every x number of days to the same archive? Anoted ☎ 05:00, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Needing sources

Your response to #8 has me really confused. Should I be removing the category Mineral from the page Salt? And changing the first sentence which defines salt as a mineral? Because Four to Doomsday never defines salt as a mineral, we do. Doctor Who never tells us that water is an inorganic substance. It's not like we need the category, we have it a food category and a currency category and could easily add a weapon category. The way I see things we add things all the time that are never outright said, based on our understanding of what we're seeing and hearing. When we see potatoes on the planet Earth in our time we assume that they are the same as what's in our pantry unless we're told otherwise. When Jackie Tyler talks about dishes she cooks we assume that they are the dishes we know. You said somewhere on the forum that "for a wiki to be useful, words must have meaning." We assume as little as possible and try not to draw conclusions but we do assume. Otherwise real-world perspective pages would be all that we had. Following the source carefully is incredibly important, but if we can say nothing that we aren't directly told we then we have to get rid of most of the wiki. You might not be bothered at all by #7, but it's a problem for me is because of #6 (our current organisational structure). You say we don't so this stuff unless it's absolutely necessary and that it's not necessary for foods that are plants. So then why have we categorised Anchovy as Earth fish? We're never told that they are Earth fish. We don't see them swimming around. The answer that seems obvious to me is that even though Doctor Who doesn't tell us that Anchovy is a fish we know that Anchovy is a fish. Doctor Who doesn't tell us that tea or garlic are plants, but they're plants. The opening sentence of the tea page says "Tea was a drink made from the dried leaves of the tea plant, created by brewing the leaves in hot water." Doctor Who never tells us that. At most, we see tea being steeped. We're the ones who ascribe the words "dried leaves" to describe the little floaty things. We're probably also are ascribing the words "brew" and "hot water." Maybe we see water being heated for tea or maybe someone mentions that their tea is too hot. But if those things never happen do we not mention that tea is a hot drink? You're response just has me beyond lost. Are we currently over-categorising by applying terms that we haven't been outright told? When an article says that tea is made "with the dried leaves of a tea plant" are we assuming too much? Should that be changed? If not, why would putting cabbage in a botanical category be a problem? I'm putting the rest of my reply in another section because it seems to me that this conversation about the extent to which we rely on Who as a source should be discussed on it's own. I either need a massive education or there's a lot of confusion happening and I think it's the later and I think it's happening because we're discussing to much at once. Anoted ☎ 08:01, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

My theory and other things

I think you are misunderstanding my "separation theory". I was simply trying to say that I wanted foods to be organised both in terms of their culinary usage and in terms of their scientific origin. Imagine dumping every food that was a plant into the plant category. Then going through creating subcategories that make sense scientifically. Then do that with animals. Then dump all food articles into the food category and make subcategories that make culinary sense. Once that's done every article that can would have a science category and a food category. Now there is currently one category overlap, Fruits. The process of going through and categorising these things separately makes it obvious that not everything that is fruit by botanical classification is fruit by culinary classification. We can deal with this by creating two sets of fruit categories Category:Fruit (food) and Category:Fruit (plant). But that is complicated and confusing and we'd have to put a lot of articles in both categories. We can handle this by coming up with alternate categories but there aren't ones that are as good. The best solution is taking the couple of articles that are technically fruits (walnut, cocoa bean) and putting them in the general plant category. The separation theory is really just a way of thinking about it, approaching the problem. Approach science and food separately and see what we get. See if there is any overlap or problems and come up with a solution where all edible plants and animals are categorised in terms of science and food in whatever way is functionally best. Separation was really just referring to how I was planning to look at the situation. My theory was really just that I thought that we should categorise edible plants both as plants and as food. That we should categorise edible animals both as animals and as food. I think my using the word separate implied something I didn't mean. Other points:

  1. I was referring to T:SPELL. It says that policy doesn't apply to (amoung other things) pages with a category prefix. Which should have been clear enough but I was stuck wondering, "then what does apply? what spelling should I use?".
  2. Why combine fruits and vegetables into one category? Because of tomato? That doesn't make sense. We already say on the page that while it's technically a fruit it's perceived by many to be a vegetable. Isn't that enough? I'm not sure it really matters what category it's in, and besides it's one article. We could easily put it in both-that wouldn't cause recursion issues. We have other foods that are in more than one food category. This seems to be a case of 6 of one to half a dozen of the other--hardly worth combining two categories over.
  3. I think you misunderstood what I meant about in regards to pig. I was suggested that one possibility was a subcategory of Meat be Pig. It would have the pages bacon, sausage, spam, AND pig, boar, wild boar. My point was simply that we have a lot of pages for edible animals that are considered pigs as well as food products made from pigs. More than enough for their own category. It's not necessary, they can all be a part of the category Meat, no subcat required. I was just trying to point out one way that we could create a meat subcategory.
  4. No, I don't think we should split foods up by meal. But breakfast is a meal that's referred to a lot in Doctor Who. It certainly needs a page. Depending on how much I found, I thought I might create a category to go with it. Yes, it's subjective, which is why I wouldn't be using my judgment. If something is referred to as a breakfast food in Doctor Who it would go in the Breakfast foods category. It's not a necessary category, all of the foods in it would be in another food category, but I thought it might be interesting. There's been a fair amount of discussion in Doctor Who about breakfast foods. The article breakfast (when I get around to writing it) should suffice and I wouldn't even consider making a category until the page was written. I thought once the categories were properly sorted and the page was written it might be an interesting category to have. But I was never considering sorting all foods by meal and I'm several steps away from even thinking about the category or what might go in it. Completely a question for another day.
  5. Botany is the study of plants, fungi, algae and viruses. So fungi is exactly where it should be, a sub-cat of botany not of plants. Trees, fruits, etc should be a sub-cat of plants.
  6. I know that the text on category pages isn't an article but a description. I was searching for something better and ended up using the work article because it seemed to me to obviously refer to the text on the page. The words text and description seem obvious but at the time I was massively blanking!
  7. I'm not really hung up on precise botanical categories or precise science categories. Botanically speaking root has a much narrower definition than how I was proposing it be used. I'm thinking in terms of functionality here, that's really all.
  8. I see your point about the flower category, which is why I originally proposed flowering plants. The downside of flowering plants is that it's really broad. It includes all of our fruits and other things as well. In re seeds, too precious? What do you mean? Not that it's a great suggestion--it's really diminishing marginal utility. We can just as easily stick articles like rice in the overarching plant category:

We could probably come up with more subcategories but I don't see it as necessary. This creates a new subcategory for plants and moves fruit and trees into their proper places. Which really should be done soon I think. Trees not being a subcat of plants has led to both categories being using on a lot of pages. In this category scenario would you have any trouble putting lime into the fruit category instead of the tree category? I've been spending a fair amount of time sorting things out in Sandboxes. Things that we've agreed on or that seem commonsense are in this to-do list. If there's anything on that list that you think needs to be discussed, let me know. Otherwise it can be put into action.

I also have a related question about precisely what is real world. The article meat covers all meat. Most meats are real world foods, but meat from a Cash Cow isn't real world. It's an article about both real-world and non real-world things. And then there's seaweed which is about a non-real world thing that is basically just a living version of the real-world thing. Category wise, are these real world or not? Do we add a "behind the scenes" section to seaweed with a bit about real world seaweed? Anoted ☎ 08:01, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate stuff on article talk page

Not sure how to handle this but Talk:Trenzalore is a mess. There's a section on Men in Black, which makes no sense. Almost everything on the talk page is speculation, theory, and worst, 50th anniversary spoilers/rumors. A large portion of the page was deleted before (not sure why). The talk page is a clear problem but I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to archive the discussion so far because most of it is vastly inappropriate but I wasn't sure if it was ok to just delete it so... Also, is there a place in the forum to ask for help. If something isn't working, or there's a problem (like this), or something else? The board descriptions don't seem to include this and I haven't seen any threads like this. Anoted ☎ 12:36, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Alydon.jpg

Can I know exactly why you deleted file:Alydon.jpg? You claim that it's a "4:3 images stretched to widescreen," but I can assure you that it is by no means stretched. I cropped it a tiny bit, but I left it intact. In the past, Wikia has stretched my images, though, so is that possibly it? I'm kinda confused here. --SOTO ☎ 00:25, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

So what's your rationale behind deleting mine and the original one, especially since you claim that the original wasn't stretched? How better can I upload the picture?
--SOTO ☎ 01:13, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's what I did the first time. Exactly. Clearly, I did something wrong. --SOTO ☎ 01:34, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Moderation Request

comicbookgoddess and I are having a disagreement on the Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS (TV story) page. She is reverting my edits unilaterally without waiting for any other discussion. Can you please moderate the issue? I will abide by whatever you decide. Thank you. Whosethebestwho ☎ 08:13, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Semantic mediawiki parameters

Does this wiki not have the parameters name or surname? I was playing around trying to see if I could use SMW to create lists by name. I was doing some disambig work and thought this could be of use. So I whipped this up, but name and surname parameters seem to be being ignored. It occurred to me that we might not have them. Oh, here's the code I was playing with, in case it makes a difference: 

{{#ask:[[Category:Individuals]]OR[[Category:Real world people]]
 [[name::>Joh]][[name::<Jon]]
 |format = ul
}}

Thanks. Anoted ☎ 09:57, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's totally me. I'm a sock puppet. I know all the ins and outs of Wikia and spent all that time trying to understand Redlinking policy as a way to throw everyone off. And just so no one would catch on, I spent the majority of a day typing and wikilinking category names into a sandbox. I could have totally used DPL or SMW but figured it was worth the hours I wasted doing it the long way just so no one would notice my wiki prowess.
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this is just a really bad joke. That the intonation got lost online. Because it's really just too insulting. Maybe I'm a programmer. Maybe I have a wikia account for each wiki I belong to because I hate telling people what my other interests are. Maybe I've been editing this wiki for years with various IPs and only recently created an account.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I must have a hidden wiki past because I asked for help with SMW. Is the idea of my spending some time reading help pages so out of this world? Is the concept of my understanding the fair majority of what I read that shocking? Should I announce to the world that I'm the brightest mind of my generation because I found SMW after only a month?
I've tried to tone down my anger here, but I may not have done the best job. It's not just that you asked, the way you asked sucked about as much as it could without obviously attacking me. I learned my lesson, I'll refrain from asking you for help in the future. Anoted ☎ 12:20, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


a reply: multiple accounts and other such stuff
  • The local help file links to the wiki for SMW, which has some great help pages.
  • One of the reasons I like categories is precisely because I'm a new user. To me, categories are one of the primary ways of organising knowledge. Doctor Who is complicated and twisty and categories are how I keep things straight. Writing new articles is easier if it's easy to access all of the related knowledge is easy to find. They're also really important because the search function on wikia sucks. Massively sucks.
Now for the big issue:
      I get why you want users to announce multiple accounts. They may not be intending to use the accounts to edit on the same wiki. They may not intend to use multiple accounts to push an agenda. But if they have them and no one knows, and a situation arises, then what's the harm? No one will know. It's easy, perhaps too easy. Telling users that this is an issue and asking them to take the proactive step of linking accounts does make sense. It enforces the idea that there's someone to catch you if you screw up, whether it's on accident or not. But that's the only part of this policy that makes sense. This policy doesn't let people start with a clean slate. And the due diligence of demanding an answer from a user who has been informed that they should link accounts and hasn't, seems like a particularly bad move.
      If I was a bad editor in the past, or just got into some pretty bad disagreements and want to start over then I want to start over. Having to announce who I was doesn't let me do that. This policy makes wiping the slate clean impossible, because users either have to announce their past, or their first action on this wiki is a lie. And when you start out by lying you start out by going downhill and that's a terrible way to start.
      Now I get the motivation behind this. We don't have clean slates IRL, not really, and we want things to work the same way online. If someone screws up with me IRL and wants to start over I'm still aware of how they screwed up. But trying to apply this principal to the internet makes no freaking sense. We want to be able to judge people based on their histories, but really, we, can't. Because here's the thing: my next edit will good or bad regardless of how many edits I've made. If you think that the way I want to reshape the categories is bad, then judge me on that. If it's good, it doesn't make any difference whether it's coming from someone new, or who's been a long-time good editor, or who's been banned for years.
      For all of the focus on intentions, they're really irrelevant in terms of end product. They matter for interpersonal dealings but not at all in terms of the quality of topside edits. If I am making good edits, then those edits are good, whether I've been banned before or not. And they are good whether or not I'm trying for a clean slate or just want lots of good edits under my belt for a future evil plan. How does demanding an answer make this situation better? It doesn't, and it could make things worse.
      Say I had been banned in a past life and was coming here and making good, well-intentioned edits. If I'm here to start over and make positive edits then you're forcing me to lie. But what if I'm not? Say that my good edits are all a part of a dark plan so that 6 months from now I can strike fear into the heart of my enemies. How does asking me to lie help things? Because that's what you're doing. It's not like I'm going to give up my evil plan just because asked for the truth. So I'm stick to my evil plan all the way. What's a lie but a drop in the bucket. But why bother to make me lie?
      I mentioned this one but it's worth restating. Intentions do not equal outcome. Maybe I came here to make good edits for that future evil plan and I end up getting engaged, enjoying editing. So I decide to abandon my evil plan and just keep on editing the way I have been. Isn't this a more likely scenario if I've been welcomed without suspicion, without hostility? If I can can mention my past without reprisal? I might come to this with hostile intentions masked, but if I'm treated to a start free from any suspicion or hostility, then maybe I never act hostile. Maybe those bad intentions slip away as I find myself enjoying the wiki and the other editors.
      Intentions aside, if you just focus on the reality of the situation, the whole asking bit never makes sense. If you ask someone to let you know if they have more than one account by adding this information to their userpage and they don't, there are two options: they don't have another account or they do and they're hiding it. Demanding an answer doesn't really get you anything. And at the very least you run the serious risk of alienating new users. You're also not setting up the most conducive environment. I seriously considered just walking away because who the hell wants to deal with this crap? I'm giving my time; working to make this wiki better.
      If you think I'm hurting the wiki, then that's one thing. Go ahead and stop me. Ban me and when I start over with a new account ban that one too. But if I'm not hurting things then what's the problem? It just makes infinitely more sense not to push this issue. You act like banning someone actually kicks them off the wiki. That's not what happens. This is an open system. You ban someone and they can get right back on two seconds later. The real affect of banning someone is the loss of identity. They start over, brand spanking new. New name. No connections. No history. They have nothing to show for the time that they've spent. They don't have a full edit log, or kudos on their talk page. They don't have badges or a ranking. They can't point to something they are proud of and say "I did that". Well they can, but the people to whom that matters and means something, the people who recognise the effort involved, are no longer listening. They've said "we don't want to hear from you". That doesn't actually prevent someone from speaking, but it does prevent them from using that voice, that identity. If they want to speak they have to shed their old identity completely. That's the real affect of what banning someone does.
      I get that sock puppetry is a real problem and that none of this is personal, but there has to be a better way. It's not just the approach, though it is that. It's also that I don't like giving personal information out. Any personal information out. Part of this is because I hate the way that the internet makes it super easy to stalk anyone, but part of it is that I'm an intensely private person, particularly in areas where I just don't see how my personal life relates. When there isn't a reason to provide personal information then it's done purely for the purposes of sharing. And I don't like sharing over the internet and frankly, I don't really want to share with you. I know nothing about you other your editing of this wiki. So I'd like to just stick to that and leave it there. I don't even like telling you that I'm a private person. Because to me, it's so unnecessary. I get that it is for you. That you need to ask questions and get answers, but I don't see any logical benefit to this whole exercise.
      All that being said, my opinions of this exercise aren't what you're looking for and probably won't make a difference to anyone. People seem super entrenched in this whole SOCK mindset. And you have demanded answers from me, so here they are, take them as you will. I don't think I have another wikia account. I've certainly used wikia for much longer than I've been editing (as a reader). I'm certain that I've posted somewhere on wikia in the past. But I don't know if I ever bothered to make an account. Could I have? Yeah, I could have had more than one, it wouldn't be terribly surprising. Might I have edited with it? Well if I had an account and if I stayed logged into it long enough then I almost certainly did. I find misspellings and blatant errors very distracting and I have the bad habit of editing as I read. Can I give you a wikia account name? No. I'd probably have saved the information somewhere, but there's no guarantee that I'd still have it. And I'm going to go looking for an account I may have had at some point in the past for the sole purpose of linking to it on here.
      I'll will tell you here and now that I am not ok with this whole listing other wikia accounts requirement that seems to materialised out of thin air. I have no plans to create another account and edit with it, and I'd certainly never create another account and edit the same wiki with it. If I got into another topic like...idk, wine, I would probably create a second account and maintain two separate accounts. Both for privacy and in order to help compartmentalise. Aliens and alcohol aren't the best combination. Certainly the Doctor and wine is a terrible one.
      I have been seriously considering creating another wikia account not for editing, but because I don't like having to share my interests with people. I'd like to be able to read, maybe comment in some forums and have that be separate. That's how reading and forums work outside of wikia. If I read a book on my shelf the book doesn't know the last book I read; and the author certainly doesn't know the last book I read. Neither are aware of the conversation I had talking about how another book is better. And I take that philosophy into the interwebs. If I post on a Doctor Who forum talking about how it's my favourite show, no one on the forum has any way to know that I just posted the exact same thing on a forum for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And I like that. Conversations should really only be privy to the people in the conversation. Having a conversation online means that you need to be aware that people can hear you and they may not be in visible earshot. That's the effect of storing a conversation, and it's a sacrifice that I'm aware of and ok with. The problem I have is with this concept of storing every conversation and then linking them all together. That's really creepy when you think about it. And creating another wikia account in order to keep my other interests private would be kinda pointless if I then went and linked it. And while I tend not to reuse usernames I do occasionally, so I would never link a wikia account that I did not create and name with the intention of linking to this one. If you want to ban me because of this then that's fine, I'm ok with that. I'm not planning on breaking the spirit of this rule, but I'm not committed to following the letter of it either. I should note here that T:SOCK currently only requires people to divulge alternative editing accounts. It also doesn't make mention of wikia accounts not in use on the TARDIS wiki. You asked for a lot more than the policy requires, and you're treating it as though it's policy.
      This whole thing has just left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The lack of proper logic baffles me. I don't like being put on the spot and having things demanded of me, and I really don't like having to reveal details about myself for a judgment from up high. Never mind that they are little details or that I haven't done anything wrong or that just replying with the answer "none" would have only taken a word; I don't like the process. This is a very ugly side of wiki and I wasn't thrilled with the your attitude to begin with. I tried to ignore how very uncomfortable I was with some of the things you said to people on the forums and move past it and work productively with you but I guess some things have a way of coming back up. If you hadn't demanded an answer I would have probably done the smart thing and gone to work on an article and deal with other things for a while and only replied to you once I was less bothered by this whole thing. Anoted ☎ 19:43, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Illegal redirect

Could you delete Power Play? It redirects to Power Play (comic story) but there are two things by that name, so that redirect shouldn't exist. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 20:39, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

SMW

The real thing I needed it for was lastname. I spent some time editing John and it's a mess. There are over half a dozen spellings and easily hundreds of them. I spent a fair amount of time on the page and it's still severely lacking and a mess. I was thinking about about using SMW to create lists of the appropriate pages so that these disambig pages would work well even before fully finished. I was also considering a concept page, but I haven't really seen them in use of this wiki. My basic goal was to capture first and last names that started with Joh or Jon. All pages works well enough--I'm missing the last name articles of course, but while there are probably dozens of those I don't think that there are hundreds. And if I set the parameters to Johb and Joi I don't get a single non-John name-the b is all that's needed to keep out the Johanns. So that gets me much further than before. Property last name seems like just an endlessly useful property to me, but that might just be me. Is there a list somewhere of properties that this wiki does support? I don't know how much I'll actually do in SMW, but it would be helpful to know what's supported so I don't play around trying to make things work that never will. Also, is there a large disambiguation page like John that's kept up better--all properly organised with the right amount of description? It would help to have something to model after and aspire to. Anoted ☎ 00:49, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

drax board bug

Drax page.png
Undefined.png

So, this is me trying to report a bug at drax. I type in the box and it all looks normal. Then I hit the post button and am taken to Undefined. Which looks like this:

No freaking clue what's going on. Specially since I can post at the panoptican. Anoted ☎ 15:44, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

May wordmark

Hey, Czech. Umm... Can you please come over to the wordmark thread so that we can get Five in time to upload tonight, or, at the latest, tomorrow? I made two cricket ball ones at least two weeks ago, and a fairly cr**py bat and ball a few days ago. Either use the ball, or tell me what design to make now. I'm not currently near my computer, but I'll be able to do it in a couple of hours. Please give your comments in my absence.
--SOTO ☎ 23:43, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Magno-grab double

Also, on a separate note, I created magnograb and you created magno-grab and magno-grab remote. Your names are correct (missed the on-screen spelling), but we now have an extra page. Can you perhaps merge my page with your remote page? Or at least delete mine and fix the links? Thanks.
--SOTO ☎ 23:43, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CzechOut&oldid=1410528"